Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by PokerPacker you are so very wrong, i bring up this supreme court case in every one of these threads, but once again, here it is. Tinker v. Des Moines School District -Justice Abe Fortas -Justice Jackson is that enough support? be sure to read all of that last quote. Oh goody, dueling google searches. Here's mine http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html This is the juicy part- There are several reasons why violations of student rights are upheld by the courts. One of the most basic reasons is known as in loco parentis. This Latin phrase basically means that while a student is in the custody of a school, the school can and often should act as a parent. In this duty of the school, many decisions can be made that are outside the normal governmental purview. The other basic reason for violation of student rights has to do with the goal of school - to educate. If an act of a student can interfere with the educational process, that act may, in many cases, be suppressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Oh goody, dueling google searches. Here's mine http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html This is the juicy part- There are several reasons why violations of student rights are upheld by the courts. One of the most basic reasons is known as in loco parentis. This Latin phrase basically means that while a student is in the custody of a school, the school can and often should act as a parent. In this duty of the school, many decisions can be made that are outside the normal governmental purview. The other basic reason for violation of student rights has to do with the goal of school - to educate. If an act of a student can interfere with the educational process, that act may, in many cases, be suppressed. The original tshirt wasn't doing anything to interfer with the process. The principal took personal offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Destino Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that it began when the principal made a big mistake and punished a student because his pride took a hit at the sight of good advice he himself failed to follow. The principal Kilmer can suspend who ever he wants but the "why" can be and has been called into question. In this case the ENTIRE situation started when the principal punished a student for something he should not have. No, he suspened her for wearing a disruptive T-shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff The original tshirt wasn't doing anything to interfer with the process. The principal took personal offense. Sure it was. You know why? Because the Principal decided it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 If she went around and became a disruptive presence with her actions by saying this t-shirt is about the principle...yeah sure but if she was minding her own business...than why should she be suspended... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Oh my god that kid is wearing black shoes with an X on them....he must be racist....lets suspend him..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 No, he suspened her for wearing a disruptive T-shirt. ....and I think another key point in the article is the fact that the school was having a problem before this incident. It's not like this was the "first shot fired". The school is trying to squash something before it gets out of hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Sure it was. You know why? Because the Principal decided it was. Come on dude, thats such a weak argument. Try harder. The principal can decide that there should be a Pro Nazi Rally at the football field at 4 pm. Every student has to attend. Guess that makes it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Why would this girl give a crap about a principal getting a DUI when she was in JR high school so much that she had to wear a shirt to make fun of him 6 years later? Um, perhaps she suspects that he's a power-drunk authority figure with delusions of grandeur? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Come on dude, thats such a weak argument. Try harder. The principal can decide that there should be a Pro Nazi Rally at the football field at 4 pm. Every student has to attend. Guess that makes it right. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html Red Herring. Logical Fallacies is all you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Funkyalligator Oh my god that kid is wearing black shoes with an X on them....he must be racist....lets suspend him..... Well they could be suspended. And no rights wouldbe violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Clearly questioning authority is a bad thing. I don't think much good has ever come out of it. And the King of the Americas want to know when those pirates from Boston are going to pay the delinquent tax on his tea. Obviously, authority is always right. (Unless authority is a Democrat.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Oh goody, dueling google searches. Here's mine http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html This is the juicy part- There are several reasons why violations of student rights are upheld by the courts. One of the most basic reasons is known as in loco parentis. This Latin phrase basically means that while a student is in the custody of a school, the school can and often should act as a parent. In this duty of the school, many decisions can be made that are outside the normal governmental purview. The other basic reason for violation of student rights has to do with the goal of school - to educate. If an act of a student can interfere with the educational process, that act may, in many cases, be suppressed. actually, kilmer, i didn't just recently find this court case. Student rights is a hobby of mine, and i take it upon myself to be a pain in the *** to my principal whenever she makes the mistake of trying to go outside her boundries. i first found this court case in a book, and set off looking it up online. but i did not pull up the court case for the first time because of ExtremeSkins ore anything else. I first started my research on this about four years ago, when my 6th grade teachers were trying to be dictators. I had been taken to the principal a couple times, but never punished because he was the most impartial principal you'll ever have. he understood my rights, and respected them. If my school respects me, i'll respect it. simple as that. unfortunatly, my current school (administration) does not respect me, so i research exactly what i can and cannot do, just to make sure they can't touch me, and if they do, i'm gonna take them to court. back to the thread, how did this student interupt the educational process with that shirt? she upset the principal, and that's it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html Red Herring. Logical Fallacies is all you have. Thats cute. I'm off to the bank and to dinner. Looking forward to see how this all turns out when I get back. Oh, and I'm wearing a simple polo shirt and jeans FYI....would hate to run into my 4th grade teacher and accidentaly offend them by wearing something else. I'll stick to solid colors from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Larry And the King of the Americas want to know when those pirates from Boston are going to pay the delinquent tax on his tea. Obviously, authority is always right. (Unless authority is a Democrat.) http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html I'll keep posting this link for people with obvious Logical deficiencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mufumonk Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Thats cute. I'm off to the bank and to dinner. Looking forward to see how this all turns out when I get back. Oh, and I'm wearing a simple polo shirt and jeans FYI....would hate to run into my 4th grade teacher and accidentaly offend them by wearing something else. I'll stick to solid colors from now on. Don't wear red or blue, or else you may be mistaken for a gang member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Thats cute. I'm off to the bank and to dinner. Looking forward to see how this all turns out when I get back. Oh, and I'm wearing a simple polo shirt and jeans FYI....would hate to run into my 4th grade teacher and accidentaly offend them by wearing something else. I'll stick to solid colors from now on. Run along. You lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Well they could be suspended. And no rights wouldbe violated. maybe you should do a lettle research before you make you're little statements. as i said, i've been researching the subject for four years. i think i might have come across a little more knowledge in that time, than you have in the four minutes you've been surfing the web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katomak Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Mufumonk To expand on this........shouldn't the principal promote educating his students on the dangers of drinking and driving? In fact, he should be participating in it! The simple fact that he himself, the almighty principal has a history of drinking and driving, you'd think he would want to set a better example. Oh, I agree 110%!!! I agree that an educator should be devoting his or her life during the hours of 7am to 3pm (or whatever school runs for nowadays) to setting an example by which every one of his students may live. The fact that he's not owning up to a DUI conviction that was handed down to him, or rather is brushing it under the rug by way of punishing a student who he feels is trying to "embarass" him isn't quite the example I was hoping for him to set... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by PokerPacker maybe you should do a lettle research before you make you're little statements. as i said, i've been researching the subject for four years. i think i might have come across a little more knowledge in that time, than you have in the four minutes you've been surfing the web. 1st, you have no idea how much or little Im involved in this. So dont pretend to. 2nd. The courts have ROUNTINELY sided with school boards regarding issues of expression. Check these cases for reference- Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Bethel V Frasier And the Tinker case. WHich states EXPLICITLY, that while Students dont give up their rights when they walk into the school, they are not afforded the same broad interpretation as an adult outside of school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 "The fact that he's not owning up to a DUI conviction that was handed down to him, or rather is brushing it under the rug by way of punishing a student who he feels is trying to "embarass" him isn't quite the example I was hoping for him to set..." http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html Here's your sign.... Show me please where he wasnt owning up or brushing it under a rug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I'll keep posting this link for people with obvious Logical deficiencies. Since, after all, posting a link is so much easier that trying to exaplain a logical difference between "The Principal is always right" and "The King is always right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mufumonk Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 "The fact that he's not owning up to a DUI conviction that was handed down to him, or rather is brushing it under the rug by way of punishing a student who he feels is trying to "embarass" him isn't quite the example I was hoping for him to set..." http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html Here's your sign.... Show me please where he wasnt owning up or brushing it under a rug? Way to ignore the rest of what she posted. Your reliance on gimmick sites on the int3rw3b is also quite weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Larry Since, after all, posting a link is so much easier that trying to exaplain a logical difference between "The Principal is always right" and "The King is always right". Okay, here you go. A Principal has the right to limit speech. A king did not. Furthermore, your logical fallacy was trying to equate the plight of a student not allowed to wear a T-shirt, and a countries plight for self rule. Apples-Porsches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 No, he suspened her for wearing a disruptive T-shirt. Thank you for repeating the charge. The devil is in the details however and like I've stated before, the reasons for the decision have been called into question. Not wanting to see "don't drink and drive" because you are a irresponsible drunk is not a good reason IMO. The principal is thus wrong and should either apologize or find a new line of work. In fact the only reason there is a distraction at all is because of the criminal history of the principal himself. Perhaps it's time to remove the distraction so these children can get back to the business of learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.