Hazing

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Tue May 13 08:13:12 MDT 2003


>>
>>         They are free not to accept the enrollment of the individual in
>>the first place.

At 05:38 AM 5/13/2003 -0700, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

>I do not believe that the public schools are free to not accept the
>enrollment.

         Well, it doesn't occur like it did when we were kids, thanks to
defining deviance down by the NEA. In some states, though, it still
happens. It depends on the laws of that state, the district, what sort of
area the school is in (upperclass schools are the most likely to do this)
and so forth.

>>>Who defines deplorable?
>>
>>         The School Board, the Board of Regents, the Head Master, the
>>Superintendent, the Principal...........it's whatever applies. Some
>>schools even have a policy advisory council, responsible for setting
>>school policy on any and all issues.
>
>Any and all issues regarding the school. Yes. They have been given no
>legal authority outside of that scope.

         Well, again, the public behavior of students is closely monitored
in some districts, Stephen. The students are informed at the start of each
school year what's expected of them - on or off campus. There are a couple
of such districts near my home, in fact. The neighboring residential
surroundings are decidedly well-to-do. Nobody has come forward to challenge
these policies, either. I'm guessing that most of the parents (if not all)
are in solid agreement with such restrictive policy.

>>>What if the school (or an employer) decides that a student's support of
>>>the NRA, anti-abortion actions, etc are deplorable?
>>
>>         The student can be removed from the enrollment - legally.
>
>And your legal authority on this is exactly what?

         I've seen it happen in surrounding districts. Okay, that's
second-hand heresay evidence and wouldn't hold water in a court of law. I
can empathize with your compulsion to disbelieve. Were the roles reversed,
I'd disbelieve, too.

         Maybe (but highly unlikely) Jim Quinn will air a similar type of
story before too long. If he does, I'll be sure to run down both the source
and news clipping for you. East of Pittsburgh are a few ultra high-end
upperclass areas where folks like the Mellons, the Scaifes, the Carnegies
and the rest of the most elite of Pittsburgh families sent their kids - to
mostly private schools, of course.

>Your opening statement mentioned that the Constitution provides for
>freedom of association.

         And such schools do choose who can and will enroll, under this
freedom of association. That's a two-way (albeit narrow) lane, Stephen.

>Here you are saying otherwise.

         Not at all. You misunderstand.

>Are you actually saying that a public school can dismiss a student because
>of the Church he or she attends?

         I've not seen that tight of a restriction in place anywhere,
Stephen. I've heard of threats - not over churches the family(ies) in
question attend(s), but over student involvement in such things as "Youth
For Christ" - an extra-curricular organization that is privately funded and
active in most area schools here.

         Many school boards are bitter toward this organization over the
organization's insistence to have access to classrooms after regular school
hours, which are tax payer funded (obviously). The ill will carries over
even if the gathering takes place well beyond school grounds. No
substantive legal action involving Y-F-C has occurred yet. But, school
boards always seem to have a collection of egos in place. This makes for
alot of noise, at the very least.

John Q.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20030513/79d59e80/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list