Indiana students punished for school rule violations that occur “anywhere at any time”
Streaking incident ends in suspension
A Washington Township High School (East Porter County School Corporation) student was suspended for streaking at Lace Central High School in Valparaiso, despite the action occuring outside of school hours and outside of his school district.
Although the streaker was not on school grounds, the event did not happen during school hours and did not involve any of the corporation’s schools, East Porter County was well within its legal right to suspend the student. Indiana law allows a school corporation to punish a student in violation of a school policy anywhere at any time, according to Dana Long, assistant director for legal services at the Indiana Department of Education.
Valparaiso police provided security for the game and no charges were filed against the student.
Even without criminal proceedings, schools can punish any “unlawful activity off school property that can reasonably be viewed as an interference with school purposes,” according to Dave Emmert, general counsel for the Indiana School Board Association.
Public nudity falls under those bounds, Emmert said.
Valparaiso Superintendent Michael Benway called the suspension a “professional courtesy” between corporations. East Porter County Superintendent Rod Gardin agreed that most students do not know they can be punished for actions outside of school. In justifying the long-arm law he explained that “They’re always representing the school and also their behavior outside of school can have an effect back at school.”
Additional Contact Information:
Washington Township High School Principal Terry Robbins
Valparaiso School Board President Lorrie Woycik
Valparaiso School Board Vice President Douglas McMillan
Valparaiso School Board Member James Bernard
Valparaiso School Board Member Mark Schmidtke
Uh… I gotta agree with the school on this one. The kid was at a high school football game. It’s not like he was at a park or in the mall or something. By being at the game, most likely in the visitor’s section, he was representing his school. It was an inter-school function.
If he was busted for peeing in the drinking fountain at the mall and got suspended under the same rule, I’d disagree with the school.
Don’t bother to reply to me about bigger-picture and this-applies-to-the-mall stuff, either. I don’t care… it didn’t happen at the mall.
Am I missing something - the write up seems to indicate that his school was not involved in the game - therefore, he was not representing his school. He may as well have been at the mall, as far as his school was concerned.
I’d still like to know how this streaking “incident” caused anyone any harm. I’ve never heard of anyone harmed by streaking. Back in the 70’s, Ray Stevens even had a hit with a song about the practice. Perhaps more people should just take his “Don’t look Ethel!” advice if they are offended. It was a simple high school prank - personally, I’m impressed he had the confidence in his body image to do that in front of such a large audience.
Ok, JAFO, if/when something like this DOES happen at a mall, what will your response be?
This is getting close to home as I live in Indiana. I think the kid in this case pulled a stupid stunt that was designed to get attention, and it appears that it succeeded. I imagine he well knew the consequences of getting caught and decided to take the risk anyway. And he was suspended not executed, so the school probably made the right decision. But the language about school rules being enforceable any where at any time sounds more than a little Gestapoish. Citizens need to be more aware of this power to establish a separate para-judicial system that answers to no one when they select BOE members.
The game was not between the two schools - East Porter schools were not involved with the event in any fashion.
Indiana law gives schools the authority to discipline students for student violations of law regardless of any mitigating circumstances like location, time, school affiliation, filing of criminal charges or even aquittal of criminal charges.
o_0 What the hell is with schools these days? I mean…they have no right to dictate any student’s policy outside of school…
Students are governed by their BOE’s 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I think this is a sin. Parents (and in some cases if kids are caught breaking the law) and police should be responsible for dealing with the students actions outside of school. As long as the infraction will not in any way impede the educational process in any way, BOE’s should stay out of it. Students have lost all rights to privacy, their right to remain silent, etc. Most adults would not stand for having to give up these important rights without a fight, yet we expect our kids to when they step on school property. In addition, they can have their education taken away for things that have nothing at all to do with the school system. This is wrong, and until enough parents stand up and demand leglislation to prevent this, it will only get worse as time goes on. I am so thankful that my youngest is a Senior in High school this year and I will be done with this. I have not personally encountered suspension or expulsion with my own children, but I have witnessed far too many students who have and it turns my stomach. Let’s go back to giving consequences that actually help the student learn from their mistakes, and not take them out of the school building. (unless of course they pose some “real” danger to the student body or staff)Let’s go back to “teaching” and use expulsion and suspension for extreme cases.
Deb
According to rules like this, a student can be punished for drinking/toking at a weekend party. A student could in effect be punished for having illicit sex as well, or sneaking into an R movie. Where does it end?
This is what comes of treating people who are biologically adults as children well beyond the childhood years, which really end at about age 12.
Whine, whine… a student COULD be busted for this or that. Guess what, y’all? A student WASN’T busted for any of the things you mention.
A student was busted at a school event. How odd.
If it was at a neighboring school, then fine.
If you have an issue with the language, fine, but the fearmongering and slippery-sloping everyone here is doing is completely beside the point of what actually happened.
A high-school kid got busted for streaking at a high-school event.
No foul!
JAFO
– Rick - if the kid got busted for goofing off at the mall, I would disagree with the school’s action… but that hasn’t happened and there is no indication that it will.
JAFO, here’s a hypothetical for you.
I’m a resident of Gwinnett County. Say I went to the Cobb County Fair and did something stupid and disruptive. No charges were filed and I was sent home. I later receive a citation from Gwinnett County with a fine for my actions. Although I was not arrested they determined that my actions were illegal and since I am a county resident and it was a county event (regardless of it being a different county) they can arbitrarily fine me.
Is that acceptable power for a government institute to hold?
This was handled appropriately. It’s irrelevant where he was. The kid didn’t just violate school policy, he COMMITTED A CRIME. He COULD have been arrested and charged with a sex crime. Would his defenders have preferred that, in the name of limiting school control? Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water! Instead of being criminally charged, he got a minor suspension–also note that he was NOT given the harshest punishment possible, as is so often the case–and was not charged by police at all. Seems like a good outcome to me. As I said in the previous streaking story–don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. This site is all about administrators using discretion. Seems to me like that’s precisely what happened. Oh, and peeing into the water fountain at the mall would ALSO be a criminal offense, and I’m guessing most kids would prefer a school suspension to jail time.
Since charges were not filed against the student, at least some professionals determined that he had not done anything criminal. So how is it that the superintendent feels that his own, untrained, judgment is superior to that of a professionals in the legal business?
This is what us, outside observers, think when we read of these cases. Also, another concern: there’s often some under-the-table collaboration going on: the police, or security, agree to not press charges, because they know the DA will reject them, as having no solid basis (in this case, for example, streaking, per se, is not always against the law), or no solid evidence. But, by collaborating with school enforcers, the police get to see “justice” served, without going through the checks and balances of the judicial system. What seems as a favor, “you’re lucky we didn’t press charges” is actually a sleight-of-hand trick, as they know charges wouldn’t stick.
And, my final concern, in response to some of the other posters: ya’ll really aren’t concerned about the implications of the long reach of such para-judicial powers? If it were your employer punishing you (leave-without-pay, or plain simple firing) for non-criminal, or non-prosecuted, or simply rumored, actions outside the workplace, wouldn’t you want to fight back?
Bill, et al:
If the streaking had occured at the student’s school I agree that everything following was proper. It did not occur there. It was not part of a school function. He was not under the jurisdiction or supervision of the school.
Except that by law he was indeed under the jurisdiction of the school. This Indiana law gives universal jurisdiction over public school students without any reciprocal responsibility. It is essentially flawed in its very theory.
JAFO is correct. Keep in mind that public schools are, strictly speaking, an arm of the STATE government (curriculum, teacher licensure and pensions, and a large chunk of the money comes from the state.) If it was a public school event, anywhere in the state, then yes, he’s subject to the authority of the state department of education, to which his school district is subordinate. Personally, I don’t like this, because local control is better, but that’s the way public schools are structured.
Now, as to another matter - “Indiana law gives schools the authority to discipline students for student violations of law regardless of any mitigating circumstances like location, time, school affiliation, filing of criminal charges or even aquittal of criminal charges.” There’s a catch to this - no govt. body can apply sanctions against anyone without due process of law. Indiana law is subordinate to the US Constitution. If he’s tried and acquitted on criminal charges, then there’s an issue of double jeopardy.
What this amounts to is a dictatorship with the head of the school as dictator. People have mentioned that the school district is an agent of the state of Indiana. If I buy that and I don’t there is still the matter of right to a hearing or trial and the right of appeal. As the punishment has already been handed down I guess he was tried and convicted by the dictator. Welcome to the new police agency……Your local school district.
Jim,
Question about your hypothetical: Are you a high-school student at a school event?
If not, I don’t care what the authorities do to you. If you ARE a student, then your school should bust you.
Jim–I share your concerns that Indiana school districts may have too much authority–it’s just that i don’t think it was abused in this case.
As near as I can tell from the article, there is no dispute about whether the kid did this. The article does not include any denials that he did what he is accused of. Presumably this is because he was apprehended at the scene and identified. Just because he was not criminally charged, does not mean there is no case. It looks to me as if the exact kind of reasonableness and discretion this site believes in was applied here. In lieu of formal charges, a far more appropriate punishment was meted out.
In theory, yes, the school district should have had no role, and he should have instead been charged with a crime. Is that really more desireable?
And, Deb, I agree that schools shouldn’t abridge students’ rights, but that doesn’t apply here. The kid does not have a “right” to commit a crime. I’m outraged when kids who do nothing or have completely innocent intentions get caught up in ZT nonsense. I have a great deal less patience for kids who intentionally get into trouble.
Whether or not what the kid did was legal is irrelevant. The larger picture is that Indiana students are able to be punished for anything at any time by their school. While yes, this circumstance isn’t necessarily the best way to make the point, it still stands. Do you want you/your kids (depending on age) to be punished for something by their school if it was out of school? The school should have absolutely no right to interfere in a student’s life outside of school. None. End of story.
dweeb - The problem is due to the much lower standards for school due process. Remember that the requirement is that they have a process and follow it, not that it meet any particular goals of fairness or contain any sorts of checks and balances. Legal due process is exceptionally well defined.
A student could easily be “convicted” according to the standards of the school and aquitted in a legal court. It would most likely require suing the school to get the student’s record cleaned and even that wouldn’t be guaranteed.
Hmmmm…so if the school dress code says no spaghetti tee shirts (this is a pretty typical dress code rule), then any kid in Indiana who wears one could be punished for it, even if they wear it outside of school property and school events?
Ooops — many school rules make using a discman or MP3 player contraband — forget about listening to those CDs until you graduate.
And while you’re at it, don’t chew gum, use cell phones or wear hats — at least not if you’re a student in Indiana.
Yes, I know that no one was arrested for doing those things, and I don’t have an issue with a student having some consequences for streaking, but the law sounds ridiculous.
Are all you freaks against the Patriot Act too?
I’m just curious as it is one of those things that, in theory, could be used improperly, but hasn’t.
While I am no fan of ZT, there appears to be an effort in this story to distort the real situation in Indiana. The statement that “Indiana law allows a school corporation to punish a student in violation of a school policy anywhere at any time†is not at all accurate, even if it was a quote from a Department of Education official. Indian law on student discipline is found under Indiana Code 20-33-8.
The code dealing with grounds for suspension or expulsion can be found at IC 20-33-8-14, and reads:
Grounds for suspension or expulsion
Sec. 14. (a) The following are the grounds for student suspension or expulsion, subject to the procedural requirements of this chapter and as stated by school corporation rules:
(1) Student misconduct.
(2) Substantial disobedience.
(b) The grounds for suspension or expulsion listed in subsection (a) apply when a student is:
(1) on school grounds immediately before or during school hours, or immediately after school hours, or at any other time when the school is being used by a school group;
(2) off school grounds at a school activity, function, or event; or
(3) traveling to or from school or a school activity, function, or event.
Note that IC 20-33-8-14-(b) provides the when and where criteria for application of the exercise of authority, and that it is far from “anywhere and anytimeâ€Â, as reported in the story.
The applicable law is immediately following that one. Note that the period of authority includes weekends, holidays and even summer break.
IC 20-33-8-15
Unlawful activity by student
Sec. 15. In addition to the grounds specified in section 14 of this chapter, a student may be suspended or expelled for engaging in unlawful activity on or off school grounds if:
(1) the unlawful activity may reasonably be considered to be an interference with school purposes or an educational function; or
(2) the student’s removal is necessary to restore order or protect persons on school property;
including an unlawful activity during weekends, holidays, other school breaks, and the summer period when a student may not be attending classes or other school functions.
Jim- you are correct, but you fail to mention that IC 20-33-8-15 only applies to unlawful activity by a student, not mere violations of school rules. Carrying the consequences of a student’s unlawful activity away from school to a punishment by the school under this clause must meet the requirement of reasonableness under (1) and necessity under (2). While a school might attempt to define those terms to give them unlimited authority by allowing them to determine what is reasonable and necessary, the inclusion of the terms in the code also open the possibility of a cause of action by the student who does not agree. Elsewhere the Indiana Code assures that students will not be denied due process, meaning they can seek damages for school actions that overstep the legislative intent.
Mike,
Don’t read too much into due process. That only guarantees they the suspect can be present at their hearing, have an opportunity to be heard, and have the opportunity to present evidence. The process at the school district is nothing like the detailed process of an actual court. So long as those three items are met during the suspension hearings the due process provision can’t be attacked.
This law gives schools the ability to punish students for “unlawful activity”, not for committing crimes. A person is not a criminal until convicted in a court of law. A student commits an “unlawful activity” when the school says he did. The case in this article is an excellent example. There was no criminal charge, much less a criminal conviction, but the school decided to mete out punishment anyway using this long-arm law.
The law doesn’t really limit anything. As the school officials in the article noted, they consider students as defacto representatives of the school system. Any impropriety whatsoever by a student would fall under this blanket and be “interference with school purposes”.
The necessity clause isn’t an AND, it is an OR.
I strongly suspect that if this law ever receives a serious challenge it will be squashed for being unconstitutionally broad. In the meantime it is absolutely ripe for abuse.
Jim,
Our civil court system makes the school’s version of due process subject to review by the legal system’s version.
Then there’s this little detail you CONVENIENTLY ignored:
(1) the unlawful activity may reasonably be considered to be an interference with school purposes or an educational function; or
(2) the student’s removal is necessary to restore order or protect persons on school property;
Clearly, this was interfering with a school function.
Or…..
What mike said.
True. The civil court could certainly review the school’s process. As long as those three key elements are present, due process was attained. The school does not have to have the same process as the civil court - they only need to meet the minimum criteria.
I didn’t ignore that at all, dweeb. I stressed it. The function that the student interfered with had absolutely no connection to the school district.
You made the assumption earlier that because both school districts derive their power from the state that they share state level authority. This is not the case. Their power is granted by and regulated by the state but they are no more a state governing body than a village mayor is.
JAFO said:
> Are all you freaks against the Patriot Act too?
>
> I’m just curious as it is one of those things that,
> in theory, could be used improperly, but hasn’t.
I guess you haven’t read the stories about the man held (indefinitely, without charges) for photographing lakes and reservoirs?
Oh, well that doesn’t count because he’s not a U.S. citizen, and so doesn’t have rights?
What about the U.S. citizen held (indefinitely, without charges) as an “enemy combatant”.
(Sorry, I can’t recall the names of these people. I’m sure a quick Google will find them for you.)
Let’s not forget about the provision that lets the government get your records from the local library. We have no way of knowing if this was abused, because they don’t need a court order, and it’s a violation of the Patriot Act for anyone to tell you that your records were obtained.
Dweeb/Jim,
Note that the quoted material doesn’t say that it has to be a function of the student’s own school, but merely “a school function” or “school purposes”. Apparently, this applies to a student from school A at a football game between schools B and C.
Correct, Ken. It also doesn’t have to be a school function. It could be a student from school A at a hockey game in country B.
Since a few here have commented about how they feel the law “should” function, I’ll give my opinion; not that I ever expect it to be used. I am in favor of strict and swift punishment of real criminal activity. I am willing to extend this to minors in violation of “reasonable” conduct rules at school and other public settings. However, I would like to see the punishment for falsely accusing a person of a crime, exactly the same as the punishment for the crime in cases where the accused is found to be not guilty. This would include a case where a school administrator falsely accused a student of a violation and later investigation found that the charges were false, that official would receive the exact punishment that would otherwise be applied to the student. I do not think people in any area of society should be allowed to destroy the lives of others with impunity.
With this being the second streaking incident it makes me think that students these days are just not as smart as students used to be. I was a teenager in the 70s and had many friends who streaked at football games and none of them ever got caught. One even ended up with his picture on the front page of the newspaper. It wasn’t a very clear picture of his face but the other students all knew who it was and it gained him immense popularity with all of the girls in school. I guess now that would be considered a disruption to the educational process.
Jim, it says interfering with a school function, and that authority cleary can’t cross state lines. If it’s an atletic event in his state, it’s overseen by the state high school athletic association, of which his school is a member. Any such event is sponsored in part by his diatrict. Sorry, but your dog here won’t hunt - there’s nothing in this case to suggest that his conduct at a private softball league game, for instance, would be subject to sanction by his school. You’ve published other stories of schools punishing clearly non-school-related conduct, and I’ved weighed in condemning such overreaching authority, but this case just isn’t one of those. If district A has a rivalry with B, and students from A go and disrupt sports events between B and C, D, E, or F, that’s school related conduct just as much as at a game between A ans B. District A has a bona fide duty to its fellow athletic association members to police its students conduct at association events. All the districts work together to provide these events to students, and thus, he abused a privilege facilitated at least in part by his district. His district was one finger on the hand he bit, a hand that was feeding him the opportunity to enjoy inter-district sports contests.
Everyone’s efforts are best spent on finding more compelling and valid examples of ZT excesses, rather than flogging cases like this which are marginal at best, and discrediting the entire anti-ZT movement as hypersensitive whiners. If this is the worst out there, there’s nothing to worry about.
Mike,
You haven’t thought that through, apparently.
If your job is a disciplinarian and you’re in legal jeopardy for doing it in good faith, nobody would do the job.
That would be like charging employess who accidentally break things or lose things while discharing their duties in good faith. It’s part of the cost of doing business.
What I really wonder about this whole incident is this:
Is everyone frothing at the mouth over the wording of the school’s rule, or the outcome?
Is the fact that a kid took off his clothes at a football game and ran around and got suspended a real problem for anyone? Does anyone here think that that is Okay behavior? Speak up if you think that high school kids should be able to take off their clothing at football games and run around with any kind of accountability. If getting suspended for it isn’t so bad, then cool.
I get the feeling that everyone is upset about the ‘implications’ of the rule. Bah. Until someone abuses it, get bent.
Good point, JAFO.
I think that a short term suspension is entirely appropriate for streaking at a school football game. What I have a serious problem with is the mechanics that brought the punishment about.
It was asked above if I’d be happier if the kid had been arrested by the police instead of suspended by the school. Yes, I absolutely would. The police at that game were the legal authority and if they had arrested him and charged him it would have been an appropriate use of power.
JAFO, an abuse of the power did happen. That is what this story is about. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
JAFO- Your point is the exact opposite of mine, and makes the case for reason. I realize that it is not appropriate to make the fear of retribution so prevalent that schools will not discipline in a reasonable and appropriate manner when that is called for. But to remove accountability totally and just claim as an acceptable “cost of doing business†the few children who’s lives are ruined by unreasonable application of rules is ridiculous beyond comprehension. The truth, as it usually is, is somewhere in the middle.
Jim- I agree with your point that if a crime was committed the police should have taken action and made an arrest. A sworn police officer is actually not allowed, in Indiana at least, to make a deal with someone else to fail to enforce the law when the officer reasonably believes a law was broken. Any police officer involved in that decision should be brought up for internal review. I also think that in cases where a student, or anyone else, is accused of a crime and is to be punished for that crime, to only proper venue for the case is the judicial system.
>
And off in the distance I hear the student who was suspended saying: “Hey, Jim, if this is your idea of helping me, I’ll pass.”
Bill,
That’s funny!
It looks kinda like a ‘good ole boy’ method of fixing a problem… kid’s gotta get busted. We’ll take care of this at home. Wink wink.
Oh well. Can’t please everybody.
Mike - If your idea was implemented, every prosecutor that later had an exoneration would be imprisoned. Who would be a DA, then? I don’t know stats, but I think there are a fair number of ‘later evidence that results in an exoneration’ in the legal system. Your country would be chaos as no one would be left standing to prosecute criminals. Bullys would rule schools since no one would penalize them. It would be far safer to do nothing than to risk getting in trouble, eh?
I’m done on this thread.
Since when did schools become part of our justice system? I’ll admit that this streaking incident is not a good example to debate Indiana’s law with. The reason that I say this is the issue of the student representing his school at this game is a gray area. If it was a game where his school’s team was participating then I have to agree with the punishment.
What concerns me is the amount that school districts are allowed to intrude in a student’s life away from school. This has gone to the point of making schools partial guardians of their students. What is next? Will the school be allowed to set curfews, decide what a student may eat or drink? Will parents have to clear vacations, parties and other activities through the school? I haven’t been a high school student for over 22 years, but I have a neice and nephew in high school who live close enough for me to see how things like this affect them. Laws like this have made the school administrations partial parents. How long will it be before they can override the parents? Will parents have to have their rules at home cleared by the school administration? One final question “Are homeschooled or private school students held to the regulations of the school district’s rules?”. If not then there is a good case for making this law declared invalid because it doesn’t apply equally and singles out public school students.
JAFO, physicians are sued for malpractice all the time when they acted in good conscience, for “honest mistakes” and med schools still turn away applicants. Cops get prosecuted for honest mistakes when they use their sidearms. I’ve worked retail where I was responsible if I broke something. Accountability doesn’t prevent willing applicants for a job, especially in this economy.
Jim, where’s the abuse in this process? They clearly met the requirements of the legislation. The legislation was passed by legally elected representatives. Review by the civil courts is still available. At a stretch, you might be able to argue that an injustice ocurred, but there’s no abuse of power. The kid received an appropriate punishment for his actions (by your own admission) and it was done in strict accordance with the law (again by the information YOU posted.) Did I miss where Indiana became a dictatorship and the tyrant governor enacted this law by fiat? Perhaps the Principal or school board violated state law?
I think the abuse comes from the fact that “the proper authorities” (ie: the local police) decided not to arrest him and press charges, yet his school (which had absolutely nothing to do with the incident) took it upon themselves to punish him.
Let’s tweak the scenario a bit…
Suppose he spray painted graffiti on another school’s property. (He was at the other school for reasons totally unrelated to his own school.) Suppose that the other school felt it sufficient punishment for him to pay for the cleanup. Should his school have the power to suspend him?
I would like to put something on the table here. If I am a student of a school in Indiana and commit an infraction in the state of, and with no charges are brought against me in Georgia, but the school district in Indiana finds out about my infraction, should Indiana still be able to punish me? This is the same as what has happened with this student except we just crossed county/Board of Education/School District lines. And if we have been reading and understand from the above posts, according to the law you are “innocent until proven guilty” and are granted you day in court. A person who kills someone can get bail and continue on with life in public. This student is tried, convicted and sentenced without ever being able to present his case. The suspension should take place after, not before.
I wonder if they will bust this kid for wearing just his underwear all day. Of course that the teacher MADE him wear just his underwear…
http://2worksforyou.com/news/stories/underwear.shtml
submitted this to “tips” too, but since 99% of the ZT stuff i email in falls through the cracks…
Shadowe, that story is amzing! Most schools will call parents to bring alternate clothes if a child is out of dress code — and some even have a bank of clothes in various sizes that kids can change into for the durations of the school day.
Forcing a child of any age to wear only underwear through a day of classes is wrong, just wrong. That teacher should have her certification revoked and be sanctioned. The administration of the school who allowed it to happen should also be sanctioned. And, since this is America, home of the litigious, the parents of the child should sue the school board, the administrators and the teacher.
cj
Well that explains it, tips@zerointelligence.net doesn’t work.
The mailbox has been repaired. Thanks for letting me know there was a problem, Shadowe.
Hmm… I can see the headlines now…
“Teacher forces 5-year-old student to take clothes off. School officials support teacher.”
Imagine a male teacher and a 12-year-old female student in the same situation, and the outcome would surely be quite different.
Don’t be silly, Ken.
Read the article.
The teacher was out of line and the school issued an apology. No one was backing the teacher.
Don’t make a mountian out of a molehill for crying out loud.
Oh… wait. Please do. That’s the purpose of this site. This is probably just a slipperly slope… I suppose all teachers everywhere will require nudity of students. Soon little girls will have to come to school naked all the time. Where will it end? Oh, the tryanny!
Please.
Ken, your graffiti incident wouldn’t take place in any capacity as an attendee of a school event, nor would it disrupt a school event, and thus this law wouldn’t apply.
He would be like any other vandal. As for proper authorities, the law gives the school jurisdiction over conduct at school events. He could assault a teacher at his
own school and the police/DA could decline to prosecute, and that wouldn’t mean he couldn’t be suspended, so the decisions of other jurisdictions not to punish him
are not relevant. The “proper authorities” operate in a heirarchy, and if he so chooses, the school’s decision is subject to review by the civil courts.
Paul, there is a big difference between state lines and other jurisdictional boundaries in the USA. The Constitution doesn’t have a whole article of the Bill of Rights devoted to
the souvereignty of counties.
Shadowe, CJ, I think the simple answer to this is, if you’re going to violate the dress code, don’t wear any underwear!
JAFO, does is an apology supposed to undo everything?
Dweeb:
> Ken, your graffiti incident wouldn’t take
> place in any capacity as an attendee of a
> school event, nor would it disrupt a school
> event, and thus this law wouldn’t apply.
It would if he were there to watch the football game and the rock were visible from the field. You now have a scenario identical to the original one, replacing one illegal act (streaking) with another (vandalism). The rest of the situation would remain the same.
Would you feel that his school (which had nothing to do with the incident at hand) could suspend him?
Now, I’m not saying that this kid wasn’t looking for trouble. I just don’t think that his school should be the one doling out the punishment.
My 5-year-old son hates underwear and doesn’t mind wandering around sans clothing. I’m having a heckuva time convincing him the rest of the world doesn’t share his views on the subject! Fortunately he doesn’t do this in public and the school he attends hasn’t been encouraging him to do so. Talk about mixed messages! One school hammers streakers, and the other is training them.
While I think the teenage exhibitionist most certainly should have been disciplined, I’d much rather it have been under a different rule or regulation. To claim disciplinary action over events that happen at any school’s function, anywhere, is overbroad and can mean whatever it needs to mean to whover is handing out punishment that day. That’s the Orwellian flavor that gets me about so much school discipline these days.
I end with David Niven’s excellent response at the Oscars: “Just think: the only laugh that man will probably ever get is for stripping and showing off his shortcomings.”
JAFO wrote, “The teacher was out of line.”
Then, I’m sure you’ll agree, JAFO, that this teacher should be suspended from her job for 1 year. This will send a message to all teachers that such mistakes are not to be tolerated; after all, with the rise in illicit teacher/student liaisons, any acts close to this — and stripping down a student certainly counts — is suspect, and should not be tolerated.
Or, maybe, as this was her first time offense, she can get off with an apology to the student and his parents, a promise to never do it again, and then a re-training program on school dress code procedures.
Which disciplinary path would the teacher’s union prefer? Which would lead to better employee morale? And, most importantly, which leads to reduced illicit teacher/student liaisons?
Hmm, this is perhaps relevant to this Indiana case:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051106/OPINION/511060304/1002
(Of course, it contains a bunch of statistics, which makes the article, in some people’s eyes, very suspect!)
kjl,
I’m sure I don’t care what diciplinary action is doled out to the teacher. It’s not my business. If you blow it at work, I certianly should not be involved in deciding your fate there. Although some patrons beg to differ, when a waiter screws up my order at a restaraunt, it is also not my business what diciplinary action is taken by management there, either.
How’s the view from your high horse?
Ken, if it wasn’t AT the event, and didn’t disrupt the event, then the law wouldn’t apply.
In that case, the host school is just another property owner, but I should point out that if the police decline criminal prosecution of a vandal, the property owner still can seek damages in civil court. If you spray paint racial slurs on my house, my neighbors, who are far more likely to be impacted by such words than I am, could conceivably sue you for pain and suffering, so there’s still opportunity for his own district to get involved in a similar manner.
JAFO, I’m still free to withhold my business fromt the restaurant owner if I don’t like how he handles it. Are not all taxpayers the public schools’ paying customers?
Stephanie, et al, consider this - a student of the school where the game took place would have been suspended. The host school has a right to maintain order at school events, but can’t suspend a student of another school. The alternative is to close events to students from other schools. It’s not that unheard of. A party in one of our suburbs that became a riot has caused that suburb’s high school to have a ‘closed’ homecoming dance. It’s a suburb that’s home to some of the area’s most prestigious single sex private prep schools, which means that there’s a lot of intervarsity dating on the part of the public high school’s best students. So now, many of their best students can’t bring their boy/girl-friends to their homecoming dance.
How’s the view?
Well, I do care about reducing illicit teacher/student interaction, to protect my own children. And, I do care about restaurant employee morale, for my own health (a restaurant that mistreats its employees likely means lower morale, which likely means poorer service and more spit/crap in my food, etc.).
And, I do care about safety in our schools, again to protect my own children.
So, as a citizen, these are all concerns of mine, and I’ll do what I can to change laws, and practices, to better protect my health and safety.
kjl,
So you’re caring and very interested in making sure you’re part of the decision making process on everyone’s punsihments.
You should have gone into the judiciary.
I always wondered who the guy was that jumped up in the middle of the restaraunt and shouted, ‘I demand that this man be fired!’ I guess I know now.
JAFO (who doesn’t want kjl determining anything for him, good or bad)
Was the man in question fired? Why or why not?
Did the man demanding it brandish a weapon, begin hitting the owner, or otherwise attempt to use coercive force? If not, then what’s the problem? Clearly, the only inducement for his demands to be met was his conditional willingness to patronize the restaurant in the future. If he wants to condition his business on his demands being met, and if his business is that valuable to the owner, what makes it any of your affair? One thing only, and that’s if YOUR business happens to be MORE valuable than the other guy’s. So the obvious question, JAFO, is what exactly you have against free market capitalism?
dweeb, I never said this student shouldn’t be disciplined by his own school. He did something wrong and clearly there should be some consequences. I simply stated that I didn’t care for the particular code he was being punished under; for me there’s something particularly creepy about a school that asserts that their students represent 100% of the time, no matter where they are, and that the school can tap them for whatever conduct the school deems inappropriate. *This* guy did something that most normal people understand is wrong, against the rules, illegal in most jurisdictions, etc. What about the situation that isn’t so black/white cut/dried? A teenager that does something that neither he, nor his peers, nor his parents, nor anyone else in the known universe would consider harmful to the school’s reputation could suddenly find himself on the wrong end of a policy. Hair-spitting? Yup. But I’ve met enough of the population to understand that such a hair-splitter is going to end up in power some darned place.
BUT you also make a good point. I shall retire to chew on it thoughtfully.
dweeb,
Don’t be ridiculous. I have nothing against free market capitalism. I have something against being rude.
Think about it logically.
1. Service stinks. You’re unhappy. Whatever.
2. You talk to the manager (privately, quietly).
Now, in order for you to patronize the business again and vote with your dollars, does the proprieter:
A) Submit to your demands about how he should run his business, who he should hire and fire, where he should bank, whether he should use cash or accrual based accounting, etc.
B) Listen to what your specific problem was and fix them problem in whatever way makes the proprieter happy.
You’re free to tell him how to do anything you want to do in as rude a way as you want. If you choose not to do business with the man, you don’t have to. Your right. If you’re important enough, he may change the way he does business. Enter Walmart. A business will change their foundations for a Walmart account.
But… in all honesty, that’s not what we’re dealing with here, and you know it. If a patron of a business has a problem and is wronged, they really have no final say in the fix for the problem.
Management can take suggestions and can make the solution public if they choose… yadda yadda. But, the very idea of a patron demanding three dozen lashes is overstepping by far.
Going even farther is an outside observer demanding a specific punishment. Terrell Owens has no business pontificating that the waiter who spilled spaghetti sauce on Dweeb should get flogged about feet and ankles.
But… that’s what we have here. Some joker who goes by kjl seems to think that he/she/it knows how to punish a teacher that they don’t know for a crime (I think it is safe to call that a crime) that the didn’t see and only have cheap hearsay evedince on. How effin’ sad is that?
What ought to happen is kjl ought to worry much more about kjl and when it happens that kjl screws up at work big time…. just be glad the press isn’t there to blow it out of proportion and have a bulliten board of folks deciding how to punish him/her/it.
Don’t misunderstand me. I have no love for that teacher. If the story is correct (and who can say?), the school disctrict needs to take action and do the right thing.
So here’s the recap:
1. America kicks ass. I’m glad I’m here and I can make my million.
2. If you screw up in America, your punishment should be decided by your boss or the courts (or the school), not kjl.
3. I’m pretty much right about this stuff.
Honestly, JAFO, I think if you were around in the 1960s, you would have been happy to see segregation continue. After all, it wasn’t your business, you have no right to comment on other people’s business, and protesting/marching-in-the-streets/etc. is just “rude”.
Look, I didn’t suggest being in the loop on every discipline decision. I clearly said I’m interested in changing laws and practices: “I’ll do what I can to change laws”. So, I testify at congressional hearings, I make suggestions at school board meetings, I help parents of falsely accused students. And, the policy I’m now interested seeing change is - we’re all interested in seeing change - is “zero tolerance” policies in schools, with their long “arm of the law” that goes well beyond school bounderies (for example, kids being punished for what they draw or write at home). It’s not just me, its not just folks on this board, the opponents include the prestigious and thoughtful American Bar Association, among others.
Yet, despite this opposition, the zero tolerance ball just seems to keep on rolling. Its the inertia of “I don’t want to be sued” that seems to drive lots of schools. So, a little protest, and media pressure, seems to be necessary to change the tide. Not 1960s protest, ala burning cars and smashing windows, but protest nevertheless.
As for this kid that “did something wrong”. Streaking is a stupid, but funny, prank. Let the embarressment be the punishment. Publicity, with him in the news. That’s what 99.99% of judges would have done to him, if it was his first crime — that, and maybe a little bit of community service. Not jail time, not suspension from school, thus interrupting his educational process, and pushing him closer to a life of crime (well documented now, in the U.S., and in the U.K. too “schoolhouse to jailhouse”).
> I think the abuse comes from the fact
> that “the proper authorities” (ie: the local
> police) decided not to arrest him and press
> charges, yet his school (which had absolutely
> nothing to do with the incident) took it upon
> themselves to punish him.
Ken, it’s unclear that that’s what happened. My interpretation of the story is that the police did not arrest and charge him BECAUSE it was decided that punishment via his school district was more appropriate and reasonable. The issue of the school district’s semi-governmental authority is a real one and the citizens of Indiana should address it, but, again, if I was the kid, and I knew I was caught dead to rights, and I was given the choice between a costly court case + possible jail time and/or a fine (which my parents would have to pay, of course) or a simple suspension with no further consequences, I would take the latter and be GLAD the police and the school district were collaborating in this way. If the kid was my son, I would feel the same way, and would feel that my tax dollars were being well spent.
Staphanie, before you decide not to like the code, it helps to understand it. Your characterization ignores the substantial qualifiers, which require that:
(1) the unlawful activity may reasonably be considered to be an interference with school purposes or an educational function; or
(2) the student’s removal is necessary to restore order or protect persons on school property;
When Jim posted the law, he conveniently omitted this part. The law applies to this case ONLY because the kid was interfering with a school function.
JAFO, other than your comment about rudeness, your citation of WalMart negates the rest of your case. It’s very easy, in a small town, for one customer to be every bit as important to a restaurant as WalMart is to a light bulb manufacturer. I grant the rudeness objection when someone makes such demands loudly in the middle of a restaurant, disturbing other patrons. I suggest you find someone in the semiconductor industry on the capital equipment side and ask them about Intel’s “copy exact” policy if you want to see just how far an important customer can go in micromanaging a vendor. Maybe Terrel Owens can’t stand seeing food spilled, and he’s the biggest customer they have.
As for teachers, school board members are elected. The voters of the community are the customers and the ultimate employers of all school personnel. If a person with the political weight to turn a school board election wants the teacher flogged, then absent laws against flogging, it just may happen. It’s just like capitalism - everything, including how the teacher is punished, is open to negotiation - the only question is how strong is your negotiating position. Like it or not, we’re created equal, but the field spreads out from there, and some people become the proverbial 600 lb. gorilla in the room, by virtue of accumulated wealth or political capital.
Now, I suspect kjl’s negotiating position is impossibly weak in all this, but that doesn’t mean he’s not entitled to weigh in, and be ignored. One other great thing about America is we all get to state our “should’s.” Dispute whether his proposed punishment is just and prudent, but not the legitimacy of his stating it.
kjl, if this kid could be embarassed by exposure, he wouldn’t be streaking. Punishment, to be effective, must be something the offending party finds unpleasant.
I should have clarified, “embarassed for being caught”. I’m sure that made the kid red-faced, not the streaking itself.
Would you agree that, in our current legal environment, courts would give this kid probation and community service, not jail time, for a first time, juvenile, offense? Just locally, I know of dozens of students’ offenses, ranging from “assault” (a scuffle in the schoolyard) to “vandalism” (toilet-papering the school’s playground) to “trespassing” (caught in school at midnight while trying to steal an exam), that, while serious accusations, led to just probation and community service hours. Because they were first time offenders, and the judges say something like “you deserve a second chance”.
Did the courts have an effect on the kids? You bet — their knees were trembling in court, and many vowed to never let that happen again (get themselves in a courtroom).
Same kids, expelled or suspended from school — what did they do? Celebrate their days off. You can read the blog entries of their boasts, and pictures, of what they did while the other kids were slaving away in the classroom!
Now, all that’s just personal, and anecdoctal, describing what’s happening at schools in fairly affluent districts. Same situation, but different kids, poorer environment — what tends to happen then is the expelled kids don’t blog and snap their boisterous digital pics, they just join the gangs.
Dweeb, you’re figuring me out when you suggest that “absent laws preventing flogging”. That’s the kind of policy directive I’m interested in, not negotiating or deciding on each individual discipline case. When the punishment is 1) extreme, 2) doesn’t “fit the crime”, or is 3) exactly equivalent to punishment to another, far more serious criminal act (to wit, a student receiving the same punishment for holding a test tube of what she thought was fake beer as the student who deliberetly carried the alcohol to school), then laws need to be crafted to constrain those in power. Otherwise, yes, we could end up back in the flogging days.
Hmmm … which wouldn’t be bad in some cases! Yet another teacher was caught last month in a sex-with-a-student case; this time, just 4 miles from our home. Yikes!
dweeb - I did not “conveniently omit” anything and your continued use of this is becoming irritating. I was not the first person to post the law. I was the second person to post the law and the portion I posted is this specific bit that you keep saying I did not post. Knock it off already.
There are two dangerous parts of the law:
1) It is specifically crafted to eliminate any jurisdictional limit. It applies in Belgium.
2) It gives schools power over students whenever a student’s actions cause “interference with school purposes”. That is unconstitutionally broad by anybody’s measure. I do not care how many other conditions are listed after “OR” clauses. In legal terms for applicability “OR” means “nothing else need apply if this item does”.
Yes, it was Mike that posted IC 20-33-8-14, followed by Jim posting section 15.
At least section 15 applies only to “unlawful activity”, so it can’t be used if the activity wasn’t already “unlawful”. (Is “unlawful” any different than “illegal”?)
However, it doesn’t specify the jurisdiction of “unlawful”. If you go to Belgium and do something legal there, but “unlawful” in Indiana, does the stat-ute apply? (Sorry for the hyphen. The submission filter refused to post with “t a t u” in the text.)
Sorry about the spam filter. I’m getting nailed by Tatu right now. I’ll unblock it when the attack stops.
Regarding “illegal” versus “lawful”, illegal means prohibited by law. Unlawful means not authorized by law. Taken to the legal extreme it covers anything not specifically authorized according to legal statute.
KJL, I agree that suspension isn’t the best remedy, but the issue here doesn’t seem to be the effectiveness of suspension as a punishment.
My point to you is that neither is the embarrassment of being caught an effecive punishment for someone who is unabashed at being buck naked in front of hundreds of their peers. People are impacted by embarrassment to varying degrees, and this is the sort of person on the extreme low end of that impact scale. If we were talking about a different offense, one that wasn’t essentially a shameless attention-getting ploy, I might agree with you. By the way, I’m all for flogging in certain cases.
Jim, sorry, I misstated - you didn’t omit the qualifiers, but you did effectively deny their effect. When a kid gets suspended for something he did while in Belgium, while NoT on a school field trip, then you’ll have a great case. Until that happens, you’re attacking the authorities for what their writings imply they MIGHT do, sort of like what they did to Mr. Poole in Kentucky. Pro-active, predictive condemnation is a two way street. Like I said, this case is NOT an illustration of the excesses you claim this law will lead to.
Dweeb, the point Jim is making (I believe) is not that authorities “might” punish someone for misbehaving in Belgium, but rather that the law is written so broadly that they *can* do so. It doesn’t require that the kid be doing anything at all relative to his school, but merely “a school”.
Laws like the “Child Decency Act” (I believe it was called something like that) were challenged _before_ someone was arrested for discussing breast cancer on the internet.
And, given federal and constitutional provisions, it’s not that broad. It’s
not Elliot Spitzer’s New York, it’s the
heart of flyover country, and Indiana courts
understand “may REASONABLY be considered to be an interference with school purposes or an educational function”
Go find the case overturning the decency act; I think you’ll find the plaintiff was actually charged with a violation (it was a content provider, not a viewer, since the law only impacted content providers. It never could have been used against someone for discussing or researching anything.)
Stephanie: Sounds like someone Upstairs shipped you a kid from scandinavia instead of a normal puritanically repressed american child.
Shadowe, I can stand that — but the Powers That Be also decreed that he be a morning person. That was just plain mean!
Good news! Zero Tolerance is apparently gone in the US. Or so I assume from the fact that it’s been three months since there was a post on this blog.
Zero Tolerance is, unfortunately, alive and well. Also unfortunately (for this site and the purpose behind it) my daily commitments have risen to the point where I don’t have time to effectively research these cases. I keep trying to make the time but whenever I manage to get one thing resolved another seems to pop right up.
I am debating now if I should change the scope of the site to a simple news post site.
I remember one time on a hot summer day I had been riding my bike for about 90+ minutes, so I stopped at a QuickTrip gas station to refill my water and, hey why not, eat a twinkie. Behind the QT is, among other things, a small bar/grill. I’m facing away from it just sitting by the site of the station when “CLACK!” a limestone rock, a good sized one, makes a crash landing right next to me. I turn around and what do I see but four lil’ league baseball boys picking up limestone rocks from a nicely landscaped curb that had a young oak set in the rockbed. I yelled at them, “What the hell is wrong with you?!” in an authorative tone. They ran inside.
I walked right across that driving lane and followed them inside. Naturally all four boys huddled in one spot while the best actor of them was trying to make like I was chasing them for no good reason. One of their mothers was calm and skeptical enough to heed my request to take a look at the evidence of their petty fun: limestone rocks everywhere and dents/scratches/marks on a dumpster, the back of the QT, and the surrounding landscape.
Taking turns, the mother and I explained to the boys how no matter how harmless they think they are, their indiscretions represent their team, their parents, and their league [while they are in uniform], and the consequences thereof, on top of how stupid it was to be chucking rocks across a parking lot exit lane at a gas station in the first place.
I think we can draw a line where I put brackets. Was the streaker in question in uniform? Was he formally or even strongly but informally representing his school? No. Were the students in any way representin their school? No.
Just because my bike is a Schwinn doesn’t mean that Schwinn can take my bike away when I eat a twinkie on a ride or flip off some asshole driver because I might in some intangible way put a bad spin on Schwinn. If I was wearing all sorts of shit that said Schwinn, symbolizing their sponsorship and I did something that defaces Schwinn, that’d be different.
A person cannot be held responsible for defacing one’s demographic simply because they gather around other individuals of the same demographic. This is how a demographic is defined, especially in this case, where a party happened to be attended to by students of the same school. That didn’t happen because it was a school party. It’s a matter of geography, and that’s what defines the students’ common demographic. It’s a circular argument.
These suspensions do go too far. They cross the line between a student’s private life in public and his school life, which is its own paradigm.
Aerik,
Sorry, but you’re missing something here. If you were at a Schwinn SPONSORED event, that would change things. It’s simple - if he wants to act up in public without school sanction, then he needs to find someone other than the schools to provide him with venues. When schools provide games, dances, etc., for the students’ benefit, it’s a two edged sword. If you’re going to act stupid and mess up a public event, then go find one that’s not held by an entity with which you have a connection which can be used against you. The venue was paid for with state and local educational funds, so the state educational system gets to sanction actions in that venue undertaken by those over whom it has jurisdiction.
Jim,
You could solicit help. Ask that tips be sent as complete posts, including embedded links for primary sources. If thery’re not complete enough, reply to that effect, and when they’re complete enough, just paste them in.
The school administrator advised that the suspension was a matter of “professional courtesy” between districts.
Jim has pointed out that IN law extends the tentacles of school district authority 24/7 anywhere on earth. No I don’t want to entrust my local school officials with this level of authority; this site and others are filled with examples why that is a really bad idea. Hoosier daddy? The school superintendent? Scary. Admittedly, suspended streaker boy may not be a ZT poster child. I have confidence that, given this power, an overzealous school administrator will abuse the law to a point where even JAFO says whoa.
“Jim has pointed out that IN law extends the tentacles of school district authority 24/7 anywhere on earth”
No, he hasn’t. There is a clause limiting authority to school events.
Again, you want to act up in public without the schools having anything to say about it, then don’t depend upon the schools to provide you with a venue. Keep in mind, the right to an education does not include a right to big events like football games. The schools are under no obligation to furnish these spectacles, and, in fact, the entire athletic program represents a profligate act of “mission creep” with the taxpayers’ money. The schools’ authority AND OBLIGATIONS end at the end of the school day and the door to the school, but when people demand “entertainment welfare” in the form of bread and circuses (like football games) from their public school districts, there’s a price.
You can’t let the govt. foot the bill without letting them call the shots. None of the freedoms we have given up in this country in the past 50 years were given away for nothing - there was always a publicly funded treat held out. You can’t have it both ways.
No, he hasn’t. There is a clause limiting authority to school events.
Yes, I did. Several times. Explicitly, simply and irrefutably (but apparently not for the last time) on November 9, 2005.
While you have quoted the law with and without the clause I mentioned, you have NOT established the 24/7 worldwide authority you claim exists, which is what matt asserted. The only thing that’s been established is that the authority extends to school sponsored events. If he want’s to streak, and keep the schools out of it, then he should do just that - keep the schools, and their money, their stadiums, their lights, their security, concessions, grandstands, football uniforms, etc. out of it. Go streak a 4H rodeo, a church ice cream social (where, if the schools step in, People For the American Way will probably take up his cause), the chamber of commerce rib cook-off, or a U2 concert, but if he’s in 4H he could be kicked out, if he’s part of the church, disfellowshipped, his parents could be kicked out of the chamber of commerce, or he could be banned from the concert venue. A man rushed the field during a Browns/Steelers game - in addition to the court penalties, he’s barred from the stadium for 5 years, but he’s free to go to Indians or Pirates games, since they have their own stadiums under different ownership. Organizations offering public venues have a right to use their associations with patrons to enforce behavioral standards at those venues.