Klarinet Archive - Posting 001169.txt from 2002/06

From: "Kevin Callahan" <kionon@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Music vs. drug testing
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:19:31 -0400

<snip>

> OK, and I am the FATHER of a 17 year old. And, to an extent, I agree with
> you. We probably differ only in the AMOUNT of independence a teen should
> have and WHEN.

I realized you were a father. Your drive to protect children is admirable,
and I've seen such a drive in my own parents. We do disagree on amount and
when. That's to be expected. As I said, I'm still likely on the side of your
offspring more than I am on yours. That is natural, as you're not my peer,
your child is. I admit my own faults, and lack of experience is one of them.
My opinions are based on the only experiences I have.

> > > So-called "rights" are routinely taken from them, and must
> > > be for their own protection, most obviously drinking, smoking, and
> > > driving.
> >
> >Driving is, and has been, at 16, but 16 is not the majority. 18 is.
Drinking
> >is 21, but that's not the majority either. Granted, I agree with you on
> >those specific rights, but there are other rights that children and
> >teenagers have regardless of age. Their basic human rights. Privacy to a
> >degree (and that is what is in debate) is one of them.
>
> There we go again. There IS no right to privacy in the Constitution. And
> teenagers, living under their parents' roofs and under their protection
> (even from themselves) have even LESS right to privacy.

I live with my parents three months out of the year, and I would disagree
with you. There is a right, granted a limited one. I would not begrudge my
parents entrance to my room, but I would be upset if they started searching
for something. I am not a criminal, I have nothing to hide that is illegal.
I do however have things that I don't want my parents to see. I never
discuss my relationships with my parents, for one. Just never have. I don't
speak of my online dealings with the exception of any meetings. I may be an
adult, but I agree with the idea of restricting internet access. If I had
gone off alone to meet someone I met online, I'd not only expect spanking,
I'd deserve one. Oh, I'm curious, may I ask the gender of your child?
Granted, you don't have to tell me.

> >I routinely came into
> >conflict with my own school administration on this several times. I
didn't
> >just turn eighteen and suddenly be politically active. No, I've been like
> >this for some time. I believe my mother once traced my political
awareness
> >back to the fifth grade. I agree now that many of those things that I
hated
> >were necessary, that I was the exception, and that the majority had to be
> >protected. In this case, I believe this is not protecting the majority,
but
> >in fact harming it.
>
> Maybe in a while you will come to see it in the same light as those other
> things. Like when YOU have kids of your own.

I've admitted that. More than once, I believe. I have made enough mistakes
in my life to already understand that I am falliable, I am mortal, and I
don't know everything. Once again, I can only base my views on what I know.
Even if that information is faulty or flat out wrong. I have a strong drive
to better myself, Mr. Hausmann, which is why I respect your opinions. You
are probably a good parent. You certainly sound like one. I would be happy
to continue hearing your views on things. Especially if that day comes, as I
want it to, that I become a father myself.

> > > Furthermore, I believe that schools MUST act in loco
> > > parentis.
> >
> >That I disagree with, and I thank the Lord my parents all disagree with
it.
> >If I ever become a parent, and I'd like to one day, I will never accept
that
> >the school can act in loco parentis. If the need arises, I would like to
be
> >called. Now, if *I* determine my child is to be tested, that's one thing,
> >but I will not allow the school to make decisions that are mine to make.
I
> >will protect my child, as I should as a good parent.
>
> See above comment. Parents who agree with you have removed all discipline
> from the schools. Thus we have drugs and guns in schools, among other
> problems that were unheard of in my day.

I have never been a druggie and I have never taken a gun to school. I was
never even in a fight in high school. The worst I did, and I'm eternally
embarrased by this, is break some stuff in an angst-ridden teen tantrum. It
remains the worst episode in my life, but it was one of the key factors in
me understanding my place as the child. I do take offense at your
insinuation my parents have done anything less than an exlemplary job
raising me. Schools should be a place of learning, not the military, or
worse yet, a prison. Not that I have any tolerance for troublemakers. I
never was one, so I took great offense at team punishment. Just because my
parents understood the balance, the transition of independence, not to
mention their right to raise me (opposed to the school's, like you suggest)
you say they're bad parents? If it was so, I hardly think I'd be arguing
socio-political theory with you on a clarinet mailing list.

Oh, my mother came in while I was writing this and would like to remind you
that, "I'm fifty years old, and trust me, those problems were happening. You
just may not have seen them." I would guess the drugs would be the most
obvious, considering she went to HS in the mid sixties.

> > > They have a RESPONSIBILITY to inspect lockers on SCHOOL property
> > > for drugs, guns, etc., just as parents should check their childrens'
> > > rooms.
> >
> >To a degree. Lockers are one thing, I never was against that. Backpacks
are
> >another matter. I find that intrusion without the consent of the student
or
> >the parent of the student. But comparing drug testing of urine to lockers
is
> >a gross comparison. The two are not alike. In any way.
>
> When, a couple of years ago, they were inspecting backpacks for guns and
> explosives following the incident in Colorado, did you object?

Yes, as I was often the target of just such searches. I'm an outsider, a
nerd, the person who got picked on. I fit the "profile" of a student
disgruntled enough to "do" something about that. Such thoughts never entered
my head, always much prefered to blast a bully with my intelligence, not
with my strength, or worse yet, a weapon. Even then, using my intelligence
was immature, but it took me awhile to understand that.

> You do have
> a point, though. The locker is SCHOOL property, the backpack the
student's
> property. A line COULD be drawn there. But why are you so interested in
> protecting your URINE. I presume were planning to eliminate it anyway.

It's mine, why should I not? Granted that seems a silly question. I'm
interested in protecting anything that is mine from violation. Granted I no
longer have to worry about it, but as you know, it doesn't sit well with me.

> > > In return for the right to get an education, the students should be
> > > expected to shoulder the responsibility to behave themselves.
> >
> >"If you expect thieves in the night, that is what you will get," Nicholas
> >Seafort, Commandant UNNS Academy.
> >
> >If you treat students like criminals, they will be criminals.
>
> I think you are putting the cart before the horse. The criminal behavior
> is happening. The schools are struggling to find a response, with their
> hands tied behind their backs.

Yes, the criminal behavior is happening. It has been happening. The answer
to solving crime has never been taking away rights, unless you're on one
extreme of the political spectrum or the other. I still agree with Nick, you
expect children to be bad, they'll find ways of proving you right.

Kevin Callahan

---------------------------------------------------------------------