::weirdsville, u.s.a.::
Current mood: scooping my brains back into my pants

some s h i t! is so awful that i must rely on the opinion of others to share the tale.....

The School Crotch Inspector
Opinion Editorial by Jacob Sullum - Apr 3, 2008
12 ratings from readers
Should children be subject to strip-searches at school? One school in Arizona school thinks so, and was backed up by a court of appeals, but this sort of "zero tolerance" makes zero sense.

There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it’s perfectly reasonable to strip-search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible.

The first group includes officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Ariz., who in 2003 forced eighth-grader Savana Redding to prove she was not concealing Advil in her crotch or cleavage.

It also includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who last fall ruled that the strip search did not violate Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The full court, which recently heard oral arguments in the case, now has an opportunity to overturn that decision and vote against a legal environment in which schoolchildren are conditioned to believe government agents have the authority to subject people to invasive, humiliating searches on the slightest pretext.

Safford Middle School has a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted."

In October 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named Marissa, who claimed Savana was her source.

Savana, an honors student with no history of disciplinary trouble or drug problems, said she didn’t know anything about the pills and agreed to a search of her backpack, which turned up nothing incriminating. Wilson nevertheless instructed a female secretary to strip search Savana under the school nurse’s supervision, without even bothering to contact the girl’s mother.

The secretary had Savana take off all her clothing except her underwear. Then she told her to "pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts," and "pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area." Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.

"I was embarrassed and scared," Savana said in an affidavit, "but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked. I held my head down so they could not see I was about to cry."

She called it "the most humiliating experience I have ever had." Later, she recalled, the principal, Robert Beeman, said, "he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything."

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a public school official’s search of a student is constitutional if it is "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." This search was neither.

When Wilson ordered the search, the only evidence that Savana had violated school policy was the uncorroborated accusation from Marissa, who was in trouble herself and eager to shift the blame. Even Marissa (who had pills in her pockets, not her underwear) did not claim that Savana currently possessed any pills, let alone that she had hidden them under her clothes.

Savana, who was closely supervised after Wilson approached her, did not have an opportunity to stash contraband.

As the American Civil Liberties Union puts it, "There was no reason to suspect that a 13-year-old honor-roll student with a clean disciplinary record had adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking, or to suppose that other middle-school students would willingly consume ibuprofen that was stored in another student’s crotch."

The invasiveness of the search also has to be weighed against the evil it was aimed at preventing. "Remember," the school district’s lawyer recently told ABC News by way of justification, "this was prescription-strength ibuprofen."

It’s a good thing the school took swift action, before anyone got unauthorized relief from menstrual cramps.

Jacob Sullum and his work appears in the new Reason anthology "Choice" (BenBella Books). To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.



Threat to Homeschooling
Opinion Editorial by John Stossel - Apr 2, 2008
22 ratings from readers
A California appellate court just ruled parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children, as the purpose of schooling is to train kids in "loyalty to the state."  Does that give you pause?  It should.

The cat is finally out of the bag. A California appellate court, ruling that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children, pinned its decision on this ominous quotation from a 47-year-old case, "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."

There you have it; a primary purpose of government schools is to train schoolchildren in "loyalty to the state." Somehow that protects "the public welfare" more than allowing parents to homeschool their children, even though homeschooled kids routinely outperform government-schooled kids academically.

In 2006, homeschooled students had an average ACT composite score of 22.4. The national average was 21.1.

Justice H. Walter Croskey said, "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice Croskey said.

If that is the law in California, then Charles Dickens’s Mr. Bumble is right: "the law is a ass, a idiot."

The California Constitution says, "A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement."

That doesn’t appear to rule out homeschooling, unless you read it as a grant of absolute power to politicians.

Admittedly, the education code is vague. It requires children to attend public school or a private school (where certified teachers are not required). But they can also be taught by state-credentialed tutors. Homeschooling is not directly addressed.

There’s disagreement over what that means. The court and the teachers’ union claim homeschooling is illegal unless the teaching parent has state credentials.

Homeschooling parents, many of whom have declared their homes private schools, say what they do is legal. Up till now that’s been fine with the California Department of Education. And California reportedly has 166,000 homeschoolers.

Nationwide, the National Center for Education Statistics says that in 2003 (the latest year for which it has a number) almost 1.1 million children were being homeschooled. The numbers keep increasing, so clearly homeschooling parents think their kids get something better at home than they would from public schools.

The Los Angeles Times isn’t sure where the state law stands. "If no such right [to homeschool] exists, as a court ruled, the Legislature should make it an option," the newspaper’s editorial board said. The editorial wondered why parents who teach one or two children at home need credentials, while private-school teachers in classes full of kids don’t.

The danger in having the legislature clarify the law is that the legislature is controlled by politicians sympathetic to the teachers’ union, which despises homeschooling. "[H]ome-schoolers fear that any attempt to protect home-schooling would end up outlawing it," writes Orange County Register columnist Steven Greenhut.

It reminds me of what New York Judge Gideon Tucker said in the Nineteenth Century, "No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."

This particular case is muddied by suspicions of child abuse, but as the Times said, the court improperly "used a single example of possible child abuse to throw the book at tens of thousands of home schoolers."

I think the state court is looking at the state Constitution upside down. The court finds no constitutional right to homeschool one’s children.

But in a free country, people are free to do anything not expressly prohibited by law. If the Constitution is silent about homeschooling, then the right is reserved to the people. That’s how the Framers of the U.S. Constitution said things are supposed to work.

Last week, the appellate court surprised everyone by agreeing to rehear the case. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the judges "hinted at a re-evaluation of its entire Feb. 28 ruling by inviting written arguments from state and local education officials and teachers’ unions."

On top of that, state Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell says he thinks homeschooling is legal and favors choice in education.

That’s reasonable news. But why is education the business of government? It’s taken for granted that the state is every child’s ultimate parent, but there’s no justification for that in a free society. Parents may not be perfect — some are pretty bad — but a cold, faceless bureaucracy is no better.

Let’s hope the court gets it right in June.


John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News’ "20/20" and the author of Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media (January 2005) as well as Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know Is Wrong (May 2007), which is now available in paperback.