First I'd like to thank Ms. Aucoin and all of her fabulous students who posted their ideas on the blog. We ran into some technical glitches in Martinique but our participation should increase greatly. We really benefited from your many viewpoints and ideas and our class on the press was much livlier and significantly better informed than usual. I am extremely grateful to all of you.
This week's article is about Savana Redding and the Fourth Amendment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24savana.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=Savana%20Redding&st=cse&scp=1
Here are some questions I came up with to guide your postings:
1. How important is the Fourth Amendment? Should it apply equally in and out of schools? Should it apply equally to minors and adults?
2. What role should schools play in enforcing the law? What values do you want to promote in schools and to what extent are we willing to do so? What behavior do we want to condemn and how much of the school's responsability is it to enforce the law and eradicate bad behavior? (In brainstorming together Ms. Aucoin and I thought this might be a good opportunity for you to exchange ideas on school culture. Lycee Bellevue is VERY DIFFERENT from Queens High School for the Sciences. For example there's No Spirit Week no Halloween Parades, few cultural and extracurricular trips or dances. I find those differences interesting and worth comparing.)
3. Should Savana Redding be awarded a lot of money for her humiliation and to act as a deterent for having schools violate students's rights? Many Americans believe that we need to have dramatic tort reform because lawsuits have become excessive and harmful to our society. My friend, a lawyer, argues that lawsuits often serve to make our world safer and better. Recently the cafeteria at lycee Bellevue was closed because it was considered unsafe. There is a lot of debate in Fort de France about closing le lycee Schoelcher (http://www.alfred-mariejeanne.com/spip.php?article30) because it is really falling apart and is considered to be very dangerous for the students and staff who go there. My immediate reaction was that in the U. S. no school district would have allowed students to go into these unsafe places. What is your opinion on lawsuits?
4. When you read the facts in this case do you think the school was justified in their suspicions of Redding? To what extent should schools police student behavior? When QHSS first opened I know there was a debate about allowing students to eat at the York College Cafeteria and that some students allegedly went onto campus to smoke. Is it the school's responsability to watch over students and make sure they aren't doing what they shouldn't be? In contrast, lycee Bellevue has a very open campus where students can go anywhere and do anything for their 2 hour ( a little more than the 48 minutes QHSS students have ) lunchbreak. Is it a good idea to allow students this freedom? If they leave campus should the school still be held responsible?
My thanks again for your amazing participation and an extra special thanks to Shavita for her French!
Mme
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Listen to the description of the case on National Public Radio
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105923772
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLee says:
ReplyDeleteI think that from a practical point of view the case is very difficult. The obvious point that we do not want to strip search a girl in school to find out that she has no aspirin is almost irrelevant. I mean even someone who is completely outraged by the incident and misses all the subtleties of the case has to believe that you don't need Supreme court quality guidance to determine that stripping innocent people because of a rumor that they had a non-dangerous item is a bad decision.
(1) The school had zero tolerance program for a reason. Perhaps they were having problems with kids sniffing glue or getting high on markers or drunk on cough syrup. If a kid dies in the bathroom because he was trying to get high but was allergic to something innocuous like penicillin we might ask why the school did not educate, why they did not investigate rumors, why they did not take the in loco parentis responsibility seriously.
Admittedly this only gets you so far but it is the combination of factors and the limitation of resources that makes the case interesting.
(2) Do we really want our brightest minds in society (i.e. teachers) doing investigative work? We might have handled this situation better but maybe educators with good judgment should be in the classroom. If you want to create a reasonableness test as many people do (because this fact pattern is unreasonable but for other fact patterns it may not be unreasonable) then do you want a school to lose precious resources because a dean isn't as progressive or as sensitive as we might want.
(3) Was the plaintiff damaged? If you were required to get a physical for a sports team a doctor or staff member would see you mostly naked. If someone believes that there is a safety issue and you are subjected to the same thing are you really scarred for life?
(4) Journalists always talk about the fact that she was a honor student. Is that relevant? What if she was in the Bloods (a well known gang) two years ago? Is this how we want to make laws? I am guessing that if she were pure as snow that she would not have been named. I mean if you got busted for a drug crime and you wanted to blame someone else would you say I got my stash from Mother Teresa?
(5) Do we make blanket rules like never strip search in a drug crime? A dean finds drugs. He asks the girl where she got them. He is told that she got them from student x and student x has them on her body. Is it the worst investigative technique to try to catch the supplier? Don't people always criticize our drug laws for being too hard on low level users/ possessors and too easy on suppliers?
(6) We aren't just making rules for innocuous drugs. What if they thought she had a knife? Cyanide? A gun? She wrote a blog about wanting to reproduce what happened in Columbine? She told a teacher the she was gunna get what she deserved and then pointed to her pocket? What is she just had a bulge in her pocket she brushed up against something and it sounded like it was metal?
(7) I would never exclude a search. If the cops guess right you do not walk. This is not a game. We cannot wait for terrorists to strike. A good hunch is good enough for me.
I think school is a place to study subjects but it must also be a place where you learn to respect the law and to become a good citizen.But I also think that humialiting students to persuade them not to bring drugs to school is like behaving as if we were in a dictatorship, where the dictator uses the worst methods to make sure that his laws will be respected.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that security is important but if violence is the method used to have security, there will only be violence because human rights must always come first.If not no one should be surprised if one day students decide to rebel and revolt.It was absolutely irrelevant and ridiculous to strip Savana Redding even if it was to fight against drugs.Thirteen year olds should have their privacy too.
Je pense que l'école est evidemment le lieu où l'on doit apprendre le respect des règles de la vie courante parce qu'elle a comme les parents un role éducatif et pour but de nous amener à une certaine autonomie comme toute éducation. Mais ici l'autonomie aussi bien au sens de pouvoir penser par nous même que de pouvoir être un véritable citoyen responsable, et respectueux des règles. Cependant si la police elle même se met à entamer des recherches en se basant sur des rumeurs, et utilise l'humiliation pour ça, je ne pense pas qu'elle remplisse son rôle d'exemple. De plus, je pense qu'à cet âge là, on est assez timide et déjà bien effrayé en voyant une troupe de policiers nous demandant de nous déshabiller parce qu'on nous soupçonne d'apporter de la drogue dans l'établissement, donc je pense que Savanah devrait recevoir des domages et intérêts pour le préjudice commis parce que ça peut agir (en tout cas ça l'aurait été pour moi) comme un choc.
ReplyDeletePar ailleurs, en ce qui concerne les lois je pense en effet qu'elles étaient à l'origine établies pour offrir un monde plus sûr et meilleur. Mais je pense que ce qui compte c'est la façon de les appliquer, et aussi la nécessité de les accomoder à la société dans laquelle nous vivons qui sans cesse évolue. Ensuite, concernant le lycée de Schoelcher ici, c'est sûr qu'on arrive pas bien à comprendre comment alors que le débat sur l'insécurité du lycée Schoelcher dure si longtemps, on continue à laisser des élèves y aller et on ne fait que barrer des parties du lycée où des pierres tombent au milieu de la cour. Mais le problème est je pense, que des conflits politiques sont venus se greffer sur le problème d'insécurité du lycée schoelcher, au même moment que le débat sur le changement de nom du lycée est intervenu.
Et pour finir, sur la question de la liberté des élèves et de la responsabilité du lycée sur ce qu'ils font pendant leur pause, je pense quand même que l'établissement doit leur accorder une liberté,et que si on est pas interne, et que l'on sort du lycée, ce qui nous arrive ne dépend plus du lycée, et donc là, c'est en fait un moyen de mettre à l'épreuve la responsabilité des élèves et de leur accorder une certaine autonomie, parce que dans la vie active, ils n'auront personne pour veiller sur eux.
We at Lycée de Bellevue have strict rules too but we have never experienced Savannah Redding humialiation. For instance, we have to be be properly dressed or else the school officials won't let us enter. It's very annoying to wake up very early in order to arrive before seven and then to go back home , put on the proper shoes , or change our t-shirt.All that because we must look decent.We go to school to learn and not to be looked at.
ReplyDeleteWe are able to go out when we want but the only conditon is to be well-dressed.We rarely have fun in our school.When we go to school the only thing that we do is work. We work all the time and when we go home we still have a lot of homework : we are always tired. We have a lot of homework even over holidays.But I like my school because we strive a lot and this means that we have more chances to succeed.
This article raises an important issue : the violation of the 4th amendment which may be the most important one as it guards from unreasonable searches or seizures. The victim here was a 13-year-old teenager whose life has changed when forced to strip because suspected to carry drugs in her school. This incident stresses the fact that in any situation, school offcials have to behave properly and decently regarding the students no matter the case and the suspicion. Ms Redding's life has been changed since this incident and she suffers from trauma which has repercussions on her caracter.
ReplyDeleteIt also raises the problem about the 4th amendment and its apllication : does it concern minors or only adults? Moreover, how far does a school can go in order to police students' behavior? Does it excuse unreasonable searches? Besides, what should be the relations between law and school? What about the values school wants to convey to the students? Ms Redding's case emphasizes issues that already existed and allows people to get aware of the problems schools are confronted to nowadays. Does it not encourage violent behaviors to defend self respect?
J'ai trouvé cet article très intéressant. L'astuce du journaliste, c'est de partir d'un incident fort déplorable, celui de Ms Redding à l'âge de 13 ans, pour lever un problème bien plus vaste et plus actuel qui est celui du rôle de l'école, de l'actualité des lois et la façon dont elles sont appliquées, ainsi que celui du 4e amendement aux Etats-Unis. D'abord, il faut reposer la question de l'éducation : il est hors de question que le milieu soit anxiogène, les élèves ont le droit d'exiger des conditions optimales. Jusqu'où l'école peut-elle aller afin de faire valoir le respect et la sécurité? Qu'en est-il du respect de la personne, des valeurs? Les lois existent pour régler la société et faire en sorte qu'elle soit la plus vivable, paisible et juste que possible. Elles sont là pour garantir la liberté des citoyens, certes, mais aussi pour limiter celle de tout un chacun en vue de ne pas sombrer dans la liberté totale qui mène à l'absence de règles. Mais il faut tout de même préciser, qu'il serait temps que l'on adapte certaines lois au milieu scolaire afin que des bévues comme celles de Ms Redding ne se reproduisent plus. Pourtant, il me semble que l'école ne doit pas être réduit à des lois strictes comme une micro société dans la société, il ne faut oublier que l'école est le lieu de l'apprentissage de la vie et pour cela, il faut veiller à ce que cela reste un endroit où la loi et la justice ne viennent pas constamment interférer ! L'obsession de la sécurité, on l'a déjà vu, entraîne la peur de l'autre, la suspicion (comme dans le cas de la victime de l'article), et le racisme, ma xénophobie. Responsabiliser les élèves, c'est leur donner le choix du citoyen qu'ils veulent devenir. L'école doit être capable de rassurer des élèves et de leur offrir une alternative au monde dans lequel ils évoluent : nous passons plus de temps en classe qu'à la maison après tout...
ReplyDeleteA mon avis, la méthode employée pour mener à bien cette enquête n'était pas la bonne (évidemment!). Comme le disent certains intervenants, c'est une violation de la vie privée de l'autre,une atteinte à son intimité qui est d'autant plus déplorable qu'elle a été pratiqué sur une mineure de 13 ans! A cet âge, les évènements sont marquants et conditionnent la vie future de la victime tant au niveau de son insertion sociale que de son état psychologique! Et cet acte est d'autant plus révoltant qu'il a été commis par des dits éducateurs...on pourrait s'inquiéter de les trouver dans les établissements scolaires...
ReplyDeleteL'humiliation qu'elle a subie ne peut être compensée par une somme aussi élevée soit elle, la dignité ne se paye pas, ne se rembourse pas. De plus, les préjudices moraux dont elle a hérités, ne s'effacent pas avec l'argent, ni avec le temps: les images sont toujours présentes à l'esprit.
Toutefois cet article pose selon moi un problème essentiel, celui des méthodes, de ce sur quoi se fonde la police pour tirer des conclusions...hâtives! Il s'agit souvent de rumeurs (qu'ils considèrent comme des témoignages) ou d'éléments qui font office d'indices menant à la vérité (vérité dont ils sont souvent éloignés). Néanmoins, ils sont obligés de faire avec "les moyens du bord" ce qui conduit souvent des innocents en prison... C'est bien dommage. Mais la justice sans les erreurs de jugement n'existerait pas...Davina
Cet article est une preuve de l'existence d'une faille dans la gestion des problèmes de plus en plus nombreux dans notre société. Les gens sont dépassés par les évènements , ne savent plus comment arrêter la décadence de notre société (drogue, violence, alcool qui touchent une population de plus en plus jeune). Je n'essaie pas d'excuser le comportement de la police et de l'administration du lycée où étudiait Ms Redding, car en effet je pense qu'ils ont été trop loin et qu'ils n'ont pas réalisé à quel point leur acte pouvait être destructeur sur cette toute jeune fille à peine rentrer dans l'adolescence, cependant il faut prendre en compte l'impuissance des autorités face à des problèmes de plus en plus ravageurs.
ReplyDeleteIt's our duty and also the law's duty to find solutions to erase all the diseases of our society without claim many casualties! Moreover, police officers are legal representatives and I think that they have to set an example so if they want that people respect the laws , they have to respect it too. But, this article prooves that the Fourth Amendment is scoffed at by policemen!The Fourth Amendment is about citizens right and above all the individual's right to own and control his own body, and they scorned it when they obliged a thirteen years old girl to strip.
I think that this Amendment should apply equally to adults AND minors!!! In fact, minors are more vulnerable, they are fragile, so we have to protect them and do not intrusion in their private life because when you are a teenager,privacy is a really precious and important thing for your stability.
En ce qui concerne le Lycée Schoelcher, il faut s'adresser aux hommes politiques martiniquais qui font passer leurs querelles avant la sécurité des élèves. Pour avoir étudier 3 ans au Lycée Schoelcher, je sais à quel point il est en mauvais état et à quel point sa destruction est nécessaire ( même si j'y tiens beaucoup à ce petit lycée ^^).
To conclude, I think that this article permits to realize how different are the American system and the French system. I think that in France and in Martinique such event would had been really serious and grave like a crime because minors, here, are very protected by the laws! Policemen need definite pieces of evidence and arguments to do such search!
Joanna xxx
To begin, I REALLY agree about ALL Nisha says in her posts.
ReplyDeleteIn Martinique and in France - because I lived here before - there aren't such employees to do what the officials have done. There are employees who chek if you belong to the highschool, if you are properly dressed. But no one to search you. If such situation occured in our highschool, I think there was important lawsuits.
Against drugs, sometimes, a police car go in front of the school and look after the guys who are smoking. They can arrest him if he smokes drug ; but not because they suspect him.
In the US, school officials may search students if they have a reasonable suspicion that the student possesses contraband. But Redding's case presents the question of whether they must also have a reasonable suspicion that the contraband is being held in the student's underwear or a similarly intimate place.
Je ne pense pas, même pour la lutte contre la drogue, que l'on puisse aller aussi loin. A 13 ans, on entre dans l'adolescence, c'est le moment de la vie où le corps change, et parfois où on a du mal à l'accepter, et s'accepter soi-même. Une telle experience peut s'avérer humiliante pour une jeune fille, à tel point que Savanah a arrété de venir dans ce lycée là.
I don' think it's the role of the officials to ask someone to pull out his clothes. In such cases, parents should be called first. Even if school take an important part in our education, in making citizen, I don't think it is within its competence to search someone. I think that is the police work.
Au lycée, nous avons un réglement, non des lois. Si l'on enfreint ce réglement, le lycée se charge de nous punir à une juste mesure. Cependant, si la violation du règlement enfreint également une loi - par exemple la détention de drogue, d'armes, parfois même une violence physique sur un professeur - alors le cas est remis aux mains de la police. Mais dans tous les cas, les parents sont mis au courant. Je pense que c'est important, car ce sont eux les premiers à se charger de notre éducation. Et je ne pense pas que l'humiliation, en plus basée sur des suspitions, soit une forme bien pédogique pour apprendre à respecter les lois.
Il faut respecter cette hierarchie : lycée et police n'ont pas le même rôle. Même si le l'Ecole nous insère dans la société, il ne faut pas lui attribuer trop de pouvoir. Comme partout, il est essentiel d'imposer des limites.
D'abord je m'excuse de poster aussi tard, (quelques soucis techniques mais davina m'a tout expliqué maintenant ça va mieux!)
ReplyDeleteCe qui est arrivé à savannah me rappelle un incident dans une école primaire en france l'an dernier, en effet des gendarmes sont arrivés dans une classe d'élèves de cm2 et ont commencé à fouiller leur sac évidemment les parents ont été offusqués et ont voulu porter plainte contre l'école pour avoir autorisé une telle fouille.En ce qui me concerne je pense qu'il est clair que ce qui est arrivé à savannah est intolérable, cependant comme il est dit dans l'article le cas est épineux parce que s'il y avait eu un traffic de drogues dans cette école ou un incident en relation avec des produits illicites il est clair que les parents auraient été les premiers à accuser l'école de ne pas parer à ce genre d'évènements et de ne pas éliminer les élèves qui ont un mauvais comportements. Comme Davina le dit c'est plus la méthode employée qui est criticable, les employées de l'école auraient du savoir qu'ils ont affaire à une jeune fille et auraient du l'emmener dans une pièce privée pour ne pas la gener devant ses camarades. De plus il est clair que ce n'est pas le travail des employés del'école de fouiller les élèves c'est le travail de la police c'est d'ailleurs ce qui s'est passé dans mon lycée il y a deux ans. Il y avait en effet des rumeurs à propos d'élèves qui dealaient de la drogue,la police a donc attendu la fin des cours et a procéder à la fouille corporelle de certains garçons qui étaient suspects mais devant l'établissement et pas à l'intérieur sans doute pour connserver le lycée comme étant un lieu d'éducation et non un lieu de flickage. De plus j'ajouterai que je pense que ce genre d'incident ne pourrait pas arriver dans un établissement scolaire en France parce que la notion de "dignité de la personne "est très forte en France.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe fourth amendment is the second most important amendment of the constitution (next to the first one of course). This allows you to be left alone and protects from having your belongings searched or seized unreasonably without permission. It definitely needs to apply in schools as well as out of them. Even though minors don't have as many privacy rights as adults, there is a line for doing searches. A search is only reasonable if you don't cross it. A school needs to take steps to assure that its safe and promotes one's education. While violent behavior and drugs should be condemned, there is a difference between simply doing it going too far. Strip searching a 13 year old for a drug that is legal and non-lethal crosses the line and should have consequences. A school should discipline bad behavior but not go so far as to use inhumane methods and humiliation as a way to do it. I personally think Savannah Redding deserves some kind of compensation for this violation of rights. I do agree that such a system needs reform because if there are lawsuits all over the place about it, that can only mean something is seriously wrong with it. That's because we have lawsuits so people can get compensation for violation of rights and so an example can be set for people to not do it. If we didn't have lawsuits most businesses and people with power could easily get away with abusing power or using inhumane methods of obtaining information. The school was not jusitifed in their actions because like I said earlier, if you cross the line between enforcing a law and human decency, you can not justify that because you're violating human rights. It is a schools responsibility to ensure the safety of the students but the school should also not so far as to restrict all the freedoms that the kids have. They should only restrict when its absolutely necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei remember reading this article in class a month ago, and i most clearly rmember being offended and apalled. This girl was only 13 and she was violated by her school faculty under unconfirmed and bias reasons.
ReplyDeleteI believe that schools have some right to uphold thier 'law' but to go so far as to take off a young girls clothes and ... violate her, these kinds of cases are not justified. Savannah Redding Should be compensated for her harm, both physical and mental harm. She was just 13 years old, the faculty was going forward, illegally, without good proof, and going beyond thier legal rights by undressing her.
Rita D. Period 1 US Gov't
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Amendment is very important and it should be applied equally in and out of schools. The schools role should be able to enforce the law without going too extreme. Values that need to be promoted in schools are basic human rights such as freedom of speech and the right to express oneself to the extent of not disturbing the order, that must be maintained in a school. Behaviors such as taking drugs, smoking, and hurting people must be condemned and schools have a great responsibility to enforce the law and eradicate bad behavior. In QHSS, such behaviors are rarely seen. However our school is very strict when it comes to having cell phones and ipods out on school campus. And we would get detention for playing card games, which would be considered as gambling.
In Savanna Redding’s case, it was inappropriate to have a strip search without much evidence but I believe she should not have been compensated with money; instead, those that humiliated her should be forced to take lessons on how to handle such situations in a proper manner. And to help herself, she should learn to speak up, and defend herself against such practices. Lawsuits on such cases will only increase if money is involved as a reward for being humiliated.
Or in French
Le Quatrième amendement est très important et il devrait être appliquée de façon égale dans et hors des écoles. Le rôle des écoles devraient être en mesure de faire respecter la loi, sans aller trop extrême. Les valeurs qui doivent être promues dans les écoles sont des droits fondamentaux comme la liberté d'expression et le droit de s'exprimer dans la mesure de ne pas troubler l'ordre, qui doit être maintenu dans une école. Comportements comme la consommation de drogue, le tabagisme, et les gens souffrance doit être condamné et les écoles ont une grande responsabilité d'appliquer la loi et d'éradiquer les mauvais comportements. En QHSS, de tels comportements sont rarement vus. Cependant, notre école est très stricte quand il s'agit d'avoir des téléphones cellulaires et des iPod sur le campus scolaire. Et nous obtiendrions de détention pour jouer à des jeux de cartes, qui seraient considérés comme des jeux de hasard.
En cas Savanna Redding, il était inapproprié d'avoir une fouille à nu, sans beaucoup de preuves mais je crois qu'elle n'aurait pas dû être compensé avec de l'argent, mais plutôt ceux qui humiliée ne devrait être obligé de prendre des leçons sur la façon de gérer de telles situations de façon appropriée . Et pour s'aider elle-même, elle devrait apprendre à parler et se défendre contre de telles pratiques. Poursuites sur ces cas ne fera qu'augmenter si l'argent est impliqué à titre de récompense pour avoir été humilié.
David Gonzalez Pd 1
ReplyDeleteI remember reading this article in class a month ago, and i most clearly rmember being offended and apalled. This girl was only 13 and she was violated by her school faculty under unconfirmed and bias reasons.
I believe that schools have some right to uphold thier 'law' but to go so far as to take off a young girls clothes and ... violate her, these kinds of cases are not justified. Schools often rely too much on thier biased views towards teenagers, and even at times towards certain races of teenagers. If there is only one institution I could call an offense to the entire consitutional system we have in this country, it would be our school system. Savannah Redding Should be compensated for her harm, both physical and mental harm. She was just 13 years old, the faculty was going forward, illegally, without good proof, and going beyond thier legal rights by undressing her.
There is nothing more to say about this topic other than it has been a serious offense to the people, and to our consitution. This unjustified search is exactly what, word by word, our 4th amendment works to protect.
By the way, i could write a book about how much i hate the Profile system of this blog site. It was erased my work, twice tonight, delaying me from doing any other homework for an entire hour.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think what happened to Savannah Redding was a gross exploitation of the power given to schools. While agree that students shouldn't have the same privacy they have in public places that they do in school grounds. That being said, schools should not be allowed to strip a student without a better reason than a faculty member thinking a student is hiding prescription drugs. You must have better evidence then a hunch. Even then, the mother should have been called about the situation. Under no condition should a thirteen year old girl have to strip in front of strangers.
ReplyDeleteNazmul Ahmed.
Derek Y.
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Amendment is extremely important. Everyone has a right to his or her privacy, even students. It should apply in schools, but it obviously cannot be applied the same was as it is in the outside world. School officials are responsible for the safety of students, and have the right to go through means that can possibly deemed unconstitutional to protect the students and staff. However, what happened in Savanna Redding’s case was over the limit. Her bags and belongings were checked, and I believe that was more than enough. She had no pockets or anything to hide it in. The strip search just seems like plain violation, especially because she was thirteen years old. And the most surprising thing was that the search was just for some Motrin. Although not allowed in school, Motrin is nothing to scar a girl for life for. The baggage checking should have been enough. Also, her parents were not notified, and that should have been the first action taken. Schools should definitely try to enforce the laws but they need to think in an ethical manner as well. After all, school officials are also human, so they should be able to stray away from the code, and decide what is right from wrong. Savanna Redding should definitely be awarded a sum of money. At such a young age, who knows what kind of trauma the school officials could have caused her. It is really outrageous to think that any school could possibly get away with it.
If you were an adult, or even a group of adults, could you force a 13 year old girl to expose herself and justify your actions? If you can't, then that's great. Because you shouldn't be able to. I read this article along with the others here at QHSS and my opinion was like many of the class- blatantly against the idea in its entirety. What shocked me just as much is the fact that some of our classmates (and no, I do not even remember who) supported the school's actions.
ReplyDeleteSpontaneously, I just thought that all the articles we tend to read in class are shocking and/or appalling. Are you trying to shock us into action (whether in class or out of class), Ms. AuCoin?
ANYWAYS, David is right in saying that this is an example of exactly what the Fourth Amendment is protecting us from: unwanted search and seizure. What I am interested in is if any similar cases had occurred in the school or in general, and what they were looking for. There was virtually no evidence besides a rumor from a friend who had been caught. Is it me, or does this bring back memories of the Salem Witch Trials? It's like arresting someone for relationship abuse based on the whisperings in the hall, and nothing else.
Now I do believe that schools should protect their students as well as their faculty. It is their responsibility and their obligation to do so (is that redundant?). Something like closing a cafeteria or preventing students from leaving campus is understandable (although I am among those who would rather go down to the Ave to buy some lunch every now and then) but please: with reasonable evidence? A kid is hit by falling floor tiles->close the cafeteria. A kid punches out another kid and blames it on disrepair and no one's gonna rat->close the cafeteria. It's that simple. Guns? Bad. Advil? Not so bad, unless a kid is found OD'd in the bathroom. And thank goodness our school is a small one, for matters like this.
Forrest Pd 2
I think the school officials were on drugs.
ReplyDeleteThey shouldn't have strip-searched the poor girl, under any circumstances. Especially when they didn't have any proof. All they knew was that a kid told them that Savana might have drugs, which is not even that reliable. I wonder what made them think that they can just go against the 4th Amendment and strip a 13 year old kid.
Sure, they have to make sure that the school is safe and drug-free, but they also have to make sure that the kids are protected on the school grounds. If the parents trust school enough to let their kids attend, it's the school's responsibility to keep themselves trustworthy. Strip-searching a girl, and forcing her to get naked and humiliate herself without any valid reasons, totally goes against that.
I believe that the school officials should not be given that much authority and power unless the students also attain the power to refuse. School should be a place to LEARN, not a place where students get abused by the school officials' power.
Savana Reddings definitely deserves a compensation, because the school practically ruined her life. Such humiliation is not easily forgotten. Savana probably will never be able to forget that horrible experience.
Something should be done to make sure that things like this won't ever happen again in other schools.
-kate lee pd 1
I think that the Fourth Amendment is very important because people should have the right to privacy, especially if the search is uncalled for or unreasonable. The Fourth Amendment should clearly be in effect in and our of schools because it's our rights, as stated by the Constitution. Also, I think that everyone should be entitled to this right because everyone should have his/her own privacy, unless there's a probably cause or the situation calls for it.
ReplyDeleteIn enforcing the law, students should only do what's necessary and not act solely on "good faith" because that "good faith" could just be faulty. I think that schools should promote values such as honesty, respect, courtesy, and whatever else related to being a morally-just person. Schools shouldn't be so harsh on students when they do something wrong because kids will learn from their mistakes. Instead of punishing them, school officials should try to teach them and guide them in the right direction. For example, a kid who gets caught smoking could get suspended. However, it might just be his/her first time or s/he could be a great kid who just made a bad decision, and by suspending that child, it could jeopardize his/her future. That's not what schools are for; they're for teaching and preparing kids. However, this doesn't mean that all offenses should be easily overlooked. Of course, some actions are more severe than others, but disciplinary actions should still be reasonable.
Savana Redding should definitely be awarded money for her humiliation because the officials clearly violated and traumatized this girl. It's not right for people in general to get away with such actions. The school acted out of "good faith," which I said could be faulty, and obviously it was wrong. Even if she did have drugs, someone shouldn't have to be put through a strip-search because that's just unnecessary and uncalled for.
I do think that schools should make decisions on whether or not places are deemed unsafe, like the cafeteria at Lycee Bellevue. when kids are in school, the school is responsible for their safety.
I think that SOME lawsuits are necessary, but not all. However, I don't necessarily think that lawsuits make our world safer and better. For example, Judge Hawkins sided with the school because he thought that the search was "an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students." It's obvious that the judge's decision didn't make the school safer and a better place; it made it the opposite when the judge sided with the school. Parents are going to be worried about their kids when they're at school, since it wasn't such a big deal for the judge that a girl was strip-searched. This was a poor decision on the judge's part.
Schools should only police students' behaviors if they're disrupting others or making the school unsafe or endangering others. As a school that's partnered with York College, I think that QHSS students should be able to eat there. There's nothing wrong with eating at the college's cafeteria, especially since there are school officials to look after us. As for smoking, I think schools should just let students be unless it's necessary to take action. It's the student's decision. Also, I think that students should be able to roam freely for lunch instead of being confined on campus. If students step off campus, I don't think that schools should be held responsible because it was the student's decision to step off campus, where schools don't take responsibility
Eu'nice 1st Period
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard of the story about Savana Redding, I was very shocked that such a search happened at a middle school with 8th graders. The article that I read, told her story like the reason why she was searched was because they school officials found her planner in a book bag that was supposed to have contained the illegal pills that they were searching for. With further research into the situation, and from knowing that at the time a lot of cases of little kids with drugs in the school, I believe that the school acted in good faith in their search. Maybe they didn’t have to take it as far as to have a full blown strip search but the school was required to have acted on the information that was presented to them.
In support of Ms. Redding argument, she said that the school had no right to search her, and that they should have checked her records. The district response to this was, “Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules,” the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, “only that she was never caught.” When I first read this, I thought wow how could the school say something as controversial as this statement, but then I thought the school has every right to say this. Not all the people who break the rules in school get caught, there are some smooth criminals.
The school has a great responsibility in enforcing the law and uploading the rules established by the Board of Education and such. If schools did not enforce the law, then everyone would wreck havoc on the system of education. Complete chaos would rampage the school and nothing would get learned. The home is the first place where you are supposed to learn the values that you will carry throughout your life. As a child, when you first begin to go to school, the school job is to reflect those values and morals that you either did or did not learn at home.
Technically from the moment you step onto school grounds until the moment you step off, you’re considered the responsibility of the school. From this schools say that this means that they have the right to police people’s behavior because if you are caught doing something that you are not actually supposed to then the school is at fault. At QHSSYC, the main problem that the school has is that some of the students in the school have a smoking problem and smoke on and off the campus. While on students are on campus, school officials have ever right to block students from smoking. What they do off the campus and in their homes doesn’t even matter but when someone steps onto the school grounds they got to realize that the school is liable for their every action. The 2 hour lunch break that the students over in Martinique must be wonderful but in America that just doesn’t happen. You cannot just go and do what you want because in America, the school is responsible for you during the scheduled program time that you have even and if you go off campus and get hurt the school is responsible for that.
Queens High School for the Sciences at York College seems very different from Lycee Bellevue in Martinique but the differences have more to do with the culture differences. In the United States, the school system has taken on a policing role due to the outrageous behavior that some students have and they have every right to due so.
I feel as though the experience that Savannah Redding went through is a prime example of how young adults and teenagers are not completely protected by the constitution and how authoritative figures or establishments can take advantage of their power over the students.
ReplyDeleteSavannah Redding was violated over a something that should not have been escalated to such a point; the search for Advil. It is understandable that the schools need to keep themselves safe but reverting to a strip search to locate a substance such as Advil is taking the pseudo guardianship of the school officials to a whole new level. This violates a citizens fourth amendment rights to unreasonable searches and the only defense the school can provide is that they had the best interests in mind.
The fourth amendment is important, but there will always be exceptions. Take the security checkpoints during wartime at airports as an example. If we set off the alarm we may be pulled aside and be "searched" by a security guard who has had classes and proper training to search the suspected individual. It is usually quick and efficient. I've been through the process several times because I forgot to take off a bracelet and I haven't felt violated through the supplemental search. But in the case of Savana, I would feel violated even if the school does have a "zero tolerance" policy towards drugs but that reason can never justify that type of search. It's hard to believe a student would keep pills in his/her private areas and it's so unreasonable to strip search a student in such a dehumanizing manner to see if an assumption is correct even after questioning and the bag search. Basically, it should have stopped after Savana's bag was searched and there was no evidence of pills.
ReplyDeleteAs for the equality of the fourth amendment for minors, I feel that if school officials have reasonable suspicion that a student is carrying a weapon or drugs that they should be able to search the student's locker and/or bag by notifying the student. The student should be able to accompany them to explain anything if the officials have questions because they can assume wrongly. Also, if there are any electronics found such as an ipod or cellphone, it shouldn't be confiscated in that manner. The types of items the officials are looking for are for the suspected items that shouldn't be in school.
I feel that she shouldn't receive a lot of money because you can't really receive payment and feel better about the situation like that. Even though those people shouldn't pay a lot, they should be reprimanded in a serious manner for causing this type of trauma to a minor. No one should ever go through what Savana went through. I hope schools around the nation read this case and learn. And the paying situation is like the Black Friday Walmart incident last year where a worker at Walmart was trampled to death by holiday shoppers. Walmart payed the family for his death, but money won't bring that person back, nor will it return a person's dignity once it is lost.
I agree with David about the profile system. It's horrible. I typed up the previous homework response in Notepad to realize that this comment box wouldn't let me paste into it. So this time I just typed directly into this cramped box.
Janine R.
The Fourth Amendment is really important because it protects the public from unwarranted searches and seizures. For instance, an official can’t just barge in your house and take whatever he/she pleases (like they used to in the 18th century) without a warrant. One needs reasonable belief or a good suspicion that you are hiding something before one can issue a warrant. In the case of savannah Redding, school officials believed she had Aspirin or ibuprofen pills with her and was supposedly dealing them to other kids. It was fine to check her belongings, but to ask her to strip to her bra and panties was just absurd. I understand that school officials are suppose to maintain a safe environment for students, but to strip search a 13 yr old with no suspicious record were just uncalled for. Everyone, minors and adults alike should have equal claim to the Fourth Amendment. Clearly Redding’s right was violated as school officials went to the extremes. If anything, strip searches in schools should only be obligated if a student is SUSPECTED of having a gun (or any weapon that could pose a SERIOUS THREAT) on them. If they had thought about this earlier, the lives of so many students in Columbine High School and Virginia Tech University would’ve been saved.
ReplyDeleteSo long as we are on school property or school time, the school is responsible for us. So for instance, I think officials fear letting students leave campus for lunch because they can’t monitor our safety as we would be out of their sight. Yes we want a little privacy, but I’d take safety over privacy any day. The neighborhood of QHSSYC isn’t really one to brag about: we are in the heart of Jamaica Queens, where throngs of people crowd the streets as they exit the train or bus. So I mean we are exposed to a lot of people, if we were allowed to leave campus for lunch and god forbid one of us gets kidnapped, killed, raped or what have you, parents would blame the school for lack of care and responsibility. So in cases like that, it is necessary for school officials to have more control over what we do.
-Cade D
ReplyDeletei think the fourth admendment is defintely one of the top three admendments with the freedom of speech and due process because it is essentially your right to be left alone. it should apply to everyone and everywhere to a certain extent depending on the location, because yes there is a need to be secure in your persons but there is also a need to be safe.
i do agree that schools should have some role in enforcing the law, but should they have the power to snap opinion based decisions, no. everything that the school adminstration based their search on could be seen in two ways the first being the kids are all hopped on drugs and the second being kids just being kids. i was not there but i would like to believe that the kids were not drunk and high but rather excited and and having fun. i think that schools should have the power to do a simple search of bags, pockets, and lockers. anything further than that should not be necessary .
using lawsuits as a deterent is a great idea. my mind is drawn to 2 places when i think about this. the first being the play "Inherit the wind," which is based on the scopes monkey trial and near the end the lawyer for the defendant said that they may have lost the trail but he has given courage for the next guy who has to stand up the defend what is right. the second is a child who repeatedly tries to stick his fingers into an electrical socket. he wont learn his lesson until he gets a shock from it. the same idea is used in using a lawsuit as a deterent.
in my mind high school is the tansition from kid to adult. so we should have ample freedom so that we won't go overboard with it when u do get it.
christine yung
ReplyDeletein my opinion, the fact that Savana Reddings was stripsearched to her undergarments and even a little more after that is ridiculous and too severe. i would understand if it was a high school but this girl was only 12 years old and she was searched just because a student suspected that she has some aspirin. i mean even if it was aspirin, it would have proabably been only two pills. To have anyone suffer what she has suffered is incorrigible and horrific. i have a feeling that she will take a long time to get over this.
the stripsearch that searched reddings all the way down to her undergarments was definitely against her rights because they forced her to take her clothes off. she revealed her innermost private body parts and that is not reasonable.
there should definitely be a reconsideration of all policies that include stripsearching.
Premièrement je tiens a dire que je suis tout à fait d'accord avec le point de vue de Johanna.
ReplyDeleteSelon moi l'histoire de Savanna doit etre perçu a deux niveaux.
Le premier est que son histoire révèle une faille dans le système scolaire , ils ont certes mis en place le système de tolérance zéro pour diminuer la délinquance à l'école mais certaines personnes semblent abuser de cet autorité qu'ils ont sur les élèves.
En effet la secrétaire et l'infirmière de l'école n'ont pas bien réagi face au problème qui se présentait à elles mais il ne faut pas leur rejeter toute la part de culpabilité car l'ordre vient plus haut.
L'ordre vient du chef d'établissement et cet ordre est injustifié et il a ainsi utilisé une loi qui selon lui estait nécéssaire srelon les circonstances mais avec du recul on voit bien que non.
Le quatrième amendement vise avant tout a rester la vie privée d'autrui or ici ils ont enfreint cette loi car ils ne se sont pas basés sur des faits prouvés et justifiés mais sur des " on dit" et des commérages.
Je ne sais pas si par autrui les jeunes surtout mineurs ne sont pas inclus mais moi je dis que dans ce cas précis des mesures aussi humiliantes n'étaient pas nécéssaires, ils l'ont traité comme une criminelle et non comme une enfant.
Moi je dis que ne serait ce que le fait d'aller chez le medecin est déja genant alors allez voir dans ce cas si ou en plus ca 13 ans le corps commence a se métamorphoser.
Ensuite le role de l'école est avant tout éducatif , on doit justement y apprendre le respect des lois mais si l'école qui doit montrer l'exemple ne le fait pas pourquoi devrait-on le faire?
Moi je dis premièrement que le chef d'établissement aurait du premièrement s'assurer de la véracité des évènements et ensuite agir en conséquence mais surement pas en lui demandant de se dévétir pour voir si effectivement elle cachait de la droque.
C'est pour cela que je pense que les préjudices qu'elle a subi ne sont nullement oubliable avec de l'argent et je pense que moi à sa place j'aurai refusé car j'aurai été amer vis a vis de cet argent. Certes je ça que cela lui aurait été bénéfique dans un pays ou les frais d'inscription sont excessivement cher mais quelle aurait été la satisfaction de payer ces études de cette façon? le souvenir de ce qu'on a vécu aurait été constent mais aussi l'argent ne peut pas excuser les dommages psychologiques qu'elle a subi.Il faut surtout se rappeler que à l'époque elle n'avait que 13 ans elle etait une jeune fille a peine sortie de l'enfance.
Je pense qu'avant tout il y a un excès de liberté car certes les lois sont faites pour ça mais on doit murement refléchir avant de les utiliser comme pretexte car n'oublions pas que notre liberté s'arrete ou commence celle des autres.
C'est sur qu'on ne peut pas savoir à l'avance ce que chacun projette de faire mais il ne faudrait pas que cela devienne une fixcation aussi.
C'est pour cela que moi je dis que finalement Savana aurait pu parfaitement refuser de se deshabiller car il ny avait aucun fait pour prouver cela j'admets qu'on doit se soumettre a l'autorité mais son cas relève de l'abus d'autorité et de l'exagération.
i think the fourth amendment is essential to our rights. it should apply equally in and out of school and equally to minor and adults. it doesn't how old a kid is, no one should have the right to invade their privacy and humiliate them. they don;t know what sort of pain they are causing. just like adults, a minor also has self respect, and rights.just because they are in school and young, doesn't mean others can take advantage and not treat them like a human.
ReplyDeletei think school should take responsibility for these issues but not to an extent where they strip a student. they should give detention for bad behavior and of course kids should be punished for doing something unsafe and violent. however, there are other ways to enforce the law. they could have asked her questions, call her parents first, or check her records. they shouldn't just jump to strip search. i think spirit week, Halloween parades and such events are very good for students . it allows them to see each other as part of same thing. they have spirit for their school and they have a feeling of togetherness through these events. it allows them to accept each other for who they are, and therefore, leads to less jealousy, cliques and hatred towards each other. also, cultural differences at Queens High School allows us to be very tolerant of each other's culture, ideas and perspectives. we don't immediately jump to conclusion because we accept the fact, we are different and we come from different backgrounds. we enjoy the differences.
i don't think she should be awarded lots of money for her humiliation. i mean you seriously can't compare her humiliation to money. giving her money would send a wrong signal to other students. they might have a feeling to find something wrong about their school and report it. just because one school did a mistake, not all the schools should be put into jeopardy. however, they should definitely change the law, and make it more specific so it doesn't happen again. they should also punish the staff members for their obvious incorrect judgment. our school should be a safe place for us, not a place where we look for faults in other students, teachers, and schools; but a place where we can safely learn from each other.
i don't think the school was justified. the reasons they had is not enough to strip search someone. they assumed that they are because the way they are acting because a lot of kids act goofy, it doesn't mean they are high of a drug. they just took someones words to blame her. how did they know, they have a reliable source? anyone could be making up stories. its the schools responsibility to find the truth before punishing and humiliating someone with strip search. i think giving students freedom is a good idea. at least to high school seniors, because they are almost adults, and they deserve the freedom to explore. i don't think the school should be held responsible for that, because what can they possibly do, if the students are allowed to roam all over. the school can't stalk them and keep an eye on them. but if they happen to see them smoking, they should stop them but even then it is to a limit. you really can't force someone not to smoke, they can do it somewhere else if not there. they school can only advice on such things. they school should teach about anti drugs and spread awareness about reality among its students.
Anesh PD.2
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Amendment is very important because it keeps contraband off of peopel and our streets, while giving us privacy at the same time. It requires that searches and seizures must be reasonable, and that warrants for searches and arrests must be specific. I think it should be applied equally in and out of schools because just because we are in school, it doesn't mean that teachers can have complete control over us. We should have protective rights where ever we are because if we let teachers do whatever they want, then they would just abuse their power. The Savanna Redding incident is a great example of this because it accurately portrayed a teacher abusing his rights over students. I believe that it should apply equally to minors and adults because we all should have the right to be let alone. No matter what age we are, we all must have the right to privacy and if the authorities have a probable cause to search us, then they have the right to. No matter what age we are I think that the fourth amendment should apply to everyone.
If the search was for something more dangerous, like a gun or crack, then it would be more justified. But to go through such great lengths to just search advil pills, is rather ridiculous. The searchers obviously didn't respect her personal rights either. What makes them feel justified to strip search a minor, personally and lawfully? Even if they are allowed to conduct searches under the Fourth Amendment, it's a matter of privacy and personal rights. The officials could have called the parents of the child, or at least get parent consent to search her.
ReplyDelete"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
ReplyDeleteEssentially, this case is tough. When the founding fathers drafted the constitution, there were no public schools with officials concerned with drug trafficking. Rather, the colonists wanted to be left alone from egotistical Redcoats determined to abuse their power. Today, the situation is different. The government is responsible for preserving civilian security from foreign threats just as school officials are responsible for maintaining "a safe learning environment." Nevertheless, conflicts arise when privacy invasions are necessary to locate a suspected terrorist or searches may be important to set an example to prevent future drug sharing in a school. Certainly, as citizens we are obligated to give up some of our freedom for the benefit of all. We should not be allowed to smoke in public places or yell "fire" in a crowded theater just because the constitution doesn't strictly forbid it. Indeed, while democracy may give us freedom, we must not abuse it for the betterment of all.
However, there are limitations. In Redding's case for instance, a strip search is borderline sexual harassment. Certainly, a shy young "preppy" clearly should not be subject to a strip search for a drug as common as ibuprofen. Circumstances like this depend on the danger involved to civilians as well as the reliability of "probable cause." In this scenario, neither existed. Ibuprofen that can be hidden in private parts clearly is not enough to pose any serious danger to anybody; it's Ibuprofen after all. In addition, the officials did not have reason enough to suspect Redding; listening to a fellow accusation degenerates to the Salem Witch Trials or the McCarthy hunts.
Again, this does not mean that schools have no right over teenagers. We are not adults, and should not be tried as adults. However, this also means that we do not deserve full adult citizen rights. Indeed, when Mr. Reo tells us not to bring electronic devices, there is reason behind it; an unsafe environment in proximity of the school may subject these items to theft. When Ms. Goldstein checks our bags on Halloween to search for eggs or other "goofy" material, we must realize that it is for our own benefit. At the same time, it is the school's responsibility to keep this obligation in check. The school is obliged to tell us about the dangers of smoking, but does not have the right, nor should want the right to stop a student from smoking a block away from the school. In Redding's case, the school should educate students about the dangers of drugs, but should not go so far as to unnecessarily strip search innocent children.
Sans doute, QHSSYC est vraiment beaucoup différent de Lycée de Bellevue. Comme Madame a explique, vous n'avez pas des regles qui concerne le dejeuner comme nous. Par exemple, il est interdit de marcher a McDonalds ou Subway pendant le dejeuner. Cependent, je respecte ces regles; ils sont pour nous apres tout. Au meme temps, c'est vraiment important a comprir que le cas de Savanna Redding n'était pas justifié. Aucun de lycee devrais se sentir une obligation a faire ce qu'ils ont fait. Quel dommage. Une fille innocent n'oubliera jamais cette incident.
--Manjinder
School officials are responsible for our safety during the hours which we are in attendance, however, securing our safety should not go as far as it did in the Savana Redding case. Searching bags, lockers, etc., are justifiable, again within good faith as the Fourth Amendment clearly states, but for it to get to the point of a strip search is unecessary and traumatic. Reding, a 12 year old going through puberty, or her "awkward" years was clearly traumatized by this experience. Girls at this age are just beginning to mature and become comfortable with their bodies. For any school official to force a girl going through puberty to strip down to her undergarments and thereby exposing her still developing body may cause, as proven in the Reding case, extreme discomfort. Reding was not ready to go back to school and face the officials who had forced her to expose herself. The strip search also caused her to be very distrusting of adults. In her testimony, Reding still fails to understand how any adult could agree to go to such measures-- especially for a young girl with no disciplinary record.
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Amendment protects our privacy, deeming unwarranted searches and seizures to be unconsitutional. While school officials are responsible for us as "minors" in the school setting, the Fourth Amendment is still in effect and must be followed. Of course, if there is reason to believe that the safety of the students are in danger, or are endangering themselves, the officials have the right to conduct these searches. However, they do so in good faith-- which is clearly specified in the Fourth Amendment. When we take away the rights given to us as citizens in the Constitution, we make room for mishaps such as these to occur causing trauma and other unfortunate consequences.
-- Sarah Aly period 8
I agree with Manjinger in many aspects and it is also what I think too; The constitution probably didn't see something like this coming. It's purpose has it's differences from its purpose today.
ReplyDeleteI think mostly everyone agrees that what happened to Reddings was just wrong; I understand why a search may have been needed, because there was probable cause. Someone accused her of having it. But the interesting part is that when Reddings and her friend were both searched, nothing turned up. Strip searching should never be done, unless there is solid evidence and a strong reason to believe a crime has been committed. After the search, the school should have dismissed it and at most, keep an eye on her. What is also wrong is that she was a minor; She was only 13 at the time, probably unaware of her rights. A parent should have been called immediately as soon as the accusation was made and the school took action. It was a low and dirty shot the school took at her, with a poor excuse of a teenager acting like a normal teenager. And it does bring to mind, like Manjinder mentioned, the Witch Trials and McCarthy hunts, where people were blindly accused with no evidence and punished.
I think it is important for a school to look out for a child's safety; we are still minors after all, and our parents expect us to be safe while we are at school. I think it is justified that certain rights are denied, like bringing electronics and weapons to school. It is for the better, and for the safety of all. It is an obvious, and visible threat. We do still need protection, because we are not legally responsible for ourselves. Every time we go on school trips and out door activities, we always have to have permission from our parents to participate because if anything happens to us, it is the school's responsibility. I understand why our High School was worried about the issue of eating out of the high school building. Jamaica isn't exactly the safest area, and I have seen firsthand people get robbed and mugged, even right near the security gates. The school just wants to make sure something like that doesn't happen to us, because when it does, all we'll do is complain to them, and they can't do anything about it. If we get robbed, it is our problem. But the school is trying to avoid that entirely. But in the end, we did get our right to eat at the college campus. We just had to be aware that anything that happened in between was our loss, and we realized when we step foot out of the HS building, we were putting ourselves at risks. I think the most important thing is just to be aware and educated of what you are and aren't allowed to do. Being aware of your rights is extremely important, and perhaps schools should make an effort to educated their students of their basic constitutional rights. It should be made clear to every student, of almost every age, that being asked to be stripped naked without parental presence or reason is unconstitutional.
I definitely think that this situation was a violation of this girl’s rights. First of all, the school had no real evidence that she was carrying any type of drugs and even if they did, I don’t think that strip-searching her was the right way to go. Even some doctors won’t touch a young child unless an adult is present because violating a child is nothing to play around with. So what makes the school officials think that they have some type of superiority over everyone else? Yes, they were thinking that they were trying to keep the other students of the school safe but what happened to evidence and warnings? It seems as though she was treated as if she had done something really terrible when all she was suspected of was having prescription drugs. And that in itself bothers me. Whether schools want to believe it or not, a large majority of girls always carry drugs on them just in case. And most of the time they’re prescription drugs too because regular drugs don’t work as well if you’re having a bad “time of the month.” So I really don’t see what the problem is with having those types of drugs on your person anyway. But I do see where the concern comes from. There will always be the dumb kids that will go around sharing and giving out drugs to other kids when they know they shouldn’t be. But…things like that are inevitable. Just like schools can’t stop students from smoking or drinking. There will always be a few losers that ruin it for everyone else.
ReplyDeleteBut back to the case, I really agree with the statement that it doesn’t take an amazingly intelligent person to tell that strip-searching a child is an invasion on constitutional rights. It even sounds wrong.
“What did you do today?”
“Oh..nothing. Nude searched some kid. Made her strip down to her underwear. Nothing new.”
How do you sound? And some people think that’s justified? Maybe if schools were that efficient all the time they wouldn’t have so much trouble finding kids that carry real harmful drugs. But that’s just the thing. They don’t. Because unless you’re sure that the kid actually has drugs, asking them to go so far as to take their clothes off just makes you look like a fool. And what are the chances that she would even have drugs in her bra or underwear? This isn’t some juvenile detention center or something where kids are doing anything to get a quick high off of something. It’s just school. It’s not that serious. Search her bag, her locker, maybe even a coat pocket or something. But underneath that is not school territory.
-Anellia, Pd 2
I completely agree with Judge Wardlaw's view that "it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights" (and human dignity), what I find more saddening is that there are people who disagree with this view.
ReplyDeleteIt is my personal view that it is better to live under some danger, from having a student with harmless pain-relievers in my school to fanatical terrorists intent to destroying the country, than be forced to give up basic freedoms and privacies. As Patrick Henry famously said "give me liberty or give me death", although I am not sure I'd be willing to go to such lengths for it myself.
This does not mean of course that all security should be gotten rid of, with the current world situation that would be absurd. A weak pain-reliever such as ibuprofen, (article says it is prescription, I have seen it in the pharmacy over the counter) does not present an imminent danger to other students, and in my opinion should not be a reason for a search at all. A REASONABLE threat of a gun or explosive should warrant a search, yet in that case I think more respect should have be expected. If she was that intent on hiding pills as to conceal them in her underwear they could have just as easily been hid in her hair, or sewed into her shoes (old tactic).
I believe this entire "zero tolerance" notion is absurd and goes directly against the idea of freedom. I think that the current measures are too restraining and invade privacy, such as the ridiculous ban on cell phones and electronics in school. It is amusing how we are fighting against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and orientation and yet support the idea that someone should be superior to another in such a way for simply having existed on the planet a while longer.
Stan O., Pd. 3
One would imagine that school officials would have a little bit more decency (or at least common sense) than that. I mean, honestly. What kind of normal person would say with a straight face that it would be a good idea to strip a 13-year-old just for some pills? Heck, it's not like they even gave her some sort of towel to cover herself. It's just straight-up minor nudity. And that's just inexcusable. I feel that the school should at least show a little self-control when it comes to trying to stop bad behavior. Otherwise, what you get is an ironic twist in which the SCHOOL is doing the bad actions. It just goes to show what happens when a school feels it can take drastic measures (a la Bush-Cheney administration) to achieve its "goals."
ReplyDeleteFabian
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen we walk out into the streets, no one has the right to stop us and go through our belongings. The Fourth Amendment upholds this right—our protection against unreasonable search and seizure. As students, we sometimes don't know what's best for everyone around us. Occasionally unaware of what could happen with the things we bring to school, we're sometimes too young mentally. Then again, some adults aren't suited to be trusted because they're not mentally mature enough.
ReplyDeleteIn school, we can put many people at risk, ourselves, teachers, and classmates, so the Fourth Amendment needs to be restricted. Schools need to make sure that we don't put ourselves or anyone else at harm, and this is the responsibility of the school—to provide a safe educational environment. Though our school isn't in need of metal detectors, larger and more dangerous schools like Jamaica are. The school isn't responsible to condemn bad behavior, but responsible to prevent it. Because we're such a small school, everyone knows everyone, and the teachers know what's going on; we generally don't have to worry about bad things happening.
Savana Redding, though she went through something terrible and humiliating, probably didn't deserve a lot of payout (however, I can't find how much money she got exactly). I'd imagine that this would be more of a morals case, and not one over money. Schools shouldn't, in the first place, violate students' rights because they're there to teach, not to harm. What could a school get out of a student anyway? These kinds of cases shouldn't necessarily have to be taken to court, but rather serve as stepping stones to developing new school policies—they should be used to bring change, not only money.
There definitely wasn't enough just cause in this case, because the school didn't have proof at all. They searched this girl because they thought she had the drugs on her just because her old friends did. Instead of searching her for the drugs, they should've only been able to question her. Schools shouldn't try to police student behavior, but try to prevent it by making the school safer. Schools also need to actually trust their students to do what's best for the schools instead of being suspicious. Students definitely need freedom, especially as teenagers. We need to develop our senses of self and find who we really are, and this can only be discovered through freedom. But with freedom comes great responsibility. Schools can't be held responsible, because the student knew what he or she was going to do.
(AJ period 2)
ReplyDeleteAn important issue is raised in this article: the violation of the 4th amendment and to what extent can students be denied such rights.Thirteen year old Redding was violated by being searched a little too thoroughly without sufficient evidence. These aren't the Salem with trials... This incident stresses the fact that in any situation, school offcials have to behave properly and decently regarding the students. I'm not saying that a search like that should be completely banned because who knows when we may actually need to do it for security reasons.Redding's life has been changed, however, since this incident and she suffers from trauma which has repercussions on her caracter.
It also raises the problem about the 4th amendment--Should minors receive its protection to its full extent? Moreover, how far should a school be able to go in order to regulate students' behavior? If something like this happened to a friend of mine I would be very angry and there would be huge protests and maybe even riots...
The fourth ammendment is neccessary in order to maintain our natural rights as human beings. Without the fourth ammendment, people would be under the constant threat of officials coming into their home and finding an infraction of the law. Our society would become like the world of 1984 by George Orwell, where big brother is always watching. As minors, our rights are restricted in an effort to protect us. However, we are still citizens and under the Constitution we should still have certain constitutional rights. Outside of schools, police must have probable cause to search a suspect. After the search, if it is deemed that they did not have probable cause, they face diciplinary actions. Such measure should be applied to school officials as well in order to deter this type of search.
ReplyDeleteSchools must ensure our safety. However, the officials must also not jeopordize our rights in the pursuit of our safety. Behavior that we must condemn would be things such as taking drugs and committing acts of violence. The schools should only be partially responsible for getting rid of this kind of behavior because the parents of the children should have taught these things to their children at a young age. Touching on the topic of no school events, I belive that it is important to have events such as multicultural day in order to educate students on the cultures of the people of the world.
Awarding Ms. Redding with a large sum of money would not have any positive effect. People in the United States today bring cases to court just for the sake of bringing cases to court. They are sometimes searching for their five minutes of fame in high profile cases, or they are hoping for a large monetary compensation. Being paid for being a victim of sexual assault is a very ancient idea that comes from a time when women were thought of as property, and when a family was paid because their daughter's virginity was taken before she was married.
The search conducted by school officials of Ms. Redding was not justified. Children spread rumors and tell lies. Basing a strip search off of the testimony from an unreliable source was a wrong move on the school's part. Schools should only police their students while they are on school grounds, as this is their jurisdiction. Off the campus, police and other officials should watch for anything illegal. Students also need to understand that there are consequences for actions and that if they leave the jurisdiction of school officials, not only are they allowed a bit more freedom, but they are also subject to more risks. In the end, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
SY Pd 1
ReplyDeleteThere is a fine line between school security and stripping someone without sufficient evidence. Savannah Redding was unfortunately a victim of the latter. I believe that the school was wrong to embarrass her in public without a confirmed observation that she had indeed "drugs", and to deny her of her rights as not only a student but a citizen of the United States. School could be a dangerous place and random locker checks, metal detectors, and security guards are perfectly reasonable. But when it comes down to, who has the advil, a humiliating strip search of a traumatized woman is completely unnecessary and unjustifiable.
Students have the same rights as adults do. They are protected by the school, and the school is responsilbe for keeping an eye out for students and to provide a learning environment. However, if students' rights are being ignored and even more, bashed, how can students be comfortable in a place called school? A research study shows that campuses are far less dangerous than claimed. So the security that is being impressed on the students is not having the intended effects that a pro-learning soceity wants.
The fourth amendment is the right against unreasonable search and seizures. It is my opinion that this amendment is extremely important because all people should have the freedom of knowing that they will not be harassed for what others suspect they might have. I think that this amendment should unequivocally apply both in and out of schools for this reason; not applying this amendment in schools promotes the idea that schools are above the law. Schools are not and should not be above the law. The purpose of school is not looking for innocuous drugs; the purpose of school is for learning. It is appalling that in this case, the school deliberately acted on an unverified source. The school deserves great punishment and should serve as a message to other schools that they will not get immunity from the law.
ReplyDeleteAre schools a law enforcement entity? No, they are not. Schools should play a limited role in enforcing the law. They should act only if their inaction will lead to dire consequences. I condemn this school’s behavior in that it abused its power. Once again, the school forgot about its purpose (teaching) and tried to extend its duties. If such an act happened in my school, I would be furious.
Lawsuits are beneficial to society in general. Regarding the case of Savana Redding, I do feel that monetary compensation is justified not because Redding is a victim, but because the school must be punished. The irony in this situation is that punisher became punished by the justice system. That is the beauty of lawsuits. Lawsuits bring awareness to issues that might otherwise be ignored. Think about it. If Redding’s mother did nothing and accepted this atrocity, then we might not even know about this story. I like that Redding pursued litigation and made an example for schools to acknowledge. Redding conveys a message to schools telling them not to excessively abuse students.
This school was definitely not justified in their suspicions of Redding. They acted irresponsibly and imprudently. I reiterate that SCHOOLS ARE FOR LEARNING, NOT FOR POLICING STUDENTS. It is not the school’s responsibility to watch over students. We are high school students not kindergarteners. My response to the smoking issue is that some students are legally allowed to smoke. I do not see how any school can justify harassing an adult. Freedom is a beautiful thing and should be given to students. I do feel that schools should not be responsible for students. We can take care of ourselves and often times, we are the ones who suffer from broad interpretations of the rules.
Rich C.
A.P. Period 2
ReplyDeleteThe case of Savana Redding is a very sensitive case. Savana Redding's rights were violated. I think it was very wrong for them to strip search her just because they had gotten a tip from another student that she had ibuprofen. I think strip searching a 13 year old girl in any case, is wrong. However if they were going to strip search her, they should have been 100% sure she had substances on her. The fourth amendment is very important because without it, officials would be able to get away with many injust searches and actions. I think that Savana Redding should be granted a lot of money for the embarassment she suffered because an event like this can scar a person for life. I think that what happened to Savana Redding should never happen because no students rights should be violated in such a way.
Savannah Redding's story demonstrates that the 4th Amendment is especially important to students, who tend to be much more vulnerable than adults. In America's school system, students are treated like children, while school officials and teachers are expected to be parental figures. In theory, this is a very good idea; if officials care for students like they would for their own children, students would be less likely to make bad decisions. With teachers that care and a school that regulates one's actions both during and after school, more students would have the support and structure to become successful adults.
ReplyDeleteThis ideal student-school relationship, however, does not work in real life. Most school officials can be trusted, but it's definitely not rare for an official to take advantage of a student. Redding's case is one of the many in which the power that school officials are given is abused in a way that is harmful to students. Giving schools that much power over young students, even if said power can be used for a student's benefit, should be avoided.
I think that our schools should be a little more like lycee Bellevue; students should be granted more freedom, and the parent-like role of our schools should be lessened. Giving students more rights and freedom might make it easier for some to make bad decisions, but how else are we supposed to learn? I think it's better to learn from your mistakes when you're young than to make the same mistakes when you are older, and mistakes are more costly. Giving students more freedom would also rise safety issues; if a student is suspected of carrying harmful drugs to school, what should the school be allowed to do? If the treat is serious, the school should call reinforcements to handle the student fairly, instead of relying on inexperienced officials to handle the student however they want to.
The Fourth Amendment is very important in today's society. Today, most schools in New York do have metal detectors to search bags as well as the student's bodies. When it comes to public schools, it is important that we realize that the school is responsible for the students so they should be able to check someone they think is guilty but in the right manner. Students and adults should be equal under the Fourth Amendment because when entering public facilities, in order to ensure the safety of others, they should be subject to checks. Unfortunately, in the case of Savanna Redding, she wasn't searched, she was humiliated.
ReplyDeleteWhen enforcing laws in schools, the administrators should come up with ways to check suspicious students without having to embarrass, harass, or in Ms. Redding’s case, strip search them. It’s appalling and disgusting to think that officials who are taking care of our children, our siblings, our family, are doing this to them. When I think about going to school, I think about one of the safest places I can be other than my home. Savanna’s parents probably sent her to school thinking that she was going to be in a safe-learning environment but instead her daughter was told to take her clothes off.
I completely understand that schools want to make sure that all of the other students are safe but I don’t understand what they could have been thinking when they told her to take her clothes off. Even if she did have pills, and they strip searched her, where would she be hiding the pills? If the pills weren’t in her pockets or her belongings, she obviously didn’t have them.
As I previously mentioned, schools should protect the safety of students. However, in Savanna Redding’s case they were completely, totally, inevitably wrong and they couldn’t get any lower than they did the day they forced a thirteen year old girl to take her clothes off. I think those school officials were just sick beings. How could you force a young girl to take off her clothes? Isn’t that as bad as child prostitution? I mean, sure, they weren’t touching her or anything like that, but they still made her take her clothes off. If I were Savanna Redding, I don’t think I could ever be repaid in monetary form for the humiliation that she felt.
The fourth Amendment should apply to students equally to avoid acts such as in the article. The searches should be reasonable and obvious. In the article the strip search was outrageous and unreasonable. We need better people to do the searching with more common sense. Adults and miniors are all humans therefore they should be equal before the law
ReplyDeleteSchools should be enforce the law but search for certain items to a limit. We should promote safety for all but not to embrass and scar students for life. We should condemn threatening behavior that endangers others.
She should be given money at this case for her pain that can’t go away. She wanted payback and this is it. That way schools will think twice before doing this cruel search on students. I believe it’s part of society to protect their people and that I find it just that U.S. bans students from going to unsafe cafes. We stop harm but prevention; prevention is always the best solution.
I don’t believe the school was just since she might have had one or two pills which can cause no harm. She didn’t have bags of them or sold them like drugs. It’s the school’s responsibility to watch the students and raise them to respectable citizens. Bad deeds will bring more bad deeds, so schools should prevent that. I believe freedom is right as long as the area is safe. In QHSS, Jamaica Av. Isn’t exactly the safest place to be so limits on student’s freedom is for their safety. If lycee Bellevue is a safe place then they should be allowed more freedom.
-Kazi
Nushra Paracha pd 2
ReplyDeleteThe fourth amendment should definitely apply to all students. It protects our right to privacy and to not be searched for no reason. Schools are supposed to be teaching their students about themselves and who they are. Schools however should also teach students about what rights they have as individuals. Schools are supposed to protect a student,not rule them.
Savannah Redding's case was very unfortunate and unfair. The school officials started off with a valid reason to go through her stuff to find the pills, but since they didn't find anything, they should have just stopped instead of making her go through a strip search when they did not have a probable cause. They should definitely be blamed for it.
I don't think Savannah Redding needs to get money for what she went through. She already faced the humiliation and I don't think money will make up for it. She won the case and she was given justice and this is all that really matters. She also helped change a lot of ideas on checking and searches in schools and brought up a good debate about it.
I do think that students should be given freedom in school and that the school should still be responsible for the students if they leave campus. The students are old enough to be given some freedom and responsibility. They can judge what is right and what is wrong. They need to grow and learn what is right and wrong for themselves. Schools should still be responsible for them because when the students started attending that school, the school assured the students that they would be taken care. The school should take responsibility and so should the students.
Chris N. Pd. 2
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the school officials had a horrible lapse of judgment at this moment. They strip-searched a girl, who did not have any drugs on her, without any sufficient amount of evidence to back up their claim. They based their search off of accusations from other students and rather than facts and hard evidence which was completely careless. The trauma of being stripped bare naked to school officials is irreversible. Therefore, they should have been absolutely sure that she had drugs on her before they searched her.
Also, I am in complete disbelief that schools would go this far just to stop a person from bringing in prescription pain medicine. I seriously doubt that she would have hid the pills on her body even if she had brought pain pills to school.
Despite having the right intention, the school did something terrible and they should pay some sort of compensation for it. They should pay a large settlement to match the trauma they inflicted on the poor girl as these are the type of things that have a large negative impact on a person and can invariably affect their lives in some way.
Jenny Seo PD. 1
ReplyDeleteDebating whether the school officials violated the Fourth Amendment is important. However, we should rather focus on Ms.Redding and how big of a trauma she must've had and still have after this horrific incident. Despite the "legitimate" reasons behind this harrassment, whether such act is justified, whether the nude search was necessary, this incident had ruined her life to the point where she had psychological suffering and had to refrain from public confrontations with certain people. If the girl was guilty of possession, then that's another story. But she was an INNOCENT GIRL!
According to my reliable source, if you're suspected of stealing at Hollister and was searched, you can sue the store if found/proven innocent. Notice that this was not even a nude search and it has harsh consequences for just suspecting/accusing a customer.
Imagine what a nude search would bring about...
Honestly, the school is just putting "students' guardian" title up front and trying to avoid conflict.
Crisula Prassos pd 1
ReplyDeleteRe-reading the article about Savana Redding‘s unfortunate experience, brings back feelings of anger and overall disappointment with the school system. At the young age of thirteen she was most likely unaware of her rights and complied with the instructions from the assistant principal simply out of fear and habit. Its appalling to think that at this day in age, after struggling to obtain our rights, people with some form of power would insist on violating them. In this particular case the fourth amendment was completely ignored for the sake of going with an instinct that Ms Redding had prescription pills. In an attempt to look good as a rule enforcer, the assistant principal went so far as to instruct Savana Redding to take off her clothes. However throughout this whole process, never were her parents informed of what was happening. Faculty, who claim to have the students best interests in mind should’ve known better than neglect to call her parents.
Savana’s case could have been easily avoided and now unfortunately she has memories of this traumatic experience that she will carry with her into her adult life. No amount of money or compensation can account for the humiliation and the effect it has had on her mental health. The reality is she has to learn to live with what happened to her, and move forward and find comfort in knowing that her case has helped spark debate about the rights of students in the school place.
Honestly I think some of the rules at Qhssyc are absurd and unnecessary. In a school its easy to feel like deans are constantly hovering over you, but in our high school that is felt times ten. When people are constantly yelling at a student to get to class or questioning their choice of jewelry, for it may be “gang related” does not make them feel safe, but makes kids want to rebel. There has to be a better way to keep a school safe and at the same time remember that students are not just test takers, but thinking, feeling human beings.
Period 1 - Lindsey
ReplyDeleteThe fourth amendment is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. School security is important and it is for the students safety, but to strip search a student with insufficient evidece of aspirin denies the student any rights. The school publicly humiliated the girl all for a search of "drugs" which is no excuse. No evidence was found and all the was left from the search was a girl traumatized which no one can take that memory away from her. I feel Savannah Redding should receive money in compensation, but no amount of money would be sufficient for the amount of humiliation received from being strip searched publicly. I feel the school should be sued and this kind of situation should never occur again. Schools seem to force an unnecessary enforcement of law on students. Students should have the same rights adults do. It is unfair and it means students are powerless to do anything and are not allowed to defend themselve. It says students have no rights while in school, but that means that we are just individuals with no power until we are of age to vote....
School is not a place for policing students, but rather a place for educational purposes. Many schools seem to forget this and students receive unfair punishments that can't be defended because students aren't given the power to defend themselves.
I believe that the schools should protect their students, but not be given so much power and authority. School is a place of education and the fact that Savannah Redding was put into an uncomfortable situation shows the abuse of power. This hasn't just happened to Savannah Redding, but could have possibly happened to many students across the nation. I say school is a place of LEARNING! I don't understand many times why school policies get stricter even though theres nothing serious or threatening. Once a student steps off campus the school shouldn't be held responsible and should give students more freedom instead of feeling confined on campus
Laws should protect anyone and everyone. They were made for a reason. It is unfair that students shouldn't be given the rights to protect themselves and feel powerless.
First, sorry for answering so late. Yesterday when i was writing my comment, I don't know what erased it and brought me back to the homepage twice...
ReplyDeleteWell, i agree, what Sabanna suffered was a humiliation. I must say that when i first read the article I had automatically decided in my head that the two employees who had dealt with the search were men and not women, for I believe that two women should have been even more comprehensive. So their behavior is all the more intolerable.
Then, indeed a Supreme Court was not necessary to conclude that this is non respecting human dignity. I have the feeling that human beings need to be reminded of their own human dignity as if it were not something natural, as if human beings constantly needed to be reminded that they are human beings. Maybe it is the way it goes... However I think justice allows Sabanna's humiliation to be lessened in a way because officially, she is said to be a victim instead of remaining misunderstood.
In addition, indeed, the school should be a safe place when you can "learn about life" but it seems that talking about school now involves economical and political dimensions. For example, school has an image to defend and it cannot lose money. In this case I do think that the school should have apologized at least to be faithful with the good values it is supposed to advocate such as honesty.
Instead, non respecting the 4th amendment, without which privacy would often be seriously mocked, will likely prevent Sabanna from feeling at ease among people sometimes.
Amie H. - Ms.Aucoin's 8th pd.
ReplyDeleteWhat Savanna Redding went through was terrible. It was definitely something that I without a doubt was very surprised at. But I think that it brought awareness to students about their rights. A lot of the times, students get in trouble for things and often do not think to question the discipline they are receiving. I think that the punishment must fit the crime. Or in other words, what Savanna Redding was suspected of was in no way enough to have to go through a strip search especially at her age.
On lawsuits...
There are so many lawsuits surrounding so many different types of cases; it's hard to determine which are actually valid. It's become so common for people to sue others over the most common and petty things. Some are even motivated by money. I think to use the system to gain money is just morally wrong.
The fourth ammendment is important for everyone. No one should have to through what Savanna Redding did. The fact that Savanna was a minor doesnt change that the act done was horrible. If she was an adult or if the event happened outside of school, the search was still wrong and nevertheless illadvised.
ReplyDeleteSchools should definitely enoforce laws that the city has, but i think that schools shouldn't be the ones to perform all the acts. For instance, is someone is commiting a crime- school officials shouldn't be the ones to arrest the student. They should keep the student and wait for police to come. School officials aren't as trained as some police officers so they should let them do their job.
The school should have full responsibility over the students if anything happens to them on campus. Once the student leaves campus, the school responisibility for the student should be dismissed even if it occurs during a school day. Schools shouldn't be held responsibile for a students actions if that student decides to leave campus under his own will.
The fourth amendment is very important, because it protect people's right from those of higher power. but i do not think it should be apply to minor or students. since the school is like our second home because we spend 1/3 of our time in it, i believe that school should do the same things as a parent, teaching us the laws and the rules. just like how a parent can search our rooms, the school should have the power to search our lockers. but there is a limit to how much a school can do.
ReplyDeletelawsuits are good because it does make our world a safer place, but i think American peopple take it to another level. i have many relatives who are afraid to rent their house because they are araid of lawsuits. there are so many little details to a house that a person can suit you for almost anything. it doesnt matter if it is not going to win, once they suit you, it cost you a lot of money to hire a lawer and waste days over a stupid lawsuit.
i do not believe the school is justified in their suspicions, i think it was base on too ltittle edivence.
when i was little, i went to school in china. i had 1 and half hour lunch breaks, where i go home to have lunch because the school did not have school lunch. in the high schools, there are store to buy lunch or you can bring your own lunches and they heat it up for you. between those lunch hours, we were allow to go anywhere we wanted. i think in America, there are too much lawsuits and such that we have so much safty rules. i mean if i kid is going to be bad, the kid will be bad, rules won't stop the kid. i believe those rules are not there for the safty of kids, but more for the safty of schools from angry parents.