Teacher under fire for informing kids of their Fifth Amendment rights(dailyherald.com)
dailyherald.com
Teacher under fire for informing kids of their Fifth Amendment rights
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130525/news/705259921/
201 comments
I really want to understand this "proprietary information" excuse the school is using to justify not releasing the survey. Certainly the kids can go home and tell their parents what they saw (and some have). The kids didn't sign an NDA, they saw it, so why can't we see it?
This story is happening in my town. There is a public hearing tomorrow night and I plan on attending.
This story is happening in my town. There is a public hearing tomorrow night and I plan on attending.
There is a public hearing tomorrow night and I plan on attending.
That's awesome. This is what democracy looks like.
I got hooked attending some townhalls on my pet topic. I've learned so much about politics, policy, etc. these last 8 years.
#1 Show up.
#2 Keep showing up.
#3 Bring your friends.
It's ridiculous how few people shape policy. The upside is adding a few more people to the debate can significantly shape outcomes.
If you become credible (learn a topic well enough to speak to all points), and you pack council chambers with your supporters, you will change policy.
Everyone focuses on campaigns. The real action is in policy. Politics is a dirty, filthy business, but it's still worthwhile.
I strongly recommend Camp Wellstone. There's an "activist" track. Anyone aware of methodology or project management will grok their techniques immediately. The focus is policy vs products.
http://www.wellstone.org/programs/camp-wellstone
That's awesome. This is what democracy looks like.
I got hooked attending some townhalls on my pet topic. I've learned so much about politics, policy, etc. these last 8 years.
#1 Show up.
#2 Keep showing up.
#3 Bring your friends.
It's ridiculous how few people shape policy. The upside is adding a few more people to the debate can significantly shape outcomes.
If you become credible (learn a topic well enough to speak to all points), and you pack council chambers with your supporters, you will change policy.
Everyone focuses on campaigns. The real action is in policy. Politics is a dirty, filthy business, but it's still worthwhile.
I strongly recommend Camp Wellstone. There's an "activist" track. Anyone aware of methodology or project management will grok their techniques immediately. The focus is policy vs products.
http://www.wellstone.org/programs/camp-wellstone
The world is run by people who show up.
Interesting. Who else shows up? Do local corporations send representatives and "experts"? What is the average profile of attendees?
Depends on the issue.
For election integrity, it was a small group of us vs everyone else. I've testified opposite Mark Radke of Diebold, county auditors, county executives, election administrators, retired generals, people representing the disabled community, etc.
One time, our issue followed the kittens and puppies on the agenda. Something about a kennel. Council was PACKED. EVERYONE showed up for the puppies and kittens.
Whereas it was just me and my cohort representing the interests of democracy. Looking at the turnout for the puppies and kittens, I turned to my cohort and said "We're doing this wrong."
The times we "won", it was either because we packed the hearing or I had better (embarrassing) information.
For election integrity, it was a small group of us vs everyone else. I've testified opposite Mark Radke of Diebold, county auditors, county executives, election administrators, retired generals, people representing the disabled community, etc.
One time, our issue followed the kittens and puppies on the agenda. Something about a kennel. Council was PACKED. EVERYONE showed up for the puppies and kittens.
Whereas it was just me and my cohort representing the interests of democracy. Looking at the turnout for the puppies and kittens, I turned to my cohort and said "We're doing this wrong."
The times we "won", it was either because we packed the hearing or I had better (embarrassing) information.
It surprising how few people make decisions about natural habitats and public water too. Most citizens can't be bothered to join a local environmental group, and so the decisions that are made are not in the best interest of the public.
It's likely a real psychometric survey that the school pays per copy for, and so the company that produced it (like Pearson) treats it as their IP. They do the same thing to psychologists: sell them a survey, and then 'refills' of the questionaire so that they're only allowed to administer the test n times before paying again.
It's an interesting problem, because the companies involved fund studies to improve the diagnostic power of the test (tweaking the questions and scoring), but then lock up what they find out.
(Here's an example of a commercial psychometric survey: http://www.talentlens.co.uk/select/giotto)
It's an interesting problem, because the companies involved fund studies to improve the diagnostic power of the test (tweaking the questions and scoring), but then lock up what they find out.
(Here's an example of a commercial psychometric survey: http://www.talentlens.co.uk/select/giotto)
And the education machine buys this stuff non-stop.
At the same time every individual school will have dozens of people with graduate degrees. Much of those graduate degrees will be based on classes and research about how to acquire exactly this type of data. And yet, they are unable to make these things themselves and go out and purchase them in the most expensive way possible.
The amount of waste involved in the education process is mind boggling.
At the same time every individual school will have dozens of people with graduate degrees. Much of those graduate degrees will be based on classes and research about how to acquire exactly this type of data. And yet, they are unable to make these things themselves and go out and purchase them in the most expensive way possible.
The amount of waste involved in the education process is mind boggling.
That's like saying that because hospitals have radiation techs, they should save money by building their own MRIs.
I was trying very carefully not to say that there's no value in these surveys, because they are designed by experts: PhDs, running statistically significant experiments. Sample sizes on the ones I've looked at are in the hundreds, which is pretty huge for a psych experiment. Just slapping one together based on a few classes you took would be irresponsible and probably not very useful as a diagnostic. My complaint is mostly that since we're publicly funding these experiments anyways (one government body buys them from a company, who gives some money to another government body), we should cut out the middle-man.
I was trying very carefully not to say that there's no value in these surveys, because they are designed by experts: PhDs, running statistically significant experiments. Sample sizes on the ones I've looked at are in the hundreds, which is pretty huge for a psych experiment. Just slapping one together based on a few classes you took would be irresponsible and probably not very useful as a diagnostic. My complaint is mostly that since we're publicly funding these experiments anyways (one government body buys them from a company, who gives some money to another government body), we should cut out the middle-man.
It's copyrighted information. How much could be released under "fair use" is questionable. Schools abuse copyright in some ways, and probably compensate by being rigorous in others.
Further, if it comes from a company that also offers more conventional achievement kinds of tests, it may come with bloodthirsty NDAs, as a matter of habit for such companies.
Further, if it comes from a company that also offers more conventional achievement kinds of tests, it may come with bloodthirsty NDAs, as a matter of habit for such companies.
So what? The school can give copies to students. Why can they not give one of those copies to a parent or reporter?
Copyright does not stop you from giving a copy to someone, it only stops you from making more copies.
Copyright does not stop you from giving a copy to someone, it only stops you from making more copies.
Sort-of. If the copies came with a license agreement forbidding you giving a copy to the press, then you might be liable if you did.
Furthermore if members of the press got a copy, they might be forbidden from publishing the test in full. A sample single question from the test (alluding to illegal activity) would likely be fair-use.
Furthermore if members of the press got a copy, they might be forbidden from publishing the test in full. A sample single question from the test (alluding to illegal activity) would likely be fair-use.
"Sort-of. If the copies came with a license agreement forbidding you giving a copy to the press, then you might be liable if you did."
Except that you do not need a license unless you are making copies. The only reason you see licenses with software is that the process of installing software is making a copy of that software. Books do not come with licenses, because you do not copy a book in order to read it.
"Furthermore if members of the press got a copy, they might be forbidden from publishing the test in full."
I am pretty sure that even a full reproduction in a newspaper could be fair use, since it is for purely journalistic purposes and the publishing of the questionnaire would not impact the market in any way (the scrutiny by the press might, but criticism is also covered by fair use).
Except that you do not need a license unless you are making copies. The only reason you see licenses with software is that the process of installing software is making a copy of that software. Books do not come with licenses, because you do not copy a book in order to read it.
"Furthermore if members of the press got a copy, they might be forbidden from publishing the test in full."
I am pretty sure that even a full reproduction in a newspaper could be fair use, since it is for purely journalistic purposes and the publishing of the questionnaire would not impact the market in any way (the scrutiny by the press might, but criticism is also covered by fair use).
Actually, software licenses aren't required to simply use a program - though you can certainly obtain a copy by licensing it.
Essentially, copies made that are inherently required for the expected function of the work (to the HD if required, to RAM, to screen, etc) aren't copyright violations. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
Essentially, copies made that are inherently required for the expected function of the work (to the HD if required, to RAM, to screen, etc) aren't copyright violations. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
Can you legally hold students (minors) to an NDA? I wonder what kind out outcome there would be if a 9th-grader photographed and published this survey.
DMCA takedown. Expulsion. Streissand effect. Hilarity.
They couldn't keep it online, but couldn't be seriously censured for trying, and they wouldn't be alone.
They couldn't keep it online, but couldn't be seriously censured for trying, and they wouldn't be alone.
> It's copyrighted information.
It's a public school. So copyrights are now more important than parents rights? What a lame excuse.
Maybe that's also why our - so called - Representatives in Congress can't see the Acts they are voting into the Law? Because it's copyrighted by Lobbyists?
What a joke of a country.
It's a public school. So copyrights are now more important than parents rights? What a lame excuse.
Maybe that's also why our - so called - Representatives in Congress can't see the Acts they are voting into the Law? Because it's copyrighted by Lobbyists?
What a joke of a country.
Standing here now, waiting for it to start. About 100 people here so far.
So there were more than 100 people crowded into a small room and spilling out into the hallway.
Some highlights:
- A father who made a point of stating he disagrees politically with Dryden but vehemently supports him and his views on the 5th amendment
- A mother complained the "opt out" email that was sent did not mention the self incriminating nature of the questions. She was concerned about the lack of confidentiality and the overall effectiveness of a survey that kids had admitted lying on.
- A student noted the inconsistency in teaching children about their rights academically, only to deny them in practice.
In the end, I was impressed with this community's response and how this issue managed to bring so many political opposites together in support of our rights.
Too bad it all fell on deaf ears, though.
Some highlights:
- A father who made a point of stating he disagrees politically with Dryden but vehemently supports him and his views on the 5th amendment
- A mother complained the "opt out" email that was sent did not mention the self incriminating nature of the questions. She was concerned about the lack of confidentiality and the overall effectiveness of a survey that kids had admitted lying on.
- A student noted the inconsistency in teaching children about their rights academically, only to deny them in practice.
In the end, I was impressed with this community's response and how this issue managed to bring so many political opposites together in support of our rights.
Too bad it all fell on deaf ears, though.
Looks like the board authorized a notice of remediation against the teacher. Here is a video of the decision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Is_Awj4Pvg&feature=youtu....
Looking forward to your observations. Be sure to post a link if you're going to blog the results.
Unless it's well-covered by other sources, I would kindly ask you to blog your observations and share them with us :)
I certainly will.
Thanks in advance for reporting back! Saving the thread here, to read it later..
As the teacher said, the focus should be on the survey, not his acts. Of course, provided that he doesn't suffer any unfair and ridiculous disciplinary actions.
As the teacher said, the focus should be on the survey, not his acts. Of course, provided that he doesn't suffer any unfair and ridiculous disciplinary actions.
Agreed -- would love to know how this goes!
Thank you! Looking forward to it.
My guess is that the survey was bought from a private company on a contract that says it is that company's property and not to be shared. Therefore if the school released the form, they could be sued by said private company both for violating copyright and contract. (And the company would want that because they want to resell the survey to other schools.)
Stupid, yes. But I think it is likely that the school has a real legal barrier to sharing the survey.
Stupid, yes. But I think it is likely that the school has a real legal barrier to sharing the survey.
> Stupid, yes. But I think it is likely that the school has a real legal barrier to sharing the survey.
It could be. It could also be that the people who dreamed up this survey saw that legal barrier as a convenience. You can administer an unfair and potentially useless, invasive, survey, to your students, AND you have a "reason" not to tell the media, too! Had I been a student at this school, I would have put my survey directly in the trash.
The idea that a publically funded school is passing out surveys to students, and we cannot read them, makes me rage. If this doesn't anger you, then something is wrong. The reason is irrelevant, they should have thought about that before buying the survey.
When tyranny comes it is not going to introduce itself. No one is going to hand you a pamphlet, entitled: "Your rights, and lack thereof" and roll out the details of how they will all be taken away. It will do so by stealth. It will do so by employing lame excuses. It will come as a trojan horse. Increased security, no more terrorist attacks! This is all secret so we can keep the kids off drugs!
The road to hell was paved with good intentions.
This teacher is a hero.
It could be. It could also be that the people who dreamed up this survey saw that legal barrier as a convenience. You can administer an unfair and potentially useless, invasive, survey, to your students, AND you have a "reason" not to tell the media, too! Had I been a student at this school, I would have put my survey directly in the trash.
The idea that a publically funded school is passing out surveys to students, and we cannot read them, makes me rage. If this doesn't anger you, then something is wrong. The reason is irrelevant, they should have thought about that before buying the survey.
When tyranny comes it is not going to introduce itself. No one is going to hand you a pamphlet, entitled: "Your rights, and lack thereof" and roll out the details of how they will all be taken away. It will do so by stealth. It will do so by employing lame excuses. It will come as a trojan horse. Increased security, no more terrorist attacks! This is all secret so we can keep the kids off drugs!
The road to hell was paved with good intentions.
This teacher is a hero.
> The idea that a publically funded school is passing out surveys to students, and we cannot read them, makes me rage. I
I bet all that was done was done under the public guise of "protecting the children" (then again what isn't these days...). Privately all that was done was to protect the behinds of the administrator in case some kid does something "crazy" and the school is sued or criticized. They want to have something to point to and say "Aha but we did everything we could, see...! we hired professionals in the field to find troubled teens, if they couldn't don't blame us".
Simple as that.
That is the reason there are so many bullshit business consulting companies. It lets those implementing risky and unsound/unpopular idea to go and point their finger to and say "see we hired professional and they agreed with us, these are world class consultants, if they couldn't predict failure, how could you blame us, simple administrators/executives/board of directors..." stuff like that.
It is all basically about having a scapegoat in the end.
I bet all that was done was done under the public guise of "protecting the children" (then again what isn't these days...). Privately all that was done was to protect the behinds of the administrator in case some kid does something "crazy" and the school is sued or criticized. They want to have something to point to and say "Aha but we did everything we could, see...! we hired professionals in the field to find troubled teens, if they couldn't don't blame us".
Simple as that.
That is the reason there are so many bullshit business consulting companies. It lets those implementing risky and unsound/unpopular idea to go and point their finger to and say "see we hired professional and they agreed with us, these are world class consultants, if they couldn't predict failure, how could you blame us, simple administrators/executives/board of directors..." stuff like that.
It is all basically about having a scapegoat in the end.
The test is most likely private IP, so they are restricted from sharing the contents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_testing#Test_secu...
Never blame on malice what can be blamed on incompetence.
In this case my capacity for outrage is exhausted. I've been through too many permutations of this particular type of outrage that this is in line with my expectations.
And yes, if the survey is as described, the teacher should be commended. Not punished. But that's out of my hands, though if someone gives me someone to email, I will do so.
In this case my capacity for outrage is exhausted. I've been through too many permutations of this particular type of outrage that this is in line with my expectations.
And yes, if the survey is as described, the teacher should be commended. Not punished. But that's out of my hands, though if someone gives me someone to email, I will do so.
> Never blame on malice what can be blamed on incompetence.
So, does the early bird get the worm or do good things come to those who wait? We're maybe too inclined to just assert these sorts of things as fact. (This includes me.)
So, does the early bird get the worm or do good things come to those who wait? We're maybe too inclined to just assert these sorts of things as fact. (This includes me.)
Except this piece of wisdom is extremely valid. Assuming everybody else is both supremely competent and consistently malicious goes against most people's experience. You give humanity far too much credit by assuming everyone is an evil mastermind.
On the other hand, assuming everyone is an evil incompetent...
He messed up the quote a bit, omitting an important qualifier:
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"
-- Napoleon (allegedly)
I don't think I need to explain how this shifts the meaning.
I agree!
Someone who attributes to incompetence too regularly is one we may call a "chump" or a "sucker" and is an easy mark for charlatans of all stripes. If I don't get taken for a fool occasionally, maybe I could have a little more human faith. If I get taken for a fool all the time, I should get pissed off more.
Someone who attributes to incompetence too regularly is one we may call a "chump" or a "sucker" and is an easy mark for charlatans of all stripes. If I don't get taken for a fool occasionally, maybe I could have a little more human faith. If I get taken for a fool all the time, I should get pissed off more.
Malice and incompetence are equally dangerous and harmful.
Exactly, we pursue drunk drivers even if they never meant any harm. Mens rea is not universally required.
And this is also why we fire programmers who create bugs.
...wait.
...wait.
"And this is why we draw and quarter drunk drivers" ....wait
Of course we don't draw and quarter drunk drivers. Just because an offense does not require mens rea does not mean that we throw out all sense of proportional punishment.
Firing programmers for creating bugs (an offense without mens rea) is massively disproportionate, which is why we don't do it (at least until the severity and frequency of the bugs becomes unreasonable and other corrective options have been expended.)
Of course we don't draw and quarter drunk drivers. Just because an offense does not require mens rea does not mean that we throw out all sense of proportional punishment.
Firing programmers for creating bugs (an offense without mens rea) is massively disproportionate, which is why we don't do it (at least until the severity and frequency of the bugs becomes unreasonable and other corrective options have been expended.)
> (an offense without mens rea)
It's as if we don't know that it was malicious and recognize that, just perhaps, we should ascribe incompetence first.
It's as if we don't know that it was malicious and recognize that, just perhaps, we should ascribe incompetence first.
An offense without mens rea is an offense without malicious intent. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there was no malicious intent, only incompetence. How can you not get this?
Drunk driving laws use strict liability, meaning that absolutely no mens rea is required to prosecute a drunk driver. Incompetence, rather than malicious intent, can be assumed but the drunk driver is nevertheless pursued and ultimately punished in a proportionate fashion.
Nobody here is suggesting that we drag these school administrators off to criminal or civil court for being spineless tyrants through incompetence. What we are suggesting is that in the "court of public opinion", their 'crime' should use strict liability. School administrators do not need to act maliciously for us to criticize them. Incompetence, without mens rea, is fair game for criticism.
Who gives a shit if they are just incompetent? I assume that they are. That does not get them off the hook.
Drunk driving laws use strict liability, meaning that absolutely no mens rea is required to prosecute a drunk driver. Incompetence, rather than malicious intent, can be assumed but the drunk driver is nevertheless pursued and ultimately punished in a proportionate fashion.
Nobody here is suggesting that we drag these school administrators off to criminal or civil court for being spineless tyrants through incompetence. What we are suggesting is that in the "court of public opinion", their 'crime' should use strict liability. School administrators do not need to act maliciously for us to criticize them. Incompetence, without mens rea, is fair game for criticism.
Who gives a shit if they are just incompetent? I assume that they are. That does not get them off the hook.
*are equally dangerous and have the potential to be as harmful as one another.
No. Incompetence isn't potentially harmful, it is invariably harmful. It creates environments with a slavish adherence to protocol unsuitable for purpose. If you are sufficiently old you have seen workplaces like that and if you have any sense of purpose you got out of them as fast as you could.
It basically says that in the article. It's not completely unequivocal, but close.
Then the survey could be leaked by a student, since they are too young to enter into the contract that would restrict them from doing so.
[deleted]
I would try making a FOIA request for the survey—on the school district's website, there's a link for requests: http://www.bps101.net/node/936
This is a terrific idea. I've done many FOIA requests. It's worthwhile in so many ways.
If the gatekeepers don't provide the information (malicious compliance, obfuscation, foot dragging, denying request), you've got grist for the mill. EVERYONE supports "open government" and will support your efforts.
It's best (PR wise) to get the incriminating information after a long drawn out fight.
If the gatekeepers don't provide the information (malicious compliance, obfuscation, foot dragging, denying request), you've got grist for the mill. EVERYONE supports "open government" and will support your efforts.
It's best (PR wise) to get the incriminating information after a long drawn out fight.
[deleted]
Yeah, that's really weird and wouldn't fly in my country. There is nothing you can show my kids in school that you can legally keep from me.
The public (parents in particular) ought to have the right to know everything that their kids see.
The public (parents in particular) ought to have the right to know everything that their kids see.
[deleted]
He sounds a lot like my social studies teacher in high school. He was the best teacher I ever had because he was a complete, utter bastard. He didn't care if you had the right answer, you had to back it up with facts. He gave us 5 page papers to do every night and a 10 page research paper every semester. Both of those things were crucial to my development of critical thought and being able to communicate it, something nobody else bothered to teach, even in college.
He was fired a few years after I graduated. Which wasn't surprising - he constantly pissed off the school board and other teachers. Dryden sounds a lot more politic than my teacher was.
He was fired a few years after I graduated. Which wasn't surprising - he constantly pissed off the school board and other teachers. Dryden sounds a lot more politic than my teacher was.
The teacher was absolutely correct to warn these kids, and it's absurd that the district would to try to punish him over it. No good things can come from answering questions like this on a personally identifiable survey. The school even stated that the intent was to identify and help at-risk students - meaning the information was going to be reviewed, discussed by and disclosed to staff, put in the students' files, and acted upon. There is absolutely nothing that would stop this survey from making it to college admissions offices, law enforcement, parents, etc.
The fact that the district wouldn't have instructed all teachers to notify students of the potential ramifications of answering such questions is a big problem. If any of the data later has a negative impact on someone's child, the district may have some legal liability. This teacher should actually be rewarded potentially shielding the district from a lawsuit.
The fact that the district wouldn't have instructed all teachers to notify students of the potential ramifications of answering such questions is a big problem. If any of the data later has a negative impact on someone's child, the district may have some legal liability. This teacher should actually be rewarded potentially shielding the district from a lawsuit.
Alumni here.
Wow, this has been circulating among my Facebook friends and I saw the article when it came out. Did not expect to see it on the front page of HN.
I'll try to add a little more information. The article mentions it briefly, but suicide has become a big issue in Batavia[0]. I know of at least the first 2 suicides - two friends (or possibly boyfriend/girlfriend, can't say for sure), roughly 6 months apart. These events were completely unprecedented and were a shock to the quiet, safe, middle-class town.
Major props to Dryden for standing up to the this. Although I never had him for a teacher when I was in school, many of my friends were influenced by him.
I'll ask some friends if they remember any of the survey questions, and post them here if I can.
Also, I look forward to nsxwolf's (another Batavian!) notes from the city council meeting.
[0]: Read a little more here: http://www.kcchronicle.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2013/...
Wow, this has been circulating among my Facebook friends and I saw the article when it came out. Did not expect to see it on the front page of HN.
I'll try to add a little more information. The article mentions it briefly, but suicide has become a big issue in Batavia[0]. I know of at least the first 2 suicides - two friends (or possibly boyfriend/girlfriend, can't say for sure), roughly 6 months apart. These events were completely unprecedented and were a shock to the quiet, safe, middle-class town.
Major props to Dryden for standing up to the this. Although I never had him for a teacher when I was in school, many of my friends were influenced by him.
I'll ask some friends if they remember any of the survey questions, and post them here if I can.
Also, I look forward to nsxwolf's (another Batavian!) notes from the city council meeting.
[0]: Read a little more here: http://www.kcchronicle.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2013/...
Why are questions asked of students copyrighted so as to not allow any visibility to parents? If I had a child required to answer potentially incriminating questions at school I would want public scrutiny, otherwise this becomes a kind of secret inquisition.
The purported reason is because the survey was designed by a private company who claims the survey to be their intellectual property. Similarly, if a school screened a controversial film, a parent could not ask the school for a copy of said film, because the school doesn't own the intellectual rights to it.
This is a microcosm of what happens when public institutions, whose records and dealings are considered to be part of the public record, uses private contractors. Other public instituions have used this to deny access to what is usually a citizen's right to know: e.g. public worker salaries being maintained by a private payroll company.
This is a microcosm of what happens when public institutions, whose records and dealings are considered to be part of the public record, uses private contractors. Other public instituions have used this to deny access to what is usually a citizen's right to know: e.g. public worker salaries being maintained by a private payroll company.
For a while, this included the text of some laws! My understanding is that got overturned, though (thank goodness).
It was not the text of some laws. It was engineering standards incorporated into certain building codes. The laws were like: "buildings shall follow ASME x.y.z" (to use a software analogy, it would be like requiring something to conform to POSIX, a standard the text of which is not freely published).
Eh.
Here is a freely published copy of the POSIX standard:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
Regarding the "text of some laws", there was actually a story on HN about the city of the District of Columbia asserting copyright to their laws and making it only available via a private company:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/ignorance-of...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5251797
Here is a freely published copy of the POSIX standard:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
Regarding the "text of some laws", there was actually a story on HN about the city of the District of Columbia asserting copyright to their laws and making it only available via a private company:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/ignorance-of...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5251797
Is this distinction interesting in some way I'm missing? If the engineering standards are mandated by law, they are effectively law themselves, so I would assert that "the text of some laws was restricted by copyright" holds. Referring to external standards was the mechanism in the cases I was thinking of, to be sure.
Here is how I see it possibly played out.
* School district sees all these school shootings, news reports of troubled teens, suicides, bullying and how badly it reflect on the district.
* School district employs below average intelligence administrators who are easily manipulated and controlled by contractors, lobbyists, salesmen, suppliers. Either an administrator or one such salesperson from the test administration company came up with the idea of providing these proprietary tests.
* Tests are touted as an easy, spray and pray instrument "just give them this test for which we'll charge $500 a pop and you'll easily weed out ones who (wink wink) need help."
* This is how the school district solves its paper problem, computer problems, fixing the cracks in the asphalt in the parking lot problem. They are approached by salesmen and given gifts and dinners and are sold "solutions".
* The more overpriced and expensive the solution the more sleeker the sales pitch. "You don't want to end up like Columbine, OR DO YOU?" maybe stuff like "What if Columbine happened here, could you tell the parents that you DID EVERYTHING YOU COULD?" and so on.
* It is not that hard to scare these people into anything. At best it was a plain ol' sales pitch. At worst there were shady deals going on "We'll buy your son a new car if you buy this package"
* Test instrument comes with strict copyright rules (not that unusual for psych and personality test packets), disclosure rules, but I don't think that is that uncommon.
* Administrators buy in. Cha-ching for the testing company and all is well, ...
* Except for one teacher who actually is doing his job and applies his subject to the real world. So we have this story.
* Now I wonder how frequent this stuff is and how many other school districts are doing this, but which don't have teacher like this who like to "stir the pot".
* School district sees all these school shootings, news reports of troubled teens, suicides, bullying and how badly it reflect on the district.
* School district employs below average intelligence administrators who are easily manipulated and controlled by contractors, lobbyists, salesmen, suppliers. Either an administrator or one such salesperson from the test administration company came up with the idea of providing these proprietary tests.
* Tests are touted as an easy, spray and pray instrument "just give them this test for which we'll charge $500 a pop and you'll easily weed out ones who (wink wink) need help."
* This is how the school district solves its paper problem, computer problems, fixing the cracks in the asphalt in the parking lot problem. They are approached by salesmen and given gifts and dinners and are sold "solutions".
* The more overpriced and expensive the solution the more sleeker the sales pitch. "You don't want to end up like Columbine, OR DO YOU?" maybe stuff like "What if Columbine happened here, could you tell the parents that you DID EVERYTHING YOU COULD?" and so on.
* It is not that hard to scare these people into anything. At best it was a plain ol' sales pitch. At worst there were shady deals going on "We'll buy your son a new car if you buy this package"
* Test instrument comes with strict copyright rules (not that unusual for psych and personality test packets), disclosure rules, but I don't think that is that uncommon.
* Administrators buy in. Cha-ching for the testing company and all is well, ...
* Except for one teacher who actually is doing his job and applies his subject to the real world. So we have this story.
* Now I wonder how frequent this stuff is and how many other school districts are doing this, but which don't have teacher like this who like to "stir the pot".
>School district employs below average intelligence administrators who are easily manipulated and controlled by contractors, lobbyists, salesmen, suppliers.
So if the corruption is the problem why they don't get questioned by the Police?
So if the corruption is the problem why they don't get questioned by the Police?
There is moral corruption and legal corruption. They can go through all the legal channels (just like lobbyists in US congress do) and still act morally corrupt and shady.
Promises of gifts, expensive trips, retreats to exotic islands, scholarships for family members, all kinds of other perks can be used to help facilitate deals with vendors.
Promises of gifts, expensive trips, retreats to exotic islands, scholarships for family members, all kinds of other perks can be used to help facilitate deals with vendors.
The problem here is the definition of corruption. It's the same problem on Capitol Hill. You agree to "listen" to my
"problems" and "solution" in exchange for a campaign contribution or some such nonsense. It's just legalized corruption.
Corruption is not necessary for this to happen; the administrators could also be scared or otherwise convinced as described above (but without gifts etc.) into buying the "solution" without thinking everything through.
If my daughter answered that she was using drugs on a survey, with her name on it, which was then publicly released, it could have serious ramifications. That information could do serious harm to her future prospects if anyone grabbed the data and started making hiring decisions. Or grabbed the data and started blackmailing. If I had a daughter, anyway.
Frankly, the schools shouldn't have that information, it's dangerous. While it can save lives, it can end them just as easily.
Frankly, the schools shouldn't have that information, it's dangerous. While it can save lives, it can end them just as easily.
Interesting take on it. I attribute this more to their incompetence and plain 'ol stupidity. I imagine people who can think better in general don't aspire to be school administrators. Some teacher perhaps love teaching kids and are dedicated, administration and bureaucracy attracts a special breed of people... and let's just say that these are not usually the brightest either. But what they have learned and do well is protect themselves. The constant threat or funding withdrawal from the govt, the threat of law suits, the threat of reputation if say a student goes "mental".
They have nightmares of being on the stand in court and asked questions like "are you sure you did everything you could to prevent the disaster?"...At least this is probably how testing and psych screening company sold them the packet.
Now their stupidity is also a blessing. If just someone could manipulate them into being afraid of your scenario. Being sued for collecting too much private info about its students. What if they get hacked or someone breaks into the office and steals all those answer sheets with all kinds of strange confessions? Law suits from parents is supposedly this dark deep evil always lurking in their minds. Just need to re-frame the problem so that they see collecting data = increasing risks of getting sued and voila, temporary win.
As a side note, someone on Reddit mentioned taking a similar test (but supposedly anonymous, I say "supposedly" as teacher often can tell the students by handwriting). and putting the most outrageous answers they could in the boxes, mostly for fun. I realized I would have probably have done back then the same thing, just to mess up their statistics. What if didn't end up being anonymous, it leaks and now it is attached to my name for life. Good luck explaining every employer who runs background checks.
They have nightmares of being on the stand in court and asked questions like "are you sure you did everything you could to prevent the disaster?"...At least this is probably how testing and psych screening company sold them the packet.
Now their stupidity is also a blessing. If just someone could manipulate them into being afraid of your scenario. Being sued for collecting too much private info about its students. What if they get hacked or someone breaks into the office and steals all those answer sheets with all kinds of strange confessions? Law suits from parents is supposedly this dark deep evil always lurking in their minds. Just need to re-frame the problem so that they see collecting data = increasing risks of getting sued and voila, temporary win.
As a side note, someone on Reddit mentioned taking a similar test (but supposedly anonymous, I say "supposedly" as teacher often can tell the students by handwriting). and putting the most outrageous answers they could in the boxes, mostly for fun. I realized I would have probably have done back then the same thing, just to mess up their statistics. What if didn't end up being anonymous, it leaks and now it is attached to my name for life. Good luck explaining every employer who runs background checks.
> I imagine people who can think better in general don't aspire to be school administrators.
People who can think better in general don't say stupid things like this.
People who can think better in general don't say stupid things like this.
The school is also trying to teach students a valuable civics lesson: your rights are minimal and the principle function of the state is the furtherance of the careers of the bureaucrats who compose the state. Anything that inconveniences them will be met with all the power they can muster.
Abuse of treason convictions had occurred so much in England that the framers specifically defined it in the constitution (apparently the only crime to get such a treatment).
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I don't necessarily think they were right on everything, but they were right on this. You really don't want to live in a state where Treason is an accusation thrown around lightly.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I don't necessarily think they were right on everything, but they were right on this. You really don't want to live in a state where Treason is an accusation thrown around lightly.
You meant to reply to sk5t's comment, did you not? Your explanation seems to make much more sense as a reply to that than to your parent.
Weird. Thanks for pointing that out. Not sure how I ended up doing that. I'll copy it to the right place, but sadly it's too late to delete it here.
I work in Batavia and it was nice to see this make the front page of Hacker News.
Just wanted to point out that the hearing taking place tonight will probably be recorded by BATV (http://batv.us/) and available to stream later in the week. Once the recording is posted, I will update with a direct link.
Just wanted to point out that the hearing taking place tonight will probably be recorded by BATV (http://batv.us/) and available to stream later in the week. Once the recording is posted, I will update with a direct link.
I am told the video of tonight's hearing will be put up on YouTube on Thursday at https://www.youtube.com/user/BATV1017. If I hear anything else, I will post here.
Did they risk manage this survey?
What do they do if a student reveals an alcohol problem? Or sexual abuse? Or criminal behaviour?
It's potentially a good idea, but they should have thought it through a bit more before.
EDIT: The company selling the tests have a lot of product available. (http://www.mhs.com/Education.aspx)
EDIT: I might be annoyed if schools are buying these tests instead of textbooks.
What do they do if a student reveals an alcohol problem? Or sexual abuse? Or criminal behaviour?
It's potentially a good idea, but they should have thought it through a bit more before.
EDIT: The company selling the tests have a lot of product available. (http://www.mhs.com/Education.aspx)
EDIT: I might be annoyed if schools are buying these tests instead of textbooks.
Per the school's zero tolerance policy, students who reveal alcohol or drug use are expelled at no risk to the school. I don't agree with their method but it is pretty simple.
Wow. Are the students told that beforehand?
I think a shocking consequence is students will now feel unsafe telling the truth about troubling events (abuse, etc.)
I think a shocking consequence is students will now feel unsafe telling the truth about troubling events (abuse, etc.)
Cynical-me thinks this is ideal education - proper preparation for "the real world": Answer every question not with "the truth", but instead work out what "the expected answer" is and give them that...
Which was the whole point the teacher was making - you have a right to not incriminate yourself (by giving a false answer or not answering), even when asked by authority figures (judges, police, teachers) to do so.
A lot of people feel that they must fill in every value of every form "or else". While really, if you value your privacy you should ask if every value is really required.
A lot of people feel that they must fill in every value of every form "or else". While really, if you value your privacy you should ask if every value is really required.
You don't actually have the right to provide false answers in many situations and doing so could actually be a crime.
I heard somewhere that lying to police is punishable by something like three years in jail in the US. Unless you killed someone or are a repeat offender, lying may well get you a harsher sentence than your original crime.
And of course, it's very easy to lie accidentally: You may honestly be confused, mis-remember, make a mistake, or tell them a true fact that doesn't fit with incorrect information they obtained from another source. Especially under the stress of being suspected, investigated, arrested, etc.
Rule one of dealing with the police: Don't help them under any circumstances. Shut up and lawyer up immediately.
For more information, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
And of course, it's very easy to lie accidentally: You may honestly be confused, mis-remember, make a mistake, or tell them a true fact that doesn't fit with incorrect information they obtained from another source. Especially under the stress of being suspected, investigated, arrested, etc.
Rule one of dealing with the police: Don't help them under any circumstances. Shut up and lawyer up immediately.
For more information, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
I believe that lying to federal officials is the serious problem. There was a recent story (sorry don't have the link handy) which can be summed up by saying don't speak to any federal officials, even if they say it's just an "interview" and not an interrogation, without your lawyer present, and a recorder running.
I'm not sure what the ramifications would be of a minor lying on a survey administered by school administrators. I doubt if students could be charged with a crime for lying under these circumstances, but I can envision other problems if students admitted to drug or alcohol use on a survey that identified them by name.
I'm not sure what the ramifications would be of a minor lying on a survey administered by school administrators. I doubt if students could be charged with a crime for lying under these circumstances, but I can envision other problems if students admitted to drug or alcohol use on a survey that identified them by name.
> I doubt if students could be charged with a crime for lying under these circumstances
Probably not. The comment I replied to was saying that choosing to lie instead of self-incriminate is sometimes a crime, and I was elaborating on that.
> federal officials
This advice applies to state and local officials, too.
> I'm not sure what the ramifications would be of a minor lying on a survey administered by school administrators
Probably nothing.
> other problems if students admitted to drug or alcohol use on a survey that identified them by name.
Yes, if the survey results ever get out, they might later be used as evidence. Don't say it's not possible -- the police might find an excuse to subpoena the results and get a lax judge to sign off on it, and I seriously doubt that school officials would be willing to go to jail for their students by not complying. Or the results could be stolen, leaked, or hacked.
Probably not. The comment I replied to was saying that choosing to lie instead of self-incriminate is sometimes a crime, and I was elaborating on that.
> federal officials
This advice applies to state and local officials, too.
> I'm not sure what the ramifications would be of a minor lying on a survey administered by school administrators
Probably nothing.
> other problems if students admitted to drug or alcohol use on a survey that identified them by name.
Yes, if the survey results ever get out, they might later be used as evidence. Don't say it's not possible -- the police might find an excuse to subpoena the results and get a lax judge to sign off on it, and I seriously doubt that school officials would be willing to go to jail for their students by not complying. Or the results could be stolen, leaked, or hacked.
It's rather sad that a discussion of public education policies has gone in this direction. (I'm not criticizing your thoughtful post.) I really doubt that even public school teachers are accorded such deference in the law, but probably the ubiquitous "resource officers" are. Which is of course an excellent reason for children never to talk to them. If I thought education were the purpose of "public education", I would be quite puzzled.
It varies based on the jurisdiction. It is illegal to lie to federal law enforcement. There may not be laws against lying to state and local police (though I would imagine there are other laws that would be easy to break by lying to them).
The system is designed so that each crime breaks multiple laws, and the laws are easily broken. Keira Wilmot faced multiple felonies, for example. She broke the law when she didn't immediately report her crime to the authorities.
> laws are easily broken
The video I linked discusses this very issue for a few minutes starting at 5:20.
At 6:55 he talks about how possession of a lobster can be illegal: "It doesn't matter if he's dead or alive. It doesn't matter if you killed it or it died of natural causes. It doesn't even matter if you acted in self defense! Did you know that? Did you know it could be a federal offense to be in possession of a lobster? Raise your hand if you did not know that. [audience raises hands] There's the problem!"
The whole video is witty and informative, and IMHO definitely worth watching.
The video I linked discusses this very issue for a few minutes starting at 5:20.
At 6:55 he talks about how possession of a lobster can be illegal: "It doesn't matter if he's dead or alive. It doesn't matter if you killed it or it died of natural causes. It doesn't even matter if you acted in self defense! Did you know that? Did you know it could be a federal offense to be in possession of a lobster? Raise your hand if you did not know that. [audience raises hands] There's the problem!"
The whole video is witty and informative, and IMHO definitely worth watching.
False statements to the feds carry a 5yr sentence. See: Martha Stewart.
It's pointless to argue this point, because the simple rule is, as you say, never to talk to the police, and have a lawyer and audio recorder if you do.
It's pointless to argue this point, because the simple rule is, as you say, never to talk to the police, and have a lawyer and audio recorder if you do.
Well, they don't tend to prosecute that harshly. There are examples of people committing murder and telling the strangest most egregious lies you could imagine and getting nothing at all done to me. See Casey Anthony. Sure, the only thing that happened to her was like a little probation for her lies but those amounted to lies bigger than I could imagine a reasonable person telling the police with a straight face.
I can definately think of immigration cards/interviews as a case where that is true.
[deleted]
I've hounded my kids on "the expected answer" many times. Recently my son was told to write an essay on gun control. I shudder to think what might've happened had he not given the expected conclusion on that one.
What is the expected opinion on that. I'm not from the US.
School teachers and school administrations tend to be skewed leftist / liberal relative to the average of the country as a whole.
Therefore, a student speaking in favor of 2nd Amendment rights or coming out sounding too "pro-gun" might find himself tagged for observation by the administration as an "extremist" or a potential threat.
Therefore, a student speaking in favor of 2nd Amendment rights or coming out sounding too "pro-gun" might find himself tagged for observation by the administration as an "extremist" or a potential threat.
> students will now feel unsafe telling the truth about troubling events
That's the idea -- helping those students is a significant and easily ignored cost center.
That's the idea -- helping those students is a significant and easily ignored cost center.
> Are the students told that beforehand?
That would defeat the purpose of the survey.
I guess if there's a time for someone to learn the hard way when to keep private info private, high school is better than later.
That would defeat the purpose of the survey.
I guess if there's a time for someone to learn the hard way when to keep private info private, high school is better than later.
> I guess if there's a time for someone to learn the hard way when to keep private info private, high school is better than later.
Does that include crimes against minors?
Does that include crimes against minors?
You sure about that? That'd be downright idiotic.
My school did something similar, but the surveys were anonymous and simply used for aggregate statistics - which sounds infinitely more effective than what this school is doing, anyway.
My school did something similar, but the surveys were anonymous and simply used for aggregate statistics - which sounds infinitely more effective than what this school is doing, anyway.
I'm not positive but very confident. These surveys are not anonymous, says the article. School administrators are required to adhere to the zero tolerance policy to the letter.
"The letter" being that if a student admits partaking in drug or alcohol use, ever in their lives, they are immediately expelled? Do you have a source for this?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think you are mistaken. When I was in public school, "zero tolerance" policies applied to what you do in school.
I also went to FCPS and they did only apply to "in school" but "in school" was very broad (all school-related activities, on the way to/from school).
Other school districts can and have applied their codes of conduct to non-school related activities.
Other school districts can and have applied their codes of conduct to non-school related activities.
Indeed it was, and I was in school when it became that broad. I even wrote about it in the school newspaper. But I still have not heard of a school that says "You used alcohol over the weekend in an activity that we agree is completely unrelated to school, so we will expel you."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-28-studen...
[edit] even more apropos: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1240760...
[edit] even more apropos: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1240760...
Good ones. Also search for: The suit was based on a claim by sophomore Blake Robbins that school officials reprimanded him for “improper behavior” based on photos the [school issued] computer secretly took of the boy at home last fall.
Granted it's not zero tolerance because he wasn't expelled.
Granted it's not zero tolerance because he wasn't expelled.
Lets be clear: neither of those stories do what I said.
I'm not, and never was, happy with the overreaching disciplinary actions taken by school systems. I think it tends to be reactionary and counter-productive. But your claims are still not accurate. While I disagree with the policies, and I think they are bad, they are as bad as your claims.
I'm not, and never was, happy with the overreaching disciplinary actions taken by school systems. I think it tends to be reactionary and counter-productive. But your claims are still not accurate. While I disagree with the policies, and I think they are bad, they are as bad as your claims.
"In recent years, public schools have been disciplining students for the trouble they get into away from campus. Many schools suspend or expel students who are involved in any kind of violence. And some districts have expanded their involvement to misdeeds surrounding the things kids say online or drug arrests."
That's pretty close to what you say. Of course you set out an impossible claim of the school stating that it has "nothing to do with school." The argument from the school system in cases like these is roughly that out-of-school behavior has an impact on the school, so all behavior can be punished by the school system.
That's pretty close to what you say. Of course you set out an impossible claim of the school stating that it has "nothing to do with school." The argument from the school system in cases like these is roughly that out-of-school behavior has an impact on the school, so all behavior can be punished by the school system.
Could be. I couldn't find a report of a kid reporting their own transgression to the school, to see if admitting active drug or alcohol use is tantamount to possession on school property. The administrator may still be required to report the crime to the police, however.
Again, I think you are mistaken. Drugs and alcohol are common problems among teens, and school officials and counselors often try to help students with those problems.
If a joint or flask falls out of the teen's backpack while in the counselor's office, they get arrested and expelled, if everyone's following the policy. But yes maybe they can get away with admitting they are using.
I sincerely doubt the students in your school system get expelled on a first offense. In the school system I attended, Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia, students get suspended upon the discovery of alcohol or drugs. Secondary offenses yield suspension and recommendation for expulsion. Illegal substances are handed over to the police, and the student may be charged. Source: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8WBPCN...
Weapons yielded suspension and automatic recommendation for expulsion. Administrators did not have to agree with the recommendation.
With that said, I don't like the "automatic recommendation for expulsion" parts of these policies. Even if administrators don't need to adhere to it, making it automatic is silly in the edge cases. I don't think it helps.
Weapons yielded suspension and automatic recommendation for expulsion. Administrators did not have to agree with the recommendation.
With that said, I don't like the "automatic recommendation for expulsion" parts of these policies. Even if administrators don't need to adhere to it, making it automatic is silly in the edge cases. I don't think it helps.
Not all schools have a zero tolerance policy for drugs and alcohol. I've read it's only 87% that have it. Search for: The tough disciplinary policy in Fairfax County public schools is not one of “zero tolerance,” officials there say.
If your school district expels students on the first offense, I'd like to see the policy.
So would I; I can't find it. Here's a fact sheet that reports the 87% but doesn't clarify on suspension vs. expulsion: http://www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheets/zt_fs.aspx
Social research 101: any non-anonymous questionnaire asking sensitive questions is totally useless. Social studies freshman would get F for that. Regardless of 5th amendment issues... how could anyone pay for that is beyond me - that school is wasting taxpayers money.
Does this kind of survey make any sense? Why should somebody answer honestly if the survey is not anonymous and you don't want to admit something? If you want to admit something, such an survey may at best catalyze it. Therefore I would expect that the result of such an survey just does not reflect reality.
You could cross check answers of a well designed survey to get an indication if the answers are honest or not but this does not nearly bring the result close to an anonymous but more honestly answered survey.
You could cross check answers of a well designed survey to get an indication if the answers are honest or not but this does not nearly bring the result close to an anonymous but more honestly answered survey.
Exactly. So many comments here assume that students wouldn't lie on this survey, which I think is an ridiculous assumption. From my experience, students are afraid to be overly honest on anonymous feedback surveys just because of the possibility teacher will recognize the handwriting. There's no way they would fill in truthfully a non-anonymous survey that could get them in a world of trouble.
If only we could remove these pesky kids from the school ... then we could have perfect teaching environment. Perfect lessons with no delay in empty classes. The school will hum like a well tuned V8.
But with their rights, troubles and teenage rebellion - how dare they disrupt the perfect teaching set up by bureaucracy by being themselves.
The fact that a survey is needed means that the system has already failed the students. And the idea of it being non anonymous means that the persons responsible have no idea at all how to deal with children. The school is there to guide the young ones during one very hard period in a person's life. It should be relationship based on trust not intimidation. But instead we get administrators that think of themselves as sheriffs that must be tough on crime.
But the mantra is protect the children (which we do for ourselves) and not do something good for the children.
But with their rights, troubles and teenage rebellion - how dare they disrupt the perfect teaching set up by bureaucracy by being themselves.
The fact that a survey is needed means that the system has already failed the students. And the idea of it being non anonymous means that the persons responsible have no idea at all how to deal with children. The school is there to guide the young ones during one very hard period in a person's life. It should be relationship based on trust not intimidation. But instead we get administrators that think of themselves as sheriffs that must be tough on crime.
But the mantra is protect the children (which we do for ourselves) and not do something good for the children.
The teacher should be in hot water for teaching the 5th amendment incorrectly. From the text of the amendment: "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness, in a way that might incriminate oneself. Relatedly, it excludes self-incriminating statements in certain circumstances from evidence in criminal cases. While the 5th amendment has been interpreted to apply to many different proceedings (not just criminal cases, as in the text of the amendment), there must be some sort of proceeding of a disciplinary nature.
If the survey results were not shared with the police or intended to be used in a criminal case, it's quite likely not the case that the 5th amendment was implicated at all.
The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness, in a way that might incriminate oneself. Relatedly, it excludes self-incriminating statements in certain circumstances from evidence in criminal cases. While the 5th amendment has been interpreted to apply to many different proceedings (not just criminal cases, as in the text of the amendment), there must be some sort of proceeding of a disciplinary nature.
If the survey results were not shared with the police or intended to be used in a criminal case, it's quite likely not the case that the 5th amendment was implicated at all.
That's silly. If the 5th amendment isn't needed here then it is simply overkill. You still have the right to not incriminate oneself. They only way you are correct is if they offered a waiver of immunity for any confessed crimes. This is how they can compel you to speak in front of grand juries. For certain crimes, school officials are required to report them to the police.
> You still have the right to not incriminate oneself.
No, you have the right not to testify information that would incriminate you in a proceeding. It's a narrower right than you're making it out to be.
No, you have the right not to testify information that would incriminate you in a proceeding. It's a narrower right than you're making it out to be.
You also have the right not to tell the principal of your high school about all the drugs you're doing.
So you are required to tell your school officials everything you've ever done wrong? The 5th amendment offers protection in places where you are otherwise legally required to testify, but it's obvious you don't need that additional protection in places where you aren't legally compelled to testify.
But it is a useful protection when you don't know if you are required to testify -- knowing that you have the 5th means you no longer need to know if you are being compelled or not.
But it is a useful protection when you don't know if you are required to testify -- knowing that you have the 5th means you no longer need to know if you are being compelled or not.
> So you are required to tell your school officials everything you've ever done wrong?
That's neither here nor there. I'm just saying I doubt it's the case that the 5th amendment prevents the school administration from making a student fill out that survey in the absence of any police involvement or review of the results.
That's neither here nor there. I'm just saying I doubt it's the case that the 5th amendment prevents the school administration from making a student fill out that survey in the absence of any police involvement or review of the results.
Have you been to a school recently? The "resource officer" is present in any secondary school that can afford him. This personification of the fear and incompetence of the modern American educator is the reason that fistfights, smoking, possession of prescribed medicine, etc. now regularly result in children holding criminal records. The American public high school is quite explicitly an arm of the law enforcement-industrial complex.
The likelihood that a survey in which an American public school student admitted drug use would not find its way into the grubby clutches of law enforcement is approximately nil.
The likelihood that a survey in which an American public school student admitted drug use would not find its way into the grubby clutches of law enforcement is approximately nil.
5th amendment jurisprudence requires the threat of criminal proceedings to be real, not baseless speculation ("The likelihood that a survey in which an American public school student admitted drug use would not find its way into the grubby clutches of law enforcement is approximately nil.")
Stipulating your claim (are you a jurist?), how does this shake out? Do you expect the likelihood of referral to law enforcement/prosecution to be zero? If it is non-zero, how do you expect the set of self-incriminating surveys to be partitioned? Is it possible that the school administrator will consider the wealth of a student's parents, and their propensity to seek redress through the representation of an attorney? This would make these surveys more troubling, not less, because now they're putting just the poor kids into "real, not baseless" criminal proceedings.
there must be some sort of proceeding of a disciplinary nature.
Well, if a student tells school officials he's been breaking the law, that could trigger a "proceeding of a disciplinary nature", couldn't it? I believe there is case law on this sort of thing.
Well, if a student tells school officials he's been breaking the law, that could trigger a "proceeding of a disciplinary nature", couldn't it? I believe there is case law on this sort of thing.
Use of the privilege is not based on the type of proceeding (ie, it applies to more than just criminal cases), but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure that would invite. Precedent has shown self-incrimination is enforceable in non-disciplinary public school "proceedings".
If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.
If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.
> If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.
This is actually a gray area. My understanding is that this isn't true until the school administrators call the police in. Before that, they are not agents of the police and they don't have to mirandize you. It's also cloudy because the administrators are seen as in loco parentis (in place of the parents). Here is the wikipedia article that details the changing case law around what public school administrators can do w/r/t the bill of rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis#Primary_and_se...
This is actually a gray area. My understanding is that this isn't true until the school administrators call the police in. Before that, they are not agents of the police and they don't have to mirandize you. It's also cloudy because the administrators are seen as in loco parentis (in place of the parents). Here is the wikipedia article that details the changing case law around what public school administrators can do w/r/t the bill of rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis#Primary_and_se...
There was a case a couple of years ago out of SCOTUS applying the 5th to questioning in the presence of a police officer on school grounds. I'm not aware of anything applying without the potential for disciplinary action.
In Miranda vs. Arizona, the Supreme Court said that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Thanks for that. I'm not a US citizen and was always curious why it was called the Miranda warning. I just read about the case on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
Miranda is not implicated because the students are not in "custody" as required for Miranda to apply.
And because admission of drug use could be used in a criminal case against the student, it applies, does it not?
You can invoke the 5th amendment in proceedings that are not currently, but could become, criminal proceedings, on the grounds that your answers may be used against you criminally. For instance, you can refuse to answer questions in a civil case deposition relating to potentially criminal activities. The only way to remove the right against self-incrimination is to grant immunity, which for drug-related offenses means, to be safe, both state and federal government would have to agree.
What's even more sad is that a brief word from a civics teacher got a significant number of students to think twice about taking the survey. Why didn't the students' parents talk to their own kids about the survey? It's a parent's responsibility, as much as it is a civics teacher's responsibility, to discuss civics issues like this with their children. Most of the parents would probably do well to audit Mr. Dryden's class.
You can invoke the 5th amendment in proceedings that are not currently, but could become, criminal proceedings, on the grounds that your answers may be used against you criminally. For instance, you can refuse to answer questions in a civil case deposition relating to potentially criminal activities. The only way to remove the right against self-incrimination is to grant immunity, which for drug-related offenses means, to be safe, both state and federal government would have to agree.
What's even more sad is that a brief word from a civics teacher got a significant number of students to think twice about taking the survey. Why didn't the students' parents talk to their own kids about the survey? It's a parent's responsibility, as much as it is a civics teacher's responsibility, to discuss civics issues like this with their children. Most of the parents would probably do well to audit Mr. Dryden's class.
> Why didn't the students' parents talk to their own kids about the survey?
Maybe the parents weren't told that the survey was asking about potentially illegal behavior and wasn't anonymous.
Maybe the survey's true nature was buried in ambiguous terms or lengthy legalese.
Maybe the survey was opt-out instead of opt-in, and most people took the path of least resistance and didn't bother to do anything with it (if their kids even remembered to give them information that was sent home).
Maybe the parents weren't told that the survey was asking about potentially illegal behavior and wasn't anonymous.
Maybe the survey's true nature was buried in ambiguous terms or lengthy legalese.
Maybe the survey was opt-out instead of opt-in, and most people took the path of least resistance and didn't bother to do anything with it (if their kids even remembered to give them information that was sent home).
Based on your literal interpretation, the 5th amendment would only apply to the male gender, no?
No: he is trying to explain that the 5th ammendment was necessary because normal people understand that nobody has the right to expect an answer from you when asking you about your (possibly criminal) behaviour. However, normal people, when the ammendment was written, did not take this for granted when standing as witnesses (because it had not been taken for granted before, as history shows).
So the amendment is necessary not because of the general case (in any circumstances, it is obvious that nobody has the right to expect a self-incriminating answer to a question) but because of the specific case of a witness.
However, nowadays, people seem to need to be recalled that they are not expected to speak against themselves anywhere. Except if they willingly want to do so.
"Did you insult your classmate?" is usually not a legal proceeding. However, answering it one way or the other will help you or not. You do not need to answer that question. But quoting the Fifth for not doing so is ridiculuous: it is way before the Fifth amendment.
So the amendment is necessary not because of the general case (in any circumstances, it is obvious that nobody has the right to expect a self-incriminating answer to a question) but because of the specific case of a witness.
However, nowadays, people seem to need to be recalled that they are not expected to speak against themselves anywhere. Except if they willingly want to do so.
"Did you insult your classmate?" is usually not a legal proceeding. However, answering it one way or the other will help you or not. You do not need to answer that question. But quoting the Fifth for not doing so is ridiculuous: it is way before the Fifth amendment.
The right not to incriminate yourself is a basic civil right. The Fifth Amendment is a codification of the right, which was given to you, as our Founding Fathers saw it, by the laws of nature. The Amendment may refer only to some circumstances, but the right was prior to it.
So, the teacher was correct to treat the students about their basic, God-given rights.
So, the teacher was correct to treat the students about their basic, God-given rights.
Whose God?
I don't always agree with rayiner, but when I do, it's because someone else invoked sky spirits.
Don't be pedantic. It is a figure of speech that the founding fathers used.
>The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness, in a way that might incriminate oneself.
I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the fifth amendment applies to any and all self incriminating statements that can be used to support a criminal charge against you. This is the entire reason police advise you of these exact same rights at the moment of arrest.
By your explanation, anything you say to a police officer or other figure of authority (in this case the school) that leads to criminal prosecution is fair game. That simply isn't the case.
Entire context:
nor shall (a person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Witness is in reference to the general action; not just sitting on a stand.
I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the fifth amendment applies to any and all self incriminating statements that can be used to support a criminal charge against you. This is the entire reason police advise you of these exact same rights at the moment of arrest.
By your explanation, anything you say to a police officer or other figure of authority (in this case the school) that leads to criminal prosecution is fair game. That simply isn't the case.
Entire context:
nor shall (a person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Witness is in reference to the general action; not just sitting on a stand.
> I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the fifth amendment applies to any and all self incriminating statements that can be used to support a criminal charge against you.
The core of the rule is narrower than that: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment ("The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony.")
It has been broadened beyond that, ("In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom"), but note that Miranda itself is inapplicable because the "custody" element is missing.
I can't find any case law on the subject, but there is an old law review article that discusses some of the issues: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=20....
Even within the framework of the article, which argues in favor of students having 5th amendment rights in general, it's hard to see how a survey aimed at gathering information for psychological evaluation would implicate the 5th amendment. The most likely answer seems to be that it's permissible so long as the student retains the right to invoke the 5th in any criminal action against him.
The core of the rule is narrower than that: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment ("The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony.")
It has been broadened beyond that, ("In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom"), but note that Miranda itself is inapplicable because the "custody" element is missing.
I can't find any case law on the subject, but there is an old law review article that discusses some of the issues: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=20....
Even within the framework of the article, which argues in favor of students having 5th amendment rights in general, it's hard to see how a survey aimed at gathering information for psychological evaluation would implicate the 5th amendment. The most likely answer seems to be that it's permissible so long as the student retains the right to invoke the 5th in any criminal action against him.
From your link:
The term "coercion" is an elastic word that may mean different things in different settings. In the public school context, for example, an administrator may suspect a student of wrongdoing" and threaten to impose a penalty unless the student makes a statement. The administrator may threaten to suspend or expel the student, to call the police, or to impose a less "severe" penalty such as keeping the student after school. At some point, these threats become coercion, thereby implicating the fifth amendment
Considering what is happening to the teacher, I'm sure any reasonably skilled lawyer would be able to make the case that such an atmosphere of coercion does in fact exist in this particular district.
The term "coercion" is an elastic word that may mean different things in different settings. In the public school context, for example, an administrator may suspect a student of wrongdoing" and threaten to impose a penalty unless the student makes a statement. The administrator may threaten to suspend or expel the student, to call the police, or to impose a less "severe" penalty such as keeping the student after school. At some point, these threats become coercion, thereby implicating the fifth amendment
Considering what is happening to the teacher, I'm sure any reasonably skilled lawyer would be able to make the case that such an atmosphere of coercion does in fact exist in this particular district.
The survey is compelling students, under color of legal authority, to confess to crimes. This confession can later be construed as "discoverable evidence" leading to actionable charges.
The objection here is to "fishing expeditions" wherein evidence is gathered en masse under an innocent pretext, and later (whether planned or not) an authority could gain access to that information and use it against the coerced students. Example: survey occurs, police find evidence of drug crimes with tenuous connection to a particular student, survey results are demanded via warrant by police, confession by student in question is revealed and a whole lotta other students' confessions are found and subsequently acted on.
That the evidence was elicited prior to development of a criminal case does not excuse compelling students to confess, whoever to, to otherwise unidentified crimes. If the evidence exists at the onset of criminal investigation, it cannot be recalled by the suspect under 5th Amendment grounds. That the confession is elicited by the state, to wit the public school, compounds the issue: the government is not allowed to demand evidence of criminal culpability without warranted cause, which is exactly what the school in question was doing.
The objection here is to "fishing expeditions" wherein evidence is gathered en masse under an innocent pretext, and later (whether planned or not) an authority could gain access to that information and use it against the coerced students. Example: survey occurs, police find evidence of drug crimes with tenuous connection to a particular student, survey results are demanded via warrant by police, confession by student in question is revealed and a whole lotta other students' confessions are found and subsequently acted on.
That the evidence was elicited prior to development of a criminal case does not excuse compelling students to confess, whoever to, to otherwise unidentified crimes. If the evidence exists at the onset of criminal investigation, it cannot be recalled by the suspect under 5th Amendment grounds. That the confession is elicited by the state, to wit the public school, compounds the issue: the government is not allowed to demand evidence of criminal culpability without warranted cause, which is exactly what the school in question was doing.
Your statement of the rule is both too broad ("the government is not allowed to demand evidence of criminal culpability") and yet insufficiently broad to capture the activity the school engaged in (a survey by the school administration designed to gather information about potential psychological issues).
You missed the clause "without warranted cause" (make that "warrantable") in that quotation.
Broad-based gathering of information about potential psychological issues, without anonymity and with viable consequences of expulsion or prosecution, is nothing more than a "fishing expedition"/"witch hunt" - exactly the kind of thing the 4th and 5th Amendments are intended to protect against.
Broad-based gathering of information about potential psychological issues, without anonymity and with viable consequences of expulsion or prosecution, is nothing more than a "fishing expedition"/"witch hunt" - exactly the kind of thing the 4th and 5th Amendments are intended to protect against.
Rayiner, you may be a lawyer, but your understanding of the 5th Amendment is on very shaky grounds. Courts have significantly expanded the 5th Amendment rights beyond the mere text of the Amendment.
It is no longer necessary for criminal proceedings to be in progress; it is now sufficient that the testimony could give rise to criminal proceedings. See, for example, Lois Lerner, the IRS official who took the 5th Amendment at a Congressional (i.e., non-criminal) proceeding because the testimony given could have led to criminal proceedings.
It is no longer necessary for criminal proceedings to be in progress; it is now sufficient that the testimony could give rise to criminal proceedings. See, for example, Lois Lerner, the IRS official who took the 5th Amendment at a Congressional (i.e., non-criminal) proceeding because the testimony given could have led to criminal proceedings.
Well, but the fact is you are never compelled to incriminate yourself. So I think your distinction is without a difference here. The teacher informed the children, who are not lawyers by the way, they do not have to incriminate themselves. I think your distinction is true in a pedantic sense but I think this was a correct interpretation of what you are not compelled to do.
Off-topic, but how does it work that when I load that site I get an advertisement for The Lorax (http://i.imgur.com/y6eke4T.jpg), a character with whom John Dryden happens to share several key features? I understand showing ads by keyword (the alcohol ad as alcohol is mentioned in the article several times...) but facial similarity based advertising?! I'm speechless.
Maybe a coincidence? There's also mention of 'kids', 'school', 'students', etc. However, I'd guess the technology is there to do facial recognition... not sure how that's effective for any advertiser's end goals though... except maybe certain cases of demographics, like if you are on a body building website then you show ads that have people with big necks.
If it's coincidence, it's an incredible one. I reloaded the site two more times, and got The Lorax repeatedly. If it's not coincidence, am I supposed to look at Mr. Dryden and think "I want to see The Lorax... oh how convenient! There it is! click"?
Off topic off topic: i thought he's more like the Big Lebowski dude, especially with the "I'm trying to refocus people's attention, calm down" ending. If Netflix recommended that, I'd be really impressed.
"Superintendent Jack Barshinger said teacher support for doing a survey grew after several suicides by students in recent years. Students and staff typically said they had no idea those teens were in distress.
'We can't help them if we aren't aware of their needs,' Barshinger said."
Honest question: Could a survey to high school students truly help suicidal teens?
'We can't help them if we aren't aware of their needs,' Barshinger said."
Honest question: Could a survey to high school students truly help suicidal teens?
I can't imagine suicidal teens would be any more likely to admit to suicidal thoughts on a survey with their name on it than they would a counselor/parent/teacher/etc.
Every such survey that has been given to my kids was always preceeded by a notice sent home, including opt-out instructions if the parent did not wish the student to participate.
When I was in school, I know a fair number of kids just filled in bubbles at random on these things anyway.
When I was in school, I know a fair number of kids just filled in bubbles at random on these things anyway.
There is no way this survey could have worked anyway. How do they expect that kids - who know their school and parents are against them drinking or using drugs - answer questions truthfully on a non-anonymous survey? The only people I can imagine who would not lie on this survey are kids who care more about the truth than possible consequences to them and kids with an IQ of a potato. And I think the former ones are not the trouble kids the school is looking for.
Since when is advising people of their rights a punishable offense? Talk about double standards America.
"Here's your rights...don't even think about using them or we will punish you!"
And the most revolting of all the school board actually think this is ok? I wouldn't want these people training my dog let alone teaching my children.
see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification). Knowledge of its existence makes you unsuitable for jury service (in some jurisdictions).
I wonder if, legally, kids have identical Constitutional rights. They certainly don't have the 4th (not in the sense that an adult has it), for example, and I wonder if Juvenile courts have to give the 6th.
The first amendment of the US constitution is curtailed in schools in specific instances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment_to_the_united_s...
The origins of this survey need to be audited and investigated. Some school districts are notoriously greedy and only care about their bottom-line: test scores. The higher scores, the more money (for the district and for their salaries). I'm sure they correlated drug habits with low test scores, and sought to extradite delinquents from their schools. Perhaps even a precursor to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline
> The survey is part of measuring how students meet the social-emotional learning standards set by the state.
What are "social-emotional learning standards"??
What are "social-emotional learning standards"??
Edu-babble word for "age-specific maturity" and similar concepts.
i.e. does the child behave with typical maturity for a child of his age?
i.e. does the child behave with typical maturity for a child of his age?
He had two obligations, his moral obligations to his students and his obligation as a school system employee, which were in conflict. He choose his moral obligation to his students, but in doing so violated his obligation as a school system employee. The school system did not ask him to perform anything illegal or definitively immoral. It is therefore correct for the school system to punish him for this violation.
If the school system asked him to do something, anything that is in conflict with his moral obligations to students - as you claim - then it DID ask him to perform something immoral.
I should have been clearer. From his point of view he had a moral obligation to his students. I actually don't think he did.
The school system should be following a combination of legal code and the generally accepted morals of the community they represent. Notification was provided to parents. Parents could opt out and there was no general movement by parents to prevent the survey. The school therefore didn't ask him to do anything which is "definitively immoral".
People including myself have to make judgements like this at different times during their career. I have worked for companies which have asked me to perform actions which I personally have found against my moral code but which aren't illegal and may not be considered immoral by society as a whole. Sometimes I have done them and other times I have not. It has depended on how large of a violation of my own moral code I though it was. Anytime I have refused I have fully expected and received negative reactions from my employer. To actively interfere with the goals or requests of your employer and not expect a negative reaction is just idiotic.
The school system should be following a combination of legal code and the generally accepted morals of the community they represent. Notification was provided to parents. Parents could opt out and there was no general movement by parents to prevent the survey. The school therefore didn't ask him to do anything which is "definitively immoral".
People including myself have to make judgements like this at different times during their career. I have worked for companies which have asked me to perform actions which I personally have found against my moral code but which aren't illegal and may not be considered immoral by society as a whole. Sometimes I have done them and other times I have not. It has depended on how large of a violation of my own moral code I though it was. Anytime I have refused I have fully expected and received negative reactions from my employer. To actively interfere with the goals or requests of your employer and not expect a negative reaction is just idiotic.
What obligations as a school system employee did he not fulfill?
According to the article there was a specific script to be followed when distributing the survey. By informing the students of their 5th amendment rights he deviated from this script. Beyond this it was obviously the intent of the school system for students to complete the survey fully and honestly. He knowingly took actions which he knew might lead students to not doing so.
The article didn't say that he did not read the script - just that he also offered information about the 5th amendment. That's not an instance of failing to fulfill his obligations. Also, even if he acted in a way to thwart the "intent" of the school system administration, which has not been demonstrated, it is not at all clear that this constitutes a failure to fulfill his obligations as an employee. It might be that his obligations should be interpreted as including the thwarting of the intent of the administration in some instances. Just as a soldier in the American army is obligated to disobey an illegal order.
While I'm sure the survey was (probably) administered with the best of intentions, it was poorly anonymized and thus both risky and completely invalid.
All I could think of was Tron Carter: "I pleads the fizivth": http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/3vk26x/chappelle-s-...
This is what happens to good people.
I'm rather surprised that not one student published a picture of the survey from a cell phone.
I should like to see the administrator who initiated disciplinary proceedings against this teacher tried and convicted for treason.
In what way could this possibly qualify as "treason"?
[copied from above, sorry for posting in the wrong place]
Abuse of treason convictions had occurred so much in England that the framers specifically defined it in the constitution (apparently the only crime to get such a treatment).
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I don't necessarily think they were right on everything, but they were right on this. You really don't want to live in a state where Treason is an accusation thrown around lightly.
Abuse of treason convictions had occurred so much in England that the framers specifically defined it in the constitution (apparently the only crime to get such a treatment).
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I don't necessarily think they were right on everything, but they were right on this. You really don't want to live in a state where Treason is an accusation thrown around lightly.
No.
[deleted]
Oh America.
The dude abides
Assuming he's a public school teacher, he's very unlikely to be fired over this, or anything.
More like Reddit to be downvoted for the truth. Public School teachers in the USA generally have very good job protection, it's a fact. You can say it's fine, there's good reason for it (for instance perhaps in this case), but why downvote a fact?
To me, that sounds like an unusually thoughtful social studies teacher. He is relating the general concepts that he is hired to teach his students to a real-world situation facing the students, and that sounds like good teaching to me. He ought to get a promotion or a raise, based only on this news about his public behavior in the classroom.
It is, of course, sometimes appropriate for schools to distribute surveys to minor students in their care on which there may be questions about student behavior that may be embarrassing or illegal. But the teacher, based on the report here, is just asking his students to think about their lessons and what those lessons mean, not trying to undermine the survey process.
"But Dryden doesn't want this seen as him vs. the administrators. He said he knows they were acting in what they thought was the best interests of the students.
"'These are good, professional, smart people on the other side who want to do what is right by kids,' he said.
"He would rather focus the discussion on the survey.
"'I have asked people (the supporters) to talk about the survey. I think I am a sideshow,' he said. 'This (the survey) was rushed and it wasn't vetted.'
"'I'm not a martyr,' he said. 'I'm trying to refocus people's attentions. Calm down.'"