Forgetting we are way off topic, here it goes again…
quote:
Originally posted by Jinnai:
The asinine Bush tests.
Well in my opinion those serve no purpose, having a family that keeps in touch a fair amount means lots of opinions come to me. Most of those with kids taking these tests say it is outrageous, they have kids capable of acing these tests (I know my cousins and it is very possible they could, especially after I hear some of the questions from these tests) and yet they are stuck with “gifted” kids almost year after year. Yes those children who in the un-PC 1980’s, when pre-owned cars were still called used cars, and executive assistants were still secretaries, we still called mentally retarded, who just happen to pass that test because we cannot leave any child behind which in a sense does drag down and hold back the more intelligent and more capable children, different issue I don’t want to go further into as my views are even more scathing then has been hinted at about these tests. These tests though are not a great example of forced social engineering since it is one almost everyone I know is fighting against and questions, including school districts who know they will never be able to have all kids pass unless then hand an answer sheet out with the test. So the fight does not come from the children or parents alone it also does some of the school systems. So you have all sides fighting along with each other, thus it is not a very effective form if it is one.
quote:
They’ve said during school hours its the schools discretion whether they can be turned on, even between classes and lunchtime, but before other times they said it was okay or something close to that.
So before gym, before assemblies, before health screenings (that yearly test I am not sure they do anymore) that is fine but not between classes? That is a rule once again that is being fought and they cannot really enforce, if many of the student body joined together to wear walkmans between classes, during lunch, etc they couldn’t suspend tons of students it would look bad, and their parents might back them, which is less likely if that many refused to ware uniforms.
QUOTE]
Perhaps, but doubtful. Most of the parents here either didn’t care or sided with the school for trying to upset the status quo.[/QUOTE]
Why would the parents fear that, keeping the status quo? Are they not more concerned with someone beating up their kids who has less legal grounds, based on past precedent, to do that they themselves as parents do? If they don’t care about that the school must have some wonderful propaganda ministers to keep the parents quiet and not caring. Those parents I have known, those of my friends over the years, would find some way to keep watch over the teachers and the first one to hit would have a separate law suit brought against them, away from the general one you said is currently against the school district. Perhaps I just know a bunch of “radical mavericks” when it comes to parents and friends (their children).
quote:
As to the email thing, it may be bull, but its the law. I know because my dad is in charge of United Health Care’s Tenchonology Diviison which deals a lot with such issues. (…)
What you said above is different, now you are saying they sent something across company computers criticizing a boss, while they should not have been fired for that since they did not send it to the boss and I think spying on the e-mail is worse then anything and would find a way to challenge it again on different grounds since if companies have that much power
Big Brother does exist. (The link is for those that do not know that reference, look under both purpose and introduction on that page and it gives a good layout of the term).
Site me the exact law with web link toward company e-mail, because this is a different issue, if you challenged ownership of the e-mails sent from the company, rather then those sent over company computers that say the Boss has less brains then vaccuum, (which should still fall under 1st Amendment I say), it might be a different result in ruling. Also you never answered my question, does that apply to a letter you send on paper to your grandmother, so if she throws it out she is destroying your propriety? Ask yourself that and see if that law makes sense, if it does not it probably has little legal footing to stand a challenge.
quote:
As to the school lockers, same principle except that in addition people at school are not considered to have the maturity and intelligence level as adults (not my words). But they’ve said that because you don’t purchase the use of the lockers and the fact the people using them are students and are not eligable for all rights, responsibities and priveleges of adults for above reasons they vourt said the schools can do random locker searches. Whether or not you agree the fact that they can and do in many places use these technigques does can have a chilling effect. [
Once much bullshit, if they are adult enough to be responsible for their own failures in school, then they are adult enough to handle personal propriety since dealing with the responsibility of failure is a lot harder then grabbing your toy truck and shouting “MINE” which even little kids know how to do and often do with each others toys. In the case of my school on this argument I believe part of the judgment said something along the following “Students will never gain a level of understanding on how to protect their own propriety or their rights under the Constitution if they are never given a chance to learn them and how to defend those rights starting in their school years. Therefore since that which is inside the lockers is propriety of the respected student, ownership of the locker matters less then that which will be searched when the locker is open, therefore locker searches are a violation of the student’s privacy and personality right to security in their own possessions as granted to
All Citizens Regardless of Age, Race, Reglion, Creed (etc.) Under the Law as stated in the 4th Amendment of Constitution of the United States of America”. Or something to that effect was the judgment, I remember reading it and loving it and remembering enough at one time to quote it to teachers that tried to demand I open my locker from time to time. Yes I was a smartass but one with the law on my side in that case.
Once again however in my opinion and that of many others, including I think one of the laywers and/or perhaps the judge You Do Purchase The Use Of Your Locker or do you deny that if there were No Taxes the schools would not still exist? Perhaps as private enterprises but NOT through Tax Payer Money Which Buys The Lockers the students use, much like highways are considered to some extent public properity and not restricted in the use of, lockers in this case were considered private properity of the student since only one person at a time could use them, and yes that means each year that “ownership” changed hands.
quote:
Yes they do compensate students for locks that are cut and they do give warnings before cutting them as well.
Again this was several years ago, though still recently. I’m in college now. However I know people who still attend there are little has changed.
Bigger issue is no warning and cut it off, compensation is great and at least gives them some means to avoid yet another lawsuit but I would still think is on thin ice since they are not a legal body in pursuit of a law breaking and have no choice but to destory properity, they are a bunch of, in my exeperince with public schools, overzealous idiots that have more concerns with keeping a tight grip on power then they do any sense of what is remotely right or wrong.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-19-2004).]