Posted on 09/24/2006 6:49:17 AM PDT by freepatriot32
With student molestations skyrocketing, lawmakers demand weapon in drug fight
WASHINGTON – Even though student molestations seem to be reaching epidemic proportions in schools across America, the House of Representatives has approved a tough new anti-drug and anti-weapon law that would require local districts to develop search policies – including strip searches – with immunity against prosecution for teachers and staff.
Schools would have to develop policies for searching students, or face the loss of some federal funding, under the bill – HR 5295, approved by a voice vote Tuesday. It moves to the Senate, which does not have similar legislation pending at this time.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Association of School Administrators and the National School Boards Association all opposed the bill saying it could invite unconstitutional searches. The National Education Association supports the legislation, according to the sponsor.
The bill was the brainchild of Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Kentucky, who said the idea was to "put a process in place so that the teachers don't have any fear of liability, but at the same time it protects the rights of the students from an unreasonable search."
The bill says only that search methods cannot be "excessively intrusive."
It drew opposition from the American Federation of Teachers, a smaller teachers union, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The "Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006" passed on a voice vote, bypassing the committee process and with no way to hold individual members of the House accountable for their votes.
Particularly controversial is the requirement that each local school district have search policies in place, with the process defined like this:
"A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the offense."
The bill does not address whether body cavity searches are included, whether training will be provided to staffers performing them, whether background checks on staffers would be necessary, whether students who have been sexually abused in the past would be subject or whether parental notification would be required. Without those specifics, the judgment of local school administrators will be the litmus test.
Some fear the mandate for random, warrantless searches of every student, at any time, on any pretext – with immunity from prosecution – could create problems worse than drugs and weapons on campus.
Rep. George Miller of California, the senior Democrat on the House committee that oversees education issues, called the legislation an intrusion into local affairs.
"Schools and school districts already have policies in place regarding student searches," Miller said. "Those policies are the product of consultation with local administrators, teachers and parents. They take in the concerns of the community."
The Education Department has not taken a position on the legislation.
WND has documented the incidents of teacher-student sex throughout the country – particularly the new trend of female teachers molesting male students. WND news editor Joe Kovacs, who has spearheaded the research on this trend, is scheduled to appear Wednesday on "The O'Reilly Factor" on the Fox News Channel to discuss the issue.
Re. 275. Nice edit job. But those who read through this thread completely will note your failure to deal with my arguments.
I think it is that they must establish a WRITTEN policy.
Perhaps the written policy is simply that it is not allowed.
I think the real danger is more from the little know-it-all-hot-s**t female who knows where to hide the drugs and knows that all she need do is scream sex harassment to destroy some man's entire life. (see that day care center where the convictions were exposed as all based on lies)
I can imagine no circumstances extreme enough to justify a cavity search by a school official, and I oppose giving them the authority to do so.
Yet one more reason my child will never attend a public school.. and why those that subject their children to such schools when they have the means not to are effectively engaged in child neglect and abuse as far as I'm concerned.
Yet one more reason my child will never attend a public school.. and why those that subject their children to such schools when they have the means not to are effectively engaged in child neglect and abuse as far as I'm concerned.
The lack of reasoning skills on this thread is scary beyond comment.
I know of considerably more than one child-molesting public school teacher/official.
By other school employees?
How could one? With such fine accomplishments as Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas.
I think you're right ... .
"One bad decision?" Are you a lunatic or a moron? How many deaths have resulted from that ONE bad decision.
Ping to post #24. It helps to read the WHOLE thread. When you're done, write a dissertation on slippery slopes, why don't you:
"The Rutherford Institute filed suit against a Pennsylvania school district which forced more than 50 sixth-grade girls to undergo physical examinations, many of which included gynecological exams, without informed parental consent and against the girls' wishes. The Rutherford Institute is arguing that the school's actions violated parents' rights and the students' Fourth Amendment right to privacy and constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
``This case is a classic example of `child abuse' programs run amok,'' said Melton. ``These children were abused by the school in order to determine whether they could have been abused by their parents. This is more akin to child abuse than education.''
According to the March 22nd edition of the Pocono Record newspaper, Dr. Vahanvaty stated, ``Even a parent doesn't have the right to say what's appropriate for a physician to do when they're doing an exam.'' Hold on just a minute here. Whose kids are these anyway? Are they the parents' children or are they the government's children? Does this remind anyone else of Hillary's It Takes a Village?
Katie Tucker asks, ``Maybe it's the school's plan to align itself with Goals 2000?'' and in fact, the records show that the East Stroudsburg school already did receive $25,000 from Goals 2000. Here we go folks. We are in an all out war here. On one side you have parents who say it is and always has been our right and responsibility to raise our kids. On the other side you have Hillary's Village a.k.a. the government via Goals 2000, saying that all kids belong to them to do with as they see fit. The battle lines are drawn."
I am not above the law. When the drug dogs come in, I expect my car to be sniffed, just like every other citizens can be sniffed. If a drug dog had a hit on my purse, I would have to submit to having it searched, or face the consequences. Just because I am a teacher, I do not have 'extra' rights.
"How could one? With such fine accomplishments as Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas."
and kelo v new london...
Shall we create a list?
"When the drug dogs come in, I expect my car to be sniffed, just like every other citizens can be sniffed. If a drug dog had a hit on my purse, I would have to submit to having it searched, or face the consequences. Just because I am a teacher, I do not have 'extra' rights."
You were born a few decades late. There were other times in other places where authorities used dogs to intimidate ordinary citizens. No doubt you would have readily submitted then too just like you do today. Fortunately folks then were much braver than they are today. No, I am not thinking of Nazi Germany, course they were used there to intimidate innocent citizens too, but I am thinking of Alabama in the sixties with Bull Conner and his police dogs turned on the innocent citizens of Alabama. I see no difference today when innocent students are forced to submit to crotch sniffing police dogs while their masters chug on their leashes hopefully able to keep them at bay and from harming the students. Forget the pychological effect of the emotional and mental abuse the students must endure.
It takes courage to stand for the rights of students and the rights of citizens. It takes absolutely no courage to submit.
What in the hell are you envisioning? Rows of students lined up with dogs sniffing at each child, all the time snarling and growling at a bunch of 12 year olds? You are one twisted person if you think any reasonable citizen would stand to even see that happen to kids. How bizarre that you think I would stand for that just because I don't see myself above the law.
I cannot even believe you posted that--you cannot be serious--right? You were just joking. Do you really think that is what it looks like? Tell me you were not serious. Especially with the "crotch sniffing" "holding dogs at bay" section. That is frigging medieval.
Didn't you see post 260?
But speaking from my own experience--it is not done that way in my middle school or in the local high schools in VA.
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.