Having someone reading a blog isn't the issue. The issue is the school punishing students for what they write.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 224 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.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)
