<p>Oh and BTW, there is still some question as to whether the search of my sons belongings was a violation of the 6th amendment right to privacy, but considering the resolution, we’re not pressing the issue.</p>
<p>I think that might have something to do with the school apologizing for not calling my son to tell him about the search ahead of time.</p>
<p>It’s misleading to make comparisons based on differences in law when there are also differences in culture. Binge drinking isn’t a problem in Europe? What about Poland, Russia and all of Scandinavia? I’ll never forget being on a little puddle jump from Stockholm to Oslo, at 7AM, and how everyone around me drank down their free drink when we were in the air. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t even compare us to Canada. 18 - 20 year-olds are different here and probably more likely to jump into a car after drinking.</p>
<p>The sixth amendment is the right to a speedy trial. You might be thinking of the 4th amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. As far as relating to students, this amendment was ditched long ago when high schools started randomly searching lockers and the courts backed them up.</p>
<p>There is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution. It is interpreted from the 4th amendment.</p>
<p>greenwitch–</p>
<p>I’m not going to argue the 21 age with you, or the difference between Canadians and western europeans and eastern europeans and Yanks and Kiwis and Aussies and…</p>
<p>I don’t think the 21 age is a good idea. I favor a graduated drinking age. 19 for beer and wine. 21 for hard liquor. I’m not going to change my mind. But, I really don’t think anyone else on here is going to, either. ;)</p>
<p>Coleytown - SO glad this worked out like it should have. It helped tremendously, no doubt, that your son was polite, contrite and cooperative, so good for him (and you, as parents). </p>
<p>But I think you mean 4th amendment right against unreasonable search & seizures? There is no constitutional right to privacy (though some would interpret and argue otherwise, but let’s not go there)!</p>
<p>edit - cross posted with greenwitch, yes, that.</p>
<p>Greenwitch - could be, this is secondhand from H (who spoke to atty.) and he likely got the numbers mixed up.</p>
<p>H’s brother (also S’s godfather) is a very prominent and experienced attorney so I’m thinking he knew what he was talking about…regardless, I’m just glad it didn’t go that far.</p>
<p>“It’s misleading to make comparisons based on differences in law when there are also differences in culture. Binge drinking isn’t a problem in Europe?”</p>
<p>Binge drinking is much, much, much higher in virtually all of northern Europe than in the U.S. And it is a problem, with higher rates of alcoholism, liver cancer (and other alcohol-linked cancers), and cirrhosis. (the only thing that is lower is death from alcohol-related car crashes.)</p>
<p>The only two countries in Europe with lower youth binge drinking rates than the U.S. are Hungary and Portugal:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mdt.mt.gov/safety/docs/taskforces/ojjdp_feb01.pdf[/url]”>http://www.mdt.mt.gov/safety/docs/taskforces/ojjdp_feb01.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I absolutely expected you to believe that, as no rational person would believe otherwise. My phrasing was rhetorical to make the point. That said, a number of your posts go pretty far in the other direction:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand that you made these posts in a state of emotional agitation. I do have sympathy for what you’ve gone through and, as I said, I’m glad the resolution was reasonable.</p>
<p>But I do think it’s incredibly dangerous to inculcate the view that “snitching”, “tattling”, “ratting out” or whatever other perjorative term you want to use is, as a general matter, intrinsically wrong or “disgusting” or “bereft of character”. Students should feel comfortable going to the authorities when they determine it’s necessary or advisable. In my view, that determination should be a matter of their judgment, and I don’t think you or I or anyone else has the right to second-guess that judgment.</p>
<p>My ideal law would be this. </p>
<p>At 19, you get either a drivers license and cant drink or a non-DL state issued ID. You can drink but not drive.</p>
<p>from post 321: " As for whether the OP’s son didn something wrong, most of us agree, including the OP, that the school has made a very reasonable punishment." </p>
<p>Sort of. In part. Cosar’s statement in 321 also added: “… and that the school is more culpable for searching the room than OP’s son is for the fake ID; the effort to squash any opposing point of view; and,…”</p>
<p>That is the part that some disagree with the Op and some others, on. That the school was more culpable was an early opinion expressed by the Op. The Op initially expressed an honorable, and highly principled belief that the seach was unlawful because it was unreasonable, and posted the school’s wording to document the claim. I may disagree with the opinion, but I sure can respect the point, and the Constitution. But now that the punishment is known and it is relatively small, it is apparent the student and family is willing to admit the wrongdoing and accept the punishment. So it’s ok now to ignore the 4th amendment that was so important earlier, now that it is known the punishment is small?</p>
<p>Coley-
I am glad your S will be okay, that sounds to be like the school took into account the student and also that kids will screw up. I hope they are as understanding with the RM, if he otherwise is a good student and such, let the penalty fit the crime. One of my problems with the zero tolerance policies that are out there is they are rigid, they don’t take into account the nature of the ‘crime’ or the intent, you have kids suspended from school because they brought as pocket knife to school to show a friend, it is trying to solve a problem with black and white bureaucracy, and the problem is that rigid application of any rule leads to abuses, kind of like the story of Les Miserables, the character being hounded by the law for stealing a loaf of bread (heck, in pre revolutionary france, you could be hung if you were a peasant found to be eating white bread). </p>
<p>More importantly, I wonder about all those quick to judge, who back things like,for example, expelling the RM for getting caught with pot, or saying 'Rules are Rules" and so forth. What happened to empathy? What happened to understanding and forgiveness? What happened to looking at someone else to judge them, and remembering we have done stupid things, too? I find it especially ironic this was a Jesuit school, an order that has taken a major hit in the priestly abuse scandals (100 million I believe) for covering up child abuse by priests, and people in the order have been complaining publicly how this is a witch hunt, that they are being treated unfairly, that people are overlooking the good their order does (which it does), yet they have rules that can throw a kid out of school for a relatively minor transgression, it is basically saying “I have the right to judge you, but don’t look at what I have done”. </p>
<p>The same thing applies with alchohol, many parents treat it as ‘the demon rum’ so to speak, or at least with kids, yet they see their parents drinking (growing up, I knew a family where the parents were absolutely living about kids trying alcohol, yet they themselves would come home from a party or something drunk [my sister and I babysat for them], they denounced other parents who let their kids try beer or wine, and their own kids, well, in high school were known for partying…), ads, movies and so forth. I tend to agree with the OP, it is better to be realistic about alcohol and also not be so judgemental about it, make it not as big deal and it doesn’t have the taboo factor or the cachet.</p>
<p>More importantly, the 21 drinking age is quite frankly a joke, it was done to try and keep alcohol out of high school (assuming that 18 year olds won’t know any 21 year olds), but more importantly, it was based on the notion that somehow at 21 a kid will know better how to handle alcohol…and it didn’t work IMO, I see young people in their 20’s all the time, and it seems like their chief recreation activity is to get drunk and party hard…I think the 21 age was more about neo puritans trying to find ways to restrict or eliminate drinking, and I don’t think it works well; more importantly, the 21 drinking age among other things technically makes it illegal for a parent who is okay with their child having beer or wine with dinner a criminal (it wasn’t true before the 21 age law; before then, in many states as long as a parent was responsible, it was okay, in NY State I could taste my dad’s wine or beer as long as he ordered it before I was 18, the then drinking age. When the last 21 came in, they forced states to basically ban any drinking by under 21, parental supervision or no, and it was MADD and the religious conservative types that pushed that).</p>
<p>I don’t think pot is harmless, not so much because of the drug effect, but because of the fact it is smoked like tobacco. Despite claims to the contrary, smoking pot has a lot of the same hazards as smoking tobacco, especially since you hold in pot smoke as long as you can. On that grounds, I think both pot and cigarettes should be made illegal (interesting when people bring up legalizing heroin and such, and cite the addictive nature. Cigarettes are more addictive then heroin and costs more due to sickness and such then any other drug does, yet it is legal, and we get arguments that smoking is an activity adults can choose to do, while pot is ‘bad’ (meanwhile, how many people are killed by being smokers?)</p>
<p>Well, younghoss, if you read the early part of the thread, you will find that most of us were pointing out that the school’s generally, in the housing contract, reserve the ‘right’ to enter the room…it’s pretty standard.</p>
<p>The OP was a little bit frantic at that point in time. Also, some on the thread seem to have conflated the pot smoking of the RM with the having of a fake ID. My posts on this thread would be quite different had it been the other kid’s parent, as I’m sure would many of ours.</p>
<p>musicprnt… i dont think rules are rules equates to a lack of empathy. I hoped that the school had a process for first offenses etc and hoped there would be a good ending to this whole scenario…and it appears that they did. but i am one of the ones that said rules are rules. </p>
<p>stepping away from the fake ID issue for a second, the attitude towards “'snitching” really has me a bit baffled. Lets change the scenario just a bit…lets say the OP son knew that his RM had pot in the room (he didnt but we are dealing with a hypothetical here) what if OP’s son was on a full scholarship and the OP’s had no other way to put their son through school. If the school had a right to search the room (differing opinions on here) and pot had been found…OP’s son would have possibly been lumped into the whole pot offense (some schools hold all roomates responsible so they can not try to shift the blame)… would it not have been in the OP’s son interest to talk to the rm, ask him to remove the pot, try to change rooms, or if all failed,then to tell an RA? If the school rules have clear consequences for pot, why would it be bereft of character etc…for the OP’s son the protect what he had worked hard for…or to protect what his future plans are. a suspension, or loss of financial aid are harsh punishments but if stated, then you go in knowing what the consequences could be and hopefully will base your decisions on that.
I honestly dont think some young kids (especially middle school or high school) would be able to draw a line between when it is necessary to tell, vs a blanket comdemnation of “snitching” . Perhaps less bullying and less possibility of school shootings if telling wasnt seen as something despicable.</p>
<p>Coleytown, what a relief! I just read the outcome. It sounds reasonable and appropriate.
The apology is interesting too. I would not think that they would apologize unless there is some gray area about your son’s rights. JMO. Still, I know that you are grateful and relieved and I assume you are not going to “rock the boat”. I am happy for all of you. I would assume that your son learned a bunch through this experience, but just am sorry that he had to go through that scare and that stress.</p>
<p>Parent 56, </p>
<p>The schools have been totally ineffectual. They go ballistic for non-issues and dont deal with bullying. If they dont start using better judgement, they cant expect support from parents. Like this one, they take forever to return phone call from parent. *** is wrong with them.</p>
<p>cant disagree with you there kayf!..recent bullying at local hs that the administration dealt poorly with imo… but … some of the problem was other kids didnt step up and report what they saw…</p>
<p>kayf-- You know, when you boil it all down, I think it’s really all about insurance and lawsuits, in the end. So much legalese has tied the hands of the administrators and they don’t really get to be “people.” Before they call the parent back, they have to talk to the attorneys, etc… I can name few places in our culture that have lost their human-to-human element where lawsuits and insurance issues don’t end up being the root cause.</p>
<p>So, when the parents of the bullied kids begin to sue and win those law suits? The schools will turn their attention to the issue at hand…</p>
<p>YMMV</p>
<p>Poet,</p>
<p>I think administrators have created much of this problem. Zero tolerance is absurd – if they have excessive punishments for minor offensives, they can not expect cooperation. No one views the system as fair. My DD has never had any problems, but a friend of hers was suspended for 5 days for writing in a notebook about a hit list. The friend never took any action. Her mom, a widow, could not afford an attorney. No one who has dealt first hand with school/college “judicial” system thinks it is fair or rational. Not the victims, becuz in victim situations, punishments are minimal. But in non-victim situations, punishments are absurd.</p>
<p>Yes. Zero tolerance is not rational, at all. It was an overreaction to certain events, and it has been ineffective, overly harsh, and not particularly constructive. I agree. But, again, zero tolerance is a part of the legalistic way we are currently dealing with this population. It lacks the human elements of discernment and education.</p>
<p>I also think it is “easier” on the administrators to deal in this way. It keeps the “blame” off of them.</p>
<p>OTOH, I think this administrator dealt with the situation in a rational way, and I would have no complaints, honestly, if I were the parent. JMO</p>
<p>kayf, there are differing opinions on that example. As a parent who had a child in a classroom where another student had a “hit list”, I wanted that child getting help, and away from “my child”. The school district did take action because within a few weeks this child was taken out of this classroom and was placed at another school. Whether parents and the district agreed to this or whether the parents pulled the kid out, I don’t know and I don’t care. I was relieved that my child was not sitting next to someone with a “hit list”.</p>