Klarinet Archive - Posting 001127.txt from 2002/06
From: "Kevin Callahan" <kionon@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Music vs. drug testing
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 17:31:23 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Hausmann" <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subject: Re: [kl] Music vs. drug testing
> At 10:04 PM 6/29/2002 -0500, Kevin Callahan wrote:
> >If you were in the military, as I will be soon, you should know you
> >away your privacy. You became property of the US Government in many, many
> >ways. Are you suggesting that school children become property of the
> >Independant School District they go to school in, and therefore have to
> >away their rights in order to attain an education?
> Sign away the right to do drugs, so they do not corrupt MY kids?
I meant sign away the rights to privacy.
> YES! One
> thing people seem to forget in all this is that these are CHILDREN we are
> talking about.
Perhaps this is another case of me being onl 18 myself, and only two years
from when I was in High School, but we're not talking about just children,
we're talking about young adults. The difference may not seem obvious to
older adults, but to one such as me, just recently given my majority, the
difference is a large one and quite blatant. The teen years are ones of
growing independence. You can't just say "Ok, you're 18, you're an adult."
It doesn't happen that way. It has to be a transition, or else you'll have
eighteen year olds that have no respect for anything, because they've been
treated on par with eight year olds.
> So-called "rights" are routinely taken from them, and must
> be for their own protection, most obviously drinking, smoking, and
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. 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.
> Furthermore, I believe that schools MUST act in loco
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.
> They have a RESPONSIBILITY to inspect lockers on SCHOOL property
> for drugs, guns, etc., just as parents should check their childrens'
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.
> 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 know from
personal experience having thrown tantrums after being accused wrongly.
Granted, it was immature and stupid, but I was a child, and I did do it. At
times I still do, once again pointing to the fact that eighteen is not some