That's common in most schools and court challenges have been unsuccessful. It's in reaction to a number of national-profile deaths after proms in the last decades.
If kids are a problem at an event you remove those kids and deal with them case by case, you don't line kids up to participate in a rote, blanket suspicion search. If this had happened when I was a student at that same high school in the 90s, student protests would have been an immediate result. It fucking terrifies me that the current generation seems to be mostly just fine with this post-9/11 fear bullshit. It's appalling and depressing.
This is just another, even more insidious permutation of zero-tolerance in the hopes of zero-liability and it's fucking disgusting.
This is just another, even more insidious permutation of zero-tolerance in the hopes of zero-liability and it's fucking disgusting.
Lately, I've been really thinking about zero tolerance, and that's it. The schools don't want to look at issues on a case-by-case basis, they just want a blanket excuse to punish anyone who MIGHT be involved with something troublesome. It's just for expediting and to keep the schools from being liable. That's why bullying is still rampant despite attempts to enforce zero-tolerance, because it harms the victim as much as the bully.
Dealing with shit on a case by case basis means bad things happen. Preventative measures have their place sometimes, not everywhere, but I think this is a case where it's a quick and painless procedure.
I want you to understand what the Bill of Rights means, and that human beings have dignity, and that constantly upping the bar of baseline suspicion of ordinary and innocent citizens is an incredibly bad thing, among other things.
Dealing with shit on a case by case basis means bad things happen. Preventative measures have their place sometimes, not everywhere, but I think this is a case where it's a quick and painless procedure.
I think preventative measures have their place, but lately I've been really having doubts to when they are being applied with positive results. I would want to ask for muppet's situation if they breathalyzed kids before they entered prom or if something bad happened AND THEN they started breathalyzing kids.
I was secondarily involved in a serious car accident between two other cars. I'm fine other than a sprained wrist and girlfriend is uninjured. But now the insurance fun begins.
I was secondarily involved in a serious car accident between two other cars. I'm fine other than a sprained wrist and girlfriend is uninjured. But now the insurance fun begins.
Glad you're OK. Make sure it's truly just a sprain.
Dealing with shit on a case by case basis means bad things happen. Preventative measures have their place sometimes, not everywhere, but I think this is a case where it's a quick and painless procedure.
I think preventative measures have their place, but lately I've been really having doubts to when they are being applied with positive results. I would want to ask for muppet's situation if they breathalyzed kids before they entered prom or if something bad happened AND THEN they started breathalyzing kids.
Being reactionary doesn't make it better or worse, in my opinion. This is an over the top measure. If you're going to institute one, you'd better institute them all or somebody is going to argue that you're liable because you did X but not Y, after all in you're now in the business of reality proofing the school district.
It's not entirely intuitive to me what right is being violated here. It's a public event on what I assume was public property? If you had to walk through a metal detector on the way, would that also be a concern? This reminds me of entering a courthouse or other government building.
It's just...Law enforcement. It's illegal to be underage and drunk. It's an event where there are kids driving and probably having sex. If you let drunken kids in, you threaten everyone else. If kids want to get drunk, they should do it without threatening the roads and other kids. Too many drunk kids dying/getting raped and having other bad things happen to them at that age. Just kick all the kids who would perpetrate this shit out, or better yet, get them caught so they can't do it.
Say that I'm being a jackass or getting rid of people's rights, oh well.
A courthouse is a whole different animal than a high school.
Why not have a pat down on your way into the grocery store? The liquor store? The argument that you can refrain from any venue where your rights are being violated and therefore not have them violated is weak sauce.
It's just...Law enforcement. It's illegal to be underage and drunk. It's an event where there are kids driving and probably having sex. If you let drunken kids in, you threaten everyone else. If kids want to get drunk, they should do it without threatening the roads and other kids. Too many drunk kids dying/getting raped and having other bad things happen to them at that age. Just kick all the kids who would perpetrate this shit out, or better yet, get them caught so they can't do it.
Say that I'm being a jackass or getting rid of people's rights, oh well.
In the practice of law enforcement, probable cause is generally required before searching somebody's person. A breathalyzer test is a search.
Your logic is a very short walk from demographic profiling and other oversteps in the name of prevention.
This is pretty much the entire crux of the recent NSA revelations as well. I think you've lost the plot, dude.
No, it's not slippery slope. There's very little difference between stopping and searching people based on demographics and stopping and searching EVERYONE from a supposition-of-guilt standpoint, you just remove one or two angles from the scenario that will upset certain groups (and that's a shame, but reality.)
Historically, high school students get drunk at dances. Historically, high school students make extremely poor decisions when they are drunk, especially at dances. Historically, the school/district is liable when poor decisions are made on their premises.
It's not *just* based on demographics, it's based on historical data showing that, very often, high school students will pregame a school event and end up doing stupid shit on school property. Take a step back and see this from the school's perspective, please.
If you think that, fine. I still think there's a difference between stopping people based on demographic for a crime, versus having a mandatory test for EVERYONE going into an event. There is no harm in being breathalyzed. The only people who are harmed are people who have broken the law. It is preventative in stopping danger.
Your related examples all cause far more harm than a simple breathalyzer test.
I think the question is if breathalyzing students before a dance is the same as having students walk through metal detectors on their way to school. If adding more security will actually make things safer or just cause more problems in the future.
If you want to talk about arguments that are on the edge of slippery slope, let's talk about how making alcohol such a taboo in the first place contributes to the appeal for teenagers. Let's talk about the potential arms race you're starting when students switch to substances you're not testing for in order to preserve their "good time" at the dance.
Go ahead and breathalyze, with probable cause. If you're short on chaperones, reach out to the community under "threat" of cancelling the dance for lack of staff. Foster an environment in which students who are worried about the state or conduct of their peers feel comfortable saying so to administrators or teachers.
Having students file through a search station is totally over the top and a terrible lesson.
I can see it from the school perspective. Say some of the kids get trashed at the dance, then decide to drive home. I doing so they get into a crash and die. Odds are the school will cop some flack, despite it not really being their fault, for not stopping the kids. Brethaiysing them cuts down that stuff. That or wait for people to be a bit older before they can get behind the wheel.
Also I know it was last page but going by a case by case method is difficult to pass. Explain to one perant why their child is treated differently to another.
I totally understand what the school is trying to accomplish. I just don't think it's an acceptable solution.
Drunk kids were pulled out of dances all the time when I went to school. Nobody got sued and the only vehicle related death I can remember was when a car threw a stud from a snow tire doing a burnout in the parking lot and it lodged in some dude's brain.
Explain to one parent why their child is treated differently to another.
Probable cause. QED.
Explain to parents why every single kid is presumed guilty. "Safety" and "Think of the Children" have been roundly mocked for years for good reason. Your arguments in favor of this crap apply about equally well to NSA surveillance, the TSA, and the PATRIOT Act. Are you in favor of all of those oversteps in the name of prevention and safety, too?
I totally understand what the school is trying to accomplish. I just don't think it's an acceptable solution.
Drunk kids were pulled out of dances all the time when I went to school. Nobody got sued and the only vehicle related death I can remember was when a car threw a stud from a snow tire doing a burnout in the parking lot and it lodged in some dude's brain.
Both parents and laws have gotten have become worse and/or more pants on head.
Explain to one parent why their child is treated differently to another.
Cheers I was certain that there was something but couldn't put my finger on it.
Comments
This is just another, even more insidious permutation of zero-tolerance in the hopes of zero-liability and it's fucking disgusting.
What's the benefit of not having that. Saves time? Makes us feel good that we didn't get breathalyzed? Not really tangible benefits.
Say that I'm being a jackass or getting rid of people's rights, oh well.
Why not have a pat down on your way into the grocery store? The liquor store? The argument that you can refrain from any venue where your rights are being violated and therefore not have them violated is weak sauce.
Your logic is a very short walk from demographic profiling and other oversteps in the name of prevention.
This is pretty much the entire crux of the recent NSA revelations as well. I think you've lost the plot, dude.
It's not *just* based on demographics, it's based on historical data showing that, very often, high school students will pregame a school event and end up doing stupid shit on school property. Take a step back and see this from the school's perspective, please.
There is no harm in being breathalyzed. The only people who are harmed are people who have broken the law. It is preventative in stopping danger.
Your related examples all cause far more harm than a simple breathalyzer test.
Having students file through a search station is totally over the top and a terrible lesson.
Also I know it was last page but going by a case by case method is difficult to pass. Explain to one perant why their child is treated differently to another.
Drunk kids were pulled out of dances all the time when I went to school. Nobody got sued and the only vehicle related death I can remember was when a car threw a stud from a snow tire doing a burnout in the parking lot and it lodged in some dude's brain.
Explain to parents why every single kid is presumed guilty. "Safety" and "Think of the Children" have been roundly mocked for years for good reason. Your arguments in favor of this crap apply about equally well to NSA surveillance, the TSA, and the PATRIOT Act. Are you in favor of all of those oversteps in the name of prevention and safety, too?
Cheers I was certain that there was something but couldn't put my finger on it.