It seems that a Canadian university is conducting a Star Chamber proceeding against one of its professors -- because of what he has posted on his personal website hosted on a non-university server. Why? Because a homosexual activist does not like it.

A Cape Breton University (CBU) professor is the target of a human rights complaint by a homosexual student. Comments posted by the professor at his private web site critical of the Anglican Church of Canada for its permissive and condoning stand in relation to same-sex "marriage" are the cause of the complaint.

History Professor David Mullan wrote to his local Anglican bishop in 2004, criticizing the trend: "When Anglicanism in some manner recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate 'lifestyle' for Christians, it will become a church in schism," he charged.

On February 20, homosexual CBU student Shane Wallis, who also co-ordinates the campus' Sexual Diversity Office, lodged a formal human rights complaint with the University. In an e-mail response to Wallis' charge of a human rights offence, Wallis stated in his complaint that Mullan responded that "homosexuality is a repudiation of nature and the apotheosis of unbridled desire."

Please note that in this instance, "sexual diversity" means "anything except monogamous heterosexuality" -- and that while Shane Wallis may believe in "sexual diversity", he does not believe in intellectual diversity. After all, his complaint is based upon the expression of views and beliefs that contradict his own.

What is more, the university has adopted a procedure that repudiates basic human and civil rights.

From Professor Mullan's web site it can be seen that, because the University has acknowledged that the proceedings of a CBU human rights tribunal may be used against him in a court of law, he has declined to participate in complaint hearings. He has, however, challenged both Wallis and the University to acknowledge his free speech rights as a Canadian.

"I have a Human Rights complaint against me, as a result of two letters to my former Anglican bishop placed on my private website and a reply I sent Shane Wallis in response to an unsolicited email," Professor Mullan explains on his web site.

"I met yesterday morning (in April) with the Human Rights Officer. At that time I asked her whether anything I said in the process might be used against me in court. Today, after legal consultation, she replied that yes, it could be. I immediately told her that I would not participate in the process. I told her also in our meeting that I find that the requirement that I give evidence, effectively incriminating myself (rather like the Tudor Court of Star Chamber and the ex officio oath) when asked for it is in my judgement a violation of the common law, and of my rights as a free-born Englishman. The procedure is a farce, and if pushed I will sue the institution for violating my civil rights."

"The process can never be fair until these conditions are altered, and until the complainant stands under potential judgement for entering a frivolous complaint," he adds. "No one in his right mind would participate in this without incurring the fees of a solicitor, and when found innocent, someone needs to re-imburse the defendant."

What is more, Wallis filed a second complaint because Mullan had the integrity to go public with this attempt to suppress his fundamental human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It would appear that the recently discovered right to not be offended, right to not be challenged in one's beliefs, and right to screw anything you want are being used to trump those rights. The complaint about breaking confidentiality is apparantly based upon the newly discovered "right to do secretly what no one would stand for publicly" -- for the proceeding has no right to remain silent, and any and all involuntarily coerced statements made in the proceedings may be used against the speaker in a court of law. Again, basic human rights are not a consideration at Cape Breton University.

When i was young, Canada was a free country -- or so it appeared when I visited there. When did that change?

Oh, and by the way, I wrote Shane Wallis the following email. I hope he is man enough to respond.

Shane--

How is it that you have come to the conclusion that your own personal weaknesses and inadequacies are a legitimate basis for suppressing the human rights of individuals to hold religious beliefs and to express them publicly?

Did your university teach you the fascist view that only government-approved thoughts, beliefs, and opinions may be expressed in public, or was did you learn that elsewhere?

Why do you fear views which differ from your own? Is it a fear of diversity, or a recognition of the weakness and inadequacies of your own beliefs?

By the way, my questions have nothing to do with your sexual practices or personal relationships -- they have to do with fundamental questions of human rights enshrined in the founding charters of free societies. I hope you'll take a moment and respond.

Regards
Greg
AKA Rhymes With Right
www.rhymeswithright.mu.nu

To Dr. Mullan, I offer my prayers and best wishes as he fights the good fight for freedom in Canada. And I remind him that America is still free -- though the sodomy lobby is would certainly like to make it less so.

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 913 words, total size 6 kb.

I'm the last one to think that a kicking a teacher is appropriate behavior -- but this strikes me as a bit of an over-reaction.

A 6-year-old special education student who kicked a Naples teacher's aide and spent several hous in juvenile jail is facing felony battery charges.

Her mother, however, wants to know why the case has gone so far.

Takovia Allen suffers from behavioral problems and attends a special class at Lely Elementary in Naples.

According to an arrest report, on May 2, a teacher was trying to line up students to go to music class. Takovia refused to go and kicked the teacher's aide in the ankle.

After a discussion among school officials and two law enforcement officials called to the school, the girl was arrested.

Takovia was taken to juvenile jail and held there for several hours before being released to her mother.

She is being charged with battery on a public education employee.

It's possible she will enter a program that includes counseling. If she completes the program successfully the charges could be dropped.

Is a six-year-old really able to formulate the level of intent necessary to commit a FELONY?????

I know the goal is to get the kid counseling (which may or may not really be necessary), but i think the method used here is heavey-handed.

Posted by: Greg at 09:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

In oh-so-liberal San Francisco, the right to choose to have an abortion is sacred.

So is the right to choose to commit sodomy with a person of your same sex.

But taking a JROTC class in high school -- such a choice must NOT be allowed!

Or at least that is the direction things are headed.

Let's hope that the School Board listens to the wise opinion of the Argus.

THE San Francisco Board of Education is going too far in its latest plan to consider giving the boot to Junior ROTC at city high schools.

The board of education says it's taking the action in response to the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which requires gay service members to conceal their sexuality.

This is just the latest in a long history of actions that have given the city an anti-military reputation, and we think it's time for city officials to cool it on the rhetoric. It's getting old and the sons and daughters of California and San Francisco who serve their nation in times of need deserve better.

Sentiment against the Iraq war is high and it can be tempting to make headlines by taking out frustrations on the military. City officials need to keep in mind — both with regard to the ROTC program and to other issues — that the war is a policy issue; it's not the fault of the ROTC program, military recruiters or the brave men and women who serve.

But there's a more important issue than whether the board is being unfair to the military. It's the some 1,600 students enrolled in the program who could end up being hurt the most.

They now earn physical education credits and learn discipline through the JROTC and each of them is in the program because they want to be. When board members vote in June, they should keep those students in mind.

My guess, though, is that this opinion will be ignored.

After all, this is San Francisco we are talking about, where something as trivial as the good of students can never be allowed to trump a far-left political statement.

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

And no, we are not talking about folks with a GED -- we are talking about folks who have not met any sort of graduation requirement at all.

It is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland idea. If you do not finish high school, head straight for college.

But many colleges — public and private, two-year and four-year — will accept students who have not graduated from high school or earned equivalency degrees.

And in an era of stubbornly elevated high school dropout rates, the chance to enter college through the back door is attracting growing interest among students without high school diplomas.

That growth is fueling a debate over whether the students should be in college at all and whether state financial aid should pay their way. In New York, the issue flared in a budget battle this spring.

They are students like April Pointer, 23, of New City, N.Y., a part-time telemarketer who majors in psychology at Rockland Community College, whose main campus is in Suffern, N.Y. Ms. Pointer failed science her senior year of high school and did not finish summer school.

But to her father's amazement, last year she was accepted at Rockland, part of the State University of New York.

"He asked, 'Don't you have to have a high school diploma to go to college?' " she said. "I was like, 'No, not anymore.' "

As a high school teacher, this worries me. No, not because of job security issues, but because it seems to devalue even further the worth of a high school diploma I realize that there is no stopping private schools from doing what they want to do regarding admission to college, but it seems to me that there should at least be a minimum standard for admission to public colleges and universities. I'm sure that many of these students are part of the group that need significant amounts of remediation when they arrive on campus.

And then there is the question of giving these students financial aid. Should we be offering financial assistance to those who di not even make full use of the "free" (not really, given the taxpayer burden, but free to them) educational opportunities thaty had on the high school level?

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education has been considering a boycott of Israeli academics who refuse to denounce Israel and support the Terrorstinian entity controlled by Hamas, Hizbollah, and Fatah.

Sadly, decency failed, and the resolution passed.

The 69,000-member National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) voted to boycott Israeli academic professionals and institutions of higher learning unless they “dissociate themselves” from Israel’s “apartheid policy” in Judea and Samaria.

The reactions to the decision were swift.

The British government at once released a statement condemning the move In an effort to contain the damage. A statement by Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Lord Triesman, the UK expressed its regrets and called the decision “counterproductive and retrograde”. Triesman was careful, however, to add, “We also recognize the independence of the NATFHE”.

Triesman served as deputy general secretary of the union in 1984. He also served as general secretary for the Association of University Teachers (AUT) trade union from 1993 to 2001.

Israel Education Minister Yuli Tamir slammed the NATFHE on the vote. She had already spoken last week with the British minister for higher education and asked him to step in to prevent the boycott. “The decision to boycott academic institutions is a move worthy of condemnation and revulsion,” she said. “Those who are implementing this boycott are harming academia’s freedom and turning it into a tool for political forces.”

In an appeal to the international community, NRP Knesset member Zevulun Orlev wrote to parliament members in Britain, France and Germany to demand they join with Israel in condemning the action. Orlev, chairman of the Knesset Science Committee, told his European counterparts, “This is a test of the free world. We expect you to condemn this anti-Semitic and racist decision and to help institutions of higher education in your countries tighten their cooperation with science, technology and higher education institutes in Israel.”

Professor Yehezkiel Teler, Vice Chairman of the Higher Education Council called the decision an echo of the Nazi boycott prior to World War II. “Now Britain is politicizing academia, in opposition to every academic value accepted in the world,” he said. “This will come back on them like a boomerang,” he predicted.

Haifa University, represented by its president, Aharon Ben Ze’ev also slammed the decision as a political move unbefitting an academic organization. “Any attempt to create ties between politics and academic research is simply McCarthyism,” he said.

Professor Yosef Yeshurun, the rector at Bar Ilan University, called the decision “negative”. He added that it “destroys bridges instead of building them”.

* * *

There were actually two motions which were voted on, both making reference to political issues involving relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The first called upon the NATFHE membership to help aid, protect and support PA institutions and universities, and to maintain ties with the PA. The first vote also accused Britain of “scandalous incitement” against Hamas, according to the Ynet news service report.

The second motion called for the boycott against “Israel’s persistent apartheid policy”. The new security fence was cited as part of the “apartheid policy”. In addition, the union leveled accusations of discriminatory practices in the education system.

Both motions were approved in a vote of 106 to 71 with 21 abstentions. In addition to boycotting Israeli institutions and academic professionals, union members will also no longer submit articles to Israeli research journals.

The group confirmed its anti-Semitism by failing to offer even a single word of condemnation directed at the campaign of murder conducted by Terrorstinian groups against innocent Israeli citizens. Perhaps at the next convention they will adopt a national student dress code requiring that members wear brown shirts and greet each other with a click of the heels and a straight-arm salute. It would be consistent with their resolution this year.

This boycott is reeks to high heaven.

I therefore renew my earlier statement about the proper response to this action by the NATFHE.

In the event this resolution passes, the United States needs to implement a policy of denying visas to all members of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education "who do not publicly dissociate themselves from" the group's anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist policies.

This is material support of terrorism, and it must not be permitted to stand.

MORE AT: Arkopolo, PaleoJudaica, Dutchblog Israel, Western Resistance, Solomonia, Adloyada, Freunde der offenen Gesellschaft, Step-by-Step, Engage, EclectEcon, Zionism on the Web, Gates of Vienna

Posted by: Greg at 05:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 764 words, total size 6 kb.

I do not believe the position taken by this editorial on the attempts to expel a high school student for his off-campus blogging.

In effect, it argues against freedom of speech and press for students -- and does not consider the implications of its position.

Here is the scary part of the editorial.

On the other hand, should the school — which cannot comment on individual disciplinary cases — sit idle while one of its students humiliates it online? Certainly in the post-Columbine era, school officials have to be quick to react to any perceived threat. But does criticism, whether warranted or not, necessarily convey a threat?

We think the school was right in suspending the student over the posts. Disciplinary action should be considered for anyone crossing the line with inappropriate language verbally or in print, at school or in the workplace. Standards have to be maintained.

Hold on -- is it the position of the Herald News that government entities may act to punish speakers or writers that "humiliate" it? Does this mean that a critical editorial in the Herald News or an article that casts government in an unflattering light could be grounds for official action against the newspaper -- perhaps an arrest and criminal charges? Do such words, which "humiliate" government, render them outside the protection of the First Amendment?

And then there is the other issue -- one that shows that the editorialist does not understand the situation at all. This is not a case of inappropiate language being used in the workplace or school. The blog was written and posted outside of school from a private computer in the student's home. There is no "at school" nexus -- except for the fact that the kid was writing about school. Is it the position of the Herald News that speech about governement entities has no First Amendment protection, regardless of wher it occurs? Sounds to me like the sort of stuff that saw John Peter Zenger tried by colonial authorities in the 1730s -- he libeled the government and its officials by printing unflattering information about them, and the fact that the information was true constituted an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. Such attrocities were part of the reason for the adoption of the First Amendment.

Now I'm curious about something -- would the editorialist be taking the same position on the punishment of this student if the basis were a letter to the editor or guest column that appeared in its own pages? How about if it were comments quoted by one of its reporters in an article? How about an appearance on tlevision or radio? In short, does the Herald news feel that the medium of communication is what confers protection, not the words?

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

Did I miss the announcement that Tinker v. DesMoines had been overturned? This school district certainly acts as if it had -- to the point that even the exercise of student speech off campus is forbidden and punished if it relates to school.

A 17-year-old high school student who posted comments online about Plainfield School District 202 is facing expulsion because of his blog, his attorney said.

After serving a 10-day suspension over his posting on Xanga.com, the teen is scheduled for a hearing Thursday on the matter, attorney Carl Buck said. The student is back in school but could be expelled and sent to an alternative school, Buck said.

"They are trying to terminate his educational rights," he said. "Neither the parents, student or I believe this warrants expulsion. This seems pretty aggressive for the kind of [posting] we are talking about here."

Now I'm the first to accept that certain sorts of off-campus speech can be grounds for discipline, but what are we talking about in this case? Fortunately, we can judge for ourselves.

On May 1, the student posted a letter to Plainfield School District on his blog site on www.xanga.com , telling off the district, using vulgar words and saying he could put whatever he wanted on his site.

On a second post on May 2, without mentioning the school the student wrote:

"I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... did you stop to think that maybe this will make parents angry that you are bullying their children around? did you ever stop to think that maybe now you really are going to have a threat on your hands now that you have just pissed off kids for voicing their opinions? Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied.

In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. We voiced our opinions. You are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it."

Now I don't see a threat there. Do you? I don't see anything that merits a suspension, much less expulsion. What is the theory upon which this district is taking disciplinary action against this young man, since it is off campus speech on his own time from his own home, on a website that cannot be accesed from the school?

In a written statement, officials said they don't monitor student Web sites or look up postings unless they create a disturbance at school.

"When a posting creates a disturbance to the educational environment or threatens the safety and security of students or staff members, it is the responsibility of the school district to look into the matter," the statement said.

"The district respects the 1st Amendment rights of our students, but not all words can be categorized as protected speech."

Now that is a mighty broad criteria for monitoring and exerting control upon off-campus activity outside of school hours. I don't know what was in his friend's blog that led to his being disciplined and censored, but it is irrelevant to the action being taken against him. He voiced a pretty clear First Amendment argument from a libertarian perspective in the initial post on May 1 (LANGUAGE ALERT).

dear plainfield school district 202:

i know you read this. and you suck. suspend me or what ever you would like to do. but this is my fuckin web site and i can put what ever i want on it. kinda goes with the first amendment. by suspending kyle again for his xanga you guys are pathetic and totally irrational. first amendment you fucks. freedom of speech. and who the fuck are you to say what some one can do from there own personal computer. one more thing kiss my ass.

edit: this one is for you, and yes i have drank it and yes it was delicious!(come get me)

His argument, while less articulate than I would like to see and too profanity-laced, is really quite straight-forward. Outside of school, students have First Amendment rights which must be respected by government officials -- and since they do not "surrender those rights at the schoolhouse gate" it is beyond the scope of school authorities to punish or prohibit that speech except in the most dire of circumstances. I don't see where this even begins to qualify as such a circumstance.

And the second post, which does refer to sanctions being imposed against students for posting about drug and alcohol use at student parties (the paper above editted that out) is probably wrong in asserting that the school has no authority to punish descriptions of illegal activity by students -- but they have that authority only to the degree that students are partcipating in extracurricular activities, and the punuishments can only extend to removal from those activities. But his reflection on bullying is dead on, as is his observation about the possibility of public backlash cause by the extension of school authority beyond the school building and school day and into student homes. His comment on Columbine is hardly sufficient to qualify as a threat, and without a threat there can be no reasonable basis for action.

Now the administration does claim the authority to punish a wide area of speech -- and I am frankly frightened by the scope of their claimed authority.

[Superintendent John] Harper said school districts across the state are having to deal with policy issues regarding Web sites like www.xanga.com . Many area schools, like Plainfield School District, are creating new guidelines for their student handbooks for next school year.

"Kids don't realize that if there is a connection with the school or has a potential of creating a disturbance to the school, they can be disciplined for it and they don't appreciate the personal threat to them for posting information on the Internet," Harper said. "It is our responsibility to educate kids and help them work through some of these issues."

Harper said students need to understand that the First Amendment does not give them "absolute authority to say whatever they want to say in any situation.

"The First Amendment doesn't give an individual the right to scream 'Fire' in a crowded theater and say that is protected by First Amendment rights," Harper said.

"Certainly things that are insulting to a school administrator or to a teacher are protected by the First Amendment rights," Harper continued. "We are looking at safety issues, potential disturbances to the school environment. Those are parameters, those are criteria we will look at when it comes to the issue.

"If we do have a student using inappropriate language on a Web site it is not our business. If they write obscenities in regards to one of our staff members that is grossly obscene, we feel that we would have the right to take action in that kind of case," Harper said.

I'm flabbergasted. First, he trots out the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy -- but then seems to extend it to any speech that the school dislikes on the basis that it could cause a disruption. Does this include a letter to the editor about the school? Would it include an interview by a television station? How about a call to a local talk radio station about events at school. It seem that the definition of "disruption" is "anything that paints the school in a bad light." And while there may be some extreme instances in which a school could act against a student who was grossly disrespectful to a teacher or administrator, it would probably have to be so extreme as to violate provisions of criminal or civil law before the school could act on such speech if it was engaged in off campus. So while Harper claims that he isn't out to control all off campus speech (ore even all off campus internet speech), I think the clear implication of his statement is that the school claims jurisdiction ofver all student speech which comes to its attention, whether it is speech at school or speech away from school.

Schools are supposed to prepare our students for life in a free and democratic society, one in which government is limited and citizens have broad rights to speak and write as they see fit, even if it criticizes or offends public officials. I therefore urge the Plainfield district to rethink its gross abrogation of the constitutional liberties of its students.

And I urge the student, who goes by the handle Heckler3672bro, to write a thank you note to Superintendent Harper and his building administrators for the college scholarship money that he will be receiving from the district following the conclusion of his lawsuit against the district.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Free Constitution, Blue Star Chronicles, Bacon Bits, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1551 words, total size 10 kb.

After defending the deletion of the national moto, “In God We Trust”, from a photo of a nickel on the cover of an elementary school year, district officials in Keller ISD have reversed course and admitted that there would have been no violation of the law or district policy had the censorship not happened.

Keller school district officials are hoping to clear up a flap over a school yearbook cover by issuing an apology to parents.

A letter from Superintendent James Veitenheimer was sent Monday to parents of students at Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville. The same letter was e-mailed over the weekend, officials said.

The superintendent said "we would like to express our regrets for any distress" resulting from the cover photo of the newly minted Liberty Nickel without the words "In God We Trust."

* * *
District officials said the photo could have been used in its entirety without violating district policy.

"While it is always easy to look back on campus decisions in hindsight and agree that a different decision could have been made, our principals often find themselves on the front lines of issues regarding the separation of church and state," Dr. Veitenheimer's letter said. "In most of these cases, school administrators find themselves making decisions that are not going to please all parties involved.

"Unfortunately, the decision at Liberty Elementary School fell into this category," the letter said.

This was the sort of decision that any competent administrator could have made without too much trouble – the censorship of incidental references to religion is not necessary, especially when it comes to reproducing works of art or US currency and there is no intent to engage in religious proselytism. And if he was not sure, a quick call to the district’s lawyer could have settled the matter.

But he principal decided to knuckle under to the PC urgings of a couple of parents, and the district decided to be “sensitive” by shielding kids from exposure to the same coinage they bring to school to buy their lunches. What cowardice!

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess we can’t have folks at a Catholic speaker express Catholic teachings at a Catholic university – it might be offensive.

A spring term that began with controversy at the University of St. Thomas ended the same way Saturday when a student used part of his commencement address to admonish people he considered "selfish," including women who use birth control.

The remarks by Ben Kessler, a well-known student recently honored by peers and faculty as Tommie of the Year, led to catcalls and boos during commencement at the Catholic university in St. Paul. Others booed those who were booing. Some students walked out on their own graduation ceremony.

Buzz about the incident dominated post-graduation parties, spread throughout the community and sparked a flurry of e-mails. By Monday, there were scattered requests to strip Kessler of his Tommie of the Year award and questions about why St. Thomas officials didn't try to pull the plug on Kessler's speech as the crowd's unhappiness intensified.

"He definitely ruined the day for pretty much everyone in the audience," said Darin Aus, who was awarded his bachelor's degree Saturday and stayed for the entire ceremony. "He made people mad enough to leave their own graduation."

Kessler, a celebrated football player with a deep Catholic faith, apologized Monday in a written statement distributed by the university.

"Instead of providing hope to all, I offended some by my words and by my decision to speak those words at commencement," he wrote.

He was unavailable for comment beyond the statement.

The university's president, the Rev. Dennis Dease, also expressed regret "that graduates and their families and guests were offended by Mr. Kessler's remarks." Dease said he told Kessler it was inappropriate for him to use commencement to express his opinions.

The problem is, what he said didn’t just express his opinions – they also expressed the teachings of Catholic Church.

I guess Father Dennis Dease is one of those priests who doesnÂ’t think the last four popes should have expressed their opinions on the issue of birth control, either.

I guess this is jus one more example of folks thinking that the expression of conservative or traditional or Christian viewpoints on a college campus is wrong, while the expression of secular liberalism is to be celebrated.

Even if the venue is a school allegedly founded and operating on Christian values.

I, for one, applaud Ben Kessler for standing up for Catholic teachings at a Catholic school – even if the administrators are too lukewarm in their faith to do so.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

As a teacher, I find this case of “mission creep” by one Illinois school board to be a bit disturbing.

Illegal or inappropriate blogging or social behavior over the Internet is now a violation of District 128's student code of conduct at both Libertyville and Vernon Hills High Schools and can lead to denial of extracurricular student privileges.

The board of education of Community High School District 128 approved the revision Monday night without dissent before a packed house of media, parents and students at Vernon Hills High School. It is one of the first such school board policies in Illinois to address some of the risque social mores students frequently encounter when surfing Internet blogs and various Web sites designed to attract children.

Like many other schools, the district requires a certain standard of conduct from students in order to participate in athletics, fine arts or extracurricular activities. Signatures from both a student and parent bind them to honor the Student Code of Conduct. Nearly 80 percent of the district's 3,200 students are involved in one or more of these extracurricular activities.

The newly amended policy approved Monday night consists of a simple sentence. It reads: "Maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."

Now letÂ’s look at some potential problems here.

“Being identified on” someone’s website is now an offense, based entirely on what the other content is found on the site. Now this is entirely beyond one’s control – and this policy does not make an exception for “being identified on” a site when one is in no way connected with the illegal or inappropriate behavior depicted elsewhere on the site.

The definition of “inappropriate” is frighteningly vague. Does this mean the expression of opinions and positions not endorsed by the school administration is now the basis for disciplinary action if those officials consider such dissent to be “inappropriate”? What about discussions of and reflections upon experiences at school – comments on the personalities of teachers and classmates, or criticism of the quality of the education being received? Are such comments “inappropriate” blogging? Since I went to high school just a couple of miles down the road from Libertyville High School and also spent my seminary years in the area, I know that many folks might consider the legal possession and use of firearms by a minor to be “inappropriate” – would pictures of a student with his legal firearms be considered “inappropriate”? I won’t even get into the question of profane language or the sort of provocative photos some photos some ditzy teens post on MySpace or Facebook. Are these really school issues – even as regards extracurricular activities? After all, these restrictions clearly have the potential to implicate the First Amendment.

So I’ll throw this one out to you folks – what do you think on this issue? Is the board up in Libertyville making good policy, or is it crossing a line into a place where school boards ought not go?

Posted by: Greg at 11:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The school board is making an attempt to get parents off their backs. I would assume blogs are blocked with the school system's filter so the posting would have to be done at home. This is a parent issue. Parents should know what their kids are doing on the internet. Mine are 21 and 13 and I look at their sites all the time. If there is something I don't feel should be there they yank it off. However, I don't quite control my 21 year like I used to. My paralegal background tells me this new policy will be heavily challenged and might not make it.

Posted by: elementaryhistoryteacher at Thu May 25 10:03:31 2006 (rY4T2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We’ve been hearing for some time now about the howls of protest at Boston College over the graduation speech by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Well guess what – the protests were small and Condi received a standing ovation from most of those in attendance.

A few students turned their backs but more stood to applaud as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received an honorary degree and addressed graduates at Boston College on Monday.

After weeks of turmoil and anti-war protests over Rice's invitation to address the Catholic school, Rice told graduates that their education comes with responsibilities.

She drew scattered applause when she discussed what she called a "commitment to reason," or an obligation to test and challenge their own views.

"There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion and holding it passionately," Rice said, "but at those times when you are absolutely sure you're right, go find someone who disagrees."

About 50 students stood with their backs toward the stage as Rice was introduced to give her commencement speech, but they were quickly drowned out by a standing ovation.

A half-dozen signs that said "Not in my name" were held in the air by students, who sat down by the time Rice started to speak. One banner that said "BC honors lies and torture" was held on the side of the stadium, away from where the students were sitting.

Other students cheered Rice, and an Internet broadcast of the ceremony included a shot of a student, talking on his cell phone, with an "I Like Condi" button pinned to his graduation cap.

I think the Secretary of State put it well when she commented on the potential for protest before the graduation itself.

"People have the right to protest, but I hope when they protest they realize also that people now have a right to protest in Baghdad and Kabul, and that's a very big breakthrough for the international community," Rice said Monday before the BC commencement.

"I think it's just fine for people to protest as long as they do so in a way that doesn't try to have a monopoly on the conversation," Rice told WBZ-AM in an interview. "Others have right to say what they think as well."

I think those who attended today’s graduation showed they understand the values of America in their response to her speech. We can listen to those with whom we disagree with respect, and honor their right to express their thoughts and views. There is a time and a place for speak dissenting words, and a manner for appropriately expressing opposition to the views of another. It seems that the students of Boston College understand that, even as the graduates of New York’s New School proved that they missed that part of their education with their uncouth reception of Senator John McCain – and their own school’s president, former Senator Bob Kerrey.

Posted by: Greg at 04:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 4 kb.

I didnÂ’t think that the separationist absurdity could go any further, we get this bizarre action from a Texas principal.

A Keller school district parent said political correctness has run amok at her daughter's elementary school, where the principal chose to omit the words "In God We Trust" from an oversize coin depicted on the yearbook cover.

Janet Travis, principal of Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville, wanted to avoid offending students of different religions, a district spokesman said. Students were given stickers with the words that could be affixed to the book if they so chose.

What exactly was it about this image that was so offensive – after all, each and every student probably has at least one of these in a pocket or piggy bank – and the school probably gives tehm as change.

Officials chose an image of an enlarged nickel for the yearbook cover because this is Liberty Elementary's first year and because the nickel has a new design this year.

The nickel design features President Jefferson and the word Liberty in cursive, with the words "In God We Trust" along the right edge.

Keller administrators agreed with the decision, which Travis made in conjunction with a school parents group, district spokesman Jason Meyer said. District policy states, in part: "The District shall take no action respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."

Principals must strive to remain neutral regarding religion, Meyer said.

Oh, please! An accurate depiction of United States coinage has now been deemed to be offensive by school officials in Keller, Texas. That is nuts!
The ACLU, of course, thinks this is just great.

Michael Linz, a Dallas attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the district's move was appropriate, sensitive and constitutional.

"Sometimes administrators and schools are really caught trying to make appropriate decisions with respect to people's views. Someone is always going to complain," he said. "I think that the school administrators were drawing the appropriate line by trying not to offend others."

Presumably this clown would find it appropriate to forbid carrying US currency on campus, for fear that some little kid might spy the dreaded “G word” on a coin or bill.

Common sense will not, of course, ever be permitted to prevail – after all, that isn’t “sensitive”.

Posted by: Greg at 04:16 PM | Comments (85) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

You have to admire this valedictorian.

When graduating senior Jed Michal told his classmates Sunday to treat each day as though it were their last, he spoke from experience.

The leukemia patient gave his valedictorian's speech via teleconference from his hospital room at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, where he is recovering from a bone-marrow transplant.

"Everything we are and become is not what happens to us — it's what we do with the hand life deals us," said Michal, 19, as he faced a televised image of his classmates back home in Colorado. "Live each day as if it is your last. After all, it may very well be."

Fighting leukemia for more than two years, Michal underwent the transplant a week ago, using marrow from his 25-year-old brother. He became valedictorian of his class of 19 students at Flagler High School in east Colorado despite missing nearly his entire junior year due to his illness.

He hopes to leave the hospital next month, move back to Colorado this fall and begin studying agricultural business at Colorado State University in January.

IÂ’m already willing to bet that this young man will fulfill his wildest dreams.

Congratulations, Jed.

Posted by: Greg at 04:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

I am utterly flabbergasted by this story.

A child custody battle between a former Strongsville High School substitute teacher and her former student lover is now over.

Christine Scarlett, 39, will share custody with the father of her 2-year-old son, former Strongsville football captain Steven Bradigan.

The two had an affair when Bradigan was still a 17-year-old high school student.

Scarlett's lawyer Eric Laubacher said the two put their differences aside and did what's best for their son. He said he doesn't believe criminal charges will be filed against Scarlett.

School officials fired Scarlett when they found out about the affair.

Two questions.

First, why is this child being left in the custody of a known sex offender when the father was willing to take custody? I see no reason the judge should have accepted the arrangement.

Second, why is this sex offender not in jail – and deemed unlikely ever to be charged?

Rest assured that if this wee a male teacher and a female student, the pervert in question would be doing hard time.

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember the goofball teacher who showed profane political rants to students? Well, he has been fired.

Steve White, a political candidate and eighth grade teacher, was dismissed from his position late Tuesday night after an investigation found he showed videos with sex acts, nudity and other obscene images to students.

“I think the evidence was clear,” said Dr. Barry Carroll, superintendent of Limestone County Schools, who recommended the Board of Education cancel White’s contract following the hearing.

During a two-week-long investigation in April, Carroll said pornographic material was found in WhiteÂ’s computer and administrators determined that White was showing videos rather than teaching science in his class at West Limestone High School.

White was placed on paid administrative leave April 7. Some of the students who were interviewed following the allegations on April 10 testified during Tuesday nightÂ’s hearing.

* * *
In a copy of the letter Carroll sent White on April 24 informing him of his intention to recommend canceling his contract, Carroll listed reasons for termination as “incompetency, insubordination, neglect of duty, immorality and failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner or other good and just cause.”

Here is the list of reasons Carroll gave White in the letter:

1. Mr. White lets students watch videos and computer images in his classroom rather than engage in teaching;

2. Mr. White shows videos and computer images to his students which are inappropriate to be shown at school and inappropriate for the age of the students.

3. Mr. White has shown students in his class videos and computer images with sexual themes.

4. Mr. White has shown students in his class computer images purporting to show a former president and his wife engaged in sexual activity;

5. Mr. White has shown members of his class computer and video images showing an older lady answering questions relating to sex and other subjects using profanity. (EditorÂ’s note: According to a student, these were clips of The Fruitcake Lady, a character shown on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.)

6. Mr. White has shown students in his class a computer image of a girl exposing her breast;

7. Rather than teach science, Mr. White shows students videos and computer images;

8. In violation of school board policy IFBG-A., Mr. White has used his computer to access Internet sites or programs which are offensive and otherwise not suitable or proper for use in the Limestone County School system;

9. Mr. White, in violation of school board policy, has pornographic images on his computer;

10. Mr. White has shown students computer images of a girl with a can of beer and a cigarette.

It is unclear to me precisely which charges wee determined to be true in the hearing, which White requested be closed to the public. His attorney indicates that there will be an appeal.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

Ward Churchill has been unanimously determined to have engaged in serious academic misconduct.

Findings
The conclusions of the investigative committee that examined seven allegations of research misconduct against University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill:

Charge A: That Churchill misrepresented the General Allotment Act of 1887 in his writings by incorrectly writing that it created a "blood quantum" standard that allowed tribes to admit members only if they had at least half native blood.
Finding: Falsification, failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.

Charge B: That Churchill misrepresented the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 by incorrectly writing that the act imposed a "blood quantum" requiring artists to prove they were one-quarter Indian by blood.
Finding: Falsification, failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.

Charge C: That Churchill incorrectly claimed there was "some pretty strong circumstantial evidence" that Capt. John Smith introduced smallpox among the Wampanoag Indians between 1614-1618.
Finding: Falsification and fabrication.

Charge D: That in several writings Churchill falsely accused the U.S. Army of committing genocide by distributing blankets infested with smallpox to Mandan Indians in the Upper Missouri River Valley in 1837.
Finding: Falsification, fabrication, failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications, and serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research. The committee also found that Churchill was "disrespectful of Indian oral tradition."

Charge E: That Churchill claimed as his own work a 1972 pamphlet about a water-diversion scheme in Canada titled "The Water Plot." The work actually was written by a now-defunct environmental group, "Dam the Dams."
Finding: Plagiarism.

Charge F: That Churchill plagiarized part of an essay written by Rebecca L. Robbins in a book he published in 1993.
Finding: No misconduct

Charge G: That Churchill plagiarized the writings of Canadian professor Fay G. Cohen in a 1992 essay.
Finding: Plagiarism.

While three of the panel members believe that the misconduct rises to the level at which termination might be justified, the panel offered a 4-1 recommendation in favor of a 5-year suspension. I would argue that such a suspension is insufficient, and that the higher penalty must be invoked in order to establish the seriousness of the misconduct and the importance of intellectual and academic honesty in the context of academic freedom.

I would also note that the charges in question have NOTHING to do with the inflammatory statements made regarding the victims of the 9/11 terrorist acts – they have to do with serious violations of scholarly standards and ethics. That is as it should be.

Posted by: Greg at 10:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’m glad this malignant witch is being made an example of by the authorities.

Six Northern Kentucky University students could see charges of dismantling an anti-abortion display dismissed if they complete community service under a deal offered by prosecutors.

But prosecutors didn't offer that deal to Sally Jacobsen, the NKU literature professor involved in the April 12 incident.

Jacobsen is charged with criminal solicitation. Police said she encouraged students in one of her classes to destroy the display, which consisted of rows of about 400 white crosses. Jacobsen and the six students also were charged with criminal mischief and theft by unlawful taking.

A student Right to Life group put up the display, saying it represented aborted fetuses.

Jacobsen's attorney, Margo Grubbs, entered a plea of not guilty on her behalf Thursday in Campbell District Court, and a new court date was set for May 23.
The six students appeared before District Judge Karen Thomas but did not enter pleas. Thomas said charges would be dismissed if they completed a diversion program, which typically consists of community service.

Assistant County Attorney Rick Woeste said that based on the evidence so far, Jacobsen played a different role because she was the teacher.

Jacobsen abused her role as a teacher – she merits different treatment than her students.

Posted by: Greg at 09:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

When it comes to being PC, you can't get better thanthe Pacific Northwest. The school district in Seattle has proven that in spades, having officially promulgated a definition of racism that EXPLICITLY excludes white student and staff from protection under policies that ban racist acts, practices, or harrassment.

Racism:

The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society.

So when your little white child is assaulted by a gang of black or Hispanic kids because he is white, it isn't an act of racism. When a white teacher is targetted for firing by a group of minority parents who shout "discrimination" because he or she has high expectations for students, it isn't an act of racism. And when a teacher calls another teacher a "cracker bitch" because of a disagreement over material to use in the following year's curriculum, it was not an act of racism.

On the other hand, a gang of white kids beating up a minority child, white parents objecting to a minority teacher, or a racial slur directed at a minority teacher are all acts of racism and will be treated as such.

I guess some animals really are more equal than others in Seattle. It is all a matter of the color of one's skin, not the content of one's character.

I wonder what federal law and the US Constitution have to say about such race-based politcies and practices? Or is "equal protection of the law" a culturally racist construct that needs to be eliminated in the name of "Equity and Race Relations".

(H/T AndrewsDad, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Posted by: Greg at 04:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

This story disturbs me deeply. It seems to strike at the heart of the citizenship rights of teachers. Do teachers not have free speech rights outside of the classroom. Are the political, social, and philosophical views of teachers really an appropriate mater for public inquiry? Do certain view make someone unfit for the classroom?

Inside the walls of Brookland-Cayce High School, you expect students to be treated equally. But a viewer tip led News19 online where a teacher's comments left us asking questions.

"These sorts of things are going to upset people, but the truth can be very upsetting," said Brookland-Cayce High School teacher Winston McCuen.

That truth, at least according to McCuen, is that black people are inferior to whites.

"Intellectually, yes they are," said McCuen. "This has been confirmed over and over, and this is a generalization. Again, there are some blacks who are more intelligent than individual whites. But as a rule, that is true. I-Q tests prove it over, and over and over."

Now I can’t help but conclude that this man’s beliefs and statements outside of class are racist. But they do not appear to have influenced his treatment of his students – at least not if the story is any indication. After all, the one student quoted talks about some comments related to John C. Calhoun, the nemesis of Andrew Jackson. Seems like this was off topic in a Latin class, but hardly a problem. Calhoun was known for lacing classical quotes into his speeches, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this is the way in which the course and the discussion segued.

But to get back on point, how much (or how little) protection are we going to allow educators under the Bill of Rights? And will that protection be selective – because I doubt we would ever see such an investigation of the views of a high school teacher who was a Communist. After all, that would be McCarthyism.

But isnÂ’t an investigation like this also McCarthyistic in its very nature?

UPDATE: My esteemed friend, fellow teacher, and fellow Watcher's Council member EdWonk offers a very different point of view -- not that I agree with him.

McCuen claims that his views do not affect his teaching.

I have to call B.S. on that one.

The type of nonsense that McCuen is spewing uttering is prima faci evidence that he is indeed prejudiced in his belief that a student's race is a component of his or her ability to acheive mastery of academic concepts.

Winston McCuen damns himself with his own words.

McCuen has been placed on administrative leave for the remainder of this school year and will not be teaching in the same district next year, although he hopes to obtain another teaching position after resolving certain undefined "credentialing" issues.

Maybe those men males who run amok in white sheets and hoods may consider hiring him for the nearly-impossible task of teaching them how to read and write.

The problem is that the mere existence of a prejudice is not evidence that said prejudice is expressed in the classroom or that it impacts ones ability to do one's job in a professional manner. it may indicate that you are a reprehensible human being -- but do we want ideological litmus tests imposed on teachers?

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Third World Country, Sed Vitae, TMH Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Is It Just Me?, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop The ACLU, Leaning Straight Up

Posted by: Greg at 12:07 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 5 kb.

Remember that pro-life display that was demolished in Washington state? Well, students at Western Washington University want to make sure nothing like that ever happens again on their campus.

No, they are not out to strengthen the campus policy on freedom of speech or the responsibility of all students to respect the rights of others to express thoughts and ideas they reject.

No, they want to ban pro-life speech as a form of “hate speech” on campus, making those who oppose abortion subject to penalties imposed by the campus kangaroo court judicial system.

In response to the anti-abortion display Tuesday and Wednesday in Red Square, Western senior Cara Pierson started a petition to ban hate speech from campus.

She said the photos of aborted fetuses, lynchings and Holocaust victims bullied and offended women who had abortions or considered having abortions.
Pierson said she felt the displayÂ’s message constituted hate speech.

“Hate speech is a verbal, written or visual harassment of a particular group intended to degrade or dehumanize members of that group,” Pierson said.

She started the petition Wednesday and spent five hours in Red Square collecting approximately 300 signatures from students, professors and staff members.

Pierson said she researched other colleges that have policies protecting campuses from hate speech before bringing her petition to Red Square.

In other words, one side of the debate on a major social and political issue in our society would be suppressed at Western Washington University, while the opposing side will be subsidized as part of the academic program (Women’s Studies). It seems appropriate, therefore, that the assault on free speech was conducted in the middle of “Red Square” – after all, the policy demanded by Pierson and her supporters is nothing short of Stalinism.

Fortunately, the school is not interested in imposing such viewpoint censorship

.Dean of Students Ted Pratt said WesternÂ’s policy must respect citizensÂ’ right to free speech the First Amendment protects.

“We have our policies here that talk about freedom of expression and those are in line with the First Amendment,” Pratt said.

WesternÂ’s policy is that it deals with protests or displays on campus on a case-by-case basis, Pratt said. No policy specifically addresses hate speech, he said.

The administration reviewed the anti-abortion display before allowing it on campus, he said.

It determined the display didnÂ’t advocate violence or hate against any groups, such as women who have had abortions and saw no reason to stop Western For Life from bringing the display to campus, Pratt said.

Seems to me that the school has an appropriate policy in place. Perhaps Cara Pierson needs to be re-enrolled in American Government so she can learn about the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

(H/T The Torch

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, I got through my unit on WWII and the Holocaust this year without encountering this situation – for the first time in 10 years.

“Of course I dislike the Nazis. But who is to say they’re morally wrong?”

* * *

The statement above was spoken by a student at Hamilton College in New York. “Professor Roger Simon … said that he has never met a student who denied the Holocaust happened,” Anderson writes. “But he also reported that 10 to 20 percent of his students cannot bring themselves to say that killing millions of people is wrong.”

The first time I heard this argument, I was horrified – “Well, the Holocaust may be wrong for me here and now, but I really can’t say that it would be wrong for anyone else. It may have been OK for the Germans – and it could have been OK for me if I lived back then in Germany.”

And that was from students in a Catholic school, where they had supposedly been inculcated with Christian morality.

I have to agree with Rebecca HagelinÂ’s condemnation of moral relativism that follows.

If this isn’t an indictment of how modern society has deified “tolerance,” nothing is. What could illustrate the dangerous folly of moral relativism more perfectly than a student who can’t admit that mass murder is wrong -- not because of his feelings but because it’s a fact? A society of people who cannot condemn the Nazis is a society courting moral anarchy.

Sadly, we see the results of such relativism all around us – from pregnant twelve-year-olds to gay marriage to illegal alien rights demonstrations. Will we stand up for moral values – and is it already too late.

Posted by: Greg at 04:42 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember this guy?

The Chronicle notes today a case at Reagan High School, where Principal Robert Pambello flew the Mexican flag along with the U.S. and Texas flags on the school's flagpole yesterday. Pambello was ordered to remove the Mexican flag because HISD said "it is not appropriate to permit use of school district flagpoles for the purpose of flying flags representing other countries."

Well, it seems that he has quit his job at Reagan High School -- but over a completely different issue.

The Reagan High School principal who was disciplined in March for flying a Mexican flag on campus has resigned amid allegations that he sexually harassed a teacher.

Citing personal reasons, Principal Robert Pambello left his post at the 1,700-student campus April 22. He's using accumulated leave until his resignation takes effect July 18.

"I am leaving the district for personal reasons and to pursue other opportunities," Pambello said in a letter to Superintendent Abelardo Saavedra. "I appreciate the support and coaching you have personally provided me with during my time as an employee with HISD."

Pambello could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

According to Houston Independent School District spokesman Terry Abbott, an investigation completed April 19 by the district's Office of Equal Employment Opportunity office confirmed an allegation of sexual harassment.

"He was accused by a teacher of transmitting an offensive image by e-mail," Abbott said.

Sounds like it was a needed change -- this man clearly has serious questions surrounding his judgement.

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like some educators do not realize that the First Amendment does apply to students.

A civil rights group has filed a federal lawsuit against the Sampson County school board claiming a ninth-grader was wrongfully suspended last week for disregarding a warning not to express his Christian faith.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund said students at Midway High School were allowed to participate in the April 26 Day of Silence, an event promoted by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.

The group said student Benjamin Arthurs was refused permission to wear a Day of Truth shirt on the following day and distribute cards presenting a Christian viewpoint on homosexual behavior during non-instructional time. He was suspended Monday after ignoring the warning.

"School officials shouldn't be treating religious students any differently than they treat other students," David Cortman, an attorney with the group, said in a statement. "This is unconstitutional treatment, plain and simple."

According to the lawsuit, Sampson County Board of Education Superintendent Stewart Hobbs said religious T-shirts would not be allowed and that no religious literature could be distributed. He said Arthurs would be "pushing his religion on others" and "religion is not allowed in school," according to the plaintiffs.

A phone message left for Hobbs was not immediately returned Thursday.

Now let's get this matter straight, once and for all. The alleged principle of "separation of church and state" (which appears no where in any edition of the Constitution I've ever encountered) prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from endorsing religion, not private individuals. It also forbids the suppression of religion by the government. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the endorsement of a religious point of view by private individuals, not even when they are on public property. That this superintendent is so unfamiliar with that fundamental principle of individual liberty is a sign that he is not fit to continue to be employed in his current post.

I suspect that the school district will be paying tuition for Benjamin Arthurs sometime through the end of his graduate school career, because there is no way that this action, coupled with the statements of the superintendent, will be allowed to stand -- expecially since this is not the Ninth Circuit, where they make it up as they go along.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

Most secrets around school last a week or two. Kids are congenitally unable to keep a secret. A decade ago, when my car was egged, all I had to do was keep my mouth shut for a week before I knew the name of all four culprits – good kids who got bored on a Saturday night in the little hick town where we all lived.

And then there are the campus legends. Every school has a place – usually the gym or the auditorium -- where some kid committed suicide or died in a tragic accident – but the school hushed it out. Or there is the janitorial closet where a couple of teachers got locked during a “rendezvous” before, during, or after school. Such legends are usually false, and even when true don’t stay secret for long.

But at one high school, a secret was recently discovered that goes all the way back to the Ford Administration, 31 years ago.

For 31 years, a hideaway in the rafters of Smoky Hill High School has served as a refuge for select drama students - a secret getaway whose whereabouts were passed down every year from class to class.

Unbeknownst to teachers and administrators, students had hauled up chairs, a radio and candles to furnish the lair above the lights. The room was actually a space created by the vents and walls of the ventilation system, accessible only by perilous traverses across catwalks.

Knowledge about the room had become a sacred Smoky Hill rite until the school newspaper last month revealed the secret. The April 14 article in the Smoky Hill Express prompted administrators to shut down access.

In its wake, newspaper students learned the power of the printed word. Drama students learned that their unsupervised exploits above the rafters could have been deadly.

"It's probably a pretty good idea to keep the kids safe," said Brian Pelepchan, 45, one of two teens who created the room during the school's first year in 1975.
Pelepchan and his best friend, Gary Walker, were sophomores, avid rock climbers and drama- department "techies" who were allowed on the catwalks above the stage.

"We went up into the catwalks and saw this little opening, climbed up the structure and, lo and behold, we found this little cavelike place that we could hang out in," said Pelepchan, now an engineer with three children who attend Smoky Hill.

Pelepchan and Walker started the log book, which later filled with the names of everyone who had visited the room. Rumors about activities in the room ranged from sex to drugs to rock 'n' roll. Students changed the room's location in the rafters at various times over the years.

For better or for worse, the school newspaper found out about the secret room and published a report, and the school shut down access o the room. But much to my surprise, there was a bit of common sense exercised by administrators.

[Activities Director Kathy] Daly and [journalism teacher Carrie] Faust met with the drama department. Students who had used the room were given amnesty. The department was given the log book.

A good decision all around – let the tradition be preserved, but shut down the potentially dangerous element – and not punish anyone for participating in what had been, in a very real sense, harmless rite of passage for a group of kids who historically are outcasts in a school setting.

But you know – a little bit of me hopes the “secret room” is resurrected in some way. After all, it is a tradition!

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 598 words, total size 4 kb.

When I teach my high school classes, there is no question of allowing the use of laptop computers. They are strictly forbidden by school policy, along with other electronic devices like cell phones, MP3 players and video games.

But in the evenings, when I teach my college level classes, I face a different situation. My students are adults, and there are no school-wide policies on the matter. IÂ’ve debated how to deal with them. Now, some professors around the country are beginning to ban the devices in class for a variety of reasons.

As the professor lectured on the law, the student wore a poker face. But that was probably because, under the guise of taking notes on his laptop, the student actually was playing poker — online, using the school's wireless Internet connection. The scenario is not uncommon in today's college classrooms, and some instructors want it stopped. So they have done the unthinkable — banned laptops.

The move caused an uproar at the University of Memphis, where law professor June Entman nixed the computers in March because she felt they were turning her students into stenographers and inhibiting classroom debate.

Students rebelled by filing a complaint with the American Bar Association, although the organization dismissed it.

At the University of Pennsylvania, law professor Charles Mooney banned laptops from his classes two years ago for similar reasons.

Around that time, said Mooney, he was serving as an expert witness in a lawsuit. During a break in his deposition, he recalled asking the stenographer if she found the case interesting. She replied that she didn't remember anything she had taken down, Mooney said.

"I thought, 'That's what my students are doing,'" he said.

The ban led to "a lot of grumbling," Mooney said. Some students even dropped the class.

I’ve got mixed emotions here. Were I a student, I would probably want to use a laptop for notes, given my own handwriting issues – it is sometimes almost too illegible to read when I take notes, and is bad enough that I often type up overhead transparencies for classroom use rather than use the board.

But the problem comes down to exactly those things that were cited in the article – online distractions, decreased participation, and an attention to detail that squeezes out comprehension until a later date.

Examples spring to mind. I had a young lady last year who claimed to be taking notes – until one night, while she was in the restroom, I happened to glance down at her unattended screen and discovered she was doing online chat with a her boyfriend. Students who would never dream of opening up a newspaper and reading it in class have no scruples at all about going to CNN or Fox to catch the latest news. And even those who are on-task are so concerned about “getting it all down” letter perfect (which folks do not do with hand-written notes) that they don’t process the material until class is over, rendering class discussion listless. When one of my best students this spring got a laptop, for example, his class participation dropped markedly.

I donÂ’t know if I will ban the devices when summer term starts. IÂ’ve not made my decision on the matter. But I am considering it, given that I am unsure that the devices provide greater benefit than distraction in the classroom. At a minimum, I will explicitly reserve the option to request that individual students stop using laptops in class.

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 4 kb.

Billzebubba has done it again -- forgotten that he is no longer president, and stuck his nose in where, quite frankly, it does not belong. The deal negotiated by Bill Clinton with "Big Soda" will remove most soft drinks from our nation's schools as a health risk.

Yesterday, the beverage industry announced that it will voluntarily remove the high-calorie sodas from all schools, under an agreement with anti-obesity groups led by former president Bill Clinton.

The pact will probably bolster efforts in Washington area school systems -- many of which have been on the forefront of policing what students are eating and drinking. The District and Fairfax and Montgomery counties, among others, ban the sale of soft drinks during the school day.

Such efforts are cutting into the revenues that schools receive from vending machines, principals say, and the national agreement will doubtless accelerate that trend.

"The money is important, but not as important as kids' health," said Sean Bulson, principal at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School.

The national pact restricts the sale of drinks in elementary schools to water, milk and lower-calorie juices in containers no larger than eight ounces. In middle schools, those drinks can be 10 ounces.

In high schools, the drink size will be limited to 12 ounces. No sugary sodas will be sold, and half the drinks offered will be water or low-calorie beverages, such as diet soda. Sport drinks will be allowed if they have fewer than 100 calories.

"I think it's a great step in the right direction," said Robin Ziegler, chief of school and community nutrition programs for the Maryland State Department of Education.

Frankly, I think that soft drink manufacturers should have spuned any effort to change the availability of their products in schools. Let the schools decide what they wish to stock -- or allow the separate states to do so. The trend of private groups to set public policy in this manner is troubling, and anti-democratic. After all, what real choice did the soft drink manufacturers have -- they were up against a group led by a former president, married to a sitting US Senator who is the likely next Democrat nominee for president. Would legislation be far behind had they not agreed to voluntary curbs, regardless of the actual feelings of the American peole no the matter?

This deal also raises an interesting question. If soda ihas such deleterious effects upon the health of our nation's children, why are we limiting this effort to schools? Are soft drinks outside of schools somehow less harmful? Why are we not banning young people from purchasing soda completely? Why not make supplying such sugar-laced beverages to those below the age of 18 a crime, just as we do the sale of alochol and cigarettes? Perhaps this neo-prohibitionist -- dare I say neo-puritanical --movement will consider making a similar effort to wipe out soda vending machines (I'm old enough to remember both beer and cigarettes available from machines in public places).

That isn't to say that I think the removal of soft drinks from schools is a bad thing. I'm concerned about the process -- and the next step.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like some folks feel that there is an abortion exception to the First Amendment.

A Western Washington University student did $2,700 of damage Tuesday to a Red Square display showing pictures of aborted fetuses next to images of genocide before being arrested, police said.
David Janus Zhang, 21, jumped over the three-foot high aluminum fencing surrounding the exhibit at about 1:30 p.m., said Dave Doughty, assistant chief of the Western Washington University Police Department. Zhang then “went on a rampage,” punching, tearing and pushing over the display, he said.

Police eventually arrested Zhang in Sehome Arboretum. He was booked into Whatcom County Jail on malicious mischief and disorderly conduct charges.

The display is by the Vancouver-based Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Its Web site, www.abortionno.org, offers links to download graphic abortion videos.

The display will be on Red Square through the end of today. After TuesdayÂ’s incident, Doughty said officers would continue to monitor the area.

The damage to the display could be in the thousands of dollars.

Pictures of the destruction are available at Lifesite.

Posted by: Greg at 01:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 2 kb.

All too often, we hear demands for affirmative action to make institutions more diverse and inclusive, even at the cost of accepting less qualified or less prepared (which is not necessarily to say unqualified or unprepared) individuals in a program.

But now, in Chicago, they are discovering that students accepted at the elite college-prep magnet schools are trending 2-1 in favor of female applicants. There are discussions about how to make the ratio more balanced.

Judy Kleinfeld of the Boys Project, a not-for-profit group that deals with the male gender-gap, had this to say about the prospect of “gender weighting”.

"It will just do what affirmative action generally does. It will make everyone suspicious of the achievement of the group," Kleinfeld said. "What we need to do is teach boys better so they actually learn more."

An amazing concept – act to bring members of the underrepresented group up to the standard rather than lowering the standard. I applaud Kleinfeld for acknowledging that acting any other way hams not just those admitted under special programs, but every member of the favored group.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Because I am a teacher, I keep my identity secret. Tenure doesn’t exist down here in Texas, so I can be terminated at the end of any contract. I’d hate to think that my blogging could be the cause, so I have cut the cards to make sure it doesn’t – I rarely blog about school, and very few school folks know about the site. I don’t want this blog to ever be an employment issue.

But when you have horrendous events involving teachers, and online statements that do send warning signs about possible inappropriate or unprofessional behavior, there will be suggestions that the online conduct of teachers be monitored as a condition of employment.

Until now, schools have been mostly concerned with policing computer usage on campus.

But a veteran educator said Monday that the episode could jar schools to sleuth more into online behavior of teachers.

"I wouldn't hire him," said William Rebore, chairman of the department of educational leadership at St. Louis University and a former superintendent for the Francis Howell and Valley Park school districts.

"If the person said, 'Oh, that's nothing, it's just a joke,' well, professional people don't joke in that manner, especially when it comes to children."

Rebore said he thinks schools will more commonly ask employees to disclose what they are posting on the Internet.

A job application could ask, "Do you have a Web site? Are you featured in any Web site?" Rebore said. "Certainly, if someone were not honest about that, it could be grounds for termination. It wouldn't surprise me if districts started putting that on an application."

I can understand wanting to make sure that teachers are not giving off warning signes of nascent pedophilia. I accept that schools might not want to have a teacher who has her own internet porn site. But do we really want teachers – who are, after all, protected by the First Amendment – to be judged by their public employers based upon what they write online? Would blogging – or at least blogging that doesn’t conform to a supervisor or school board member’s point of view -- become grounds for termination. Would edublogging be a thing of the past? Indeed, would our underage students have greater rights to online freedom of speech than their adult teachers?

How do we strike the balance between civil liberties and student safety?

Posted by: Greg at 12:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

1 pozzo.. che cosa posso dire.. luogo piacevole, buon stile, lo gradisco

Posted by: Calciomercato at Fri May 26 04:03:58 2006 (WMCQi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment