My sister is Mary Greenberg. She (and I agree with her) is disturbed by the school board replacing parental judgment. Who decides what is "inappropriate"? Also, at issue for me is that, with this amendment, the School is not addressing what the kids do; they are punishing what the kids publish and that gets into freedom of speech issue.
I am interested in what you think.
My sister, by the way, has been flooded with calls since she spontaneously spoke up at the school beard meeting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think they are desperately trying to figure out how to keep MySpace and other such student activities from disrupting school. I wish them best in their quest for a good solution. I don't think this is it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I just don't see how the school can have that authority unless they can prove it was posted during school hours or from the school. How can they claim authority over what kids do outside of the school building?
FG
edit: (well, I guess they can kick them off a team for drinking outside of school, or doing drugs. But I don't see how this is equivalent)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I thought of it as the same thing as drugs outside of school will get someone kicked off the football team.
I agree that "inappropriate" is definitely too vague. Is this supposed to address hosting a porn site or dissing one's teammates' performance?
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
This really perturbs me.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
As a person who is often in the Educational settings, I can very well see how this would be helpful. We have students slandering teachers and fellow students on their websites and this all ends up coming to school because parents don't think they need to deal with this. They come back with it is just kids being kids. And I don't think it is any different than dealing with the drinking and drug use. Extracurricular activities are just that...extra. If a student can not show that they can represent a school decently(whether they are at the school or not) they should not be allowed to represent the school. Plus they should pay for the time that is caused in the school education process with dealing with counselors and other faculty having to deal with "Jane said such and such about me on the computer and then Sally said such and such on her blog." Not being in the classrooms one may not realize what a huge disruption to the school day things like this have become.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. They don't get any more specific than "illegal or inappropriate". That is part of my issue. Drinking and drugs are both illegal activities and are already punishable.
And they aren't talking about either a school-hosted website or posting during school hours. This would be in effect 24/7/365.
Kristen, perturbs you in what way?
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
kmb: That was my brief "I have class in 15 minutes" response; I just reacted so strongly to reading it that I couldn't wait.
I don't see why that rule was necessary in the first place: if there is a normal photograph of a teenager drinking and it reached the school I think most schools would react accordingly.
Thus, I believe it to have more sinister implications about the public school, funded by the government, being able to monitor and control its students outside of school grounds.
Once again, I'll explain more fully if someone hasn't already said it better.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hmm... now that I think of it, I can also see it from OSTY's point of view. While Mary Greenberg is right that it is a parental responsibility, we know that often parents don't rise to their responsibilities.
And we recently (here at work) had a situation where an employee had written something on a blog that was disparaging and inappropriate, and included our company name, and I understand that he was asked to take it down (or remove the specific company name from the text). Would we have a right to fire him if that didn't happen? Well, as a right-to-work state, I think we could without legal repercussions, but I don't know if it would be right to do.
FG
edit: okay I think I got my legal definitions wrong there. I meant to say Kansas is an "at will" state -- meaning you don't have to state a reason to fire someone, if I understand correctly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
FG,
That is an interesting point. I think the difference here is that is is a public school, publicly funded - as are the extra curricular activities.
OSTY,
I can see the practical advantages (I used to be an inner-city school librarian) - I just don't think they outweigh the dangers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Can someone post the relevant portion of the article? Once I registered for Chi-Trib and got a bunch of spam the next day, so I'm a little leery of doing it again.
My take: there's nothing wrong with school officials reading public information (which blogs are). It's not really "monitoring" so much as "reading."
There's a major problem with punishing someone for out-of-school speech. I can't quite tell what the school is advocating at this point in that regard.
However, if the writing or pictures contain evidence of in-school or extra-curricular-related infractions, the school is well within its rights to make use of that information.
Team hazing, for example, is often detected in this way.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: In a move that has drawn national attention to this Lake County school district, the Community High School District 128 board unanimously passed rules changes Monday night that will hold students accountable for what they post on blogs and social-networking Web sites.
For Libertyville and Vernon Hills High Schools, the changes will mean that all students participating in extracurricular activities, including athletic teams, fine arts groups and school clubs, will have to sign a pledge agreeing that evidence of "illegal or inappropriate" behavior posted on the Internet could be grounds for disciplinary action.
Officials of District 128, which includes the two schools, said about 80 percent of the district's 3,200 students participate in one or more extracurricular activities.
Associate Supt. Prentiss Lea said the changes are part of an effort to get the district community more knowledgeable about the growing Internet blog phenomenon and more aware of the pitfalls of such sites as MySpace.com.
"By adding the blog sites [to the student codes of conduct], we wanted to raise discussions on the issue," he said. "We have taken the first steps to starting that conversation."
quote: District officials will not regularly surf students' sites for rules violations, officials said. But they will monitor them if they get some indication--specifically, a tip from another student, a parent or a community member--pointing them in that direction.
School administrators would treat incriminating information found on the Web the same as they would any other evidence of wrongdoing, as pieces of a larger investigation into the offending behavior.
The new pledge will be used in all activities for the next school year, including those that start over the coming summer break, Lea said.
In the pledge, which both students and their parents must sign, the students agree that they won't use alcohol, tobacco or drugs or "exhibit gross misconduct or behavior/citizenship that is considered detrimental to his/her team or school."
The code of conduct states that "maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."
(Dag - I just use www.bugmenot.com to get around those registration pages)
FG
(K- sorry I cut out your sister's part -- was just trying to show Dag the legal parts)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For the most part the proposed 'pledge' seems okay, if perhaps due to misguided desires. However, this excerpt smacks of loyalty oaths, and of unconstitutional restrictions on student behaviors. For instance, under any normal reading of this, helping another school's team work out would be a violation, or just about any actions the school administration happens to not like.
quote:exhibit gross misconduct or behavior/citizenship that is considered detrimental to his/her team or school.
It is part of a list of things students are going to be made to sign a pledge not to do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, FG.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I get the impression taht the school is officially reserving the right to punish kids using evidence gathered online. For instance, if a student alludes to cheating/drinking/drugs/whatever and the school is tipped off, they want to be able to use that info; particularly in the case of activities where having a clean record is already mandatory (like sports).
--j_k
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It uses the words accountable in connection with illegal and inappropriate, and says information would be used as pieces of any larger investigation.
It doesn't exactly wave red flags for me. Keep in mind that high school students don't, strictly speaking, have constitutional freedoms yet.
P.S. I have trouble with spelling contraversy myself. It's a hard one to remember. I don't know if I got it right or if you care...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While students do not enjoy all freedoms, they certainly have plenty of constitutional freedoms.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks. I don't have a problem with the school using what the kids publish as evidence for bad behavior. I do have a problem if they are considering the publication itself as an offense. Does that make sense? It is difficult to tell what they intend.
This part:
quote: "maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."
seems to indicate that the contents of a blog site could be an offense in itself.
edit: For example, if my nephew wrote about or posted pictures of his Aunt Kate getting arrested, that would be "depicting illegal behavior".
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Am I correct in assuming this is only about students involved in extracurricular activities? If so, then I see no problem with it. You don't have a right to represent your school on a team or in a club, it's a privilege and if you do something against the code of conduct and evidence of that is available online, then you should lose that privilege.
The fact that they only mention the evidence online as being used as part of a larger investigation tells me that it would probably take more than just a single post in a blog - but if that post is incriminating and matches up with other evidence, then again I see no problem with the school exercising it's right to deny a student the ability to serve on an extracurricular team.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
My big problem is just that I don't know why this needs to exist in the first place: it seems like if the school has documented evidence of the student's committing actions against their general EC policy, they will act as if it were photographs, videos, or, even word-of-mouth in some cases.
Perhaps a clause on the general contract that evidence online counts could be written, but why the fuss? Why the big meeting and special pledge? Sounds like they have another motive to me which directly involves monitoring and controling students or trying to garner attention. Something unsavory beneath it all, I tell you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Belle, my concern is that posting itself, not the behavior depicted, is an offense.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That would entirely depend on what the post was, wouldn't it?
It's hard to judge without specific examples.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, they say:
quote: "maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."
Who decides what is inappropriate?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Obviously the school does. And as the institution of authority in this case (that is, the school is the one with the ability to grant or refuse a student membership in a particular school sponsored group) that is exactly who should decide.
Would you, for example, consider a student posting a death threat against his math teacher grounds for dismissal from an extracurricular organization? I would.
That's a case where a post itself can be enough evidence, to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that threatening a math teacher - in person, over the phone, in an e-mail, on a website, in a letter - is grounds for discipinary action. I don't think that writing in your blog about someone threatening a math teacher - or even talking about how rotten your math teacher is - should be. This code doesn't differentiate between the two.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: Thus, I believe it to have more sinister implications about the public school, funded by the government, being able to monitor and control its students outside of school grounds.
Once again, I'll explain more fully if someone hasn't already said it better.
This is exactly my issue with it. Stating you'd like to kill your math teacher in your blog? Definately wrong and needs to be investigated. Saying your math teacher is an idiot? Free speech- but would a kid still get kicked off the team for it? That bothers me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Does "maintaining or being identified on a blogsite that . . ." mean that if you comment on someone else's blog that depicts illegal/inapropriate behavior you can get in trouble for it?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
What about a student who has very few friends, is in some sort of "nerdy" club, and it is the only place where he has any kind of confidence or social skills. There is a bully, or group of bullies, that pick on him constantly. He writes a blog about it and says something like "I wish they would all just die" or "If I could stand up for myself and beat them up I would." You get the idea.
It could be construed as a threat, even though it's harmless, but is that grounds for kicking the kid out of his club? I don't think so.
I can see this getting out of hand with blogs and bulletin posts being taken out of context, or exagerated to the point of someone innocent being prosecuted wrongly. Often a blog is a way to blow off steam, so that you don't do or say something that is inappropriate, IRL.
If a student doesn't have a place where they can rant, get rid of this extra tension, let someone know how they're feeling or express themselves, will there be other, unforseen, potentially dangerous results?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good question. Right now it is vague enough to mean whatever the person deciding says it means.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:We have students slandering teachers and fellow students on their websites and this all ends up coming to school because parents don't think they need to deal with this.
It's called being picked on. It happens all the time, and it's very rare for a school to do anything about it.
I'm trying to read the story, but this registration process is too long, and I suspect it will cause me to receive many unwanted emails.
At any rate, the point is, as long as the students aren't doing anything ILLEGAL, I don't think it's the school's place to do anything about it. And if they claim that it is, well, then I'd like to see them do something more about the face-to-face harassment that takes place on school property first.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
This entire issue really isn't anything new - schools have been taking action against students for their blogs and online community accounts ever since they became popularized about 5 years ago.
I know a girl whose administrators wouldn't recognize that she qualified for NHS until she stopped posting derogatory commentary about her teachers on her blog. She refused to stop. Not only did she not get her NHS membership, her administrators actually contacted colleges she was applying to and told them about it and framed it as a very large scale disciplinary problem. It drastically affected her admissions.
Her parents took it to court. They lost - without the help of a poorly worded, vague rule.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
quote:"maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."
This wording is really problematic to me - it seems to imply that a student can get in trouble if they post on a site where the site is the entity depicting the illegal/inappropriate behaviour, regardless of whether or not the student in question has anything to do with said behavior. In other words, the location of the students' internet activity would have just as much weight, if not more, than the actual content of the students' posts. If that's actually what they mean (which I hope they don't!), then students could potentially get in trouble for simply posting anywhere, no matter what their posts actually say.
"Being identified" is questionable too - so a student who has not been posting "will be considered a violation of this code" if someone else talks smack about them erroneously?
And I agree, "inappropriate" is too vague and would need a lot more clarification.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I see this along the same lines as "You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theatre." You have freedom of speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Kids in middle/high school, from what I have learned, use blogs as places to socialize. But blogs are also increasingly being used as a medium to bully people.
Alot of the kids who recently have been arrested plotting school massacres like Columbine, were discovered because they posted information on their plans within their blogs, or the blogs of others.
Children are often made the targets of bullies via blogs, chatrooms, and IM services. They are threatened and people often have their personal information accosted by deceitful or forceful bullys, who give that information to others bent on harming the individual.
Posting on the internet IMO is not "Private." Posting in blogs especially as they are designed to be read. If you have private things that you do not wish others to see, you can write them on your computer, in a book, but not on a public access realm on the internet. I just do not think the docterine of freedom of speech applies here, as freedom is surrendored when you in effect shout something in public, and there is reasonable cause to monitor in order to save lives.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't agree with comparing the Columbine kids to bullies. And as I said, bullying is nothing new, and schools do relatively little about it even in more controlled environments where the emotional damage is much worse.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:You have freedom of speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Even if blogs do fall under this (which they don't, unless someone is being vicious and explicit enough to be sued for libel), it's not part of the school's purview to police this. It doesn't happen on school grounds or during school time, therefore it's none of their business.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The code as written seems both vague enough to allow for tremendous abuse by its administrators and to encourage students to "narc" on one another. It sounds like a student could easily get in trouble just for writing about their personal frustrations with their school or depression regarding elements of their social life.
Teenagers get a bad rap in the U.S. that they don't necessarily deserve. The technophobia of many adults who oversee them and often realize they don't have as high a level of understanding of "that stuff" isn't helping.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Dag?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
A senior at my school got suspended for content on his myspace. He was graduating and was about to be accepted to Virginia Tech, but after the suspension the College is reviewing his entry. He didn't post the blog at school, or during regular school hours. In fact, the school cop has taken it upon himself to browse through students web blogs without their permission. Apparently the cop got the idea that it is his responsibility to punish students because of web blog content.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks. I don't have a problem with the school using what the kids publish as evidence for bad behavior. I do have a problem if they are considering the publication itself as an offense. Does that make sense? It is difficult to tell what they intend.
This part:
quote: "maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."
seems to indicate that the contents of a blog site could be an offense in itself.
edit: For example, if my nephew wrote about or posted pictures of his Aunt Kate getting arrested, that would be "depicting illegal behavior".
Actually someone being arrested would not be depicting illegal behavior. Showing the actions that caused that person to be arrested would be depicting illegal behavior.
As far as the code being vague, I think that is good it leaves the ability for administration to determine on a student by student basis what is acceptable and what is not. The main situation I see here is that the people who do the actions they are concerned about, rarly are a part of the extracurricular activities. But I will tell you once again, things that happen at home always seem to come to school and it always seems that the schools have to deal with these situations becuase parents don't think it is their responsibility any more (not all parents feel this way but it seems more and more do).
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But -- was what he posted illegal activity? (edit: this was to SoaPiNuReYe)
I mean -- I see that in the case of those kids planning Columbine-like attacks, and posted about it on their blogs -- well, then in those cases it doesn't matter what the schools do, because the POLICE will come in and get it for evidence.
But what types of things would the school find offensive enough for suspension, that wouldn't also involve the police -- because it is illegal?
FG
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:You have freedom of speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Even if blogs do fall under this (which they don't, unless someone is being vicious and explicit enough to be sued for libel), it's not part of the school's purview to police this. It doesn't happen on school grounds or during school time, therefore it's none of their business.
I doubt they are saying "all students register their blogs with the school so we can monitor" its more "we reserve the right to monitor blogs that are brought to our attention as being malicious."
Teachers can monitor student behavior on school grounds just by watching or listening. Reading their public blogs is no different.
quote: don't agree with comparing the Columbine kids to bullies. And as I said, bullying is nothing new, and schools do relatively little about it even in more controlled environments where the emotional damage is much worse.
Why not?
quote: It doesn't happen on school grounds or during school time, therefore it's none of their business.
Schools have a responsibility for their students during school and after school.
Bullying usually is not restricted to school hours. Its not like a kid gets pushed around and once the bell sounds he is left alone until school commences the next day. Often times these bullys simply go home and harass kids on IM services or chatrooms.
Again I don't think this is teachers monitoring these places so much as being liscenced to review sites that are brought to their attention and take neccesary action to prevent ill from befalling students under their responsibility.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: A senior at my school got suspended for content on his myspace. He was graduating and was about to be accepted to Virginia Tech, but after the suspension the College is reviewing his entry. He didn't post the blog at school, or during regular school hours. In fact, the school cop has taken it upon himself to browse through students web blogs without their permission. Apparently the cop got the idea that it is his responsibility to punish students because of web blog content.
A blog tends to state that I can look at it without permission. And again, I don't know what this student put in his blog to receive the suspension but obviously the administration deemed it necessary to punish him for his actions. Maybe it will send a good message to parents that they need to be a part of their children's online life and become aware of what they are doing on the internet.
I find it funny that parents worry about where their children go when they walk out the door of their house but do not when they walk out the house through the wires of a computer!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Even if blogs do fall under this (which they don't, unless someone is being vicious and explicit enough to be sued for libel), it's not part of the school's purview to police this. It doesn't happen on school grounds or during school time, therefore it's none of their business.
Actually, my high school explicitly stated that any gathering of three or more students from our school, regardless of where we were, was considered associated with the school - and therefore the school had jurisdiction over what happened.
They used this to expel several of my classmates for drinking at a weekend party - a party that was not visited by the cops or parents.
It was a private school, though, and I'm not sure to what extent they're allowed to make up their own BS rules regarding what does and doesn't constitute an expulsion-worthy offense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Actually someone being arrested would not be depicting illegal behavior. Showing the actions that caused that person to be arrested would be depicting illegal behavior.
I was arrested while engaging in "illegal" activity. The charges were eventually dropped.
Not that it matters - just trying to add to my..ahem...mystique. Heh.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Teachers can monitor student behavior on school grounds just by watching or listening. Reading their public blogs is no different.
It's very different. Especially considering that they're talking about policing blogs that aren't written on school property during schooltime.
I disagree with everyone who says that schools have to take more and more responsibility because parents don't want to do it. More accurately -- I don't disagree with the statement; I disagree with the sentiment. Just because parents don't want the responsibility doesn't mean that schools should take over for them. Parenting comes with a whole host of responsibilities, most of which I don't think you should be able to shirk because you don't feel like doing it.
And schools definitely shouldn't be your backup option to raise your kids.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
kate: Lets see . . . involved in a protest?
That a school might occasionally see information on blogs and perhaps use that information in the course of a disciplinary action I am okay with.
The requirement to sign a pledge to not "exhibit gross misconduct or behavior/citizenship that is considered detrimental to his/her team or school" I am not.
That's a writ to persecute those the administration doesn't like.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm leery of commenting - the only sentence that raises any concern for me so far is the "maintaining or being identified..." sentence, which might be out of context, might just be very poor drafting, and might be a suggestion of something more sinister. It's the only one that suggests punishment based on expression alone, which I would have a HUGE problem with. Legally, student speech may be constrained, but they definitely still have a basic first amendment right to free expression.
I am a little confused by some of the concern shown about school administrators merely looking at blogs - these are public sites which encourage public viewing.
Beyond that, this doesn't seem Internet-specific to me from a legal standpoint. Schools have some authority to punish behavior outside school hours. There are some limits on their ability to reach such behavior, limits I do not fully understand.
Think about this, though. Schools have a legal duty to attempt to stop harassment - an activity which includes speech. If someone is advertising their blog which contains harassing speech at school (either by telling friends, IMing them, or whatever), is the harassment occurring at school?
It's a tricky question, one I would need to think seriously about.
Some speech on blogs is definitely within school purview. For example, if a football player not getting enough playing time posts the playbook online, he should able to be punished within the team.
The big concern is obviously retaliation for unflattering speech outside school time and property about the school or school personnel. That is well outside the bounds of acceptable exercise of authority and, if this policy leads to that, then it should be reigned in. Hard.
However, I'm actually more comfortable with the school admitting they're reading the blogs. I'm sure that some teachers take blog comments about them into effect in grades, recommendation decisions, and the like, often without mentioning the reason for the poorer treatment. Maybe now students will clue in to the fact that what they say matters in ways beyond mere exercise of free speech and take a little more care in expressing their opinions.
So while I see the concerns here, this is a very tricky issue with a lot of ramifications. I hope people think about all of it before condemning or praising this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The requirement to sign a pledge to not "exhibit gross misconduct or behavior/citizenship that is considered detrimental to his/her team or school" I am not.
My impression was that the code and pledge requirement existed already and that the blog language was being added to it. So I was only focusing on the new element.
Those codes exist across the country and are certainly worth of greater discussion (and some of condemnation). They're just not novel. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sigh...so much for my "mystique".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag,
I think it is just the blog language that is new.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Blog = meant to be read.
If you don't want the public reading your comments what are you doing blogging in the first place?
This isn't the the same as reading someones diary, you know, or tapping their phone lines. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Kwea,
Having someone reading a blog isn't the issue. The issue is the school punishing students for what they write.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which we're not at all sure they intend to do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You're right. I should have said "the issue is the school having the authority to punish students for what they write - or post."
I don't know what they intend. I'm not quite sure they know what they intend. ( I think it may be a response to schools getting a lot of bad publicity when reprehensible acts are published on the internet.)
Vaguely defined authority concerns me. Even when it is granted with the best intentions the authority remains when the intentions may change.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Vaguely defined authority concerns me.
Yeah, me to.
What's not clear is whether that sentence grants them that authority. It seems to me that it could be a clumsily-worded (mainly by misusing "post" and "mention") way of talking about evidence of wrongdoing being used and the application to the whole site.
Believe me, I've seen clumsier wording.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, I flat out would have refused to submit to drug testing or to sign such a pledge in high school, even if it meant quitting debate and drama.
I have my own beliefs about the proper bounds of authority over me, and I wasn't about to allow those bounds to be breached just to participate in after-school activities.
The debate team would have mostly caved, but the drama club would probably have walked out en masse (with a little prod in the right direction) and found a theater to perform in on our own. Would have been great on my college applications. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Kwea,
Having someone reading a blog isn't the issue. The issue is the school punishing students for what they write.
There were several issues raised, and more than one person got up in arms about the fact that the school actually READ such things.
Or was I reading something else?
It sounds to me that the school wants to be able to take things posted in a public place (even though it is online) and use them in a court of law if necessary...or use them to prevent things from happeneing that shouldn't. I have no problem with that, although I would want things spelled out a little better if I was a parent and my kid was in that school.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: don't agree with comparing the Columbine kids to bullies. And as I said, bullying is nothing new, and schools do relatively little about it even in more controlled environments where the emotional damage is much worse.
Why not?
Because the circumstances are entirely different. The Columbine kids didn't just decide, out of the blue, out of pure sadistic tendencies, to kill people. I'm not saying that they aren't responsible; they are. But the classmates and the rest of that school community are also responsible.
In other words, you can only treat people like crap for so long before they're going to do something. Some will react constructively. Some will not. Some will direct their feelings inwards, perhaps in self-mutilation. Some will direct their feelings outwards. Painting the Columbine kids like heartless killers is horrible because it reinforces the idea that the "weird" kids are somehow inhuman, or that they don't have emotions.
-pH
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
It seems like all the students have to do is make their "blogs" or myspaces only viewable by their friends, and it solves the problem. The school certainly doesn't have anymore access to this stuff than the student that goes there. If the students only let people that have befriended them read it, then the school can't do anything about it.
I really do think of this as a bit of a breech in privacy though. Obviously, these friend services are open to the public, but I am completely against the school monitoring everyones journals full time, even when there's no tip to any offense. They're just overstepping their bounderies.
Most people here would know that if you're a good kid and you've earned your parent's trust and respect, you shouldn't have to step through the same shit other more idiotic kids do just because the school is taking over the role of the parent. Especially when it's outside of their jurisdiction.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:it seems like all the students have to do is make their "blogs" or myspaces only viewable by their friends
Well, yes. But if one only has a blog to communicate with one's friends, ie the people one already communicates with, then why not make do with a diary and phone calls? My personal experience with a blog (I have a couple different livejournals), being able to find a community and get to know people with different experiences that you can't find IRL, was without question one of THE most important learning experiences I had.
I'm not saying that everyone uses blogs this way, but I do want to point out that having a public blog and a private or friends only blog are different things.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
In 1995 I was all excited with webpages and posted all of my favorites and lots of other little tid bits. Then I found out people I didn't know had read the stuff, and it felt really creapy to have someone know so much about me and yet I had no idea who they were. I see so many people posting their whole life online and it makes me worry.
Maybe what the schools should do is educate the students about the value of privacy instead. For example, can you imagine a teacher reading a student's blog regularly? What if someone on this forum was a teacher of someone else on the forum yet kept it hidden, yet the student makes it plainly known who they are?
An FBI agent once told a group of IT admins that it is pretty trivial for a child predator to find the school of just about anyone who is active online because they leave so many clues.
I guess I agree with Dag that this is a good thing to address. But the the wording of it sounds too authotarian: "We're watching you". They should emphesize: "Everyone is watching you so your behavior matters there just like it does in a shopping mall."
What we need is an internet "mall cop". Hahaha. JK
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: . Keep in mind that high school students don't, strictly speaking, have constitutional freedoms yet.
Are you sure you wouldn't like to rephrase that? Strictly speaking, they DO have constitutional rights, all of them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: By the way, I flat out would have refused to submit to drug testing or to sign such a pledge in high school, even if it meant quitting debate and drama.
The debate team would have mostly caved, but the drama club would probably have walked out en masse (with a little prod in the right direction) and found a theater to perform in on our own. Would have been great on my college applications.
I dunno Dag, do you remember what it feels like to be a teenager?
I know you mean that now... but remember what life and the world looks like to a teen. That true sense of yourself and personal empowerment is totally screwy and wierd in a 16-17 year old.
I imagine that I, like you, would do those things, but a realistic view of myself at that age tells me that I would grumble very loudly and submit to authority, convincing myself that I was fighting the greater fight "from the inside." You know that feeling?
If you were one of those kids who actually didn't knuckle under to abrasive authority, then I salute you. At the same time, I know I didn't have the wit or experience to know I was smarter than alot of authority figures who wanted to keep me down (nothing special about that, there are alot of very stupid people in positions of power over teenagers!).
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
In principle I don't think it's right that a student be penalised for what s/he posts online, unless it's an invasion of privacy on another individual. For example, posting ratings of the girls/boys in the class etc. would probably warrant some penalty or a warning to retract the post.
And having teachers or school administrators regularly reading your blog might seem creepy, but is in no way an invasion of privacy for the obvious reason that you made it available to the world yourself. It's so easy to create a password protected blog or group.
But like everyone's been saying, the code of conduct in the linked article is technically blackmailing students to give up a small part of their freedom of speech (presumably its a pre-requisite of afterschool activities). And as you already know, freedom of speech is an ideal which can never be completely implemented, so it's always a matter of degrees.
[ May 26, 2006, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I dunno Dag, do you remember what it feels like to be a teenager?
I know you mean that now... but remember what life and the world looks like to a teen. That true sense of yourself and personal empowerment is totally screwy and wierd in a 16-17 year old.
I meant it then. They were doing it in some other school districts and I made a very clear decision as to what I would do if it happened. I even researched who I would get to perform drug tests to prove I wasn't taking the stand so I could keep doing drugs.
I faced some very real and painful consequences for other similar decisions, so I'm fairly confident I'm remembering correctly.
I second guess myself about a lot of things - for instance, whether I could be physically brave in a life-or death situation - but about this, my record is pretty good evidence that I remember correctly.
Besides, I would have gotten a LOT of respect from my peers for it (the peers I cared about, anyway) so I would have had both idealistic and more base motives for going forward.
I could be a real PITA to authority when I was a teenager, in ways that didn't expose me to punishment.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Because the circumstances are entirely different. The Columbine kids didn't just decide, out of the blue, out of pure sadistic tendencies, to kill people.
Actually, I remember reading a report, linked from here on hatrack, on them which said that is precisely what they did... that the leader, at least, (I don't remember which one), was a textbook psychopath and the idea that they were driven to it by being picked on didn't gel with the facts.
Anyone still have that link?
edit: found it Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I dunno Dag, do you remember what it feels like to be a teenager?
I know you mean that now... but remember what life and the world looks like to a teen. That true sense of yourself and personal empowerment is totally screwy and wierd in a 16-17 year old.
I meant it then. They were doing it in some other school districts and I made a very clear decision as to what I would do if it happened. I even researched who I would get to perform drug tests to prove I wasn't taking the stand so I could keep doing drugs.
I faced some very real and painful consequences for other similar decisions, so I'm fairly confident I'm remembering correctly.
I second guess myself about a lot of things - for instance, whether I could be physically brave in a life-or death situation - but about this, my record is pretty good evidence that I remember correctly.
Besides, I would have gotten a LOT of respect from my peers for it (the peers I cared about, anyway) so I would have had both idealistic and more base motives for going forward.
I could be a real PITA to authority when I was a teenager, in ways that didn't expose me to punishment.
What is your reasoning for refusing to submit to a drug test? Or were they not random at your school? I went to private schools growing up so we had interfaith chapels (religion in school *GASP*) random drug testing, no metal detectors though. Teachers told us their opinions on religion and evolution, all and all I'd say it was quite the experience. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize this is why I left the field of journalism.
Everyone here is judging the whole school board intent based on the wording of the way the journalist relayed the information in his article. And we don't know how accurately that really depicts the intent of the school board (although kmbboots can probably clarify it's accuracy, since her sister was physically there and heard all discussion)
I know more than once I would report a story on something a school board or city council had decided, and somehow what I wrote was interpreted in a way other than what was really intended. (because I was in a hurry, or it was late, and I wasn't as meticulous as I should have been)
As Dagonee says --parts of this article are clumsy-worded or unclear, so it would more interesting to hear exactly from the board members themselves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What is your reasoning for refusing to submit to a drug test?
Because I think it's a wrongful intrusion into my personal space. Peeing in a cup so they can be sure I'm not rebutting while high? Too much intrusion for too little purpose.
This society has gotten too lax about tolerating intrusion. I agree that a store has a legal right to require people coming in to have their bags searched. My wish is that no one would agree, telling the store why they're walking out and leaving it empty until they rescind the policy.
Similarly, I've denied stores the ability to search my bags on the way out. They claimed it was "policy," and I simply explained that my policy was to not submit to searches nor to patronize stores that attempt to require searches. Had they posted their "policy" on the door, I would simply stay out. Attempting to enforce without informing me of it before I entered the store was not going to fly.
Every time we submit to these intrusions, we make it easier for people to ask for a new intrusion. This was my line in the sand, which, fortunately, I never had to actually draw.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Jim-Me, I really don't buy it.
His list of, "You know what I hate?" I'm pretty sure every teenage kid with a blog has at some point posted something about things that they hate.
quote:He is disgusted with the morons around him.
...who isn't? The thing is, a LOT of kids will claim that the reason they're being picked on is because other people are jealous of how superior they are. If I'd merely read the excerpts that they'd provided about Random Kid X, I really wouldn't automatically draw the conclusion that he was diabolical and without conscience and so on and so forth. To me, that sounds a whole lot more like an angry teenager saying angry teenage things.
I'm not saying that what happened wasn't awful, but I have a big, big problem with dehumanizing the perpetrators. If for no other reason than it gives people more of a reason to single out unpopular kids.
To a certain extent, I'm very biased because of the way that I was treated by classmates and administrators after Columbine. So I really think it's important not to act as though these kids weren't people, if for no other reason than it makes life a living hell for others.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I went to private schools growing up so we had interfaith chapels (religion in school *GASP*) random drug testing, no metal detectors though.
We never had drug tests OR metal detectors...but I think the parents would have flipped out if they'd tried to bring either into the school. They always claimed they had breathalyzers at the school dances, but I don't think I ever saw any.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:What is your reasoning for refusing to submit to a drug test?
Because I think it's a wrongful intrusion into my personal space. Peeing in a cup so they can be sure I'm not rebutting while high? Too much intrusion for too little purpose.
This society has gotten too lax about tolerating intrusion. I agree that a store has a legal right to require people coming in to have their bags searched. My wish is that no one would agree, telling the store why they're walking out and leaving it empty until they rescind the policy.
Similarly, I've denied stores the ability to search my bags on the way out. They claimed it was "policy," and I simply explained that my policy was to not submit to searches nor to patronize stores that attempt to require searches. Had they posted their "policy" on the door, I would simply stay out. Attempting to enforce without informing me of it before I entered the store was not going to fly.
Every time we submit to these intrusions, we make it easier for people to ask for a new intrusion. This was my line in the sand, which, fortunately, I never had to actually draw.
Interesting.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dag, has there been ANY response to facial recognition software? It kind of creeps me out that if, say, the state looked through everybody's driver's license photo, they could figure out whether or not I went to Sav-a-center at 9:53pm on April 8th.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
pH, I don't know enough about it. I do know that video surveillance will become MUCH more scary when they can run automated searches through all the footage for a particular person.
It's certainly feasible - index every frame for facial points, then do a search to find likely results. But I think the algorithms for indexing are a ways off from being able to do that.
Once that happens, we'll have to start paying attention to these things.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Jim-Me, I really don't buy it.
I didn't say you had to. I don't think that report dehumanizes the perpetrators. I *do* think it minimizes what they did to blame their actions on their "persecution" every bit as much as it does to blame what they did on listening to "Jeremy" or Marylin Manson. I suffered a hell of a lot in school, too, and saw others get treated worse. As you and every teen movie ever made point out, it's common.
Which is exactly why I totally agree with the investegators that there must be something else at work when two kids spend a year detailedly planning murder and terror bombing on the kind of scale that Harris and Klebold tried and failed to accomplish.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: pH, I don't know enough about it. I do know that video surveillance will become MUCH more scary when they can run automated searches through all the footage for a particular person.
It's certainly feasible - index every frame for facial points, then do a search to find likely results. But I think the algorithms for indexing are a ways off from being able to do that.
Once that happens, we'll have to start paying attention to these things.
Yes, that idea is very creepy.
Very creepy a la Philip K. Dick...
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
FG: I somewhat agree, particularly after having been in a class with some of the best future journalists of their age (a high level undergraduate and graduate class on International Newsgathering Systems at one of the best journalism schools in the country) . Even top journalism students are one of the oddest mixes of well-informed writers and clueless social scientists.
Of course, I've reserved my complaint to a section directly quoted from the school's loyalty oath.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:pH, I don't know enough about it. I do know that video surveillance will become MUCH more scary when they can run automated searches through all the footage for a particular person.
They've been doing this for at least a couple of years in Vegas. The security companies that supply cameras to casinos there claim their cameras can get enough facial detail for matching with only 23 degrees of front facial visibility.
I don't know if the gov't has an indexed database of faces, but Vegas does - and supposedly, it's working.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Jim-me, that article was awesome.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Similarly, I've denied stores the ability to search my bags on the way out. They claimed it was "policy," and I simply explained that my policy was to not submit to searches nor to patronize stores that attempt to require searches. Had they posted their "policy" on the door, I would simply stay out. Attempting to enforce without informing me of it before I entered the store was not going to fly.
Dag, do you mean to say you refuse to allow them to search your bags that you brought in with you, or the bags that contain the items you just purchased from that store? I realize once the transaction is complete, ownership is transferred, but can you really deny them the right on their property?
Hmm, on second thought, I can't see why not. Just because you're on someone else's property doesn't mean you lose your 4th amendment rights.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not even about 4th amendment rights; they're not the government, they don't get any rights over you but what you grant or are granted by law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, do you mean to say you refuse to allow them to search your bags that you brought in with you, or the bags that contain the items you just purchased from that store? I realize once the transaction is complete, ownership is transferred, but can you really deny them the right on their property?
Both. In the former case, I simply turn and walk out, although once I came back with a receipt for a camcorder I bought in another store to show them what the policy cost them. (I told you I could be a PITA.) In the latter case, they have no right to search my bags unless I've agreed to it.
An exception is BJs and other wholesale clubs that I join by signing a membership agreement. In that case, I was informed ahead of time of the policy and agreed.
In most states, a store detective can detain a suspected shoplifter for up to an hour or so. If they attempted to use that to detain me, I would simply demand that we wait for the police. And woe to them if he couldn't prove that he had reasonable suspicion that I took something.
Posted by Coatesie (Member # 9202) on :
quote: Yes, that idea is very creepy. Very creepy a la Philip K. Dick... -pH
pH...Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Dag's comments remind me of a discussion I had with someone at Wal-Mart. I had gone in and purchased some groceries as well as some mini-blinds. Well, the blinds obviously were too large to fit into a plastic grocery sack so I just put them in my cart along with my groceries and started to leave.
I was stopped by an employee who wanted to see my receipt for what I'd just purchased. I asked her why and she said "You have stuff in your cart that's not bagged."
So I asked her did she think I went through the line, paid for my groceries and then went back and stole the mini-blinds. Then I asked her if that meant that I could steal anything I wanted to if I smuggled in Wal-Mart plastic grocery sacks and put my stolen goods in them.
She just looked at me wtih a confused look on her face and I told her I thought her policy was not going to stop shoplifting, and all it did was tick off legitimate customers like myself who resented being asked to present their receipts at the door. Then I pushed past her and left. Never did show her my receipt.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: They've been doing this for at least a couple of years in Vegas. The security companies that supply cameras to casinos there claim their cameras can get enough facial detail for matching with only 23 degrees of front facial visibility.
I don't know if the gov't has an indexed database of faces, but Vegas does - and supposedly, it's working.
They may claim they can do this, but I'd be very surprised if the accuracy was really that good.
Vision is very tricky stuff. The automated algorithms I'm familiar with can frequently be defeated by variations in lighting, facial hair, glasses, hats, head angle, or numerous other confusers. Really I think we're a long way (decades) from this sort of sophistication.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I'm fairly certain that my High School (which was public) had something similar to that while I was there. (Bear in mind I graduated nine years ago.) Although certainly it didn't take into account MySpace or other weblog type sites as they didn't really exist quite yet and certainly not in their current forms. But I vaguely recall that there was some code which applied both in and out of school.
Not to mention my college (private) which would punish students for behavior that took place off campus. You could also be sanctioned for not turning someone in who was participating in such an activity. For example: I see another student from my college drinking at a bar and I know that she is under 21. This is against my school's policy and I am now honor bound to go to said student and say, "You have 24 hours to turn yourself in to the Civitas Council for underage drinking." After 24 hours I have to call one of the Civitas reps and advise them that I gave said student a 24 hour notice. If I don't give the student 24 hours and someone else from the college sees me and the other student, she can be turned in for underage drinking, and I can be turned in for ignoring the other student's action.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Of course in the case of my college, before I decided to attend there, I was fully informed of those rules, whereas in High School, I had to go where the school district told me to go and had no choice.
Posted by genius00345 (Member # 8206) on :
This is a very shaky issue...I would rather have protection than privacy in most cases, but this is one where I'm not so sure.
I usually don't post anything on my MySpace that I don't want other people to see for one reason: it's a public place. If something should not be seen, don't blatantly post it in a public venue. Keep in mind that just because it says MY in MySpace doesn't mean that only you can see it. I in fact know of at least one teacher who has a MySpace (who, btw, does not accept any of his students as friends), but he could still very well stumble upon (not meant to be at all sarcastic) an incriminating comment at any time, and if it was in someone's best interest for him to report it, then legally he should.
It's also a bit weird on the "does the school have authority in out-of-school activities?" issue. My opinion is no, unless the student willingly and publicly admits to doing something that is already against school codes (drinking, driving violations for older students, etc.). And I think that at the beginning of the year, in a student/parent handbook, the applicable out-of-school infractions should be clearly defined along with the punishments.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Not to mention my college (private) which would punish students for behavior that took place off campus. You could also be sanctioned for not turning someone in who was participating in such an activity. For example: I see another student from my college drinking at a bar and I know that she is under 21. This is against my school's policy and I am now honor bound to go to said student and say, "You have 24 hours to turn yourself in to the Civitas Council for underage drinking." After 24 hours I have to call one of the Civitas reps and advise them that I gave said student a 24 hour notice. If I don't give the student 24 hours and someone else from the college sees me and the other student, she can be turned in for underage drinking, and I can be turned in for ignoring the other student's action.
Are you serious? That would so not fly here, even though I go to a private, Jesuit university. I don't mean just about drinking.
I went to a private high school, and we could be expelled for drinking or doing drugs off-campus...and it happened a few times, too. But in that case, I think it was much more of a school image issue: some kids ended up in the paper because they were ridiculously drunk at Gasparilla, and it made the school look bad.
-pH
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: In principle I don't think it's right that a student be penalised for what s/he posts online, unless it's an invasion of privacy on another individual. For example, posting ratings of the girls/boys in the class etc. would probably warrant some penalty or a warning to retract the post.
This is exactly what I think will happen, and exactly why I oppose policies of this sort. That kind of post is not an invasion of privacy, it is a mean, nasty thing to post. But I don't believe your school or the government has the right to stop you from being a mean, nasty person. When you're behaving in this way on school grounds then the school has a right to stop you. But the school does not have a right to moniter you 24 hours a day to make sure you don't act like a bad person.
The argument will be made that students who are rated poorly could suffer lower self esteem and be bullied in school as a result. If they're bullied in school, then the school has a right and responsibility to protect them. But if they go to the website, and look up their own rating, then that was their choice, and the school shouldn't be involved at all.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: In principle I don't think it's right that a student be penalised for what s/he posts online, unless it's an invasion of privacy on another individual. For example, posting ratings of the girls/boys in the class etc. would probably warrant some penalty or a warning to retract the post.
This is exactly what I think will happen, and exactly why I oppose policies of this sort. That kind of post is not an invasion of privacy, it is a mean, nasty thing to post. But I don't believe your school or the government has the right to stop you from being a mean, nasty person. When you're behaving in this way on school grounds then the school has a right to stop you. But the school does not have a right to moniter you 24 hours a day to make sure you don't act like a bad person.
The argument will be made that students who are rated poorly could suffer lower self esteem and be bullied in school as a result. If they're bullied in school, then the school has a right and responsibility to protect them. But if they go to the website, and look up their own rating, then that was their choice, and the school shouldn't be involved at all.
So what happens when such a website becomes a situation at school. Which no matter where it was set up and written at, it will become a problem at the school. Trust me, I have first hand dealings with situations like this. Is the school to sit back and say oh well this disruption was caused by something the student did at home so there is nothing we can do about it. Administration and teacher have way to much to do in their work lives (60+ hours some days) to sit around and monitor websites. The only time most teachers and Administrators are going to be looking at such a site is if it is brought to their attention in the school setting.
Take for example, Ratemyteacher.com. I was not aware of this site until a student brought it up to me recently. A school administrator who passed away last year has been rated on it recently and comments posted were very inappropate. "You six feet under what do you care?" Now, I would have never looked at this site had students not been disruptive during school hours about it, but it also upset other students with in the building. Hence, I took this information to the Administration of the building. What they do with it will be of thier own accord. But one of the jobs today of a school is to produce productive citizens, and teaching students proper social interactions is a part of that. I wish it didn't have to be, I have a lot more on my plate that I need to get students taught, but when they have no place else to recieve instruction on proper social interactions then at school it must be done.
As for the statement of there have always been bullies. I agree there have been but bullying has gone to a whole new level. It is more intense than I have seen it in the past and it seems to be continuing to get even worse. Where do we draw the line and say enough is enough?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Even top journalism students are one of the oddest mixes of well-informed writers and clueless social scientists.![[Confused]](confused.gif)