Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 06/25/2009 10:41:17 AM PDT by Darren McCarty
That is why I asked the question to ALL in my post #137:
If this school also had a rule against bullying and intimidation, what would be your thoughts regarding a lawsuit against the school and principal if they didn’t enforce it against the accusers with equal vigor?
“What cop would ever arrest anyone for anything if he knew he would pay out of his own pocket if a court ever second-guessed his decision?”
A cop with a clear conscience.
There certainly isn't in my town.
you can say that again...they are far worse than the teachers...at least in Dixie
According to the decision, the pill found was a prescription strength of ibuprofen, and they were searching for prescription pills.
Now, common sense tells us that a prescription ibuprofen is just a bigger pill. But part of what Thomas argues is that it is not for the courts to second-guess the local school boards decisions about what drugs should be permitted or not.
If I lived in this community, I would be writing the board to change the rules so this doesn’t happen again, but having read Thomas’ dissent I’m not sure I think the line between searching outerware and underware rises to a constitutional question based on whether the pills are ibuprofen or oxycontin.
If this was the federal government trying to make a rule for the entire country, I might feel differently. But I do try to defer more to the democratic process at a local level where people really have a say in what happens.
No doubt. But would you make it manditory for all children to attend school until at least age 16?
the Ibuprofen was prescription grade;
Immaterial absent solid evidence Savanna was actually in possessionthe girl had a history of alcohol and drug possession;
no she didn't. that was the perp who accused herher possession of drugs in that specific instance was quite likely, given the known facts;
no it wasn't there were no facts, just accusation ans suspicionthe school had ongoing problems with drug abuse, and had recently had to send a student to the hospital after the student overdosed on OTC drugs obtained from another student
It's for the Children!Not sufficient grounds to violate her Rights
And that morning, another eighth-grader, Marissa Glines, was found with what turned out to be several 400-milligram ibuprofen pills tucked into a folded school planner. A few days before, Savana had lent Marissa the folder. The vice principal also found a small knife, a cigarette and a lighter in it. Supreme Court to weigh strip-searches at schoolsOK You lend/give/sell someone a wallet/case/satchel. Some some time later, the cops find that person with drugs in it, and also drugs in their pocket. That person says you are the supplier. Reasonable suspicion? Go.
It's the perspective of a teacher who still works in a school system in which the authority of the teacher is still mostly based on the common law principle of in loco parentis.
In Australia, where I live, the courts have consistently ruled that in loco parentis is the governing principle behind a teacher's authority in a private school setting. It is no longer the governing principle behind a teacher's authority in a government school setting - it was until the 1960s, but the courts then decided that state school teachers derived their powers from the Crown (in other words as government agents).
What in loco parentis means according to the courts is that a teacher is required to act as a 'good parent' would (albeit one in charge of an unusually large family) in dealing with their pupils. It doesn't mean we have to do exactly what an individual parent would want us to do with their child - it means we have to treat the child are we would treat our own child in similar circumstances (assuming we are a good parent). Most of the time, it's assumed that what we do will align with what the parents would expect (because the assumption is that they too are 'good parents') but it's not direct parental delegation. In loco parentis can be limited by the courts or by Parliament, but except in cases where it has been, we have to act as a good parent would.
There does seem to be some sort of assumption operating that the reason we can be trusted to act in this way is because we are schools that parents choose to send their children to, unlike government schools where there is some element of compulsion with only limited choices available. That's one reason why we are treated differently from state schools. And even though we are not required to act exactly as parents would do with their own child, we also can't really ignore those consideration - because a private school that did would rapidly find itself running out of students.
Anyway - I've been following this case with some interest since I first heard about it (I think that was probably here on FR, although I'm not certain of that at this point) partly because I find the differences between education in different countries quite fascinating. And partly because I work in a school which takes in loco parentis quite seriously, and where that affects our practices in cases like this.
Let me say first of all, I, personally, agree that the child in this case was treated poorly. I have no real issue at all with the fact that the court found she should not have been subjected to such a search in the situation described. But having said that, I think some people are, perhaps, placing too much importance on the facts of this particular case as if they always apply in all cases. And I think that's why there is some dispute over what should and shouldn't happen.
Secondly, let me say very clearly that I am an extremely strong supporter of the doctrine of in loco parentis because of my own childhood experiences. I was orphaned at the age of nine and until I reached adulthood, it was my teachers and my headmaster who were the only people who were really providing me with anything approaching normal parenting. They were able to do this because they were governed by the principle of in loco parentis. They had the legal and moral authority to intervene when I didn't have anybody else able to do that. And as a teacher myself, today, I do see some students who, unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, are not being adequately parented by their parents. I wish it was otherwise, but it does happen. Being able to intervene in those cases allows me to make a real difference for some of those boys, and because my colleagues can do the same, I don't think all that many slip through the cracks. Of course, it would be better if their parents were doing things properly - and, of course, most parents do. But I think sometimes good parents forget that not everybody else is doing what they are doing for their children.
To continue - as I say, I do not disagree with the ruling in this particular case. But I just want to raise a few issues that I think are worth thinking about in regards to the more general principles involved. You may not agree with me - I just ask that you consider these issues if you are willing to take the time to do so.
First of all - what if the child had been carrying unambiguously dangerous drugs and the school did have good reason to believe that she was doing so? Would a search be justified in that situation? I think part of the reason why there's dissent in this case is because people can see it creating a precedent that goes far beyond whether or not the search was justified in this case.
Secondly - and as a teacher this is a point I consider very important - what liability would attach to the staff of the school if they didn't search a child in a particular case and the child then ingested a substance they had hidden that made them seriously ill or killed them? I ask that question because I've seen that happen with issues here in Australia - teachers can be held responsible for the misdeeds or mistakes of students even though the school system they work in doesn't give them the power to address those issues. If a court is going to rule that teachers cannot strip search a student under any circumstances, does that also mean that the teachers are completely protected if a child is injured by something that could have been found by a strip search? To me, it makes common sense that one should go with the other. But I'm not sure that the law is always based on common sense.
If you're going to limit what teachers are allowed to do to protect students (or for that matter what they are allowed to do to children in general) you need to ensure that the teachers are protected from any consequences that could arise from their failure to do those things.
In this case, I really do wonder if the teachers involved were worried about their legal liability if the child proved, after the fact, to be carrying something she shouldn't have been. I can easily see a different type of lawsuit having developed here - and we could be seeing the US Supreme Court ruling that the teachers were liable for the death of a child because they didn't search them for drugs they believed the child had.
Another point - how far does this ruling extend. Does it affect other behaviours teachers may engage in in a school?
I have actually searched students as a teacher. Including on one occasion, having been part of a search that could have been considered a strip search (the students were required to undress in the presence of two members of staff as we searched for stolen chemicals). Both myself and the other staff member involved in that search routinely supervised students changing for sport and PE and showering after sport and PE. So we didn't see anything more in the search than we saw as part of our normal teaching duties.
Does this ruling have any implications for other situations that can arise in a school?
And should it?
I know, for example, that many people would probably prefer that teachers never saw students in a state of undress and I think I understand where they are coming from. However, there's all sorts of implications there that I don't think many people have fully considered.
For example, let's say you create a rule that says teachers should never see students in a state of undress.
What does a teacher do in that case, if they are aware that two students are in a room together naked and having sex? Do they simply let it happen?
What about if one student is raping another student? Do they let that happen?
I don't think anybody would seriously argue that the second case would be allowed, and I doubt all that many would agree that the first one should be. But, you see, you've just acknowledged that there are situations in which it is appropriate for a teacher to see a student in a state of undress.
So if you accept that there are some cases of that nature - then you have to work out where to draw the line.
Absolute prohibitions are difficult.
Are there different standards for boarding schools and day schools? In a day school, it might be possible to enforce a standard where children are never undressed. You can't do that in a boarding school. And so if you don't want teachers to see students without clothes on, you are accepting situations where they will be unsupervised. Is that better?
And, if not, why should students in a day school be subject to less protection than students in a boarding school? Or vice versa?
Now, as I've said above, the rules for government schools and private schools in Australia are quite different. Private schools are governed by in loco parentis in a way that state schools are not. And I can understand why that is, in some ways, desirable - because there is a difference between being forced to entrust your children to the state and choosing to entrust them to a non-state body, you have decided you can trust.
But...
here's the rub, from my perspective.
Private schoools are, in general, better than government schools. And a large part of the reason for that is because private schools are allowed to work differently from state schools.
Setting rules and laws in place that limit state schools in a way that private schools are not limited... that just reinforces them as a place that provide substandard education.
There's also one other point I'd make. I can understand why people don't always trust teachers - and not all teachers are worthy of trust, it's true.
But to a great extent, there's a self fulfilling prophecy going on here - if you don't trust schools and teachers, you'll never get schools and teachers you can trust.
Basing education policy on the worst practices of the worst teachers, simply means that those bad teachers and bad policies are allowed to pollute all of education. Rules that limit the bad teachers, often wind up limiting the good teachers, far, far more.
That’s a good point. Fair enough.
Appreciate your thoughts.
Your definition of in loco parentis is about the same as it is here, and what the common law leans for the most part here. Private schools also are not subject to the same constitutional limits as public (Government) schools because public schools are considered state agents or an arm of the government. They are not however considered law enforcement in the US.
I agree with you about the difference between government and private schools. I'll also add this. Private schools are a contract. They offer their terms, and I choose whether or not to accept it. I don't have to send my kids there. If I don't, I must send them to public school unless I decide to homeschool. Being the arm of the government, they also have more powers, receive tax money, etc.
My issue with in loco parentis is that it is my job. If there is a problem, I want the call to find out what is going on, hear all sides of the story, and make my parental decision. Sometimes I was right. Sometimes the school was right. I've gotten off Scot free and got grounded for a month in the other extreme. I've seen good and bad. I've had great and bad teachers, and good to very poor administrators.
Responding to:
Issue 1 - Dangerous Drugs and "good reason." I'll interpret those as illegal without prescription and good reason as probable cause. In that case, I believe the school should say "Hand it over, or I'm calling the cops." and do so if it does not happen. The police then (and many schools have a police liason) can handle the strip search if that is appropiate. Issue 2 - In most states, that is not generally an issue here. The school itself as a whole is sometimes liable, but individuals are usually not liable for tort negligence. Gross negligence (reckless conduct) or intentional torts are another matter. I generally support that standard. That is also referring to public schools. Private schools are treated differently. In general they have more leeway, but I'm not sure how a strip search would apply there without possibly hitting other torts - or bad press that would go with it. That depends on the circumstances.
To answer another question - This ruling only affects this case, and it is a case-by-case basis. Strip searches in general are not prohibited. They are prohibited for over the counter medication and their prescription equivalants. Advil. Alleve. Probably Tylenol. It may also matter if the search is conducted based on the word of two students, but the court really didn't draw on that too much, just some of the powers here.
The undress part is a different issue than a strip search. Undress goes with locker rooms and generally isn't a court issue unless you have a student or teacher streaking which will get you arrested for indecent exposure. We all changed for football. Coaches were generally in the office a reasonable distance away, but could go in and intervene if there was a fight or something. The difference here is coercion. A student undressed at the command of a administrator.
I generally agree with most of your post.
This is from BBC of all places.
Looks like they’re following this one.
**Fundamentally**,... Government schools, the First Amendment, and freedom of conscience can not coexist. This is why there are these eternal news stories, school board battles, and court cases regarding government schools and student and parents’ rights. What is maddening about these many court cases is that the judges **never** address this fundamental conflict. Instead, they rule narrowly.
Do we read of stories about private schools having cases going to the United States Supreme Court? No! Of course not! Why? The reason is ( as you pointed out) parents are in a private contract with the private school. Constitutional and freedom of conscience conflicts are likely impossible.
The solution:
Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education.
People need to quit sending their children to government schools. It’s the only way they will go away.
Thanks! Don’t know how I missed this one!
Right, because school teachers never prey on students sexually.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.