NYC Public Schools to ban "sexting"

[Andrew Grathwohl]

The Department of Education wants to ban both cyber bullying and sexting in New York City's public schools at all times, even outside of school hours.

...

Not only does the Department of Education want to ban sexually explicit text messaging that students may do off hours on nights, weekends and summer vacation, but they also want to punish them for it, handing out up to a 90-day suspension.

...

"We've always been respectful of first amendment rights. I think we'll get the right balance here," said Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.

http://wcbstv.com/local/sexting.nyc.sexting.2.1760507.html

"Sexting" and cyber-bullying are quickly becoming a popular topic among parents throughout the country. Now that it has come to the attention of the NYC public school system, there may be yet another idiotic regulation that parents can only avoid by placing their kids in private schools. With the government moving quickly in limiting how we use our technology - whether it be in our cars, in the classroom, in the offices of our nation's ISPs, or apparently in our own bedrooms - we can be assured that future generations will never be able to enjoy the benefits of our connected world that we do now. A very saddening development...

[RussK]

How are school staff going to learn about someones sex-text? Or maybe that is another nightmarish policy which has yet to be released or planned.

Edited June 19, 2010 by RussK

[DavidOdden]

I suspect that it's not really going to be the case that this sort of drizzle can, in fact, be avoided by putting your child in private schools. The underlying legal principle does not specifically refer to public vs. private schools, and if a private school wanted to forbid its students from "bullying" others, it could.

This is just another example of the sort of stupidity that results when you have a government and a culture that says "A and Not A? No problem, anything you want, you can have it".

[Andrew Grathwohl]

How are school staff going to learn about someones sex-text? Or maybe that is another nightmarish policy which has yet to be released or planned.

If you read some of the outrageous comments at the bottom of the article, you'll find a lot of people suggesting that such a discovery comes about through physical/mental bullying and tormenting once the kids are in school. So, they claim they have a responsibility to monitor and disable a child's activity outside of class because the consequences of those actions may be brought back into the school environment.

I graduated from public high school in 2007, and remember a particular case in my junior year (2005-2006) where somebody was cyber-bullying another student on MySpace and AOL Instant Messenger, and the bullier got suspended from school for a week. No school computers were used to do this, and the school's internet connection wasn't utilized in any other way.

"Concerned" parents talk to the child's guidance counselor because often times the only connection the parents can draw between their child and the bullier is that they both attend the same school (and, for some reason, they do not think to contact the bully's parents).

Having gone through a public school system which particularly prided itself on its "progressive" approaches to teaching, I can say with full confidence that many public schools with this type of bend believe it is the responsibility of the school system to be as involved in the child's life as much as possible. They do everything possible to force "community service" and "extra-curricular activities" on the students. I remember with particular disgust the yearly "Names Can Really Hurt Us" seminar (brought to us by the ADL) which we were forced to attend, where they attempted to tell us that it was essential to treat children with disabilities and other traits that are the subject of bullying with extra kindness. They stressed that we were all "equals because we were unique," so we were encouraged to go out of our ways to be extra nice to those who we didn't "know or understand." They put kids on a pedestal if they were weak, socially-awkward, or disabled in some way. As somebody who has Tourette's, who did suffer through some bullying to an extent during my earlier (non-high school) years, I was extremely offended to hear that not only was I apparently "better" than the "normal" kids, but I was supposed to be treated better than those who didn't have a mental condition. In fact, I find that I am a good person despite this condition, and find that it is completely irrelevant in judging the moral fibers of any individual, much less myself. We were told we could not look down upon those who practiced "different belief systems" than us, because "there's no correct answer" to those questions. They were, philosophically, not any better or worse than anybody else. I remember all of this because I wrote a very detailed letter to the school system to suggest we stop this behavior immediately, and also paid a visit to the dean to reiterate this. These suggestions all fell upon deaf ears.

Cyber-bullying was a topic that was often-discussed during these seminars, and I'm sure "sexting" is part of it now too. The public school system that I was raised under found it was the responsibility of the government to "educate" us about these matters, and did so in the most disturbingly collectivist and moronic way possible. Finding that they may soon engage in monitoring kids' out-of-school behaviors and interactions, sadly, doesn't surprise me at all.

I suspect that it's not really going to be the case that this sort of drizzle can, in fact, be avoided by putting your child in private schools. The underlying legal principle does not specifically refer to public vs. private schools, and if a private school wanted to forbid its students from "bullying" others, it could.

What is the underlying legal principle? I wasn't able to necessarily infer one from the article, but I'm no legal expert. Of course, the private school always has the option to forbid bullying of all sorts and use it as grounds for suspension from their school. But my point was that there at least would exist the potential that a private school in NYC would not punish their students for what they do outside of the school's campus.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Andrew Grathwohl

[DavidOdden]

What is the underlying legal principle?

The first step is in loco parentis. The next bit of ooze is Tinker (393 U.S. 503) and its spawn, esp. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (484 U.S. 260). This is a manifestation of the broader governmental principle 連邦政府軍のご協力により i.e. "yer fukt".

But my point was that there at least would exist the potential that a private school in NYC would not punish their students for what they do outside of the school's campus.

The potential even exists in NYC. All it requires is an administrator with balls to make it a reality.