Comments |
07/27/2010
joe
northport, ny
the school had no rights to spy on the student. it was breaking the amdendment rights and is ilegal
|
07/27/2010
jesse
northport high school, east northport ny
i think it is completly wrong of the school to do this there is no reason for them to worry about what is going on at home
|
07/27/2010
quan
harborfields high, huntington, NY
well if the kid was taking inappropriate pictures then maybe that wasn't the smartest thing to do because ofcourse a school laptop is going to have a safeguard so i dont know what was going through that kids mind but it obviously wasn't anything smart. this is still violating a kids privacy in his own home so he did kind of have the right to sue the school.
|
04/16/2010
Edgar N.
Nimitz High School, Irving, Texas
While the district has every right to employ tracking devices and other forms of technology to ensure protection of its laptops and recovery of "stolen" laptops, it crossed a line when it attempted to punish a student for alleged drug dealing. First, the laptop wasn't "stolen" if the student was given a laptop without paying the deposit fee. That's the high school's fault. If the student didn't pay the deposit fee, then why was he assigned a laptop? The assistant principle did not use the photographic evidence for its intended purpose. She instead used it as an opportunity to attempt to discipline a student. This was not in their jurisdiction as the student was directly using the laptop to "[deal] drugs." Even if they did present the evidence to the police, the school is violating it's policy by using the laptop for purposes other than trying to recover "stolen" property. The police wouldn't use this kind of evidence. This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. In the privacy of one's home, one shouldn't have to worry about a high school, attempting to act a law enforcement institution, watching one's moves beyond that clearly stated in its policy. Proper legal procedure should never be trampled on. The high school should stick to just that: being a high school not a law enforcement institution.
|
04/16/2010
Nabila
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
While Lower Merion's technical staff has the right to protect its property, the staff went too far by accusing a child of drug dealing based on a webcam photo taken secretly. The photo was taken and used under the basis of theft prevention, not drug trafficking, so why accuse Blake of the latter? Even if his Mike & Ike candies were drugs, his actions took place within his home, out of the jurisdiction of his school. Snapping photos of a student to find a stolen laptop does invade that student's privacy and violate the fourth amendment, but this measure may be deemed appropriate and necessary by the school district so long as all students are informed of the possibility. Unlike the situation with Blake Robbins, students should be notified of the theft-prevention software on their laptops and the district's power to be able to use the software in certain situations.
|
04/16/2010
Silvana T.
Nimitz High School, Irving, Tx
As agents to help identify the culprits of laptop thefts, I believe that webcams are great and would be very appreciative of them if my laptop was stolen. However, there is potential for abuse of this technology, as demonstrated in the case of Blake Robbins. I believe that it was a violation of Blake’s Fourth Amendment when webcam photos taken of him in his home were used as evidence to incriminate and later to discipline him. I don’t believe that the technology is at fault in this situation; rather, it was the assistant principal who crossed the line when he used the photo taken to incriminate Blake. The school does not have jurisdiction to punish students for crimes done in the privacy of their homes. Spying on its students is an invasion of their privacy. In conclusion, I believe it is perfectly fine to use the technology features of webcams to snap pictures of supposed laptop theft culprits- it is the schools’ responsibility to safeguard their students, and protect its property.
|
04/16/2010
Rosaura V
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
To begin with if the Robbins' family allegedly neglected to pay a laptop deposit fee, why was the laptop even issued to him? If the school is so worried about its property the laptop should have had simply not been issued until it had been payed for. Second, their security measure of snapping a picture of the “thief” if the laptop has been reported lost or stolen is not the best security mean. Nowadays there are other means of anti-theft protection that will not intrude the privacy of the students, because the Lower Merion's use of webcam photos violates Robbins' Fourth Amendment right. Furthermore, “bad” actions done outside school should be dealt with by the child's parents or even the police if necessary, but it's not the school's call to deal with problems dealing outside of school. However, if the issued were to bleed into the school I might understand, but even then the school should have contacted the parents first and not had taken matters into their own hands.
|
04/16/2010
Minh
Nimitz High School, Irving/Texas
The school’s use of webcam photos does violate the Fourth Amendment. In Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule forbids evidence gathered illegally to be admissible in court. Does the school even have the right to snap photos? A stolen laptop and unpaid dues are two very different things. I do not think the school district was taking any proper measures at all to protect its property, and how does student safety even begin in a strictly property-protection feature of a laptop? They essentially are excited with this snapping feature with new technology, wiretapping into a new millennia with their own sense of justice. The school does not have the right to use webcam features out of their original uses, and even then can they not look for anything more than a thief.
|
04/16/2010
Joji
Nimitz High School, Irving/TX
The district had every right in using their web cam on their district issued laptops to help locate the stolen property, and they were not using the web cam for spying purposes. The disciplinary action take by the assistant principle did cross the line. She shouldn’t of used the evidence to bring school discipline but instead reported the alleged drug dealing to the proper authorities.
|
04/16/2010
Telma
Nimitz, HS, Irving, TX
The Lower Merion's use of webcam photos violates the Fourth Amendment. By snapping photos of a student in his own home violates his/her privacy and goes far beyond the duties of a security school system. If the investigation had been executed correctly, it would have only made sense to approach the student and ask her about the whereabouts of the school issued laptop. For example they could ask her when and where she saw it or if she has any suspicions of who the "thief" might have been. Therefore the school district was taking ridiculously radical measures to protect its property. Furthermore, instead of creating a secure environment for its students, the school district only created discomfort and concerns among its students, parents, and among a nation.
|
04/15/2010
Chris R.
Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
While the district does indeed have a right to use tracking devices and other technology to protect its property and to recover laptops that are "stolen", they crossed a boundary when they attempted to punish Blake Robbins for "dealing drugs". If Robbins failed to pay the laptop deposit fee, why did they give him a laptop in the first place? After they realized that Robbins had the laptop and that it hadn't been stolen, why didn't they just turn off the webcam, or confiscate the laptop until he paid the deposit. The school is not a law-enforcing agency and should have gone to the police if they had suspicions that illicit activities were going on. However, the activity took place in the student's own home, and even the police can't use evidence that is obtained through improper channels. If Mr. Robbins had been engaging in some illicit activity through the laptop or using it for activities forbidden through district policy, then the district could get involved and inform the appropriate authorities. The school violated fourth amendment rights by attempting to punish him for something they caught completely by accident. Even in this day and age, when technology ensures that we are almost always being watched, some things, like proper legal procedure, should still be protected.
|
04/15/2010
Thomas
Nimitz HS, Irving, Tx
It is true that the school was well within its rights to attempt to recover what was considered stolen property and as far as the drug- dealing that they caught the student commiting they had some right to use that information because they caught it by accident they were not intending to spy on their students. But there is the question of how he was issued a laptop if he had not yet paid his fee and the question of why when they found out a student had the laptop they did not shut off the camera.
|
04/15/2010
duc c
nimitz, tx
When I first heard of this incident on Digg, I thought that this was a satirical piece from The Onion. Boy was I in for a shock when I discovered otherwise! How foolish and idiotic was it for the school to think that it was within boundaries to use web cams to essentially spy on students, especially when they were at home. First, what if the school caught footage of a student changing? Not only will they cause a wildfire of lawsuits to unleash upon their school district, but they also risk other schools withdrawing laptop distribution with fears of being accused of spying as well. Secondly, I do not believe that they had any reasonable motive to be spying on students, without their consent, in the student's own house, on their own time. What "evidence" could the school possibly gather from this? That Jimmy likes to sleep in PJs? Or perhaps Samantha watches 60 Minutes when nobody is home? Seriously, the school district knew better when it thought about implementing these sleuthy tools. I'm quite sure that they knew all the implications which they could possibly face yet they went ahead and did it anyway. There's a deeper motive amongst this scandal. I doubt that the school doesn't have some sort of grand scheme. We just haven't figured it out yet.
|
04/14/2010
ElijahP5
Lorbeer, Pomona, California
First, The schools should have a better way of finding lost or stolen computers, also they should have told the students that the remote camera system was implemented for their own good. Then i think that the student was at fault for not paying for the laptop which triggered the sense of that it was stolen therefore sending off the camera. This coincident event can be considered an invasion of property, but i believe that the student should have some responsibility. When it comes to dealing drugs, the evidence found on the scene should verdict the student, but at this case, I think that both the student and the school is currently at fault.
|
04/14/2010
Genesis
Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
Even though the student's actions were inappropriate, so were the administrators. There are other ways of monitoring their property in the case that the laptops may have been stolen or damaged. The laptops that my classmates and I are issued are monitored through different forms and are as easily recoverable.
No one is taking pictures of us as far as I know, and we would be warned before that happened. This school should have taken the same action in informing their students that they could and would take these actions in protecting their property.
And in any case, what happens off school grounds is no longer the school's problem nor should they make it theirs. A student is allowed their privacy, however wrong or unlawful their actions are. The school also has to accept that all students are going to do things that they would otherwise not do in school in the privacy of their own home, but it's not the schools' problem.
|
04/14/2010
Ana I.
Nimitz HS, Irving, Tx
Although it is understandable that the school wanted to protect their property, it is unreasonable and a violation of the fourth amendment for them to have used the webcam in order to try and discipline the student for reportedly dealing drugs. Rather than having used the camera as a first resort to find the “stolen” laptop, the school should have called the student's parents in order to confirm that the laptop was indeed lost or stolen. That way, they could have cleared up the misunderstanding without having to deal with such unlawful measures. The school is not a law enforcement institution. They should not have the power to search, accuse, or discipline students outside of the school environment. When in the privacy of his own home, the student should not have to worry about being monitored by “big brother”. The school does indeed have the right to know about it's property, but that shouldn't mean that the rights of the students should be violated in order to do so.
|
04/12/2010
MichaelP5
Alvarez, pomona,california
I believe that the school should have sent a notice of the laptops security process and should be signed my parents giving permission and understanding the works of the laptop
|
04/09/2010
Coral
Tenafly High School, Tenafly, Nj
Is the school out of their mind???? Have they not heard of lojack? I have lojack on my laptop, lojack is a program that will track my laptop if it ever gets stolen. It's as simple as calling in and saying my laptop was stolen, and then they will track it down. I find it rediculous that the school would just want to take a picture of the thief...i think there is clearly something wrong with that. Teachers and schools are becoming more and more abusive of the power they have over students. I have been yelled at so many times for being "on my cell phone", but i was really using my calculator for a math problem, or just fidgeting with my pen. There have been SEVERAL times that I've been yelled at for this and it would be no shock to me if the school admitted to spying on that kid. They seem to get so excited when they think they caught a student doing something bad, they accuse before they even investigate. The school 1) should have never ever accused that boy of dealing drugs because it didn't even happen on school grounds. 2) they should have just installed a tracker...not a device that takes pictures of their students...if you write it out or say it, it really does sound completely upsurd. The school gave out a laptop that could take pictures of its students...and then they accused the kid of selling drugs when he was AT HOME. this is a fight the school cannot win. for the future, if a school is going to issue its students laptops, make sure someone informs them of lojack, it's a very useful program.
|
04/09/2010
Maddy
Tenafly High School, Tenafly, New Jersey
The school is definitely violating rights of the student. Privacy rights in particular. What goes on at the student's home should not affect what goes on in the student's school. What that student does at home is their own personal life, and no one wants their school knowing everything that goes on in their life. Even if the laptop was a school-issues laptop, it wasnt being used in school, therefore anything on the laptop, that wasnt necessarily taken in school, shouldn't be used against the student without the student knowing that the school knows about it. In other words, what isn't the school's business shouldn't be the school's business.
|
04/09/2010
Gabe
Tenafly High School, Tenafly, NJ
As I can see from every single comment, I can assume it is agreed that it is impossible to validate this action taken by the school. They are clearly intruding on the student's privacy, while simultaneously violating the fourth ammendment. It is fair to assume students may have changed, in front of their laptops unwittingly, making the school even more the wrong, and invading the privacy of even more of their students. This is similiar to a hotel which has cameras in their bathroom in an effort to improve "bathroom safety". Overall, the school was incredibly and undeniably wrong.
|
04/09/2010
Gabe
Tenafly High School, Tenafly, NJ
As I can see from every single comment, I can assume it is agreed that it is impossible to validate this action taken by the school. They are clearly intruding on the student's privacy, while simultaneously violating the fourth ammendment. It is fair to assume students may have changed, in front of their laptops unwittingly, making the school even more the wrong, and invading the privacy of even more of their students. This is similiar to a hotel which has cameras in their bathroom in an effort to improve "bathroom safety". Overall, the school was incredibly and undeniably wrong.
|
04/09/2010
Matt
Tenafly high school, tenafly
I think the school went too far, they invaded that student's privacy with the webcam. If the laptop was issued to the student then it was not stolen and the school clearly used the webcam only for the purpose of violating this person's rights and privacy outside of the school's jurisdiction.
|
04/09/2010
Hila
Tenafly High School, Tenafly, NJ
I think that the school had no right to sky on the student through the issued school laptop webcam. The school said that they tapped into the computer webcams incase of theft they can view the laptop’s location through the webcam. They school didn’t say they’ll be looking at what the students are doing outside of school. Anyways there’s a saying that says, “Pictures worth a thousand words.” As in the 15-year old student’s situation the assistant Principal said that he was dealing drugs but the student justified it as the Mike & Ike candies. This situation defiantly violates the Fourth Amendment.
|
04/09/2010
Ivan
Tenafly High School, Tenafly, NJ
I think its rediculous for the school to be able to activate cameras during any time even when the computers are in students homes. Even though the school was only trying to find missing laptops its not just. The school can't just take pictures inside students homes. What if the kid was changing or something? I think it makes sense that they were trying to find laptops but taking pictures doesn't even seem like sensible way to find a laptop. I think if they wanted to really have a good safety system they should have put some kind of tracking device rather than turn on the cameras and spy of students. Even if the kid was dealing drugs the school doesn't have the right to look into his home and see what he's doing.
|
04/01/2010
Jocelyn
Nimitz, Irving, Texas
The Lower Merion's use of webcam photos does violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable seizures and searchers. The snapping photos of the student in his own home does violate his privacy rights, because he was accused of dealing with drugs when the purpose of the pictures were to see who stole the laptop. The webcam photos should be only used when a laptop is stolen to identify the thief not to see what students are doing nor to assume things.
|
03/30/2010
Stacie
Nimitz, Irving
The use of webcams to spy on students at home should be banned. It's understandable to use the webcams as a security precaution if the laptop was stolen, but having the camera take pictures of the students while they are in the privacy of their own home and then trying to charge them of crimes is absurd. What if one of the students was dressing and they were caught on camera naked? That would be morally wrong. I wouldn't want to have to worry about being spied on in my own home by the school system. Even if some of the kids were committing crimes, it's not on school property, so the schools really shouldn't get involved. The webcams are just creating many problems. They really aren't worth having, we don't use them anyways.
|
03/30/2010
Stacie
Nimitz, Irving
The use of webcams to spy on students at home should be banned. It's understandable to use the webcams as a security precaution if the laptop was stolen, but having the camera take pictures of the students while they are in the privacy of their own home and then trying to charge them of crimes is absurd. What if one of the students was dressing and they were caught on camera naked? That would be morally wrong. I wouldn't want to have to worry about being spied on in my own home by the school system. Even if some of the kids were committing crimes, it's not on school property, so the schools really shouldn't get involved. The webcams are just creating many problems. They really aren't worth having, we don't use them anyways.
|
03/29/2010
Amanda
Nimitz High School, Irving, Tx
I believe that the school was not right but then again they were only trying to protect their property. I think that it does violate the child's privacy because the laptop was supposed to automatically turn on when they suspect that is was stolen, but they knew that he had the laptop. I think that there are better and more proper ways to find out who has the laptop. For example, a tracker. All you really need to know is the location of the laptop. The assistant principal had no right to accuse the boy of dealing drugs. She did not know for sure that it was drugs and was out of line for assuming.
|
03/28/2010
Ana A
Nimitz High School, Irving/Texas
The Merion's use of web-cam photos does violate the Fourth Amendment which guards against unreasonable seizures and searches in a certain way that they are showing a photo that supposedly shows drugs which I think shouldn't be used against this guy because the school district is showing a photo that belongs to a private life. Snapping photos to find a supposedly stole laptop does not necessarily violates student's right to privacy because they are only used to detect who tries to stole laptops, but if the school district were to use the web-cams to spy on students that certainly does violate student's right to privacy. I think students should not be afraid of what these web-cams could detect because laptops should only be use for school purposes, not for other things. I kind of see how these problem arose, if the school district could of warn people about this program, these kind of issues wouldn't be happening. I believe the school was taking proper measure to protect its property and the safety of its students because they only wanted to avoid laptops getting stolen. The school district basically only wanted to protect its property, and its student's safety. I think this technique could work just fine, because it detects who tries to stole laptops, only if the school district could try to regulate it better, and make some changes such as inform people about it, and avoid using photos that are not related to stealing. These web-cams should only be used for property protection!
|
03/28/2010
Karina
Nimitz High School, Irving, Texas
The school was in fact violating his fourth amendment. The school was protecting its property, but if the Robbin's had not payed the fee then, why was it issued to him? The anti-theft program should be managed by someone not put on automatic. Secondly, the vice-principal had no right to discipline the guy for “dealing drugs,” just because she saw something that appeared to be drugs does not mean it was drugs. The guy affirms being called down to the office, but the vice-principal denies it. Why? Because she knows she did wrong on assuming the guy was “dealing drugs.” He should of have been charged with walking off with an unpaid laptop, not dealing drugs. Now students have to fear of being watched even in their own rooms, what happened to privacy? What's next, microships in our eyes?
|
03/28/2010
Vita A.
Nimitz High School, Irving, Tx
While this is not a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, the school’s image and action is tainted by their obvious intent to obtain evidence in a questionable fashion. The way the school went about in order to determine where the laptop was located seems sketchy. If they were worried about their property why didn’t they exhaust other options that didn’t include the intrusion of privacy. While I do believe that the school has a right to use the security measure of webcam their reasoning doesn’t seem legit, their actions seem to be based on unreliable excuses. I can’t help but think that school should only be able to exercise their rights as a school during school hours. However, if a students actions are affecting others as well as themselves during school hours they can further investigate the students behavior outside of school. Actions done at home should be confronted by parents, not through webcam photos provided by the school’s fly on the wall. This violation of privacy creates paranoia in students, parents, and even teachers, not only creating tension at school but at home as well. The boundaries that have been created in order to protect personal space appear to dwindle each day, if things continue this way each and every person will have their own personal paparazzi to worry about.
|
03/26/2010
Jewel k. 5th pd
Northeast High School, Phila. PA
I do believe that the school violated the students fourth amendment. the school had no right to use the webcam to spy on him. I get that it's the school's property and yes they should be concerned about it. But for them to spy on the students and then use it to try to punish the student is completely wrong. They shouldn't have gave the laptops out if they were going to use them to spy on the kids. What if they were in their room gettin dressed or something like that? I think that it's a good thing that the boys' family is suing the school. i also think that the other families should sue as well becvause it's an invasion of privacy.
|
03/25/2010
Edgar I
Nimitz High School, Irving, Texas
With technology advancing further and further, there is no surprise that there is somebody always watching every move you make. But is it right for school officials to be able to snap photos of you through school-issued laptops? To a certain extent and in certain situations, yes. The situation of Robbins case does violate his Fourth Amendment, where this photo does violate his right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The school did not have the intention of “search and seizure” with those photo because the computer only acted upon commands set to prevent theft. After the family did not pay the deposit fee, they were at risk of the computer's “anti-theft” commands which brought upon all this controversy. The school was in it's right to protect its property, but perhaps the administrator was not when trying to punish Robbins.
|
03/25/2010
Mauricio V.
Nimitz HS, Irving/TX
The school has a right to protect its property by having tracking devices on school issued laptops, but if the school is using the devices to figure out what kids are doing, then they are violating personal rights. The school isn't the police of the FBI so they shouldn't be able to investigate student actions on their own. I don't think the school did anything wrong in the particular case given because the laptop was technically considered stolen and its devices were doing what it was programmed to do, but if the school had any suspicion on questionable activites shown in the pictures taken, they should have turned the case over to law officials instead of taking the matter into their own hands.
|
03/25/2010
Milton
NImitz High School, Irving, Texas
Yes, I do believe the use of webcam photos with out the consent of the user is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Which states that a individual is secure from unreasonable searches and seizures specially if they don't know that such process is going on. And I do believe also that when the district snapped shots of the student and then used them against him was wrong. I understand their plan to catch people that do steal laptops by photographing them then proceed to arrest them. I will give points to the district for that one, because in theory it sounds like a really good plan. But like it was shown in this case it dose have it's flaws. What they should do is that they should tell students the day they get the laptops, that the laptops do posses this “security feature” and that it can be turned on even when their away from school zones. That way students are aware of such feature. And I think the district has the right to protect it's property. But a better way would be with a track able chips instead. That way they know where the hardware is but they have no access what so ever to personal documents or pictures. Therefore giving the students more privacy.
|
03/25/2010
Justin A 5h
northeast, philadelphia pa
What the school did was wrong! They totally violated his privacy. Now yes I understand it's school property that the student had in his house but the school should not just be able to turn on the webcam without proper aprovial from authorities or something. Then to accuse him of dealing drugs when they violated his privacy in the first place. The school should deffinetly be sued
|
03/22/2010
Ryan D. FrankPd.5
NEHS, Philadelphia, PA
First off, I would like the note that the principal of this school is a lunatic for such an accusation. There is a clear difference between a box of Mike & Ike's and drug paraphernalia. In addition, the school has no rights over a student once the student leaves the school grounds. Although the student was in possession of the schools property, that does not give them the right to invade his privacy. His fourth amendment rights were thrown out of the window for being accused and searched for something so bizarre. In the case that the web cam "turned on" due to its status of being stolen, that still doesn't allow the school to invade what the student does in his home. If the student and/or parents receive any type of punishment, it should be for the neglection of the due laptop fee, nothing more.
|
03/22/2010
Kareem M.
Northeast High School, Philadelphia, Pa.
In my opinion I believe that the student and his mother had every right to sue the school for their disciplinary action against him. The school made assumptions about the young man and his personal life that were far beyond there control, and they were absolutely in the wrong. This story should teach a lesson to all school districts, because alot of schools take advantage of their authority, and situations like this one happen very often. T o make matters even worse they accused him of being a drug dealer when he was only holding a handful of mike and ikes. They turned something totally innocent, into something that could have went on his record and ruin his chances into getting into a good college.
|
03/21/2010
Bryan erick FrankPD.5
Northeast Highschool, Philadelphia, PA
I believe that the snap shot was a violation of the kids 4th Amendment. But I also think that the parents should of found out all the information on the laptop and its features. The school was only trying to protect their students from making mistakes, but I don't think it should be in a form of invading someone's privacy. Even if the feature was used only if the laptop was stolen they should of warned people about it more. Also the school should stay out of the personal life of its students. Then again the kids in lower merion didnt really need laptops to learn so, if the school ends up losing, they should stop the use of laptops to be safe and sell them to pay for what they are losing.
|
03/21/2010
Duoc
Nimitz, Irving/TX
I think that Lower Merions' thoughts of using laptops webcams to catch thieves was a good idea, but was over looked. I can see why they went this route to protect the schools' laptop because it would provide the culprits' photo to make finding them easier and more efficient. I believe that Lower Merions' use of webcam does not violate the Fourth Amendment to an extent. If they originally planned to use their anti-theft program to spy on people then it would definitely violate the Amendment, but because it was meant to catch the person who stole the laptop, it shouldn't violate the Amendment. The school did a poor job of issuing laptops if someone was able to walk off with a laptop without paying the laptop fee. If that was the case then the student shouldn't be disciplined for supposedly selling drugs, but for stealing the laptop. So I question why not punish the student for stealing school property. By doing so, I think that it does violate the students' right of privacy because it sounds like the school was searching for illegal activity, which would not be under their power because the student is not on school campus. I can see why the school is concerned about protecting their property, but using the photo to punish the student for something other than stealing the laptop violates the students' right of privacy.
|
03/20/2010
Patrick R.
Northeast highschool, philadelphia PA
I believe that the school had no right to punish the boy for whatever he did.The school in my opinion lost its jurisdiction to punish or spy on the boy when he left school and was off of thier property.The school looking into the boys personal life violates the boys rights to his privacy. To me the school was/is no different than a predatornline whos searches for kids in a sense that they spyed on a unaware child. The school vilated ammendents when they unkowingly entered the boys home via the computer and spyed on him.the school over stepped thier bpundries. If cops amd the fbi and the other high rankings of the gov. can not eneter or search your home without the proper legal steps what gave the school the right to. The school tried to take on to many roles by playin cop/administrator and parent.this brings up the question who else have the school spyed on and what have they seen .the school is focoused on all the wrong things. they were wrong and being sued is a good firt step
|
03/19/2010
Cody S.
Northeast, Philadelphia
Personally, I believe they did not have any right to punish the lad, just because he did something illicit with school equipment at his home. What he did was in his own privacy, and shouldnt be allowed to be punished for. Just because he used their equipment does not give them the to right to punish him, it should be a matter that his parents take care of. Slowly the schools of America are taking an almost dictatorship role in the lives of students, when they should only be concerned with the teaching of students while in their schools, and not their behaviors outside, especially when at home. Maybe if they concentrated their resources more towards the goal of educating students rather than being their parents, there would be more prodcutive students than the current system fails to create.
|
03/19/2010
Rasheed M.
Northeast, Philadelphia
On a Personal note, the school had no right to be in the business of students outside of school. However while in school teachers and staff members are obligated to prevent any drug abuse in school, but in households the school should not be involved if the student is abusing drugs, he or she should be punished by parents if they feel the student should be punished. It is not the decision of the teachers to punish a student even if the student is wrong, outside of school. I feel the school deserved to be sued for more than they did, they soiled his reputation and brought wrongful hardship to the family. And the school got what they deserved.
|