Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

There are many more valid things to be rallying against. Where I live, for example, schools do not allow kids to wear hats. Why? Potential gang signs. Nevermind that we've never really had a problem with gangs, or that the rule is completely and utterly ineffectual even if we did (any piece of clothing, mannerism, or saying can be turned into a "gang sign"). Can't wear hats, pretty much just 'cause.

Wait, hats? Really? I don't think anybody cares about high school kids wearing hats or not, except gang members and show-offs with expensive hats.

[Gunner-Chan]

Maybe the real reason is too many kids without hats got picked on for being poor and Irish.

[Frumple]

I hate it when people say stuff along the lines "it's not required, and thus ok, because you have <insert completely unreasonable alternative here>".

Well, the reasonable alternative in this case is to just not get involved in school sponsored extracurriculars. Should have been clear on that point.

As said in the first post, parents can also sign a paper voluntarily to for you to be forced to take random drug tests and the school can then inflict whatever punishment they see fit. It's not just when joining clubs, although it is required to join the clubs, as well.

The larger issue, as noted here, seems to be parental oversight, for which removal really is the only choice, either by emancipation or adoption. You can't really legally force parents to treat their children in ways beyond certain basics (no abuse, etc), in the current system. There's not really anything in place to ensure that parents are good at what they do beyond those basics, for which stuff like privacy (beyond the point of preventing sexual abuse) doesn't enter into the equation. A parent requiring a child to take a drug test and consenting for the school to handle the repercussions involved is well within their rights as a guardian of a dependent.

It's even fairly reasonable from a moral standpoint. If someone is providing necessities for you, such as room and board, and you don't have some sort of arrangement for those services (job contract, equitable labor, etc), then it's fitting they can put certain restrictions on your actions.

If you're saying that those underage should have better recourse for finding employment and making it so they're self-sufficient, and thus able to separate themselves from the guardian/dependant relationship, that's something that sounds fair. The drug testing scenario given isn't outside the rights of a parent, though.

[kaijyuu]

There are many more valid things to be rallying against. Where I live, for example, schools do not allow kids to wear hats. Why? Potential gang signs. Nevermind that we've never really had a problem with gangs, or that the rule is completely and utterly ineffectual even if we did (any piece of clothing, mannerism, or saying can be turned into a "gang sign"). Can't wear hats, pretty much just 'cause.

Wait, hats? Really? I don't think anybody cares about high school kids wearing hats or not, except gang members and show-offs with expensive hats.

My theory is that it was enforced in most my state's schools during the 80s, back when there was the huge fear of gangs corrupting the youth and whatnot. Nowadays it's just a legacy rule that exists for no reason, but no one really cares enough to repel it. Despite student protests (I heard a story from one of my teachers about a planned protest where everyone was to wear a hat, and bring extras in case they were confiscated. Someone snitched to the administration, and faculty stood at every door confiscating every hat as students poured in for the day).

Yeah.



Back to drug tests. OP: What's the difference between this and say, a job requiring a drug test before they consider hiring you?

I do understand your complaint is that your parents can sign away YOUR consent. However, my response to that is asking why the school needs consent in the first place. They have a right to do these tests, imo, if there's precedence of a drug problem at your school.

[quinnr]

There are many more valid things to be rallying against. Where I live, for example, schools do not allow kids to wear hats. Why? Potential gang signs. Nevermind that we've never really had a problem with gangs, or that the rule is completely and utterly ineffectual even if we did (any piece of clothing, mannerism, or saying can be turned into a "gang sign"). Can't wear hats, pretty much just 'cause.

Wait, hats? Really? I don't think anybody cares about high school kids wearing hats or not, except gang members and show-offs with expensive hats.

No hats are allowed in class or even on school grounds at my school. They tell us it's 'common courtesy'. Also, no exposed shoulders, and shoes have to have a back. (Flip flops are okay, as long as there's a tiny thin strap on the back, though.) It's much more lenient than some other's that I've seen though, and is better than a uniform.

I do understand your complaint is that your parents can sign away YOUR consent. However, my response to that is asking why the school needs consent in the first place. They have a right to do these tests, imo, if there's precedence of a drug problem at your school.

Usually isn't there 'reasonable doubt' required to force such tests? There is no such thing here, and it doesn't matter because I'm a minor. 

[UltraValican]

The whole hat thing is about a barely existent gang problem. That is what most uniform policies are about. I have been in art classes where innocent students almost got in trouble for including Pyramids in their art. The uniforms do not stop gangs; they find something to represent their affiliation. The Comlumbine shooting didn't help slacken uniform policies either.

[ed boy]

Deal with it. Life ain't fair. Act like a semi-responsible adult, taking a bloody piss test isn't a big deal by any stretch of the mind.

Deal with it. Life ain't fair. Act like a semi-responsible adult, reporting traitors to the Great Leader isn't a big deal by any stretch of the mind.

Don't strawman. Strife was telling the OP to man up about it. Manning up entails doing something you don't want to, but it does not entail pretending you like it.

Strife was telling the OP to shut up and accept injustice because....why, exactly? I was simply pointing out how irrational that is.

He wasn't telling the OP to accept it. There's a big difference between doing something and accepting it as the right thing to do. That's what manning up is all aobut - doing things that are necessary of him even if they are unpleasant. However, I do not agree with Strife's sentiment that the unpleasentness should be ignored or denied.

What exactly is the principle of the thing? I can't quite tell whether it is the fact that someone can have the authority to pressure you to have a drug test, or whether it is the fact that the school has the authority.

I said earlier, it's an invasion of privacy and a waste of resources.

Yes, but is it such a henious invasion of privacy because the school specifically is requiring it, or because it is possible for someone to require it?

As for waste of resources, even if the school gets the ability, it will not test people for the sake of testing people. The school is only going to test people if it thinks it would be best if people were tested. Are you saying that you know better than the collective school administration what is a better thing to do?

[kaijyuu]

He wasn't telling the OP to accept it. There's a big difference between doing something and accepting it as the right thing to do. That's what manning up is all aobut - doing things that are necessary of him even if they are unpleasant. However, I do not agree with Strife's sentiment that the unpleasentness should be ignored or denied.

I believe the claim is that it isn't the right thing to do.

The school is only going to test people if it thinks it would be best if people were tested. Are you saying that you know better than the collective school administration what is a better thing to do?

Are you seriously implying that he shouldn't question the school administration?

[Virex]

He shouldn't get worked up without knowing why they're doing it. What use is it to question what you do not understand?

[Montague]

I think dress codes/ uniforms are really just intended to stifle sub-cultures, cliques and keep the rich kids from feeling too superior to everybody else. Sorta cultural-Marxist vibe to it, but it probably has the effect it's intended. Gang members don't really have trouble identifying each other, but I think making them wear uniforms would probably dis-embolden (spell check says its a real word) them a bit.

It sounds to me like this boils down to the parent's responsibility. Public schools are not a right and the government that runs them is perfectly within it's power to establish all sorts of silly conditions for students attending them. The parents must consent to the student's drug tests and they could always (theoretically) send their kids to private school if the kid absolutely must smoke pot and belong to a chess club.

Anyways, isn't schooling only compulsory until the 9th grade? (might be mistaken here) Potheads are expected to drop out anyways, this policy is probably just intended as a tool to encourage losers to drop-out and reduce classroom sizes and number of teachers they must hire.

[Zrk2]

This gives me serious deja vu of this incident at my school. For the most it seems that the administration of schools are all for free speech and your rights (or so they say), as long as they can still do what they want.

[kaijyuu]

He shouldn't get worked up without knowing why they're doing it. What use is it to question what you do not understand?

Ok, I don't want to strawman you, so correct me if I'm wrong. Here's what I'm reading:

A) You're claiming he doesn't understand why the administration is doing it (maybe a fair assertion; I don't know)
B) Thus, he should shut up and comply. (...what?)



You question things you don't understand so that you DO understand them. Maybe a real reason will come to light after enough complaining. Maybe the corrupt reason behind it will emerge instead. If you're oppressed (for whatever magnitude of oppression), not fighting against it due to supposed ignorance is a really, really dumb thing to do.

[Vector]

There's a difference between questioning and protesting.

Saying "I don't understand it, so I don't like it and it had better stop" is absurd.  Saying "I don't understand it because it doesn't make sense, here's why, and so the policy should be changed" is different.

Posting to watch.

[Frumple]

Anyways, isn't schooling only compulsory until the 9th grade?

In the US -- Florida, at least -- parents are legally required to, and can face legal consequences for failing to, provide schooling for children until they're 16 years of age -- I just checked with a teacher who deals specifically with drop-out and similar situation students

There's some caveats to this -- a sufficiently academically capable person can get out of this requirement early, generally by getting into college, and it can vary a bit from state to state -- but the federal level says 16 and there's certain problems for kids that stop going to school before graduating or getting a GED-equivalent (Big one -- a person who's under 18 and not in school or possessing a GED or equivalent, cannot, as a federal law, get a driver's license).

The parent's legal responsibility (Again, in Florida, at least. The age at which parents can be held culpable can vary between states.) ends at 16, at least for schooling.

[Bauglir]

I hate it when people say stuff along the lines "it's not required, and thus ok, because you have <insert completely unreasonable alternative here>".

Well, the reasonable alternative in this case is to just not get involved in school sponsored extracurriculars. Should have been clear on that point.

You would not believe how much advice for getting into good colleges revolves around having a lot of extracurriculars, and the best ones are school sponsored because they're verifiable. Not getting into school sponsored extracurriculars is basically telling people who want to end up with athletic or (in several high schools) musical scholarships to go fuck themselves, and telling people who want to buff their applications that the plan is going to be very much harder.

It's not impossible to work around, but a lot of the system just assumes that if you're not doing an extracurricular you must be lazy so you'd better be damn good in other ways to make up for it. That's my experience, anyway.