Tomorrow is our primary here in Maryland, and other than the usual presidential candidate and delegates to pick out, it seems we are also to vote on Board of Education At Large.

I could look up information on these people, see what they promise to do. And I will. Just one problem. Really, I’m in no position to decide on elected officials who’d be in charge of schools. I’m no longer a student, and neither is any member of my family. So how am I affected?

Trouble is? The people affected the most, the students themselves of course, have no say in the matter. They’re too young to vote. So we’ve got older people who may have no connections to the school system whatsoever, having no real idea about what goes on, picking how who runs things there, while the students, the ones who have to live with whatever happens, the ones who know way better than any of us, are forbidden from having any say.

Something is seriously wrong here!

Lower the voting age, perhaps? Or is that too easy of an answer? *grin*

Comments(0)

This blog entry is partially a response to the e-mail below, and partially a general comment, so not everything is gonna be directly related to or in response to this quoted bit:

The Patriot Act is extremely mild compared to the many infringements on privacy that young people are subjected to. If you care about the right to privacy, consider the following.

The Patriot Act doesn’t require that individuals submit to random, suspicionless drug testing as many schools and indeed some parents are now requiring. Unlike drug testing at work, youth usually don’t have any choice whether to be at school or live with their parents.

The Patriot Act doesn’t allow authorities to search through an individual’s property without probable cause like schools do with lockers and parents do with everything.

The Patriot Act allows for increased use of wiretaps and monitoring of e-mail but nothing close to the kind of tracking software parents regularly place on their kid’s computers that tracks and records every keystroke and action taken with the computer. Every website, every word typed, every program used is recorded and sent to parents.

The Patriot Act may allow the government, in some cases, to look at what books you are checking out, but it doesn’t outright ban you from looking at or listening to certain books, movies, websites, magazines and music like age restrictions do.

While not part of the Patriot Act, no doubt you are alarmed by the increasing use of security cameras in public places watching our every move. That pales in comparison to the ways teens are tracked. Parents have taken to putting GPS tracking devices into backpacks and cars. Plus many cell phones now have GPS enabled on them and parents use those to track their kid’s movements. Furthermore there are computers parents install in cars that record every turn you make, how fast you go, how complete a stop you make, etc.

More directly, parents are even installing cameras in their kid’s bedrooms to monitor them at all times. Or removing their bedroom doors so they have no privacy whatsoever. This is all perfectly legal and happens all across the country.

As you of course know, the government (via schools) controls what clothes you wear, how you style your hair, whether you can have a cell phone or other electronic device, and what you can say or write in school. The Patriot Act doesn’t come close to that.

The war is indeed an important issue. But who is it that we are sending overseas to fight and die in that war? Young people. Young people who probably weren’t old enough to vote for the politicians that sent them to that war. Young people who risk their lives in the desert and are not treated as equals in this country or given the respect they deserve for making such a sacrifice. They return home and unlike most Americans can’t open a can of beer while watching a football game, or go out to a bar with a few buddies, or even attend many concerts. Over 645 young Americans have died in the desert while never being respected as equals in the nation that sent them there.

The infringements on the privacy of youth are more extreme than the Patriot Act ever was or will be, and affect far more people on a daily basis. After being raised as youth with no expectation of privacy is it any wonder people don’t value privacy as much when they get older and get into power? And while I’m not going to say that the drinking age is more important than the war, it directly relates to the war and is another injustice heaped upon young people that absolutely needs to be addressed.

Youth rights isn’t just some side project or a somehow a selfish, small issue that distracts from ‘bigger’ issues out in the world. I know you didn’t say that, and I’m not saying people should vote only on the basis of youth rights, but youth rights is a HUGE issue that deserves a lot more attention and respect than it currently gets - even from NYRA members. Cause if we don’t put youth rights first, who will?

Finally, if you (and this isn’t just directed to you) oppose the Patriot Act and the War and invasions on privacy and everything else, did you vote for candidates who opposed those policies? Were you able to or were you prevented from voting by the voting age? Who knows how different the country would be today if you and your peers were able to vote.

Youth rights is directly intertwined with all other issues you care about in society. It should never be put on the backburner, even in an election year.

If youth are free, then we all will be free.

Comments(0)

Alright, let’s get the unfortunate necessities of this topic out of the way. I am not endorsing drug use. I think drugs are generally bad and harmful, especially to people my age who take them and thus retard their development in some way, whether it by psychologically or physically or some intriguing combination of the two. That is not what’s being discussed here. I’m not talking about drug use being a good idea, I’m talking about the law.

At a school in Morris Hill New Jersey is thinking of instituting mandatory random drug tests for its students. A lot of parents are in favor of such a program, and I can understand where they’re coming from; not having to trust your kids must certainly be a burden lifted from their shoulders.

Now the program sounds nice enough:

Chris Steffner, principal of Hunterdon Central Regional High School, spoke about the program in her district, which was the first to start random drug testing in 1996. Students who test positive are not expelled or suspended, just referred to a counseling program, she said. There is no notification of law enforcement, nor do the test results go in student records.

The idea, she said, is to deter students and give them another reason to say no to drugs and alcohol. Steffner likened the tests to a parked police car that causes motorists to slow down.

But students have rightly pointed out, that parked police cars slow you down for all of 10 seconds. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is that students are being suspected guilty until proven innocent. Adults, except professional athletes and a few others, cannot be randomly drug tested by the police without probable cause, it’s basically like searching someone’s house. Now, if you’ve been arrested for possession the police can certainly test you, but they can’t just walk up to you on the street and say “Here, pee in this cup.” Though I have a feeling people would have very interesting views of the police if they did.

Sadly, the response to a very logical legal argument (Supreme Court say that searches require “Probable Cause”) is generally countered by a much less logical emotional argument :

Sarah Martucci, a sophomore at Morris Knolls, told the room about a family friend whom she lost to drugs. “If there were more programs like this, then maybe I would still have (my friend) in my life today,” she said.

While such tragedies are always regrettable, one person abusing drugs does not mean that you treat that entire person’s generation like a bunch of potential drug abusers. Yes, you might catch someone who will slip under the radar, but rights can’t just be seen as a cost/benefit analysis. Would we be safer if the government videotaped everyone of us from dawn until dusk and had the capability to go through all that info to see who was breaking the law? Sure we would. There’s a reason we don’t do that. It’s a violation of our American, some would say human, rights. This is no different.

Comments(0)

Being a citizen in the wealthiest nation on the face of the planet affords you comforts that other countries could scarcely imagine. It also ensures that certain standards of treatment, climate control, clean water, sanitary food, are things that no person should have to worry about. The technology exists, and there is certainly enough money. So could someone please, please, tell me why a school in New Jersey has kids eating off the floor?

I would understand (maybe, though probably not) if this school was in some of the poorest neighborhoods of a suffering city like Detroit, or Chicago, but it’s not. It’s in a town called Mahwah, a small town in New Jersey where the median income (middle income in the area) is a whopping $79,500, a full $30,000 over the national average. How is it possible then, that their school system is so decrepit that a school of 1,000 has a cafeteria that only fits 300? Obviously the math teachers in that school need to go back and relearn arithmetic.

Now, as if eating on the floor like a dog isn’t insult enough, apparently, it’s also not very good for you. Who knew?!

Renowned microbiologist Dr. Philip Tierno warns 80 percent of all infectious diseases are spread through contact. So when a child touches the floor to sit, then touches a sandwich, whatever is on the floor can then be ingested.

“I would categorize it as stupid,” Tierno said. “I would characterize it as primitive, and the scourge of third world countries.

“You may be stepping on the fecal matter, sputum, blood, urine.”

Hmmm, fecal matter, sputum, blood and urine you say? Damn, that’s the worst secret sauce for the mystery meat I’ve ever heard of! Well, at least now the kids can complain about more than just the lack of robust flavor in cafeteria food. Oh but wait, it gets better!

The school would not release their own specific results from bacterial swab tests, but a parent forwarded those results sent home Wednesday, confirming the presence of dangerous pathogens like E. coli and enterococcus found in feces.

Since our interview, the school says it forbids the floor dining, opting instead for gym bleachers and other seating.

I gotta hand it to the school, some people would build a bigger dining hall to house everyone. Others might do something as radical as making 3 lunch periods so as to minimize the number of people without tables, but instead, the school just throws the rest of them in the gym. It’s tragic to think that the town can’t find the money to fix this, I can’t help but wonder what would change if the kids themselves could vote on the matter. Who knows, maybe they like E. Coli, I hear it tastes like candy.

Comments(0)

Before you go any further read this news story and try to contain yourself.

Alright? Have you taken it all in? Has the absurdity permeated every small part of your brain and caused you to think “What in the world?” (or probably something more profane, I try to keep my writing “family friendly.”) Do you, like me, think that this is absolutely ridiculous?

Let me give you a small, limited recap of some of the headlines in newspapers across the country today: “Secret US Endorsement of Severe Interrogations” (nytimes, found here) “North Koreans Agree to Disable Nuclear Facilities” (also NY Times, found here) “KKK Marking Was ‘Game Went Too Far’” (from CNN, found here). That’s only three that I could find with a very limited amount of time and effort. But just by looking around, I discovered that the US has endorsed torture, a black student was held down and had swastikas drawn all over him, and North Korea apparently is no longer going to enrich uranium.

Now, I’m no professional, but it would seem to me any of these issues is imminently more important the future of civilization than BANNING PEOPLE FROM WEARING COLOGNE OR PERFUME IN CLASS! The fact that I actually needed to write that sentence out is both amusing and disheartening. Think about it for a moment. Of all the issues a person might get riled up about, of all the various and far too numerous problems the world faces, 20 students, 20, have decided the most important thing they can tackle is people wearing a bit too much perfume. And the school is going along with it!

Don’t the administrators have something better to do like find a way to decrease tuition costs or find a way to get more grants for research? Shouldn’t the doctors, yes doctors, that these people have found to back up their absurd cause, be out… I don’t know… curing diseases or something? Why in the world does something like this matter? And even more importantly, who the heck do these kids think they are trying to get rules in place so they don’t have to be a bit offended by how people smell?

Don’t get me wrong, I find people who smell like they bathed in Aqua Velva unpleasant too. I hate the smell of coconut scented suntan lotion. I would not choose to spend time around people like that, and if I was forced to sit near them, I would find it slightly irritating. I don’t think I would ever, even if I was feeling especially flippant and sarcastic, equate it to something like second hand smoke. That would just be the height of pretension and idiocy. Oh wait:

“They know some people think the idea is silly, but fragrances are akin to secondhand smoke from cigarettes, said Kristin Oosterkamp, a psychology senior.

‘They’re both so volatile, and both you have to breathe in if you are in close range,’ she said.”

As damaging as second hand smoke? Really? So too much perfume causes lung cancer does it? Where in the world did that girl get her medical degree? I’ve heard Scientologists telling me about the evils of Lord Xenu the galactic tyrant that make more sense than her!

As much as I love activism, and trust me, I do, there are certain issues that seem absolutely absurd to devote our moral energy to. Some people look at our organization and wonder “Does it really matter what a bunch of teenagers and 20 year olds think?” I think the answer there is obvious; discrimination is simply contrary to everything a liberal democratic society stands for. Not only that, our positions are well founded in scientific proof and logic. We’re not saying things like smelling too strongly of perfume is like blowing smoke in people’s faces.

Obviously these students have a great deal of passion and energy that they have little else to spend it on. Perhaps they could try petitioning for American action in Darfur, or improving research grants to cure cancer or hey! How about lowering the drinking age? That sounds like a good cause! But seriously, This is just ridiculous, how can there be nothing better for these people to devote their time to?

Comments(0)

I see pretty appalling news stories every day on the youth rights news wire, but I have to say this one really got to me.

Basically, school officials in Arizona forced a 13-year-old to strip down all the way, even removing her underwear, just because they suspected she had some ibuprofen. This happened four years ago, and her mother rightfully took this to the courts, only for the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals to side with the school.

You know, you can say all these laws on youth are there to protect them and serve their best interests, under the delusion that adults always know better, but who was being benefited here? Certainly not the girl. What is she and other students being taught when they can be personally violated because of a mere suspicion that they may be carrying a perfectly legal substance?

I mean, at work, there’d be nothing wrong with me having, taking, or giving some ibuprofen to a coworker. We even have a first aid box with some ibuprofen packets for us to use whenever the need arises. Now, if I had cocaine or something, then yes, I’d lose my job and get arrested, and if this girl had cocaine, then I could see some real reason for the strip search.

But ibuprofen? The mild anti-inflammatory pain reliever sitting on our store shelves under the labels of Advil, Motrin, and others? Why am I, a 24-year-old lab assistant, allowed to take some for a headache or offer it to a friend with cramps, yet if a 13-year-old student does it, she’s basically a drug pusher?

You don’t care about her. That’s the truth. These zero tolerance regulations on students, this outright hysteria over drugs and teenagers in general, does not benefit the students in the least. It benefits school administrators who want to look good to the public who doesn’t know any better. Slap together some sensationalist news stories about teens and drugs, get the public terrified that drugs are everywhere, make them want a quick solution, and there you have teens once again being scapegoated so those in charge can make their constituents think they’re solving a problem.

Never mind that this girl was essentially sexually abused. I mean, why was removing her underwear even necessary? That sort of thing should only be done by law enforcement when an actual law is being broken, but in this case, wouldn’t happen because she was breaking no laws. The school just wanted to exert their control.

And that’s the other thing this is about. Most laugh it off, but it’s true. Those in charge think they can get away with treating teenagers so carelessly because, really, they don’t consider them their equals. They believe them to be lesser beings over whom they must dominate. They use the excuse that it’s for their own good, but who was this benefiting? If the girl had the ibuprofen, who is she harming? Theoretically, she could have taken the whole bottle if she wanted to kill herself, but that’s a stupid excuse, since there are so many other ways to kill yourself. Could she have given some to a student who was allergic or otherwise could not have it? Well, it’s up to that student to know better. That isn’t a terribly hard concept for a 13-year-old to grasp. Then again, it does seem a hard concept for their adult overlords to grasp.

No, this is just another example of adults impressing on youth over and over that they are not equals, that being equals is dangerous, being adult is dangerous, being self-reliant is dangerous. Only an adult can choose for herself to take a mild pain reliever or offer one to a friend. When a teen does it, she’s a criminal who has thus sacrificed the right to her own body.

So, yeah, tell me. How is this protecting them? Only thing protected here is the overflated adult chauvinistic ego, which seriously needs to come down a few pegs.

Comments(0)

Freedom of the press. Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. These are some of the principles that America was built on. But lately, one of our basic freedoms that treasure has been under recent attack. Recently, the Supreme Court has restricted freedom of speech in public school under the Morse vs Frederick case. Frederick, a student at Juneau Douglas High School, was suspended from school for refusing to take down a banner stating “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. The principal took disciplinary action against Frederick because of the message the banner conveyed to the student body of using illegal drugs. Frederick sued the principal,which has once again sparked a heated debate found in the majority opinion, concurring opinion and the dissent opinions of the justices of the Supreme Court on the free speech in public school.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion of the Supreme Court Case Morse vs Frederick. Within the context of the opinion, Justice Roberts rejects Frederick claim that this is not “a school speech case.” Roberts argues against this claim by stating that the banner was put up during a school approved social event or class trip. According to school district policy, “ approved social events and class trips are subjected to district rules for student conduct”.

Furthermore, Roberts brings the Tinker and the Fraser case to support his opinion in the current case. The Tinker case sets the precedent of, “ student expression may not be suppressed unless school official reasonable concluded that it will materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” Under this doctrine, Roberts felt that the principal had substantial reason to suppress Frederick right of free speech because it would be disruptive during the school event. But, Robert’s reasoning seems flaw on this point. It is hard to believe that a banner that states “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” can cause such chaos among the student body that it would impact the “work and discipline of the school”. In addition, there was no mention in any of the justices opinion of Frederick acting in any disruptive or chaotic manner that would rile up his fellow students.

Furthermore, Roberts uses the courts reasoning in the Fraser case to further support his reasoning. The Fraser case set the precedent that, “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other setting” because “in light of the special characteristics of school environment”. Schools have the responsibility of protecting students from harm and teaching students how to be productive citizens in society. In Justice Robert’s view, this is enough of a reason for the principal to restrict Frederick 1^st Amendment rights because “congress has declared that part of a school’s job is educating students about the dangers of illegal drug use. The principal saw that the banner as a threat to the school’s drug education by promoting to students to use illegal drugs.

The precedent set by the Fraser case is clearly a violation of the Constitution. The vague reasoning in the Fraser case gives schools the full authority to be able to violate students constitutional rights for any purpose. Schools should not be have such authority unless, a pupil is directly harming another or infringing upon some else’s rights. Students should be able to express themselves no matter where they are, especially at school. This was not the case with Frederick. The principal had no right to violate Frederick’s 1^st Amendment right of freedom of speech. Frederick was not directly harming any one around him or infringing upon anyone else’s Constitutional freedoms.

Furthermore, it is hard to believe that the banner hung by Frederick will make students use illegal drugs. Children are intelligent human beings with the capacity to reason. They are able to make informed decision with the education that they receive from schools about the consequences of drug use. In addition, those that choose to use drugs will do so with or without having Frederick’s banner up.

Moreover, Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in support of Justice Roberts majority opinion. Within the context of the Justice Thomas opinion, it is clear that he holds a very conservative view on the subject of youth rights. Justice Thomas states, “ In light of the history of American public education, it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment ‘freedom of speech’ encompasses a student’s right to speak in public school”. His reasoning for his argument is that history has showed that the purpose of public schools is strictly teaching the younger generation by having the youth be obedient to the teacher. He believes that allowing students to practice their 1^st Amendment freedom will, “ undermine the traditional authority of teachers to maintain order in public schools”.

Thomas’ opinion reveals that he is not doing his job as a justice. The justice job is to uphold the laws embedded in the constitution for those that have violated them. Instead, throughout his opinion he just puts his point of view in his concurring opinion and completely disregards what the Constitution states. The Constitution does not put an age limit on an age that qualifies a person to have their freedoms. The main message of the Constitution is not to excluded anyone from their basic Constitutional rights, including children. In addition, schools should not restrict students freedom because then they will be teaching against the values that the we hold so dearly. Instead, schools should encourage their students to be able to practice their Constitutional rights because then their students can grow up to become wise, responsible, and productive citizen of society.

In contrast, Justice Stevens wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg. Justice Stevens does a good job defending Frederick’s right to express himself under the 1^st Amendment. He states, “ in my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students”. He further states that, “this nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding, - indeed lauding – a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed”. Justice Stevens backs up his argument with the reasoning that Frederick’s intention for the banner was not to promote illegal conduct but to be seen on TV. Since he was not advocating any illegal conduct, hence his Constitutional rights should not be violated. Also, he proves that the principal only reason that she suppressed his freedom of speech was because she did not agree with Frederick’s point of view. He states: “the principal has unabashedly acknowledged that she disciplined Frederick because she disagreed with the pro – drug viewpoint she ascribed to the message on the banner”. Moreover, Justice Stevens acknowledges that it is ridiculous to think that a banner will influence students to partake in any illegal drug use.

Comments(0)

A piece in the Barre Montpelier Times Argus was a breath of fresh air. Even if only an oped, it is still nice to see the pro-youth point of view being published. Let’s have a look at this, shall we?

The rights of young people have been in the news lately. In Montpelier, student posters decrying public indifference to Darfur were censored by school administrators. In Barre, young people have been warned they can be arrested – solely because of their age – if they venture out at night.

Right off the bat, we see two vomit-inducing strikes at innocent young people. For one, students are not allowed to publicly renounce genocide in school? That’s what this is. It’s not like the school admins saw it that way. They figured the students were riled up about something or other and wanted to silence them to keep from being annoyed. That’s one possibility. After all, students are the inferiors of the situation. They don’t matter, right?

And let’s not forget good old Barre. A curfew? Why, because a few residents were offended and scared at the idea of those “horrible” young people being outside at night doing horrible things? Oh, right, they made up some junk about it being in place to prevent crime. After all, everyone knows teens out at night can only be out to destroy property or rape someone. Or is it to protect teens from being mugged or raped? These people need to make up their minds. In any case, we have yet another town enacting a curfew, the feel-good band-aid to cover up a municipality’s real problems and blame a scapegoat. That’ll get your votes!

To think these things are happening in perhaps the most freedom loving state of the union is even more disturbing!
(more…)

Comments(0)

On Thursday, the members of the School Leadership Team at Reynolds High School debated electronic devices and cell phone usage policy.  Despite the efforts of of the student council president and I, the committee voted to ban all cell phone usage during class changes, effective next year.  We were able to convince them to allow cell phones during lunch, however, which is better than nothing. 

An assistant principal and a few other teachers thought it would be best to leave the current policy as it is because the new rules will be unenforceable.  However, they were outnumbered.  At one time during the meeting, some members were even talking about adding a scrambler to the cell phone tower, but they realized that that would be unfeasible.  It would be too dangerous during a crisis situation where the administrators would have to use their cell phones. 

That night, I spoke to the Buncombe County Board of Education about the personal email accounts.  Richard Greene, the chair of the board, seemed to be willing to reconsider the ban. 

That’s all for now. 

Comments(0)

Dear A.C. Reynolds High School Administration:

Some members of the School Leadership Team have recently announced their desire to ban the use of electronic devices by students during school hours.  Some members believe that students should still be able to use these devices during their lunch period, while others are completely opposed to any changes.  As a representative of the student body, I officially declare my opposition to any changes to the current policy concerning electronic devices.

Students have many valid reasons to use cell phones during class changes and during lunch.  As it is, students are not allowed to use the phone in the classroom, and they are discouraged from using the phones in the office.  If a student needed to contact a parent or guardian during the day, he or she could use a cell phone instead of tying up the phones in the office and risking the possibility of being late to class.  Moreover, a parent can leave a message on his or her child’s cell phone, which can then be collected during class change.  In addition to contacting parents, a student may have a variety of other reasons for using a cell phone throughout the school day.

The ban of cell phones during class change and lunch will not affect the students who currently use cell phones during class.  Students will still have their cell phones in their possession.  Additionally, the use of cell phones during non-instructional time does not affect teachers at all.  Therefore, we do not see any need to punish all students collectively.  Instead of imposing these limitations, the administration should consider more productive methods of dealing with students who are actually caught using a cell phone or other electronic device during instructional time.

Thank you,

Adam King

Comments(2)