LeftCoast

The key being "your interpretation", which is at odds with every current judicial interpretation that I've seen.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous - "one has a right to not have to choose prior to making the requirement"? What sort of criterion in this? So everyone must now be consulted on every possible question before any action by the school - or any other public institution for that matter - and if even one objects, the whole thing must be scrapped? This is just Libertarian insanity taken to its illogical conclusion.

As I noted in "the stupid thread", trying to equate the requested sharing of school supplied with the real violations of rights that the fourth amendment is in place to prevent is just ludicrous.

Feather

LeftCoast, I have been under the impression that in one specific case the teacher simply confiscated the supplies without notification of any "voluntary" programs whatsoever. That's what I'm arguing based on.

Claiming that a program is voluntary because a parent can opt his kid out of it is absurd. A voluntary activity is one a person has to actively sign up for; not automatically be signed up for unless he opts out. There's a distinct difference between the two.

Autonemesis

I think you should stop right there. This seems to be exactly where force may be involved. It has nothing to do with the 4th amendment right to be free of unreasonable siezure. Sharing school supplies is not unreasonable. It has to do with putting kids on the spot on account of the parent's religious objection to communism. It's a 1st amendment issue. That's what I found compelling about your argument.

Feather

I suppose one might look at it from that point of view, Autonemesis.

I just happen to think that a person's right to be secure in his possessions without due process should be as respected as his rights to choose religion and speak freely.

It appears that some people disagree.

Autonemesis

There's no need to suppose. One does. That'd be me.

OCLonghorn

Wacky, knee-jerk opposition views the scenario as follows:

Enter a nice, clean, well-prepared kid, who was outfitted by his white-collar parents quite nicely with the latest in gel-crayon technology. Enter a boisterous, doesn't-really-care-to-be-here kid who's waitress mom dropped him off on her way to a DNA test to see who the daddy is of her latest impregnation. This kid either doesn't have crayons, or his mom could only get him the basic 8 pack of those sorry Rose Art crayons instead of the 16 or 24 pack (which includes all the shades of blue, green and red necessary for a proper education) called for in the supply list. Either way, he sees the other kid's cool crayons and a dispute ensues.

People who know how this will work in the real world view the scenario as follows:

A teacher with 21 kids to teach doesn't have to worry that little Johnny is using his own crayons or those of his neighbor.

I know this doesn't justify it, but can we please just pick our battles? If a kid's parents can't or won't shell out for all the school supplies, can't we as adults try not to punish the kid for it? Dispite what Boortz or Limbaugh say, the kids are NOT "learning" that if you just act like you can't afford stuff, people will supply them for you. I can guarantee that a more appropriate analogy would be that, much like there is no "advantage" of "choosing" to be gay, the shame of knowing that you had to bum off supplies of the other kids outweighs the "benefit" of not having to pay for the supplies.

Besides, at what age do they really SHARE supplies? Kindergarten and 1st? My daughter is in the 3rd grade now and most of their stuff doesn't lend itself to communal use (journal spirals, binders, pencil bag, pens/pencils) Scissors and loose leaf paper, maybe?

Is this new, really? I always remember my construction paper and tissues going into the big closet, and the teacher would get it out as we needed it.

LeftCoast

I do not recall that - if that is the case, I'll grant that in that case, the teacher overstepped their bounds

Here we have to disagree on the nature of "voluntary" and what constitutes "actively signing up". The fact that one can decide not to participate at any point in the process is to me the main criterion for "voluntary". This is qualified by what, if any, repercussions are expressed or implied for a refusal to participate - in this case, (parents notified prior to school), there were no repercussions (only that if your kid shows up with only personal supplies and refuses to share he/she winds up looking like a selfish snot) so this falls well within the boundary of "voluntary".

Feather

This is why more funding for education and less for corporate welfare and government pork is necessary. Why trade a little liberty for a little convenience if it can be done otherwise within the same or similar constraints (i.e. the law)?


In some cases the shame may be a motivating factor--it was for me. But I do believe programs like this teach that the "safety net" is something more than it can reasonably be with a finite economy. If it is let to pass it is also teaching that resistance against an abuse of rights and other such unjust activities is meaningless or futile.


It must be new. I'm 25. When I was in kindergarten one of the requirements was a little cardboard box that contained the crayons, pencils and such like deemed necessary. No sharing program was in place. Paper and such was provided by the school. Children were encouraged to share if necessary, but there were almost always spare supplies just in case. And that was in a very poor rural school district in Texas.

nerv111

My question would be even if this act constitutes a use of force (which as of yet seems unclear), why does it matter? Isn't the use of force sometimes justified?

Majestyk

Where's that "bullying" thread when you need it?