Re: Spinning NCLB "accountability" as civil rights: neocon girly manh...

[aburke5054@aol.com]

The fact that "free-speech" cases that appear to be over trivial 
matters (such as the recent one where a student was disciplined for 
unfurling a "Bong hits for Jesus" banner) indicate how seriously 
children's rights are taken.  That's a sign of a healthy system, not an 
unhealthy one.  The notions that expecting children to be orderly in 
school reflects "totalitarian dictatorship" or that it is somehow an 
infringement to guarantee orderly trials by jury are, to put it mildly, 
eccentric.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: ElsaHaas <ElsaHaas@si.rr.com>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 7:12 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Spinning NCLB "accountability" as civil rights: 
neocon girly manh...


You said, "Your 8 year old can exercise his rights, he just needs 
guidance
in doing so."

I think you're using "guidance" as a euphemism for "permission." In the
article you posted a link to, public school kids who were punished for
wearing clothes not allowed by the dress code were represented in court 
by
the ACLU. But the ACLU couldn't represent them unless their parents or 
legal
guardians gave permission. So it was more than "guidance" that they 
needed -
it was permission.

Likewise (the way things work right now) my son's right to homeschool
(actually, unschool) instead of going to school is something he can 
legally
exercise only with my and my husband's permission.

Also, it has always amused me that court cases involving the right to 
free
expression for students in public schools tend to revolve around 
relatively
trivial things like what kind of clothes they're allowed to wear. (I'm 
not
saying that gang activity, the supposed reason for establishing that
particular dress code, is a trivial matter - I'm just saying that if I 
as an
adult could only express myself through the clothes I wear, I'd feel my
Constitutional freedoms were being severely limited.)

This is for the same reason that "student government" elections are 
mostly
fairly meaningless popularity contests: in almost all schools, freedom 
of
expression is limited to who gets to decide what band is to play at the
prom, or whatever.

I have wondered (since I was about twelve years old) how it is that, in 
a
country that's supposed to be a democracy, most kids in most schools 
spend
most of their time sitting where they're told to sit, told exactly what 
to
do every minute, and unable to speak without permission. There's a 
single
authority figure in charge in that room (to some degree or another told 
what
to do by people outside the room). More like a totalitarian dictatorship
than a democracy.

The exceptions to these generalizations are few. They include, for 
example,
the Albany Free School, which has been in existence for over thirty 
years.
(See http://www.albanyfreeschool.com/ .)

Of course, people can't just run around saying whatever they want to say
every minute. For example, if I take my son to a class, performance or
public hearing of some sort, I don't let him disrupt it by making 
irrelevant
noise.

For anything that is meant to be for him, he gets to decide whether or 
not
to go in the first place, and then I expect him to behave accordingly. 
If he
gets restless, we leave (this rarely happens now - it happened more 
often
when he was younger).

For anything that I feel I need or want to do even if my son doesn't 
feel
like it, I increasingly insist that he recognize that I have a life, 
too,
and that if he makes it easy for me to accomplish what I want, I'll have
more time to take him around to the things he wants to do.

When we're at home we have the normal parent-child relationship in 
which it
is not necessary for the child to raise his hand in order to get 
permission
to speak or to use the bathroom. The form of homeschooling we practice 
is
unschooling, by which I mean (there are various definitions) that it's 
my
son who chooses what to learn and how, so there is no "disrupting the 
class"
to worry about.

But in the typical school, kids have to be there - they can't leave. So 
they
can't, by leaving, opt out of what's going on. They can't influence it 
much,
either - even if all twenty-five kids in a typical second-grade 
classroom
were to say, "We'd rather not do math right now - we'd rather do x", the
lesson would continue (after reprisals). Their act would be considered 
not
free expression, but "disrupting the class."

The closest thing to school I can think for adults (outside of the 
military)
is jury duty, during which you can be found in contempt of court for
disrupting the proceedings even if you didn't want to be there in the 
first
place.

Fortunately that's a situation we adults find ourselves in only rarely 
- and
work isn't a good counterexample, since we do have some choice over 
what job
we take or whether we have a job at all.

For example, I have in the past chosen to be a freelance translator 
rather
than work at an office translating job, and even somebody who's working
minimum wage jobs isn't going to be arrested if he quits one of them 
(with
the possible exception of someone who owes lots of child support 
payments,
though that's a bit indirect).

But I do agree with your other point that non-citizens within U.S. 
borders
have civil rights, too (at least in theory).

Elsa Haas

-----Original Message-----
From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org 
[mailto:arn-l-owner@interversity.org] On
Behalf Of Ken
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:01 PM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Spinning NCLB "accountability" as civil rights: 
neocon
girly manh...

You don't even have to be a citizen of the U.S. to have civil
rights.  The constitution is supposed to apply to all those within
the borders of the United States.  The only time you may lose your
rights is when you are convicted of a crime, then the government may
take you life, liberty or property.  Of course none of these are
absolutes as we have seen over the past few years, but for the most
part this still holds true.

Your 8 year old can exercise his rights, he just needs guidance in
doing so.


Recent story about students' 1st amendment (civil rights):
http://www.contracostatimes.com/teens/ci_6600818


On Aug 11, 2007, at 6:25 AM, ElsaHaas wrote:

> I get your point, but I think the terminology is a little off. My
> son, who
> is eight, is a "United States citizen." He might be a second-class
> citizen,
> but he is a citizen. What he isn't is an adult, so - as you say -
> he can't
> exercise his civil rights directly (because he can't file a lawsuit
> on his
> own, etc.).
>
> Elsa Haas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org [mailto:arn-l-
> owner@interversity.org] On
> Behalf Of Laurelathome@cs.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:47 AM
> To: arn-l@interversity.org
> Subject: Re: [arn-l] Spinning NCLB "accountability" as civil
> rights: neocon
> girly manh...
>
> "civil rights" is a synonym for "citizen rights."  Citizens always
> have been
>
> and always will be people who qualify to vote. Children are the
> dependents
> of
> citizens; they aren't citizens.  They can have rights of person and
> property,
> but they can't have civil rights. Their parents can and do have
> civil rights
>
> in some nation, not always the US, and if there is something in the
> nation's
>
> principles and laws that imply a right to certain educational services
> financed
> by the taxpayers, well then, the parents can exert the right, but
> not the
> children.







________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free 
from AOL at AOL.com.