6-year-old expelled over Cub Scout utensil

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

And I fail to see how his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated. It was a school policy. He violated it. So what if he is six? They knew that 6 yr olds would be included in the group affected by the policy.

That's the extent of your due process analysis?

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by gamma

Where is your brilliant analysis?

Do you think it is ok for students to bring knives to school?

Well you didn't ask me, but as the mother of 3, here is my opinion.

I think context is everything. Do I think weapons should be allowed at school? No. However I also don't think there should be an across the board inflexible policy regarding it. A policy that states: no weapons and here are the possible punishments... yes.

I see it as a difference between a child bringing a knife and eating with it versus a child bringing a knife and holding to another child's neck. The first child should be spoken to about why we don't bring knives to school. The second should possibly be expelled/sent to reform school.

About the student that had a hunting weapon in his car? If he told someone himself and said it was an honest mistake, then he should have been sent to class to learn about gun safty/never leaving it in the car. Not expelled. Maybe even had an agreement to have his car/locker searched on a regular basis for some amount of time to show that he wasn't making the mistake again.

I know many school districts have very ridgid policies because they fear lawsuits if they have any bit of discretion. A parent might cry discrimination or its not fair. But I still think that context should matter.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

Well you didn't ask me, but as the mother of 3, here is my opinion.

I think context is everything. Do I think weapons should be allowed at school? No. However I also don't think there should be an across the board inflexible policy regarding it. A policy that states: no weapons and here are the possible punishments... yes.

I see it as a difference between a child bringing a knife and eating with it versus a child bringing a knife and holding to another child's neck. The first child should be spoken to about why we don't bring knives to school. The second should possibly be expelled/sent to reform school.

About the student that had a hunting weapon in his car? If he told someone himself and said it was an honest mistake, then he should have been sent to class to learn about gun safty/never leaving it in the car. Not expelled. Maybe even had an agreement to have his car/locker searched on a regular basis for some amount of time to show that he wasn't making the mistake again.

I know many school districts have very ridgid policies because they fear lawsuits if they have any bit of discretion. A parent might cry discrimination or its not fair. But I still think that context should matter.

And those rigid policies comes from too many kids killing other kids in school near school around the shcool and after school and it has resulted in panic button politics.

The moment we see kids with something that could be misconstrued as a weapon (per the cartoon a few poasts back) they are automatically deemed as 'troublemakers'.

let's thank the perps that has made it bad for those who are innocent.

[ForeverRoses]

^^ I completely agree

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

Well you didn't ask me, but as the mother of 3, here is my opinion.

I think context is everything. Do I think weapons should be allowed at school? No. However I also don't think there should be an across the board inflexible policy regarding it. A policy that states: no weapons and here are the possible punishments... yes.

I see it as a difference between a child bringing a knife and eating with it versus a child bringing a knife and holding to another child's neck. The first child should be spoken to about why we don't bring knives to school. The second should possibly be expelled/sent to reform school.

About the student that had a hunting weapon in his car? If he told someone himself and said it was an honest mistake, then he should have been sent to class to learn about gun safty/never leaving it in the car. Not expelled. Maybe even had an agreement to have his car/locker searched on a regular basis for some amount of time to show that he wasn't making the mistake again.

I know many school districts have very ridgid policies because they fear lawsuits if they have any bit of discretion. A parent might cry discrimination or its not fair. But I still think that context should matter.

But how do the officials know that all he intended to do was eat with it? How do officials know that someone else might not have grabbed the knife and used it in a harmful way. The bottom line is that kids should not be allowed to bring weapons to school despite their actual intentions for doing so. I prefer for schools to be strict about this than to let it ride and find that chaos results. And if the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, then you run the risk of discriminatory practices settling into place.

There was nothing confusing about the policy. And no one can argue ignorance as an excuse because parents and children are expected to know these policies. If they are applying it to everyone across the board, then again, there is no problem.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

But how do the officials know that all he intended to do was eat with it? How do officials know that someone else might not have grabbed the knife and used it in a harmful way. The bottom line is that kids should not be allowed to bring weapons to school despite their actual intentions for doing so. I prefer for schools to be strict about this than to let it ride and find that chaos results. And if the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, then you run the risk of discriminatory practices settling into place.

There was nothing confusing about the policy. And no one can argue ignorance as an excuse because parents and children are expected to know these policies. If they are applying it to everyone across the board, then again, there is no problem.

I disagree with your conclusion, and I think building level administrators should be permitted a great deal of discretion in how they handle things. If we come to suspect they abuse that discretion or are incompetent, then we deal with that.

However, I acknowledge that one's experience in school shapes one's perception of this issue a lot. If your school was basically safe, competent, and as non-discriminatory as humanly possible, it makes a lot more sense to say that blanket policies about boy scout knives are clearly stupid.

On the other hand if you went to or taught at Dysfunction Junction H.S., you know why the institution is better with blanket policies that don't allow administrators to undermine the limited about of discipline that is consistently enforced.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I disagree with your conclusion, and I think building level administrators should be permitted a great deal of discretion in how they handle things. If we come to suspect they abuse that discretion or are incompetent, then we deal with that.

However, I acknowledge that one's experience in school shapes one's perception of this issue a lot. If your school was basically safe, competent, and as non-discriminatory as humanly possible, it makes a lot more sense to say that blanket policies about boy scout knives are clearly stupid.

On the other hand if you went to or taught at Dysfunction Junction H.S., you know why the institution is better with blanket policies that don't allow administrators to undermine the limited about of discipline that is consistently enforced.

Well, if people don't advocate for a blanket policy in this regard, they certainly need not complain about all of the school violence that takes place. As I said before, when you start to give administrators discretion, typically you start seeing discrimination and racial profiling. And at that point it is difficult to start "dealing with it" because that's the kind of subtle ting that really is difficult to handle.

I think it is funny that people really are trying to make the school officials out to be bad guys here. In this day and age, with kids as violent as they are, something needs to be done. If I ever had kids, I would feel much better knowing they are at a school that takes that kind of thing seriously.

I suppose it doesn't help that the media is blasting his picture everywhere and constantly labeling him as a little first grade cub scout. Would your reaction have been the same had he been labeled as a little first grade gangbanger who wanted to bring his little utensil to school to eat with it?

[deepimpact2]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33289924...-today_people/

If you read the article. you will notice that it states why the school had this zero tolerance policy in the first place: they wanted to avoid racial discrimination.

[UGAalum94]

I'd be willing to take my changes with six year olds who brought eating utensils to school, including six-year-old "gang bangers."

Zero tolerance regardless of circumstances is an irrational policy. His "weapon" was no more dangerous that scissors and likely little more dangerous than a pencil or pen. He didn't use it as a weapon, so referring to cutlery as weapons is a little goofy.

Having discretion doesn't have to equal racial discrimination. It's a possibility sure, but it's a possibility almost always.

I think we'd be better off allowing the people entrusted with the job of school level discipline handling these cases, especially at the elementary school level. If they racial discriminate, they face the consequences for that.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33289924...-today_people/

If you read the article. you will notice that it states why the school had this zero tolerance policy in the first place: they wanted to avoid racial discrimination.

LOL. This is what happens when a nation becomes chicken shit and scary.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33289924...-today_people/

If you read the article. you will notice that it states why the school had this zero tolerance policy in the first place: they wanted to avoid racial discrimination.

I would posit that the best way to avoid racial discrimination is to not discriminate on the basis of race, rather than enacting a crappy policy that "eliminates" it from a liability perspective but not at all from a pragmatic perspective.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by gamma

Where is your brilliant analysis?

Do you think it is ok for students to bring knives to school?

Let me try to make this easy for you. Whether I think it is okay for kids to bring knives to school (even if they are Cub Scout camping knives that are duller than what would be in the cafeteria) and whether I think there are due process issues involved are completely unrelated questions.

I have not offered a due process analysis, largely because one or two news stories don't provide enough information to make any reasonable analysis. But were I too undertake a due process analysis, it would not begin with whether the policy is a good or bad policy. It would probably begin with the question of whether automatic suspension, possibly without any hearing or appeal rights, implicates the due process rights of the student. A due process analysis would typicall have to do with how the consequences of violating the rule were imposed, not with whether the policy was valid or was violated to begin with.

deepimpact basically said it was school policy, intended to include students like him and he violated it. As a second- or third-year law student, she should know (1) that whether a law or policy applies to someone who violated it is usually irrelevant to a due process question, and (2) people's convictions for crimes are overturned everyday not because they didn't violate the law but because they were denied due process.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Let me try to make this easy for you. Whether I think it is okay for kids to bring knives to school (even if they are Cub Scout camping knives that are duller than what would be in the cafeteria) and whether I think there are due process issues involved are completely unrelated questions.

I have not offered a due process analysis, largely because one or two news stories don't provide enough information to make any reasonable analysis. But were I too undertake a due process analysis, it would not begin with whether the policy is a good or bad policy. It would probably begin with the question of whether automatic suspension, possibly without any hearing or appeal rights, implicates the due process rights of the student. A due process analysis would typicall have to do with how the consequences of violating the rule were imposed, not with whether the policy was valid or was violated to begin with.

deepimpact basically said it was school policy, intended to include students like him and he violated it. As a second- or third-year law student, she should know (1) that whether a law or policy applies to someone who violated it is usually irrelevant to a due process question, and (2) people's convictions for crimes are overturned everyday not because they didn't violate the law but because they were denied due process.

As someone who has practiced law for several years, you should recognize that there is a difference between the majority of cases where the courts decided that due process rights had been violated and this case.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

As someone who has practiced law for several years, you should recognize that there is a difference between the majority of cases where the courts decided that due process rights had been violated and this case.

Of course there are -- many, many differences. In fact, believe it or not, I agree with you that there isn't likely a due process issue here.

That doesn't change the fact that those criminal cases show why simply saying it was policy and he violated the policy isn't a due process analysis at all.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course there are -- many, many differences. In fact, believe it or not, I agree with you that there isn't likely a due process issue here.

That doesn't change the fact that those criminal cases show why simply saying it was policy and he violated the policy isn't a due process analysis at all.

I don't recall saying it WAS a due process analysis.