Education Authories Abuse Their Power

[Hydraboss]

So does those insults cease to exist when they are in School. Are Students not students when the leave the school property? If they access facebook in school, do the insults vanish?

Whether or not the insults vanish is immaterial. The act of typing in those comments did not occur while the child was a student. (I'm making an assumption here) The kids typed the (possibly) slanderous remarks on their own time, and therefore are not accessible to the school administration. The problem here may be that no one, to my knowledge, has defined in school.

In my opinion, students are not students once they leave school property. The application of the Safe Schools Act does not, and cannot, include actions taken once out of the jurisdiction of the school administration. Off school property (etc as per my definition in my last post), a teacher ceases to be a teacher and simply becomes a citizen with no administrative power.

If I were the teachers in question, I would sue the ass off the kids' parents. That would send a message to all the little bastards, and would still be easy enough to drop the case before it went to court. Probably the best $35 filing fee I can think of.

[M.Dancer]

So you think all that is preferable to emasculating the school admin and curtailing the prividges giving the brats detentions?

Whether or not the insults vanish is immaterial. The act of typing in those comments did not occur while the child was a student. (I'm making an assumption here) The kids typed the (possibly) slanderous remarks on their own time, and therefore are not accessible to the school administration.

I don't know about that. Zundle was prohibbitted form distributing his crap on the internet so he thought he could set up shop in the US....turns out the Judge thought that since he crap could be viewed in Canada that Zundle was in contempt of court.

What makes these slanders and libels so insideous is the cyber nature of them. This isn't 6 kids chatting amongst themselves in a basement and "news" of the chat reacehed the ears of the Admin. This is a case of published defamations that can be accessed at school or at least the information can be shared so that they can be re-read countless times.

Sure, you can sue a minor and the parents will pay. Is that the most effective punishment? Better to keep it intramural and let the kids suffer.

[Hydraboss]

I disagree. As with most things, the closer to the source the more effective.

Kids these days barely react to authority. Parents seem to be the last bastion of discipline, and being closest to the little criminals, are the most effective. This is not a question of whether or not "detention" is sufficient reprimand for the Facebook incidents. I think it is not even close to sufficient. Let me tell you that if I was served notice of legal action because my kid did this, "suspension of internet" would be the least of his worries. There is nothing the school could do that would come close to what I would do.

It actually suprises me that there hasn't been some human rights advocacy group jumping to the defence of the kids involved. The treatment of criminal acts by youth in this country is not allowed to be punitive...only rehabilitative.

The defamitive/slanderous nature of these acts should be dealt with through the proper channels. Legal channels. What the school did was essentially "ground" the little brats and that alone is not nearly harsh enough.

[Figleaf]

Poor poor figleaf......

Yes, to be pestered with pointless arguments as weak as yours -- what wickedness did I do in a past life?

301. (1) The Minister may establish a code of conduct governing the behaviour of all persons in schools

...

(5) The Minister may establish additional policies and guidelines with respect to the conduct of persons in schools. [emphases supplied by Hydraboss]

Are students in schools or not in schools? When is a student no longer a student?

...

So do these insults cease to exist when they are in School. Are Students not students when the leave the school property? If they access facebook in school, do the insults vanish?

It's a pretty simply concept, Dancer: Students are not 'in school' when they are not in school. Like when they're at home.

May I ask you something in all honesty? -- What do you think you are trying to accomplish with this disputation?

[M.Dancer]

Students arew students till they cease their studies, just like constables are constables, doctors are doctors and so forth. Members of society don't cease their affiliation simply by changing locale.

What's more the internet is not a geographical location so the lame excuse that they were at school doesn't hold water and further more, the simple fact that kids have had their consequence and that's that is ample proof enough that the school was within it;'s rights and no amount of whining will change it.

[Catchme]

Are students in schools or not in schools? When is a student no longer a student?

...

So do these insults cease to exist when they are in School. Are Students not students when the leave the school property? If they access facebook in school, do the insults vanish?

It's a pretty simply concept, Dancer: Students are not 'in school' when they are not in school. Like when they're at home.

There are set school hours of the day that govern when a student is a student and as such in control of the scholol act rules.

8-4pm in BC, which means that acts of bullying before school at lunch and after school until 4pm make the student in breach.

After 4pm, the child is no longer a "student" and cannot be in breach of anything regarding the school regulations, unless said child is at a school event, outting etc.

The teenager should have been charged legally, by the teachers in question, as opposed to this activity by the school. It might have made even more of an impact to teenagers undertaking to commit lander against their teachers, in a broader scope even, as the media level would've be high.

Perhaps even a case against facebook would've been in order and it would force them to be a bit more in contact with their own rules.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

I have to agree with M.Dancer that students are students until they terminate their studies. Students are eligible for student discounts, even outside school hours.

However, the institution cannot enforce its rules off school property.

Whether Facebook was accessed on school property or not is irrelevant to the issue. Nevertheless, the school can control Internet activity on school computers by blocking certain websites on the network or even simply proibiting surfing certain websites. I remember in high school I always had to sign a contract in order to get my user name and password to access the school network for the academic year. The system was a little inefficient but at least the school maintained a certain control (I wish they would of had me sign it once for the years I was there).

The only reason the school could punish the kid were if the kid had agreed to a certain code of conduct in terms of Internet activity at school and would have broken one of those rules. Because the kid didn't break the school rules, caeteris paribus, the school cannot justify revoking the privilege of a school trip from that kid.

[Figleaf]

Students arew students till they cease their studies, just like constables are constables, doctors are doctors and so forth. Members of society don't cease their affiliation simply by changing locale.

Affiliations are not the question here. Canadian police officers are still Canadian police officers when they go to another country, but they have no jurisdiction. Similarly, a student may 'be' a student in or out of school, but that doesn't mean the schools authority extends with him. It's just a word.

What's more the internet is not a geographical location

Right. So it's not 'in school' and the school's authority does not extend to it.

... the simple fact that kids have had their consequence and that's that is ample proof enough that the school was within it;'s rights ....

That comment is too stupid to be worthy of refutation. Looks like your spring has run down, Dancer -- time to get someone else to wind you up.

[M.Dancer]

What's more the internet is not a geographical location

Right. So it's not 'in school' and the school's authority does not extend to it.

The internet is not is school?

I have to ask, what is more important to you, raising upstanding young citizens or raising phoney jurisdictional concerns?

A few posts back you ask condescendingly what I hope to accomplish. I will tell you even though the answer is not as simple as you would like.

Children deserve better. Children need lessons and one of the lessons that school teaches is belonging. This is an fundemental excersize in developong citizens. Part of beloinging is respomsibility.

Inspite the cacaphoney of the blatherskites, children shouldn't be sold short and spurillous suggestions to lay criminal charges while at the same time denying schools the authority to correct behavior does just that.

Does anyone really believe that criminal charges would beneift the children more than in house solutions? Despite that they have every right to give and retract extra curricular activities, does anyobne suggest that that the parents incuring the childrens legal costs will benefit society more than the kids sitting out a field trip?

[M.Dancer]

However, the institution cannot enforce its rules off school property.

They are not enforcing the rules off school property. They are saying to the kid, you can never go on a field trip to montreal, they are simply saying you ain't going with the school this time.

What's the alternative? "Oh Mr. Stevens, this is little Johnny, the little darling who said you masturbated in class....Can he have the best seat on the bus?"

Or we can pretend like some that a $1,000,000 lawsuit will teach him better.

[M.Dancer]

That comment is too stupid to be worthy of refutation. Looks like your spring has run down, Dancer -- time to get someone else to wind you up.

If I was you, I would watch you lip and mind your smart assed insults.

[Figleaf]

What's more the internet is not a geographical location

Right. So it's not 'in school' and the school's authority does not extend to it.

The internet is not is school?

Right. The internet is not in school.

I have to ask, what is more important to you, raising upstanding young citizens or raising phoney jurisdictional concerns?

We have already established that the jurisdictional concern is not 'phoney'. Raising upstanding young citizens does not require and is not assisted by bureaucrats who demonstrate a kneejerk tendency to exceed their proper authority.

A few posts back you ask condescendingly what I hope to accomplish. I will tell you even though the answer is not as simple as you would like.

Having read your response (to which further specific responses are below) it seems I didn't make my query clear enough. I should have said, what are you trying to accomplish by hopelessly arguing about what IS when your concern is what SHOULD be?

Children deserve better.

Yep. They deserve better than having people abuse their authority to pursue personal issues against them.

Inspite the cacaphoney of the blatherskites, children shouldn't be sold short and spurillous suggestions to lay criminal charges while at the same time denying schools the authority to correct behavior does just that.

Everyone with authority in our society has limits on that authority. For good reasons, schools' authority is limited to school matters. I see no good reason for schools' authority being extended beyond that limit.

Does anyone really believe that criminal charges would beneift the children more than in house solutions?

I don't think what was done in these cases merits criminal sanctions. If they DID merit criminal sanctions I would definitely want criminal sanctions pursued.

Despite that they have every right to give and retract extra curricular activities,...

No, they don't have 'every right' to do any such thing. Schools are government agencies and as such excerise of their discretionary powers must be done fairly and in accordance with their legal mandate and objects. I don't know what gives you the rather incredible notion that schools are sovereign entities, but it's wrong.

If I was you, I would watch you lip and mind your smart assed insults.

Coming from you, that's hilarious. But anyway, if you was me, I'd kill myself out of generosity for the world.

[M.Dancer]

What's more the internet is not a geographical location

Right. So it's not 'in school' and the school's authority does not extend to it.

The internet is not is school?

Right. The internet is not in school.

funny....my daughter's school has the internet.....

[M.Dancer]

We have already established that the jurisdictional concern is not 'phoney'. Raising upstanding young citizens does not require and is not assisted by bureaucrats who demonstrate a kneejerk tendency to exceed their proper authority.

I'm not sure if you qualify for a show stopping majority, but I have to assume that the school and the board disagree with you since the 5 are still not going to Montreal. And short of a court order forcing the school, that ain't changing.

[M.Dancer]

Everyone with authority in our society has limits on that authority. For good reasons, schools' authority is limited to school matters.

Right. The reputations of teachers is a school matter. The resepect given to teachers is a school matter. Allowing students to participate in extracurricular school outtings is a school matter.

We agree.

[Figleaf]

funny....my daughter's school has the internet.....

I don't think even you need to be told this, but just in case... No, your daughter's school has ACCESS TO the internet.

[Figleaf]

We have already established that the jurisdictional concern is not 'phoney'. Raising upstanding young citizens does not require and is not assisted by bureaucrats who demonstrate a kneejerk tendency to exceed their proper authority.

I'm not sure if you qualify for a show stopping majority, but I have to assume that the school and the board disagree with you since the 5 are still not going to Montreal. And short of a court order forcing the school, that ain't changing.

Their persistence in wrongdoing doesn't make it right. In fact, persistence in wrongdoing kind of makes it even 'wronger'.

[Figleaf]

Everyone with authority in our society has limits on that authority. For good reasons, schools' authority is limited to school matters.

Right. The reputations of teachers is a school matter. The resepect given to teachers is a school matter. Allowing students to participate in extracurricular school outtings is a school matter.

We agree.

It seems not. The reputations of teachers may be of concern to the school, but that concern does absolutely ZIP to extend their authority.

The fact remains, these students were on their own time, and not using school property or premises. The school is abusing its power by punishing them for a matter outside it's authority.

I'll refer you again to my earlier analogy:

Person A is a veteran on a pension.

His neighbor is Person B, who works in the Veterans Affairs department.

Person A has a dog who pees on Person B's bushes.

Person B cuts off Person A's pension until he promises to curb his dog.

Did Person B act correctly? Clearly not.

[M.Dancer]

[

Person A is a veteran on a pension.

His neighbor is Person B, who works in the Veterans Affairs department.

Person A has a dog who pees on Person B's bushes.

Person B cuts off Person A's pension until he promises to curb his dog.

Did Person B act correctly? Clearly not.

Your analogy is false, I will supply a better one.

Person a works for me

Person a gossips maliciously about my sexual life to person b.

Person b tells me about the gossip

I fire person a

Here's another.

Person a plays centre for a hockey team

Person a talks to the press and complains about the coach.

Person a gets traded.

Person a is a student at a jr high

person a publishes slander and lies on the Internet about teachers and staff

Person a creates an unhealthy diversion from school studies by his actions

parson a is disciplined by the school

[Figleaf]

[

Person A is a veteran on a pension.

His neighbor is Person B, who works in the Veterans Affairs department.

Person A has a dog who pees on Person B's bushes.

Person B cuts off Person A's pension until he promises to curb his dog.

Did Person B act correctly? Clearly not.

Your analogy is false,

Saying so doesn't make it so. You'd need to outline what's wrong with it if you wanted to be convincing.

I will supply a better one.

Person a works for me

Person a gossips maliciously about my sexual life to person b.

Person b tells me about the gossip

I fire person a

Your analogy is flawed. You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the relevant relationships. Student's don't work for teachers. Also, it is unclear what authority you invoked to fire person a, or what the nature of your relationship and employer was. Depending on this information, you may have behaved wrongfully.

Person a plays centre for a hockey team

Person a talks to the press and complains about the coach.

Person a gets traded.

Another faulty analogy, I'm afraid. First off, being traded is not a punishment. Further, talking to the press may be covered by employment conditions.

No, all in all, my analogy (the one you had no answer for) more precisely captures this situation. And it demonstrates that I'm correct. Good try, but no cigars, M.

[M.Dancer]

[

Person A is a veteran on a pension.

His neighbor is Person B, who works in the Veterans Affairs department.

Person A has a dog who pees on Person B's bushes.

Person B cuts off Person A's pension until he promises to curb his dog.

Did Person B act correctly? Clearly not.

Your analogy is false,

Saying so doesn't make it so. You'd need to outline what's wrong with it if you wanted to be convincing.

You mean aside from bearing no resemblance to the facts? In the real case persons A and B have a closer relationship than your fantasy.

Hows this one?

Person A is my brother in law. He is a high school principal

Persons B are students

Item 1 is a Toyota

Items 2 are eggs

Items 1 and 2 met in person A's driveway.

Persons B had unplanned and mandatory absences from school followed by meetings with parents and administrators......

Sorry, your position doesn't hold water. It's not like it was either the first time that school officials excersized their authority over their students or will it be their last. Despite the attempt to trample on tradition and to treat schools and educators as civil servants, they are not.

On top of that, school staff intervene all the time into the off school affairs of students and to suggest they shouldn't is both naive and irresponsible. Students have been rescued from abusive relationships, family turmoil, drugs alcohol and worse. All those activities which take place off school grounds are off limits to school intervention according to you.

Luckily, you are wrong.

[Figleaf]

In the real case persons A and B have a closer relationship than your fantasy.

1. Closer than neighbors?

2. Why does that matter?

Hows this one?

Person A is my brother in law....Persons B had unplanned and mandatory absences from school followed by meetings with parents and administrators......

It's incoherent and incomprehensible. That's how.

It's not like it was either the first time that school officials excersized their authority over their students or will it be their last.

Well, except we've established they had no such 'authority', so they weren't exercising it, they were making it up through abuse of their power in school.

On top of that, school staff intervene all the time into the off school affairs of students and to suggest they shouldn't is both naive and irresponsible.

Nonsense. Please give examples of this wide-ranging abuse and busybodyness of schools. You make them sound like Party Cadres or Morality Police!

Students have been rescued from abusive relationships, family turmoil, drugs alcohol and worse.

By alert teachers calling in the PROPER AUTHORITIES.

[M.Dancer]

In the real case persons A and B have a closer relationship than your fantasy.

1. Closer than neighbors?

2. Why does that matter?

Please don't go all Sweal on us but if you can't figure out how an affiliation to a community( school)is integral to this....no wait, maybe it's your inability to see the obvious is why you started this farce.

[M.Dancer]

In the real case persons A and B have a closer relationship than your fantasy.

1. Closer than neighbors?

2. Why does that matter?

Hows this one?

Person A is my brother in law....Persons B had unplanned and mandatory absences from school followed by meetings with parents and administrators......

It's incoherent and incomprehensible. That's how.

Fair enough, next time I will dumb it down for you.

[M.Dancer]

It's not like it was either the first time that school officials excersized their authority over their students or will it be their last.

Well, except we've established they had no such 'authority', so they weren't exercising it, they were making it up through abuse of their power in school.

Sorry, neither you or whomever have established. I have though established that the students signed a contract. What you haven't established is that the school doesn't have the authority to disqualify whomever they please from extracurricular activities. Now you could go all swealian and say that you don\'t have to prove a negative....fair enough. I don't have to prove they can because prescedent already proves it.