Expelled for diary

[Sundiver]

Yeah, I'm a Libertarian and a true zealot when it comes to personal liberties so I'm probably biased but this just strikes me as insane.

 Is it just me or did the school have any right reading her personal diary to begin with? Seems to me they should of maybe confiscated it since she shouldn't of been showing it in class but reading it? No. Should of been returned to her at the end of the day.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/10/24/boim.diary/index.html

[capt. apathy]

the school was way out of line.  these 'zero tolarance' policys are really just 'zero thought',  they make a set responce to anything that remotely falls into a catigory and there is no reason behind it.

if the girl had written a note threatening someone,  or saying something to the effect of 'we should kill this teacher'  that would be one thing.

but this is just a story, in a personal diary.  hell, on some level it's probably just her way of dealing with the columbine thing.  I couldn't imagine being a young kid living near there when that happened.

for a lot of people writing stuff like that down helps them deal with it.

[DFunited]

Thats rather stupid that they would suspend her.  All she did was write a story.  Even if it was about killing a teacher, that doesn't make it right that they can suspend her for "challanging her intelectual abilities."  Stupid school boards...

[vorticon]

Is it just me or did the school have any right reading her personal diary to begin with? Seems to me they should of maybe confiscated it since she shouldn't of been showing it in class but reading it? No. Should of been returned to her at the end of the day.

1. only if they had good reason to beleive that there was contraband inside (pornography,illegal substances etc.)

2. exactly...

capt apathy zero tolerance usually refers to fighting...to put it simply both gets in trouble...(i have been involved in instances when the watchers got in more trouble than 1 party...who did fight  back [i aint a idiot] wich was quite funny)

[Sundiver]

Well, I just emailed the principal a formal letter of protest. Nothing nasty, just protesting the invasion of privacy and zero tolerance policy.

spurka@fultonschools.org

[eskimo2]

A lot of people caught heck for ignoring the Columbine killer kids, and lots of other bad situations that were overlooked.  Educators are now required to report any suspicions of child abuse, or children who threaten suicide or harm to anyone else.  This is especially true in Colorado.  (I was a teacher in Colorado at the time of Columbine, about 60 miles South.)  
Sure, they infringed on the girl’s personal liberties.  And they will probably infringe on a lot of kids personal liberties for every killing or abuse case that is prevented.  

Had she written about killing a classmate or her parents, the response probably would have been the same.  She looks like a nice kid and probably is.  It’s hard to believe that a pretty 14 year-old girl could be a threat, but you can’t define standard operating procedures by such a measure.  “Only report scary looking loner boys who show signs of being a threat.” Just wouldn’t fly.  Our instincts may be that this case seems absurd, but this is difficult to translate into laws and guideline for educators and law enforcement people.  

As far as the girl’s personal liberties go… she’s a kid.  Kids don’t have the same “personal liberties” as adults.  They have to ask or be told when it is OK to use the restroom, when, where and what to eat, what they can say at home or at school, etc.  

Sundiver,

Please clearly describe how educators should avoid “the invasion of privacy” of students and maintain a safe environment for all.  How should educators handle student; drug dealers, gangsters, potential murderers, abuse victims, rape victims, concealed weapon carriers, bullies, etc?  Keep in mind that educators can be held accountable for not preventing crimes by reporting suspicions.

eskimo

[Sundiver]

Eskimo, I don't pretend to have all the answers. I was present at one of the very first shooting rampages here in Texas at Richland High School in the early 80's. There were plenty of signs, many of us tried to warn the authorities he had weapons on campus and were ignored.

Now it's swung in the opposite direction. There must be a balance, a middle ground were common sense comes into play. Here we have a girl who for all intents and purposes it seems is an upstanding citizen. My contention is that they had no reason to read the journal to begin with. She didn't threaten anyone, appears not of been a "problem child" in school. Where was the probable cause to invade her privacy in such a manner?

Is this what we want to teach the next few generations? That they have no rights? I'm a father of three, if necessary I will be the very first to invade their privacy if it's to protect them. But, until they give me a damned good reason to do so they are certainly entitled to privacy if they wish it. Our public schools and through them our goverenment have become more invasive into the family. We have to teach our children right from wrong. Us, the parents not the school systems nor the goverenment.

 As for educators being responsible for not reporting suspicions, they shouldn't be. They're responsible for educating our children. That's enough of a burden without turning them into police officers and social workers as well. I have to wonder how many families have been ruined or nearly ruined by false suspicions raised at school.  I was nearly reported to social services for child abuse, because my children had played rough and one had blacked the others eye. The teacher reported it as possible child abuse.  I don't bear any grudge against the teacher, she was doing what was required by law, I also don't agree with the law. Do the ends really justify the means?

[Siaf__csf]

"As far as the girl’s personal liberties go… she’s a kid. Kids don’t have the same “personal liberties” as adults. They have to ask or be told when it is OK to use the restroom, when, where and what to eat, what they can say at home or at school, etc. "

That's not quite so. The child has rights just as any other person. Some of her rights are channeled through her parents though. Therefore the parents must be consulted prior to anything. Even though it's questionable if even the parents could morally ok reading someone's most private property i.e. the diary.

Reading someone's personal diary in front of the class can be seriously damaging to a child's self image, identity and faith for authorities.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
"Reading someone's personal diary in front of the class can be seriously damaging to a child's self image, identity and faith for authorities.

"Rachel wrote the story in her personal journal and was showing it to a classmate. Her art teacher noticed, confiscated it and turned it over to school officials the next day. "

eskimo

[Sundiver]

I wasn't left with the impression it was read in front of the class but it's fairly obvious that at some point a school authority read it.

[kesolei]

The art teacher had absolutely no right to open up the journal and read what it said. None. She had the right to take it away because it was disrupting class, but not to open it up and peruse after the fact.

Who's to say that that's the only thing she read from the girl's journal? If I were that student, I would be livid.

Oh wait, that has happened to me before.. and I was livid. Teachers do NOT have that kind of right, no matter how 'innocent' they think it is. Parents have more of a right, MAYBE, but teachers? No.

[eskimo2]

Sundiver,
No one has all the answers.
Just imagine how impossible it would be to write guidelines that fit your instincts and common sense on such issues.
My point was that you must have clearly defined guidelines.  If a well-meaning honor student were to pack a knife in her lunch to cut her sandwich, should she be excused?  If so how do you justify punishing the scary kid whom everyone is afraid of for doing the same?  A lot of the time we have to punish good kids for breaking rules that were designed to keep everyone safe from the really bad kids.

If today’s policies were in place when you were present at the Richland High School shooting rampage in the early 80's, might the shooting have been prevented?  How much value can we place on that?

Because this girl is an upstanding student, she has been let back into school and all should be relatively well.  If she were a gangster with a bad history, then perhaps a disaster would have been avoided by the actions of the school staff.

I have little doubt that you are a good father, and are teaching your kids right from wrong. This is why you can trust your children, and can be trusted yourself.  This is also why you may find it difficult to understand how awful some parents and even their kids are.  When I taught first grade in a high-risk public school, I had two different students who’s parents; manufactured methamfetamines (sp?) in their homes.  Some of my student’s parents were; alcoholics, drug addicts, murderers, murder-victims, permanently on welfare, had spent time in jail, were in gangs, etc…  You can only imagine how good of parents these folks were.  Have you ever wonder why so many kids can’t read?  Many of them, were ignored until they began school.  Many began first grade with less vocabulary and pre-reading skills than my daughter had when she was three.
Who is to look out for these kids?
Clearly the parents should, but very often they don’t.
Just saying that the parents should be more responsible does not make them so.

I do agree, it is very frightening how easily someone can falsely point a finger at you’re parenting skills and methods (or my teaching skills and methods).  However, A lot of truly terrible parents (and sometimes even teachers, or clergy, etc.) are brought to attention by the same process.  
There are serious consequences either way.  

eskimo

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by kesolei
The art teacher had absolutely no right to open up the journal and read what it said. None. She had the right to take it away because it was disrupting class, but not to open it up and peruse after the fact.

Who's to say that that's the only thing she read from the girl's journal? If I were that student, I would be livid.

Oh wait, that has happened to me before.. and I was livid. Teachers do NOT have that kind of right, no matter how 'innocent' they think it is. Parents have more of a right, MAYBE, but teachers? No.

Kesolei,

Imagine that it’s 1999.  
You’re child is a classmate of the Columbine killer kids.  The killers are not fond of her/him.  One of the killers is reading from his diary of his plans to murder his classmates and teachers.  A teacher overhears him reading it out-loud.

Now, what is it that you would like for that teacher to do?

eskimo

[capt. apathy]

Educators are now required to report any suspicions of child abuse, or children who threaten suicide or harm to anyone else.

that is true and it's also a good idea.  however, the report didn't indicate that there was suspicion the child was a threat and thats why the teacher got nosey and read the diary.

also, ok, we get past that and get to the point after the diary is read.  the teacher did the right thing by reporting it (though I saw no reason to confinscate it.  did they think she was going to kill a teacher with the diary?).  so when you have suspicions you report them, good idea.  but why the suspension?  

how many times have you said to someone "I'm gonna kill you"? to your brothers? your sisters? your best friend?  

I have a real hard time understanding how people think that they can be more diligant by thinking less.

[Sundiver]

Kesolei,

Imagine that it’s 1999.
You’re child is a classmate of the Columbine killer kids. The killers are not fond of her/him. One of the killers is reading from his diary of his plans to murder his classmates and teachers. A teacher overhears him reading it out-loud.

Now, what is it that you would like for that teacher to do?

eskimo





Ummm, I've got to take exception to this one.."A teacher overhears him reading it out-loud. " Here you've got direct evidence of a potentially serious situation and have good reason to be suspicious. That's a world apart from simply opening someone's private journal and reading it.