Say goodbye to creative writing class...

[EdipisReks]

Zero Tolerance rules (http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/10/24/boim.diary/index.html) at their absolute worst.

[CFLarsen]

"Rachel said she plans to stay at Roswell High if allowed to. "I have a lot of really good friends that go to Roswell," she said."

That explains it: It's the aliens, wanting to censor humanity. I bet the teacher and board consist of nothing else but aliens. :)

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if she wrote about how to kill Saddam. Maybe they'd given her a medal.

This is censorship. Dear Americans, you do not have freedom of speech anymore. Perhaps you should start being concerned about what right is next to go...

[shuize]

Whatever. First Amendment rights are limited all the time, especially in school settings. Or are Danish students allowed to tell their teachers to "f*ck off" and shut down schools by camping out in free speech protests?"

All parties in this little contrived drama are morons: The school for implementing a stupid zero tolerance policy. The student for being dumb enough to write stories about killing a teacher at school with the above noted zero tolerance policy. What'd she think was going to happen if noticed?

"What are you writing there, Rachel?"

"Oh, nothing. Just a story about a student fantasizing about killing her teacher ... Did I mention I grew up down the road from Columbine?"

"Well, that's nice. Carry on ..."

[Cinorjer]

"Zero tolerance" is a stupid policy, but we have the parents of the kids to blame. The school officials know that the school would be sued and they'd lose their jobs if they tried to exercise some judgement and anything at all happened.

Take this girl and her story. It was in her personal journal, and sounds like a creative story and maybe her way to work out a little frustration. But if she was involved in any trouble at a future time, a lawyer would say "You knew she was dangerous from the writing, and didn't expell her. It's your fault. We're asking for 20 million dollars!"

[Some Friggin Guy]

You know, I took creative writing in high school, and I did write particularly violent and disturbing stories now that I look back. I never actually killed anyone (that they can prove) and I turned out pretty normal, with the exception to my fascination with swords and Jell-o Pudding. I don't see what the school's problem is.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shuize
Whatever. First Amendment rights are limited all the time, especially in school settings. Or are Danish students allowed to tell their teachers to "f*ck off"

Yes. Not to say that there might be disciplinary actions, but there is no law that says they can't say that.

Originally posted by shuize
and shut down schools by camping out in free speech protests?"

Well, they can camp out (a pretty stupid thing to do in Denmark - it's bleedin' cold), but they can't "shut down" a school. What does shutting down a school got to do with free speech?

Originally posted by shuize
All parties in this little contrived drama are morons: The school for implementing a stupid zero tolerance policy. The student for being dumb enough to write stories about killing a teacher at school with the above noted zero tolerance policy. What'd she think was going to happen if noticed?

Can she write a story about killing Saddam?

Originally posted by shuize
"What are you writing there, Rachel?"

"Oh, nothing. Just a story about a student fantasizing about killing her teacher ... Did I mention I grew up down the road from Columbine?"

"Well, that's nice. Carry on ..."

No, no...not fantasizing, but dreaming. Should we teach children that they are to be held accountable for what they dream?

Kafka should have been an American.

[hammegk]

I think many of you misunderstand the implications.

The young lady -- and this publicity plus some writing skills (or a ghostwriter) -- should result in a best-seller, and $$$ for her. She can maybe buy the high-school. :D

[shuize]

Yes. Not to say that there might be disciplinary actions, but there is no law that says they can't say that.

As in most U.S. schools, expulsion is a punishment -- a disciplinary action. I don't necessarily agree with it. I think the zero tolerance policy is stupid, as I said. But so too is writing about killing teachers in school. Maybe it's not an issue in Denmark. In the U.S., unfortunately, teachers have been killed by students. I'd expect anyone from near Columbine, Colorado with any sense to appreciate that.

In any case, my point about not having the same First Amendment rights in school still stands. So too for other rights as well. It is common knowledge that you do not have the same rights against search of your person in the public school setting. Does that mean that all Americans have forfeited all their First or Fourth Amendment protections? Obviously not. Your statement that Americans "do not have freedom of speech anymore" was nothing more than hyperbole.

Well, they can camp out (a pretty stupid thing to do in Denmark - it's bleedin' cold), but they can't "shut down" a school. What does shutting down a school got to do with free speech?

Blocking the entrances as a form of political demonstration. Probably not the best example, but images of the anti-Vietnam college war protests came to mind. As did the anti-Iraq war protests in which protesters blocked freeway off-ramps. Was that not a form of political speech? Maybe you will say that speech is only verbal, but U.S. courts have held that non-verbal action is also a form of "speech." The question is what sort of "speech" is allowed and what is not. Such protests would not likely be allowed in U.S. schools. Restrictions on the time, place or manner of speech have long been upheld. That does not mean, however, that Americans have forfeited freedom of speech as you suggest.

Can she write a story about killing Saddam?

That's a good question. I don't know what the zero tolerance policy would say about writing stories about killing foreign dictators. Is it your position that a statement by a student that she would like to kill Saddam is the same as a statement that she'd like to kill Ms. Jones the Biology teacher? Even if you say it is, I still say she is a moron for making such a statement or writing such a story about killing a teacher at school. Especially when the school has a zero tolerance policy.

No, no...not fantasizing, but dreaming. Should we teach children that they are to be held accountable for what they dream?

Sorry. I don't see the difference. If she was dreaming herself your point is valid. Instead, Rachel was writing about a student who was dreaming (as opposed to fantisizing) about killing a teacher in school. A school with a zero tolerance policy. She's still a moron.

"Don't worry Ms. Jones, my story was only about a student who was dreaming about killing you. Not fantasizing about it ... "

edited for clarity

[Mr Manifesto]

Hey suize, did you notice that she wrote the story in her personal journal? Do you guys have any laws that respect privacy over there?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shuize
As in most U.S. schools, expulsion is a punishment -- a disciplinary action. I don't necessarily agree with it. I think the zero tolerance policy is stupid, as I said. But so too is writing about killing teachers in school. Maybe it's not an issue in Denmark. In the U.S., unfortunately, teachers have been killed by students. I'd expect anyone from near Columbine, Colorado with any sense to appreciate that.

It's not an issue in Denmark, no.

Originally posted by shuize
In any case, my point about not having the same First Amendment rights in school still stands. So too for other rights as well. It is common knowledge that you do not have the same rights against search of your person in the public school setting. Does that mean that all Americans have forfeited all their First or Fourth Amendment protections? Obviously not. Your statement that Americans "do not have freedom of speech anymore" was nothing more than hyperbole.

Really? Since 9-11 (at which time I lived in New York City), I have seen a remarkable - and disturbing - willingness in the US to abandon previously worshipped rights for the sake of a safety that cannot be had.

Originally posted by shuize
Blocking the entrances as a form of political demonstration. Probably not the best example, but images of the anti-Vietnam college war protests came to mind. As did the anti-Iraq war protests in which protesters blocked freeway off-ramps. Was that not a form of political speech? Maybe you will say that speech is only verbal, but U.S. courts have held that non-verbal action is also a form of "speech." The question is what sort of "speech" is allowed and what is not. Such protests would not likely be allowed in U.S. schools. Restrictions on the time, place or manner of speech have long been upheld. That does not mean, however, that Americans have forfeited freedom of speech as you suggest.

Hmmm...different countries, different customs. As I recall (I'm approaching middle age, so bear with me), there have been "occupations" of schools, but that usually takes place with the (unwritten) consent of the teachers, and only for a very short time - to drive the point home. We do not see violent clashes in front of schools.

Mostly, the kids demonstrate in front of the parliament. It's a good way to learn about democracy.

Originally posted by shuize
That's a good question. I don't know what the zero tolerance policy would say about writing stories about killing foreign dictators. Is it your position that a statement by a student that she would like to kill Saddam is the same as a statement that she'd like to kill Ms. Jones the Biology teacher? Even if you say it is, I still say she is a moron for making such a statement or writing such a story about killing a teacher at school. Especially when the school has a zero tolerance policy.

Yes, murder is murder, even though I would agree that snuffing Saddam might be viewed a little more lax. :)

If the school policy has not specifically stated what they can write about (or rather: NOT write about), then it leaves everything pretty much up to interpretation on a case-by-case basis. That really shows kids how to deal with reality: They know there are rules, but they don't know the content of them. Keep'em in a perpetual state of confusion and fear, that will produce really good citizens...

Originally posted by shuize
Sorry. I don't see the difference. If she was dreaming herself your point is valid. Instead, Rachel was writing about a student who was dreaming (as opposed to fantisizing) about killing a teacher in school. A school with a zero tolerance policy. She's still a moron.

What is this "zero tolerance policiy" really? No references to murder? Remove Edgar Allan Poe's "The Murders of Rue Morgue" from the school library. Remove any knives from the school cafeteria and biology lab, too.

Heck, remove the Bible, while you're at it....now, there's a thing with hefty references to all sorts of atrocities...

Originally posted by shuize
"Don't worry Ms. Jones, my story was only about a student who was dreaming about killing you. Not fantasizing about it ... "

edited for clarity

And? What is the relationship between this student and her teacher? If the kid is well-functioning, it shouldn't be a problem. Kids have a weird sense of humor. If the student were having problems, sure, look at the problem. But if this student had problems, they would not be solved by banishing her from school. Instead, the school should go in and help.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Hey suize, did you notice that she wrote the story in her personal journal? Do you guys have any laws that respect privacy over there?

That is also a very interesting point. I don't know how it was discovered. Was it taken from her in the hallway or (more likely I suspect) noticed when she was writing in it during class? Hell, I don't even agree with the zero tolerance policy in the first place, as I keep saying. But to repeat: The schools are morons for the "no exceptions" zero tolerance policy. Rachel is a moron for writing about killing a teacher in school. Very simple. Rachel's crusading father would be leading the charge in the opposite direction if Rachel were the subject of another student's in school writings in which he dreams of killing her, I'm sure.

You have fewer rights in public schools. It has been that way long before 9/11. If you're looking for a reference point, I'd say Columbine (just down the street from Rachel's old school) was a larger event in terms stricter school security. Even before that event, however, schools have had much greater authority to limit who comes in the schools (freedom of association), search of one's person or locker for suspected contraband such as drugs or weapons -- (freedom against search and seizure), and restrictions on some kinds of expression (freedom of speech). Is it not so in either Australia or Denmark?

I recall a school shooting in Tazmania a number of years back. Did the Australian authorities not tighten the rules on school visitors after that incident? I'll guarantee that after a man climbed through a window and stabbed a number of first graders to death the authorities here in Japan did. But wait, does that mean neither the Japanese or Australians have freedom of association?

Things must not be as great as I thought in Denmark. CFLarson informs us that students don't really have freedom of speech there either. I mean, how unfair is it for students not to be free to curse teachers or block entrances without fear of disciplinary action? That must mean that Danes no longer have freedom of speech. How sad.

So too with our heroine, Rachel. How terrible that she can't write stories about killing teachers in school. As CFLarson says, this obviously translates into the end of freedom of speech for Americans as we know it .... :rolleyes: But Rachel is still a moron.

[Boo]

I have a daughter that is in the 8th grade now. Recently this has been a very big topic of discussion in our house. While I do not always agree with the ACLU they do have an excellent section for middle and high school kids on rights and school. Justice Now website also had a recent program on this isuue that makes some very valid points on the issue of free speech, search and seizure, etc. as it pertains to students.

I guess that's one school that won't be assigning Bachman's/King's short story "Rage" for extra credit.




Boo

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Boo
I have a daughter that is in the 8th grade now. Recently this has been a very big topic of discussion in our house. While I do not always agree with the ACLU they do have an excellent section for middle and high school kids on rights and school. Justice Now website also had a recent program on this isuue that makes some very valid points on the issue of free speech, search and seizure, etc. as it pertains to students.

I guess that's one school that won't be assigning Bachman's/King's short story "Rage" for extra credit.




Boo

Considering King pulled it from print because he was afraid of Columbine copy-cats, doubly so. Idiot. :mad:

Fortuantely I got my copy before he did it. I might even print the whole thing on a web site one day.

[Charlie Monoxide]

"Zero tolerance" is a stupid policy,..... This is a true statement. A "zero tolerance" policy is just another example of people trying to control something by removing control. This is not unlike the drug prohibition and minimum sentencing laws in use today.

Charlie (zero tolerance with exceptions) Monoxide

[juryjone]

Originally posted by shuize
That is also a very interesting point. I don't know how it was discovered. Was it taken from her in the hallway or (more likely I suspect) noticed when she was writing in it during class? Hell, I don't even agree with the zero tolerance policy in the first place, as I keep saying. But to repeat: The schools are morons for the "no exceptions" zero tolerance policy. Rachel is a moron for writing about killing a teacher in school. Very simple. Rachel's crusading father would be leading the charge in the opposite direction if Rachel were the subject of another student's in school writings in which he dreams of killing her, I'm sure.

OK, how about if we get the facts straight first? From the Atlanta paper (http://www.ajc.com/print/content/epaper/editions/today/news_f3894cef913af08000a5.html):
David Boim said his daughter often carries her personal journal and did not have it in class as part of an assignment when it was confiscated Oct. 7. Art teacher Travis Carr took the journal during the class because Rachel was passing it to a classmate, Boim said.

Carr kept the journal overnight, and on Oct. 8 Rachel was taken from her second-period class by school police and her parents were summoned to the school.

Was she writing in it in class? Most likely not, but we certainly don't know that. It's not why it was confiscated. It was art class, and the journal contained "drawings, coloring, poems and other creative expression." It could have been passed to the other art student to show off a drawing. Then the teacher confiscated it, and, seeing that it was a personal journal, kept it overnight to read it. He took the non-specific story to be specific fantasies this girl had about killing teachers at Roswell High, and reprted it to the administration. At this point the girl was treated like a criminal, marched out of her class by police.

This was a STORY - not a description of her own inner turmoil, but an author's imaginings about the inner life - actually, just the involuntary dream - of a fictional character.

When I was Rachel's age, I read a lot of science fiction and horror stories. When I was writing for my own pleasure, that was the kind of stuff I tried to write. I guess I'm just a moron, too.

No, I don't think so. The girl was expressing herself in a non-violent, non-threatening, socially acceptable way. She needs to be encouraged, not tossed out of school. The only morons here are the adminstrators who refuse to make their own decisions.

[tamiO]

bump

[EdipisReks]

the zero tolerance policies should be removed. hopefully ridiculous things such as the girl being removed from class for a personal story will help the general public realize this, though this isn't the most ridiculous case of zero tolerance. there as a high school boy who gave his girlfriend his inhaler to help with an asthma attack. they both used the same inhaler and medicine, and a reasonable person would say that the boy was being concientious. he was charged with distributing a dangerous substance. i'll try to find the news article about it.

[hammegk]

Sorry, zero tolerance is needed so a school cannot be subjected to charges of racial discrimination. Stupid (or unlucky) kids will be punished the same without regard to race.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by hammegk
Sorry, zero tolerance is needed so a school cannot be subjected to charges of racial discrimination. Stupid (or unlucky) kids will be punished the same without regard to race.

that isn't the reason zero tolerance was implemented, and i've never seen that argument trotted out before.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


that isn't the reason zero tolerance was implemented,
Got a better reason you'd like to share?


and i've never seen that argument trotted out before.
Yeah, pc'libs hate the truth in plain English, so you don't see much of it. :)