- “5th Circuit Court Rejects ‘Disingenuous’ DOJ Anti-School Choice Lawsuit” [Jason Bedrick at Jay Greene’s blog]
- HHS urged to exclude biography, oral history and some other ventures in humanities research from IRB (Institutional Review Board) review of human subjects experimentation [National Coalition for History comments, earlier]
- Revere, Mass. schools punish high school cheerleader for a tweet about immigration [Eugene Volokh]
- Education Law Center, which has pursued long-running Abbott litigation demanding higher New Jersey expenditures on urban schools, describes $18,208/pupil Newark as in “extreme chronic fiscal distress” [Jim Epstein, Reason]
- “NEA’s $131 Million Influence-Buying Spree” [RiShawn Biddle, Dropout Nation]
- Yale’s gender studies program seems well pleased with the protests, and why not given likely infusion of funds/staff? [compare Robert Tracinski linked earlier] Still time to un-burn things down? Yale investigation finds “no evidence” to back frat party racism charge [Washington Post]
- Scotland: “Propaganda being used in our schools to sell Named Person scheme” [Jenny Hjul/The Courier (Dundee), earlier]
Filed under: colleges and universities, schools, Yale
9 Comments
RE: Revere, MASS Cheerleader.
I am getting sick of these stories on so many levels.
One thing that is starting to bother me is the school saying “there is more going on to the suspension, but we can’t tell you because of student privacy issues.”
It seems to me that is a cop out on so many levels on a two way street.
If the school is going to talk about the incident, then don’t hide behind “double secret probation.” If the parents are going to talk to the media in order to show the injustice of the situation, the media should say “we can’t run with this until your sign a release allowing the school to open their records to us.
Both sides of any issue have a reason for not allowing the records to be seen. The school can say “there is more to this than meets the eye.” The parents can have their story of a their “wronged li’l snowflake” out there for all to see without fear of contradiction.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there is part of the law that forbids the release of the information even if the parents sign a waiver. That would be even more “overlayered.”
That’s a valid point, but on the other hand, when the superintendent also says “If you’re going to stand up and say something that other people will find offensive, then you need to be prepare to deal with the ramifications of that,” then it’s probably safe to assume that this actually IS a censorship case.
Gitcarver, that is a seriously obnoxious comment. This girl made a political comment, and she is being punished for it. To dismiss her as a “lil snowflake” is disgusting.
SPO,
I did not dismiss her as a “l’il snowflake.”
My point was that in too many of these cases – and not necessarily this case – schools hide behind “discipline records are private and we can’t release them.” At the same time, parents don’t want anything out there that will contradict the narrative they are trying to support that their child is an angel.
I am sure you remember the “Clock Kid” referenced below in another reply. The school claimed there was more to the suspension than the family was putting out. The family refused to sign a waiver to allow the school to show their records and investigation.
To me, that is protecting the “l’il snowflake.”
In this case, as David C. says, the school seemed to say “we are the rulers. Trust us.” In the cited articles, the school says there was more to the suspension than is in the media. The mother of the child says the school told her her daughter was suspended from social activities because of the backlash from the tweet. If that is the case (and the school is hiding behind the “we can’t talk about it despite the mother saying “go ahead and talk about it,”) then the school is practicing the time honored act of CYA’ing.
My point was that if the media is going to run these stories, they should demand full disclosure from both the school and the families. If you find that disgusting, I don’t know what to say that will convince you that hearing only one side of any story is wrong to me.
Well, look at it from the parents’ point of view. If you’re the parent of a kid who has been unfairly punished by a district, and the district has already shown that they don’t care about your kid’s constitutional rights, and the school technically isn’t talking about the case to the media but they’re implying as much as they can that you’re lying about things, do you really want to give them the green light to say whatever they want about your kid to whoever they like? I can see where the parents wouldn’t want to open up that can of worms.
But yeah, as far as the media is concerned, there’s a real possibility of inaccurate reporting when only one side can legally talk about the case.
David,
I am trying to look at it from both points of view.
From the parent’s side, I see what you are saying but an actual review of the records by a reporter can be cross checked and verified with the parent.
As it is, from the parent’s point of view, if my child has been a monster and the schools suspends him for a seemingly minor violation, there is no way for the school to say “this was a cumulative suspension based upon the fact the child did this, this, this, this and this and when we contacted the parent, she told us to sod off.”
The other side is what you are saying. But at the same time, if my child’s record is clean, then that destroys the school’s account.
In this specific case with the cheerleader, the mother was apparently told by the school that her daughter was suspended for the backlash the tweet caused. If I am a parent, I want that out there to show how ridiculous the school is being.
I don’t like stories and cases where only half of the story is told.
Notice how they just curtailed her extracurricular activities and didn’t suspend her.
Things like sports and cheer-leading are considered privileges and the school has the “right” to grant or take them away with no consequence to it.
I want to know if that school has a “Code of Conduct” that it makes its students sign every year? This is where the justification for things like this usually comes from. At what point does it stop being a “Code of Conduct” and becomes a contract?
I’m sure they’ll use that as a justification, but it’s an invalid justification. The government cannot give benefits generally and then take them away if they don’t like your speech. Imagine the government building a freeway that only immigration reform supporters can use. “Driving is a privilege, not a right” would be no justification, and neither would putting language in all drivers license renewals that the drivers had to sign. That’s about as ridiculous as a taxpayer-funded cheerleading program that’s only open to those students who don’t express views the school doesn’t like.
“Revere, Mass. schools punish high school cheerleader for a tweet about immigration [Eugene Volokh]
“Lawyers for 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed request $10m from city and $5m from school district after homemade clock was mistaken for bomb”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/23/texas-ahmed-mohamed-clock-lawsuit-apology
“Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday called the American people “essentially a nation of cowards” in failing to openly discuss the issue of race.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/holder.race.relations/
So let’s review.
Talk about race, get punished.
Allow people to talk about race, get punished,
Don’t talk about race, get called a coward.
Maybe better to be called a coward.