school confiscates cell phone, lawyer dad is mad?

[bowens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have to have these "blanket" policies to give ourselves a chance to defend ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more along the lines of what I was thinking.

Covering your ass >>>> individual rights

Too many chiefs, not enough indians.

[/ QUOTE ]

'splain this to a poor public school teacher. What gives students the "right" to carry and use cellphones,mp3 players, etc...? Do schools (and other institutions) not have the responsiblity to set forth rules of conduct? Again, perhaps the argument has become lost in this thread. I am not saying that I agree with the total seziure of property. As I have stated before, if a parent comes to our school, the property is returned. My arugument is that the distraction (phone,mp3 player) does not need to be used during school hours.

Forgive me, but I do not understand your last statement, and what it has to do with the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
things you need to recognize/think about/respond to so the discussion can be worthwhile.


human beings have a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. these rights are (arguably) fundamental. making a blanket policy regarding what you can bring to school is incredibly stupid, inefficient, and narrow-minded, as i have explained previously. regardless you could have such policies, however that does not make it right to seize property as a result of breaking those rules, as has been explained before.

seizure of property for a limited amount of time is still seizure of property.

whether or not something is needed is completely irrelevant.


being a teacher is voluntary. your emotional plees are misguided. personally, i have absolutely no sympathy for "poor" teachers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try reading the post, please. I am not arguing for seziure of property, even if that property is deemed inappropriate. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be there in the first place.

And no one was making an emotional plea. I make enough money to support myself. Sorry you misunderstood.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why do people think suspension is better than getting a phone taken away? Yes, let's take the kid OUT of school so he can't learn instead of taking away the distraction! makes perfect sense.

and for a regular, decently smart, high schooler, getting suspended is probably a REWARD compared to losing your cell phone for a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

you contradict yourself. first you act like its bad to take the kid out of school, yet if you take the kid out of school its a net gain FOR ALL INVOLVED (other than perhaps the parents?).


a net gain by all parties is called a pareto improvement. and is always a favorable movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is bad to take the kid out of school. But the kid isn't going to understand that. He might actually ENJOY his suspension, even though it is harmful to his education. Whereas taking the cell phone is not harmful to his education and will be a major annoyance and actually might teach him a lesson. wow!

[almostbusto]

ok i've read it about 6 times now.

you said the property is returned to the parents. this implies the property has been seized. i was just pointing out how that is seizure of property and is totally innapropriate. if its returned it lessens the severity of the infraction, but it is still wrong.

you did make an emotional plee. why else did you include the word poor? it is totally irrelevant. i am not discussing my net worth in this thread...


you asked what gives student's the 'right' to carry cell phones. my post responds to that.

so what exactly am i missing?

[daryn]

how is seizure of property ok if it's a knife?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
how is seizure of property ok if it's a knife?

[/ QUOTE ]

i responded to that already. if the property does not present a threat of harm it is fine...

if it presents a threat then the owner does not have the same rights. if it is actually used to inflict physical harm then it is even more imperitive that action is taken against the owner.


this is similarly true of property that inflicts non physical harm (that a cell phone may). the cell phone presents a threat of disrupting a class. however this does not warrant siezure. seizing property is compromising the rights of an individual has not yet done any wrong and even if the individual did wrong, the utility loss would be less than the loss of the actual seizure of property.

this is very very obvious stuff.

[daryn]

ok so what is the solution to this problem? what if i come in every day with a loud siren?

[bowens]

So, you are saying that nothing should be conficated from a student? I want to fully understand this point before I go further.

Again, no emotional plea here. Lack of money is not the only meaning of the word poor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post would also give them the right to carry anything else they choose, simply because it is "their" property. I may have misinterpreted that. I'm sure you will let me know.

Edit: I see you have already discussed this in other posts. I don't agree that this is "obvious stuff."

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how is seizure of property ok if it's a knife?

[/ QUOTE ]

i responded to that already. if the property does not present a threat of harm it is fine...

if it presents a threat then the owner does not have the same rights. if it is actually used to inflict physical harm then it is even more imperitive that action is taken against the owner.


this is very very obvious stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a cell phone camera that can take upskirt photos of 12 year old girls presents no threat of harm?

[Meech]

/agree with almostbusto.

Some folks here seem to get a little too much enjoyment out of striving to make the school more gulag-esque.

If suspensions are enjoyable, howabout detention? Cleaning bathrooms after school? A week in a sped class?

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
ok so what is the solution to this problem? what if i come in every day with a loud siren?

[/ QUOTE ]

youre removed from school along w/ your siren.