MADD just sent out the following e-mail to their supporters.  They want to give Grand Theft Auto (GTA) an adults only rating because it features the crime of drunk driving (apparently all the murder, car jacking and other crimes in it are just fine with MADD).  “Drunk driving is not a game and not a joke” they say.  Apparently only responsible adults should drink and drive.  It isn’t appropriate for “youth”.

Oh wait, wasn’t MADD supposed to be opposed to drunk driving for *everyone*?  So why then would the game’s rating matter?  Why does MADD think it is somehow more acceptable for adults to drink and drive than youth?

Why also do they think limiting free speech is somehow an acceptable tactic in their anti-youth and anti-alcohol crusade?

MADD is encouraging their members to write the retailers below to pull GTA4 from shelves.  You’d be surprized what a few pissed off complainers can accomplish.  Don’t let MADD have the only say on this subject!

Write those same retailers and tell them that GTA is just a game and they shouldn’t stop selling it because a few mad mothers are upset over it.  Write them and tell them to stand up for free speech.

MADD’s e-mail:

Each year nearly 13,500 people die in drunk driving crashes and
another half a million are injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes.
This is why MADD is extremely disappointed by the decision of the
manufacturers of the game Grand Theft Auto IV to include a game module
where players have to drive drunk.

Drunk driving is not a game and it is not a joke. Drunk driving is a
choice, a violent crime and it is also 100 percent preventable. MADD
is calling on the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to reclassify
Grand Theft Auto IV as an Adults Only game, a step up from the current
rating of Mature and for the manufacturer to consider a stop in
distribution  if not out of responsibility to society then out of
respect for the millions of victims/survivors of drunk driving.

If you are concerned about the content of Grand Theft Auto IV, please
contact the retailers below and voice your opinion.

Amazon.com
206-266-1000
Online contact form
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-questions.html

Best Buy
612-291-1000
Online contact form
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat12104&type=page

Circuit City
804-527-4000
Online contact form
http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/genericContent.do?oid=209855&c=1

EB Games and GameStop
817-424-2000
help@gamestop.com

Wal-Mart
479-273-4000
Online contact form
http://www.walmart.com/cservice/cu_commentsonline.gsp?cu_heading=8

MADD Thinks Only Responsible Adults Should Drink & Drive 

Comments(0)

The following is a transcript of this video.

Politicians and public interest groups are always looking to protect youth. They have a long list of so-called bad guys that they believe are a danger to young people. Even if in all this, they ignore the very many actual dangers youth face every day. Maybe there are things they find much more important than the well-being of young citizens. But then, who’s going to help young people? Who really cares about them? I’ll tell you who.

That’s us! We’re the National Youth Rights Association, or NYRA for short. I’m Katrina Moncure, secretary of NYRA and board member. There I am holding my cat, Midnight.

Anyway, NYRA has many goals. We want to lower the voting age to 16. We want to lower the drinking age to 18. We want all youth curfew laws abolished. Those are our major goals, but we have lots of others, too.
(more…)

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)

There is so much wrong with this story, I hardly know where to begin. I guess I’ll start with a brief synopsis:

Megan Meier thought she had made a new friend in cyberspace when a cute teenage boy named Josh contacted her on MySpace and began exchanging messages with her.

Megan, a 13-year-old who suffered from depression and attention deficit disorder, corresponded with Josh for more than a month before he abruptly ended their friendship, telling her he had heard she was cruel.

The next day Megan committed suicide. Her family learned later that Josh never actually existed; he was created by members of a neighborhood family that included a former friend of Megan’s.

Now Megan’s parents hope the people who made the fraudulent profile on the social networking Web site will be prosecuted, and they are seeking legal changes to safeguard children on the Internet.

At first glance I figured this was one of your standard first amendment issues, where something horribly tragic happens and a grieving mother figures censoring the Internet is the best way to stop this from happening in the future. The canned response is that there is nothing special about the Internet that allows this to happen. People can succumb to hoaxes, teasing, and bullying through all communications mediums and I’m sure this isn’t the first girl in recorded history to kill herself over a broken heart (real or imagined). So censoring the Internet wouldn’t stop tragedies like this from happening in the future and would restrict the safe, lawful use of the Internet by the vast majority of users.

But that is such an expected response I get bored in saying it and probably wouldn’t bother to write up a blog entry for a matter that obvious. Then I read on.

Megan’s parents said she received a message from him on Oct. 15 of last year, essentially saying he didn’t want to be her friend anymore, that he had heard she wasn’t nice to her friends.

The next day, as Megan’s mother headed out the door to take another daughter to the orthodontist, she knew Megan was upset about Internet messages. She asked Megan to log off. Users on MySpace must be at least 14, though Megan was not when she opened her account. A MySpace spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.

Someone using Josh’s account was sending cruel messages. Then, Megan called her mother, saying electronic bulletins were being posted about her, saying things like, “Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat.”

Megan’s mother, who monitored her daughter’s online communications, returned home and said she was shocked at the vulgar language her own daughter was sending. She told her daughter how upset she was about it.

Megan ran upstairs, and her father, Ron, tried to tell her everything would be fine. About 20 minutes later, she was found in her bedroom. She died the next day.

Whoa. First of all, as established earlier in the article Megan had struggled with depression and was on medication. So now, she is extremely upset over things being said about her online, and calls her mother for support, help, and comfort, but instead of providing that her mother yells at her for using inappropriate language? What the hell is wrong with this mother? I wish I was more shocked than I am, but I can picture this reaction from quite a lot of parents out there.

If she cares about her daughter’s well-being, why wouldn’t she seek to comfort her when she is going through this kind of turmoil? Especially when she has a history of depression. If the girl was feeling alone, depressed and had a poor image of herself (because of the things “Josh” was saying) yelling at her and making her feel worse about herself is the single dumbest response I can think of. Especially if she is turning to you for support and comfort.

Then Megan turns to her father for help, and while the article doesn’t go into it too much (no doubt the father isn’t going to admit to the entirety of what he said to his daughter), it sounds like he was dismissive of her. She hung herself less than 20 minutes later. I haven’t heard of a clearer cry for help and a clearer failure to provide that help to someone who is hurting. 20 minutes later. She went to her mom and got yelled at, she went to her dad and got dismissed, and then immediately went to kill herself. Fucking hell, this isn’t the fault of MySpace or of the Internet, if you are going to charge someone, charge her parents for neglect. I’m appalled.

Furthermore, if the mother monitors her daughter’s online communications, she should have known how seriously Megan regarded this “Josh” character and would have understood her devastation at having him turn on her like that. The reason parents give to spy on their kids’ online activity is to protect them. What on earth are you protecting your daughter from if you don’t spot something like this? While I certainly don’t support monitoring anyone’s online activity, this was clearly a case where doing so could have helped save a life. But her mother failed at that too. I guess all she cared about was whether her daughter was using bad language. Great job mom, way to look out for your daughter. Once again, an over-protective parent fails utterly at protecting kids from true dangers and just causes grief over insignificant things like language.
But wait, this story gets more horrific:

Her father said he found a message the next day from Josh, which he said law enforcement authorities have not been able to retrieve. It told the girl she was a bad person and the world would be better without her, he has said.

Another parent, who learned of the MySpace account from her own daughter who had access to the Josh profile, told Megan’s parents about the hoax in a counselor’s office about six weeks after Megan died.

That’s when they learned Josh was imaginary, they said.

The woman who created the fake profile has not been charged with a crime. She allegedly told the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department she created Josh’s profile because she wanted to gain Megan’s confidence to know what Megan was saying about her own child online.

The mother from down the street told police that she, her daughter and another person all typed and monitored the communication between the fictitious boy and Megan.

Whoa again. This “Josh” who drove this poor girl to suicide was entirely made up. And made up by… (wait for it)….. an over-protective parent seeking to “protect” her daughter from the dangers of the Internet.

Let that sink in.

So two 13-year-old girls were being… 13-year-old girls and got into a bit of a spat. Instead of just letting them resolve things on their own, or handling things like adults the mother decides to be sneaky and spy not just on her own daughter, but the neighbor’s daughter as well.

I’m near speechless.

So either the mother learned all she needed to, and gathered all the dirt she wanted to on Megan, and decided to end it abruptly (and hurtfully) or the daughter, having this perfect window of opportunity presented to her by her mother decided to exact her revenge by hurting Megan by breaking off the imaginary relationship. Even if this hadn’t resulted in suicide, manipulating the emotions of Megan like this was such a cruel thing to do. More proof that catty, cruel, manipulative 13-year-old girls grow up to be catty, cruel, manipulative mothers. Or maybe it could be better said that catty, cruel, manipulative mothers raise their daughters to be catty, cruel, manipulative 13-year-olds.

Of course, catty, cruel, manipulative people of all ages (and genders) existed long before the Internet or MySpace. These two girls lived down the street from each other, so this was a real life feud that was just continued online. Nothing special about the Internet created or fostered this messed up situation. The one thing that did make the situation worse were two cruel, over-protective mothers.

Parents: leave your kids alone. Unless they come to you for help, then fucking help them, don’t yell at them. Both sets of parents should be brought up on charges and blamed for this tragedy. Not the fucking Internet.

Katrina is exactly right, people seek to protect youth for their own good, but it only exposes them to more danger. Instead of creating a fake profile to manipulate and spy on Megan, the other girl’s mom should have given her daughter some advice for dealing with the feud in a mature, reasonable way. Ya know, helped her by better preparing her to handle situations like this herself.

Instead she decided to set an excellent example for her daughter by being a catty, cruel, manipulative bitch and now we have one dead 13-year-old victim to show for it.

Comments(2)

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’ve taken a few courses on Constitutional Law, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not even a paralegal, but I feel I have a firm enough grounding on the fundamentals of Con Law to feel relatively confident in talking about constitutional guarantees to free speech.

In a story that seems to come right out of the 1700s, a mother of a teenage girl in Gillette, Wyoming wants to ban the book “The Shell Lady’s Daughter” from school libraries because, and I’m quoting, because I couldn’t make up more amusing wording if I tried: “The teenagers in the book show such a lack of moral integrity.” Ladies and gentlemen, she wants to ban the book because the characters might not be upstanding members of society.

Now, what is it these teenagers do that shows their “lack of moral integrity” ? An excellent question. A reasonable person would assume it has something to do with racist remarks, perhaps violence, drug use, betrayal of trust, theft or other such crimes. A reasonable person would be wrong, quite wrong. The “objectionable” material in question is nothing more than mention of, and once again, I’ll quote because it’s just that much more amusing: “sexual relations between teenagers, sexual thoughts, promiscuity, masturbation, deceiving parents, suicide and self-inflicted pain.”
I’m sorry, sexual thoughts show a lack of moral integrity? I must be a complete and utter reprobate then, as well as everyone else over the age of 12! And thoughts of suicide show a lack of moral integrity? Are you joking? I hope that’s a joke because what they really show is the character is going through a period of mental anguish, something that far too many people, especially teenagers, suffer through in silence. To say that a person having thoughts like that “lacks moral integrity” is a gross insult to everyone who suffers in pain and silence because they’re too ashamed to speak about their feelings and get help. If there’s any sort of justice, then there’s a special circle of hell for people who make those who are depressed feel like something is wrong with them, that they somehow “lack moral integrity,” instead of showing some empathy and pity by trying to help them.

What really gets me about this story, what just baffles me, is that the woman complaining about this book, which, incidentally won the American Library Association’s Best Young Adult Book in 1983, says that instead of giving youth books that might have some relevance to their life, that might help them make sense of the incredibly dizzying array of problems teenagers face, is to instead teach them to “cherish their purity.”

Heavens forbid we might try to give people a book that speaks to the unfortunate experiences that almost all teenagers go through in growing up. No, instead let’s give them books that show people living in a bubble, “cherishing their purity” and thus make those who don’t behave that way feel even more isolated and alone. Does this woman even remember what growing up felt like? Does she remember the loneliness and shame that came along with maturing? Does she really want to exacerbate that by making teenagers feel even more like freaks than they may already? What kind of sick twisted desire is that?

Thankfully, educators show a bit more compassion for youth than this deluded mother does. A librarian at the school has been quoted as saying “It’s a good coming-of-age story about a girl who is dealing with a lot of issues that girls deal with at that age. We can’t shelter our kids from reality. These are things that they are going to deal with in their life.”

Yes they are. And when they do, it’ll be comforting for them to know it isn’t abnormal, that other people go through these things too, and that there is an end to them. Teenagers already feel that the issues they go through already make them freakish, abnormal, strange, or “corrupted.” Giving them books that show that this isn’t some abnormal phenomenon can help them cope with their problems and issues that, to any normal person, are a bit overwhelming. Isn’t that what we should be trying to do?

The full article can be found here. Thanks to Monarch91 on the forums for posting the news story for this issue.

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)

This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), and shall remain in effect for no longer than 90 days, as provided for emergency acts of the Council of the District of Columbia in section 412(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 788; D.C. Official Code ‘ 1-204.12(a)).

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)