To: headsonpikes
Haben sie gut studierest?
Seriously....if the rules are established "ahead of time", and she does not follow the rules, then the only person to blame is herself. What lessons are we teaching our kids if we back off on any rule, and let the students have their ways.
To: excalibur1701
Seriously....if the rules are established "ahead of time", and she does not follow the rules, then the only person to blame is herself. What lessons are we teaching our kids if we back off on any rule, and let the students have their ways.So, if your employer decides that he wants you to wear a dress or he'll fire you, I guess you'll have to quit ... then again, maybe not
24 posted on
04/01/2004 11:38:42 AM PST by
tx_eggman
(Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit softly. Teddy Roosevelt)
To: excalibur1701
We're teaching them that you only have to obey the rules you agree with.
26 posted on
04/01/2004 11:39:12 AM PST by
Wolfie
To: excalibur1701
Seriously....if the rules are established "ahead of time", and she does not follow the rules, then the only person to blame is herself. What lessons are we teaching our kids if we back off on any rule, and let the students have their ways. I might see your point, if she was a 15 or 16 year old, or on school grounds, but this young lady is of legal age and was not on th campus.
I don't see this as backing off a rule.....I see it as a poor example to set for young people who are turning into adults........they are still considered children in the eyes of the controllers.
30 posted on
04/01/2004 11:41:38 AM PST by
Gabz
(Smoke Gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business-----Swat'em!)
To: excalibur1701
The stundent in question is a legal adult engaged in a legal practice off school grounds.
That means that the school's legal basis for regulating students, "en loco parentis", does not apply in the least.
Therefore the school lacks jurisdiction and legal capacity in its "ahead of time" rule, which was invalid from the moment it was passed.
32 posted on
04/01/2004 11:42:12 AM PST by
freeeee
("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
To: excalibur1701
if the rules are established "ahead of time", and she does not follow the rules, then the only person to blame is herself. What lessons are we teaching our kids if we back off on any rule, and let the students have their ways. The first question that needs to be asked is whether the school had the legal power to create this rule. They don't.
34 posted on
04/01/2004 11:42:20 AM PST by
Modernman
(Chthulhu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
To: excalibur1701
if the rules are established "ahead of time", and she does not follow the rules, then the only person to blame is herself. What lessons are we teaching our kids if we back off on any rule, and let the students have their ways.
. . . a perfectly sensible stance if the rules established "ahead of time" make sense themselves. That school feels it can make rules it can enforce outside of its sphere of influence, i.e., the school grounds, especially when it comes to of-age citizens participating in perfectly legal activity, does not make sense. Sweet weeping Jesus. Exactly what did all these arthritic, incontinent, marmish administrators do back in the Glory Days when there was nothing for them to administer to the brink of disaster?
48 posted on
04/01/2004 11:46:18 AM PST by
Hemingway's Ghost
(The Spirit of 1775 Lives on in Massachusetts. Long live Samuel Adams.)
To: excalibur1701
The "rule" itself is illegal. What will you say if they come up with a rule that says you can't go to the prom if you drink caffeine? Or you can't wear red? Or, you can't drink alcohol? (18 is the legal age in some states) Or, you can't go to the prom if you vote a certain way?
Think, man, think!
To: excalibur1701
What lessons are we teaching our kids if we back off on any rule, and let the students have their ways.Right, bring back slavery. We never should have backed off. < /sarcasm>
96 posted on
04/01/2004 12:06:44 PM PST by
Protagoras
(When they asked me what I thought of freedom in America,,, I said I thought it would be a good idea.)
To: excalibur1701
The question here is the legitimacy of a rule which prohibits legal behavior OUTSIDE of school grounds. What if the rule had prohibited the girl from attending church, or eating meat, or watching Fox News?
129 posted on
04/01/2004 12:20:15 PM PST by
Steve_Seattle
("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
To: excalibur1701
I would think knowing the limits of power others are permitted to have over you would be the most important.
217 posted on
04/01/2004 3:21:00 PM PST by
rock58seg
(Character and integrity do count. BUSH/CHENEY 04)
To: excalibur1701
Does this girl have the choice not to go to the school?
To: excalibur1701
What lessons are we teaching our kids if we back off on any rule, and let the students have their ways.
Maybe the lesson that the public schools, as a branch of government, do not have the right to levy executive punishment without due process of law. Maybe the lesson that an adult (which she is) has rights. Maybe the lesson that government administrators do not have the right to make rules as they please, without regard to constitutional and legal restrictions.
Don't tread on me
243 posted on
04/01/2004 7:27:20 PM PST by
Celtman
(It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
To: excalibur1701
I seriously think you are in the wrong forum.
246 posted on
04/01/2004 7:39:04 PM PST by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: excalibur1701
What lessons are we teaching our kids if we back off on any rule, and let the students have their ways. I learned to question authority....which is a reason why I'm not a democrat.
301 posted on
04/02/2004 3:15:56 PM PST by
Dan from Michigan
("Had to cool me down to take another round, now I'm back in the ring to takea-nother swing")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson