Why does this sound like such a good idea. Actually having minors be and learn
responsibility. That their actions/words have meaning and consequences. And
why do I suspect that there will be opposition to it.
These putative contracts are not legally enforceble because most High School
students are minors and as such cannot sign legally binding contracts. Where is
the ACLU when schools use their power and intimidation to bully Students into
signing these contracts. Is this what Public Education has de-evolved to turning
Young People into Sheeple? Taking this nonsense further, isn't it good
enough anymore to have Young Student Athletes give their word of honor that they
will show good sportsmanship both on and off the playing field?On my
honor, I'm so glad to be out of High School.
@ "only students at Bear Creek...." Are they one of bullies?Great idea but I think they need to implement on second offense by having them
to help those non athletes with their home work or tutor or something for the
On the surface, this sounds like a wonderful idea. Young people these days are
gradually losing the meaning of words like "respect" "kindness"
and "civility." But on the other hand, I do see a problem
with what the school district is doing, and that is, where does one draw the
line between cyber-bullying and simply stating an opinion? Let's say for example, an LDS student watches General Conference and a
day or so later tweets, "I just loved Boyd K. Packer's Conference
talk." How do we know a school district person isn't going to call the
student in and say, "Your tweet offended some of our gay students so you
better remove it and apologize, or else."And what is a student
tweets, "I hope (Republican candidate for office) wins in November."
Who's to say the school district might accuse this student of racism,
sexism or homophobia?
@ ClarkHippo: If such things as your examples should happen, the affected
students could take the same action that all other students who are falsely
accused of things take - they can ask for review from higher up the chain and
should that fail they can sue.Believe it or not, there are clearly
defined definitions for bullying - and offending someone is not part of the
definition.In order to be bullying or an "ism", there would
have to be a direct attack or threat against an individual or group.Bullying is more than name-calling or offending someone - it is real, it is
harmful, and it is clearly defined.I have reservations about the
schools requiring these contracts because I have concerns over schools or
businesses controlling aspects of our lives not directly related to our
association with that school or business. I understand that the proscribed
behavior can impact school events and the targeted party is usually known from
school, so I understand how the school is justifying it - but I still have
reservations.The benefit of the contract is that it clearly explains
unacceptable behavior so the youth would not be blind-sided by discipline for