Unconventionally cute - suspended from school

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Strictly speaking, voting isn't a freedom. It is a civil right and a tool to use to secure freedoms.

Freedoms are things like your ability to do what you wish with your own body without some authority punishing you for it. So yea, how you style your own hair I think is one of the most basic freedoms people have. I don't even think Stalin made up a list of state-approved haircuts for Soviet citizens.

That right there you said about Stalin should show you want matters (voting) and what doesn't (haircuts).

You are defining "freedom" down to the lowest common possibility, which is simply the ability to do what you wish. Under this definition, any creature (does not even have to be human) not chained is "free." That is not what I am talking about.

If you don't have control over even the simplest, most basic parts of your own body and own life, then you are not free.

Then no one living in a society is free, and therfore the only humans who have ever been free have been hermits.

You'll respond with the fact that many employers will impose restrictions on things like clothes and haircuts, but employees are free to decide where to work. So they are given a choice in the matter. Students aren't. They are forced to go to school.

So what?

I am not a liberterian, nor do I find this notion of "freedom" even remotely compelling. As I said, the very fact that we as humans live in groups imposes limits on our behavior, otherwise the system would break down. That is part of being human. And part of that is making our youths part of the system, which is what education does for them, make them able to understand the system they live in and live within it without friction.

There is no slippery slope. This is about hair styling for jesus' sake! The school made no demands on the mother's choice of beliefs, her political liberties, it only demanded that she not style a bunch of celulose strands on her kids head a certain way. There is a need for perspective here that appears sorely lacking.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
It's fun that you keep mentioning the "no justifications needed" while including lots of possible justifications in your post like that rules would be "in the best interest of the education" or that "You have to learn in kindergarten how to get along"

How does anyone know something is in his best interest when nobody ever tells why that would be indeed the case?

The administrators determine what is in the best interest of the students. Therefore they don't need any further justification. It's stupid to ask for justification when you already know the answer, "in the interest of education."

Also, people having their own haircut does not fall under being "anti-social" in my book.

Demanding that your child can have a mohawk strikes me as anti-social behavior. It's also disrespectfull of the school. Give the school some respect and follow the rules. It's in everyones best interest.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that rules almost never work that way because of the multiplicity of posibilities. When drafting a rule, are you really able to define and lay out EVERY single posibility? NO. You simply can't imagine every single thing. Take this grooming issue. According to you, they would have to before hand define what haircuts are acceptible. HOw would they do that? They would have to define every possible haircut? (what is a mohawk, what isn;t? What is the maximum hair length? What percentage of the scalp does it cover? What colors are we talking about? )

I think the entire "properly groomed" part is nonsense. But if they refer to that, they should at least give a hint what they consider "properly groomed" in their rules. That they cannot define it better is IMO just another indicator for this being a rather shady point. Since you hardly can establish "objective" criteria for this it gives the impression that the entire rule goes after likes/dislikes of those running the school. If that is the case, I'd say a rule emerging from personal sympathy/antipathy is a rather bad one.

We are talking here about a grooming issue. The need of the school to run itself as it sees fit outweight in this case (by a significant margin) the ability of a parent to make their kid look how they please.

Well, the article doesn't say much about it, but it seems the school wasn't errupting in chaos as long as the kid was still there wearing the mohawk. So I'm not sure how a single different haircut would endanger the school's capacity to "run itself".

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The administrators determine what is in the best interest of the students. Therefore they don't need any further justification. It's stupid to ask for justification when you already know the answer, "in the interest of education."

I see, when someone tells you that something is in your best interest you always believe him without any other argument. I mean when they say so....

BTW, send me all your money, it's in your best interest.

[Kidlicious]

BreBro,

The dress code is surely very specific. What Gepap is saying is that it can't be all enclusive.

School is not there for you to show off a haircut. It's there for you to get an education. There's a big problem with many people thinking that school is for something else besides education.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro


I see, when someone tells you that something is in your best interest you always believe him without any other argument. I mean when they say so....

BTW, send me all your money, it's in your best interest.

What kind of society do you want to live in where you can't trust people? Trust is a hallmark of civilization.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro


I think the entire "properly groomed" part is nonsense. But if they refer to that, they should at least give a hint what they consider "properly groomed" in their rules. That they cannot define it better is IMO just another indicator for this being a rather shady point. Since you hardly can establish "objective" criteria for this it gives the impression that the entire rule goes after likes/dislikes of those running the school. If that is the case, I'd say a rule emerging from personal sympathy/antipathy is a rather bad one.

In an institutionalized setting like a school, proper grooming is a very compelling requirement. First of all, bad grooming can lead to head lice, which is a problem. And what if kids come in dirty clothing or has not bathed in a significant time and smells awful? Those things matter. The reality is that that grooming rule came from somewhere.

Much like rules about pornography and indecensy, or even sexual harassment, the judgement is on the beholder. Trully objective rules are impossible because each moment is different and humans are inherently subjective.

Well, the article doesn't say much about it, but it seems the school wasn't errupting in chaos as long as the kid was still there wearing the mohawk. So I'm not sure how a single different haircut would endanger the school's capacity to "run itself".

And it is not for you to imagine or think about it, now is it? If an administration were run amok making picayune and restrictive rules then parents as a group would probably be able to demand a change in administration to one more reasonable. Just as there appears to be no chaos in the school from the article, there appears to be no disagreement from any other parent save this woman with the decision of the administration, now is there?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap


In an institutionalized setting like a school, proper grooming is a very compelling requirement. First of all, bad grooming can lead to head lice, which is a problem.

Generally yes, but hardly the issue here when you look at the kid's pic.

And what if kids come in dirty clothing or has not bathed in a significant time and smells awful? Those things matter.

Not disputed.

The reality is that that grooming rule came from somewhere.

Sure, but asking "from where?" is IMO nothing special or outrageous in an open society. I agree with your earlier point that this case isn't comparable to a big scale limitation of political freedoms/whatever, still I think the fact that it's just about a mother and her kid doesn't mean that she should never even debate the school's position or never complain about it.

Much like rules about pornography and indecensy, or even sexual harassment, the judgement is on the beholder. Trully objective rules are impossible because each moment is different and humans are inherently subjective.

All clear, but if there are good reasons aside from pure likes/dislike they should be provided. If there aren't any good reasons then the rule can be very well questioned (and should be given an overhaul or be abolished completely, but that's just my opinion).

And it is not for you to imagine or think about it, now is it?

Err? If you mean I don't have authority to decide this case you're right, but why should I not even think about this or debate it? Most debating in fora or elsewhere is done by people who don't have to decide about anything they debate, where's the problem.

If an administration were run amok making picayune and restrictive rules then parents as a group would probably be able to demand a change in administration to one more reasonable. Just as there appears to be no chaos in the school from the article, there appears to be no disagreement from any other parent save this woman with the decision of the administration, now is there?

Yup, and I never said it would be

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro
Sure, but asking "from where?" is IMO nothing special or outrageous in an open society. I agree with your earlier point that this case isn't comparable to a big scale limitation of political freedoms/whatever, still I think the fact that it's just about a mother and her kid doesn't mean that she should never even debate the school's position or never complain about it.

I am not saying one should not debate the issue, I am saying that I don't view this act as a huge infringement of rights, unlike some others.

All clear, but if there are good reasons aside from pure likes/dislike they should be provided. If there aren't any good reasons then the rule can be very well questioned (and should be given an overhaul or be abolished completely, but that's just my opinion).

Well, the article is very short, and why should the admin. provide more info to the press, which is our only source? The forum in which the administration would have been forced to explain their case would have been if the mother had appealed their decision, and then the school administrators would have had to explain to their bosses why they did what they did. The thing is, the mother decided not to appeal and just moved her son to another school.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by BeBro
I think the entire "properly groomed" part is nonsense. But if they refer to that, they should at least give a hint what they consider "properly groomed" in their rules. That they cannot define it better is IMO just another indicator for this being a rather shady point. Since you hardly can establish "objective" criteria for this it gives the impression that the entire rule goes after likes/dislikes of those running the school. If that is the case, I'd say a rule emerging from personal sympathy/antipathy is a rather bad one.

Not only did the school give a hint, but they directly told the mother that her kid's mohawk was not considered "properly groomed".

Originally posted by BeBro
Sure, but asking "from where?" is IMO nothing special or outrageous in an open society. I agree with your earlier point that this case isn't comparable to a big scale limitation of political freedoms/whatever, still I think the fact that it's just about a mother and her kid doesn't mean that she should never even debate the school's position or never complain about it.

Debate all you want. Complain all you want. But follow the rule first, otherwise you must accept the consequenses of your actions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Just like there is a right to education? I don't see that one anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

Try re-reading the Constitution.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Try re-reading the Constitution.

Maybe you are thinking of the Soviet Constitution Comrade.

[Wiglaf]

Some people seem to be confusing the constitution with the law. Of course most forms of discrimination in public schooling is illegal. I assume this brat tool was in a public school, in which case we can't expel him for being gay or a Jew or whatever. But disobedience and disruption is good enough in this clearly reasonable circumstance.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Retrospective warning: Long rambling boring law post! Do not inhale!

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Try re-reading the Constitution.

The US Constitution doesn't expressly have it, but a limited right to decide one's education (or one's children's education) has been recognized by the SCOTUS.

Meyer v. Nebraska shows the court striking down a law preventing teachers from teaching foreign languages. Also invoked education right of parents to decide children’s education. But this was primarily couched in inverse Commerce Clause language, which says that states do not have the power to pass laws that interfere with interstate commerce, of which they argued the right to teach foreign languages was one.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters shows the court striking down law requiring public school education for all children. Although it invoked parents’ education rights, again the main focus was an economic one, saying that it would deprive private fee paying schools of their livelihood unfairly.

Brown v. Board of Education said you can't discriminate against schooling for people based on the color of their skin, but it's a much stronger precedent for racial equality than for educational universality.

Later the court was pressed to rule directly on whether education was a fundamental right, in San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez. They said it's not a "fundamental right" (i.e. the government doesn't have to give it to you) but it is a "fundamental interest" (i.e. if the government makes it available to some, it must make it available to all). Note that it doesn't have to make it equal for all. If you're in a poor school district, then you're essentially out of luck and must take what they give you, as long as they give you something. (In other words it's okay to let poor people have worse educational conditions, but it's not okay to force worse educational conditions on black people just because they're black.)


"State's right to look after" = "State's right to look into"?
One thing that's interesting to note on an international scale is that countries which have viewed the government has having fewer duties to its people, have also generally held that the government has fewer liberties to interfere with its people. E.g., the United Nations agent organization UNICEF tried to pass a resolution in the 1990s to say that universal human rights included rights to education, economic survival, and housing, etc. Several nations including the US rejected that affirmative duty to provide education, economic means, and housing. The nations that did support such a movement were a few West European civil-law societies, and the Communist bloc.

China's 1982 Constitution, for example, does have an affirmative duty of the government to provide schooling, housing, and basic economic needs to its people. During the period of time when it took socialism seriously, the Chinese government apparently succeeded in raising literacy and numeracy by a large margin, and it lifted an estimated 200 million out of poverty as defined by UN standards. The flip side of the coin was a totalitarian control of personal freedoms, a deprivation of political freedom, and a very strong (and ultimately questionable) control over the economy. Now that the controls are being lifted (economically and personally at least, if not politically) the government has also found its ability to continue providing healthcare, education, and housing, etc. hampered seriously.

China's not unique in this respect either. The former Communist bloc constitutions generally provide for several affirmative duties of the state to provide economic, educational, and housing quotas, but in return they grant the individual far fewer personal liberties - essentially parlaying the state's duty to look after you into the state's right to look into your affairs.

America is the exact opposite - the government does not proactively grant nearly as much poverty support (for example), healthcare, or housing support* as Britain and France, but it does guarantee personal liberties such as freedom of speech and a right to privacy far beyond what those nations allow.

*Education wise is a different matter, with quality varying greatly depending on the supporting community's relative wealth. I used to live in a county in Maryland where even the schools with a "ghetto" reputation frankly beat the pants off anything I've seen anywhere else. I've also lived in counties in the midwest where the education system barely limps by from year to year.


Comparing the US to the European country that most closely resembles it legally (the UK), the difference in personal freedoms is clear.

US: 2003 Lawrence v. Texas affirms that although there's no constitutional right to homosexual sex, there is a constitutional right to privacy in your own home, and a Texas law that unreasonably curtailed that was not acceptable.

UK: 1993 Regina v. Brown showed that similar sexual behavior in the privacy of one's own home IS punishable by a judge in the interests of public decency.

More recently, a man caught having sex with a bicycle in the privacy of his own dorm room was given a sentence in a Scottish court.

...

As if the Scots have any public decency left to offend!

[monolith94]

Even if the school DOES have the right to do this, let's face facts: this isn't good pedagogy. Teaching a student has nothing to do with their hair.