Comments on: Activism in Action: The Middle School Strip Search Case http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/25/activism-in-action-the-middle-school-strip-search-case/ Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:27:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Michael, Sacramento http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/25/activism-in-action-the-middle-school-strip-search-case/#comment-268252 Michael, Sacramento Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:27:47 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=9490#comment-268252 I had much liked the heritage foundation, until I ran across this. Lovers of these searches do not understand what HUMAN DIGNITY is. Dignitary harm transcends embarrassment. What Savana experienced was severely harmful to her personal dignity. Nothing but extreme justification can justify something like this. Roger S., that "in loco parentis" doctrine is dead. Otherwise, students would have no free speech rights at all in school (only Thomas took that position in Morse v. Frederick). It would be constitutional, according to that doctrine, for a school to censor speech criticizing homosexual conduct. Surely, this foundation would not support that. Technically, sending a child to a public school is a choice, but it is often not a choice in practicality. Regardless, it is FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Therefore, the "choice" argument, while it would have force for a private school (which is why private schools are not bound by the constitution), has no force in he case of public school. Jerry Brown is even further off the mark. He seems to think that preventing all violence and drugs justifies a dignity-free society. It does not. The other searches he mentions are different in kind, not in degree from what Savana experienced. A scanner does not involve another person searching the body directly. Imagine a policy were any person, as long as the suspicion was supported by rumor could be strip searched in any courtroom or airport. No rational person would favor that. The fact is, having a few extra deaths from weapons and drugs is worth the price of avoiding a dignity-free society. After all, if we did not think that, then police could randomly stop any person on the street and strip search him/her. No, hearing stories of children who die from these things will not move me at all. Preventing a few deaths does not justify making all of us highly vulnerable at every moment to severe violations of personal dignity. The purpose of courts should be impose as much as possible on school officials, not be deferential. They have been far too deferential. School administrators tend to be entirely unconcerned with their constituents want. They tend to be either foolish or sadistic towards children. Those who defend Ms. Redding are often too emotional and weak in posture. However, her defenders must be strong in posture. That is, we need to ignore the writers here and impose the proper policies. No one who disagrees with me deserves any contact with children. I will not yield. Judicial "activism" is good when it achieves the proper results. I had much liked the heritage foundation, until I ran across this.

Lovers of these searches do not understand what HUMAN DIGNITY is. Dignitary harm transcends embarrassment. What Savana experienced was severely harmful to her personal dignity. Nothing but extreme justification can justify something like this.

Roger S., that "in loco parentis" doctrine is dead. Otherwise, students would have no free speech rights at all in school (only Thomas took that position in Morse v. Frederick). It would be constitutional, according to that doctrine, for a school to censor speech criticizing homosexual conduct. Surely, this foundation would not support that.

Technically, sending a child to a public school is a choice, but it is often not a choice in practicality. Regardless, it is FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Therefore, the "choice" argument, while it would have force for a private school (which is why private schools are not bound by the constitution), has no force in he case of public school.

Jerry Brown is even further off the mark. He seems to think that preventing all violence and drugs justifies a dignity-free society. It does not. The other searches he mentions are different in kind, not in degree from what Savana experienced. A scanner does not involve another person searching the body directly. Imagine a policy were any person, as long as the suspicion was supported by rumor could be strip searched in any courtroom or airport. No rational person would favor that.

The fact is, having a few extra deaths from weapons and drugs is worth the price of avoiding a dignity-free society. After all, if we did not think that, then police could randomly stop any person on the street and strip search him/her.

No, hearing stories of children who die from these things will not move me at all. Preventing a few deaths does not justify making all of us highly vulnerable at every moment to severe violations of personal dignity.

The purpose of courts should be impose as much as possible on school officials, not be deferential. They have been far too deferential. School administrators tend to be entirely unconcerned with their constituents want. They tend to be either foolish or sadistic towards children.

Those who defend Ms. Redding are often too emotional and weak in posture. However, her defenders must be strong in posture. That is, we need to ignore the writers here and impose the proper policies.

No one who disagrees with me deserves any contact with children. I will not yield.

Judicial "activism" is good when it achieves the proper results.

]]> By: Roger S., MA. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/25/activism-in-action-the-middle-school-strip-search-case/#comment-38913 Roger S., MA. Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:22:50 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=9490#comment-38913 My understanding of the issues in this case has certainly not been advanced by this decision. Isn't this more a case of a minor child, age 13, having in a school of its parents' chosing no more "rights" than it would have had at home? The school, in other words, acts the part of surrogate parent for the length of any school-day; what used to be called "in loco parentis". And if so, is there any judicial precedent regarding a restriction on parental rights to demand an accounting from their minor child regarding its activities ? Was this an issue to be considered by the Supreme Court at all ? My understanding of the issues in this case has certainly not been advanced by this decision. Isn't this more a case of a minor child, age 13, having in a school of its parents' chosing no more "rights" than it would have had at home? The school, in other words, acts the part of surrogate parent for the length of any school-day; what used to be called "in loco parentis". And if so, is there any judicial precedent regarding a restriction on parental rights to demand an accounting from their minor child regarding its activities ? Was this an issue to be considered by the Supreme Court at all ?

]]> By: jerry brown, texas http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/25/activism-in-action-the-middle-school-strip-search-case/#comment-38823 jerry brown, texas Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:11:41 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=9490#comment-38823 Appears as if the out-of-touch Supreme Court and Andrew Cohen have overdosed on fantasy! Tragically, the Supremes appear to have effectively handed blanket immunity to the thugs, gangs, guns, knives (case reading indicates contraband knives in the school are nexus in this case---apparently overlooked by other commenters) and drugs who are killing and injuring many children in our public schools. The Justices likely enjoy very powerful protective services as in armed guards with the power to kill attackers and thugs. Thanks to the Supremes, Innocent children in the schools now must try and survive among school gangs and gunners who'll love the enhanced protection afforded by this absurd ruling. Also, by fair extension all intrusive airport, courtroom searches, security cameras and other detective devices need to be turned off. Hey, and all and any future planned intrusive scan security devices at the Supreme Court should now be turned off. Could the case have been handled better at the school with a call to the parent or guardian prior to a search by a nurse? Perhaps, but giving Osama bin Laden or the local drug and gun dealers a Probable cause shield in Restricted Public Areas like schools, courtrooms, airports and airplanes is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Bird Poo Award to Cohen and the Supremes on this one. Appears as if the out-of-touch Supreme Court and Andrew Cohen have overdosed on fantasy! Tragically, the Supremes appear to have effectively handed blanket immunity to the thugs, gangs, guns, knives (case reading indicates contraband knives in the school are nexus in this case—apparently overlooked by other commenters) and drugs who are killing and injuring many children in our public schools. The Justices likely enjoy very powerful protective services as in armed guards with the power to kill attackers and thugs. Thanks to the Supremes, Innocent children in the schools now must try and survive among school gangs and gunners who'll love the enhanced protection afforded by this absurd ruling. Also, by fair extension all intrusive airport, courtroom searches, security cameras and other detective devices need to be turned off. Hey, and all and any future planned intrusive scan security devices at the Supreme Court should now be turned off. Could the case have been handled better at the school with a call to the parent or guardian prior to a search by a nurse? Perhaps, but giving Osama bin Laden or the local drug and gun dealers a Probable cause shield in Restricted Public Areas like schools, courtrooms, airports and airplanes is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Bird Poo Award to Cohen and the Supremes on this one.

]]>