John Dryden, is a social studies teacher at Batavia High School in Illinois. It may have been his social science background or his concern for basic rights of students, but Dryden felt that he should mention that students have constitutional rights not to incriminate themselves in a school-mandated survey. The survey, after all, was asking the student if they had used drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. In response, the school disciplined Dryden and docked his pay.
Dryden told his student about the Fifth Amendment rights but did not discourage them from filing out the survey. Batavia School Superintendent Jack Barshinger (right) would have none of it. While he said students have rights, “[t]he Fifth Amendment – you don’t typically hear about in a school setting. That’s because the law has already been set that don’t allow students to self incriminate.” I was not aware that “the law has already been set that don’t allow students to self incriminate.” Recently, in J.D.B. v. North Carolina, No. 09-11121 (2011), the Supreme Court held that age is relevant when determining police custody for Miranda purposes. Previously, in Yarborough v. Alvarado the Court wrote that a child’s age “generates commonsense conclusions about behavior and perception.” It is certainly true that the Supreme Court has reduced protections (often erroneously in my view) in the school settings, but Barshinger appears to have a more sweeping notion of school power. Regardless, in this case, a teacher was just informing students of their rights so that they could make such decisions.
I expect that the survey would not be used for reporting students to police. However, schools are increasingly cooperating with police to use their setting to interrogate students without informing their parents.
I can understand the point that the students could opt out but Dryden was giving them information relevant to that decision. For a social science teacher, it was also a teachable moment on civil liberties. At a meeting, nearly 100 students, former students and colleagues turned out to support Dryden.
What do you think?
Source: Salon
Malisha:
as someone said on another thread “progressives own education.”
Mr. Dryden made a big mistake: He assumed that all those taxpayer-friendly and student-and-family-fooling statements about “getting a good education so that you can become the best you can be in our free society” were TRUE. He thought the kids were in school for EDUCATION. He didn’t realize that our public schools are 18-year submissiveness-training exercises and that if there is any education outside reading [as in the “ability to read printed words”], writing [as in “ability to produce written speech in accordance with the requirements of authorities and employers”] and arithmetic [of lesser importance now so long as the batteries last] is suspect at best.
What is generally taught in “social studies” or “history” is mythology anyway. Kids are not even learning HOW we come to get the information they are being taught as if it is real.
Gene H:
Great to “hear” your voice.
Jay,
“though you’re far more optimistic than I about the prospects for fixing them.”
Oh no I’m not.
“But maybe I’m too cynical.”
Not really. Just because one knows the fix to a problem doesn’t mean bad actors won’t do their best to prevent said fix.
“That you shouldn’t speak in a disrespectful tone to anyone, including an officer, doesn’t preclude your right to do so; and yet, as we know too well, if you exercise your right in just such a manner you’re bound to discover your right to free speech doesn’t actually exist.”
Actually that’s more a reflection of applied psychology. You have the right to be as disrespectful as you like and I have personally been disrespectful to cops and walked away from it, but it’s all in how you do it. The psychology of confrontation is to get what you want with the minimal cost to the transaction. If this means doing a bit of ego stroking? That’s fine. The saying is a spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down. It works with telling someone to eat a shit sandwich too.
“But the best way to avoid this kind of trouble?
Is not to be there when it starts.
A hollow truism to the Japanese-Americans Carlin alluded to, don’t you think?”
No. I think that’s a valid principle of Aikido. Mindfulness is the first line of defense in any threatening situation. If one sees the train, the best way to not be hit is to step out of the way.
“I’m of the opinion that the systemic problems we face are inevitable and irremediable consequences of a design flaw, even assuming best intentions and efforts at fixing it along the way.”
The problem isn’t a design flaw although had I been primary drafter of the Constitution rather than Madison, there are some things I’d have done slightly different. The Constitution is a remarkable model of a novel form of government and as an aspirational and practical proposition it is quite solid. What is there works pretty well when applied although I’ll stipulate that some things have changed over time so that the Constitution does not cover all the contingencies of the modern world. Any flaws are less design flaws than design omissions for circumstances the Founders could not have possibly foreseen. The true problem is two fold: corruption (deliberate usurpation of the letter of the law to the detriment of the spirit of the law for private benefit) and complexity/scale. Laws get subverted by the lobbying for cash/graft process is the biggest part of the problem, but complexity – the ever growing size of society itself – breeds error in itself as a mathematical proposition. No form of government is ever going to be error free over a certain scale. Our current problem is pure corruption.
And anarchy? Is the fever dream of children. It’s something you’d think you’d want right up to the point at which you had it. Governments and the rule of law in contrast are necessary for societies of any scale to survive. Without them, the internal tidal forces would rip it apart.
Gene,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond so thoroughly. I’m left with the impression that we agree more than we disagree on the underlying problems; though you’re far more optimistic than I about the prospects for fixing them.
On your idea of mandatory minimum sentencing for agents of the state: While a nifty and emotionally appealing idea, it would take more than political sleight of hand to enact. Under no circumstances do I see the possibility of pols loading up a legal gun whose bullets, by design, can only end up in their own skulls. But maybe I’m too cynical.
As to your suggestions on ways to handle confrontations with the police: While it is all sensible advice, I think it speaks to the tenuous (nonexistent?) nature of rights. That you shouldn’t speak in a disrespectful tone to anyone, including an officer, doesn’t preclude your right to do so; and yet, as we know too well, if you exercise your right in just such a manner you’re bound to discover your right to free speech doesn’t actually exist. The police officer’s baton, on the other hand, does actually exist, and in today’s environment there’s always an ex post facto justification for its use.
To what we do owe this environment? It’s a big question and a worthy discussion in pursuit of its answer wouldn’t fit this comment section. But I agree that the militarization of the police is a not-insignificant contributing factor, as you noted.
A hollow truism to the Japanese-Americans Carlin alluded to, don’t you think? Or Muslim-Americans today, if you like. Rights are not needed if you’re “not there when it starts,” that much is self-evident. Often one isn’t given the choice of whether to be there or not, though, and rights are useless and unnecessary if not for the moments of controversy and confrontation in which we might actually invoke them, even if in a manner which civil society might disapprove of (i.e. yelling at a cop).
Agreed. Personally, I am partial to Bastiat’s elucidation of the subject in “The Law.” With that in mind, and in conjunction with my sympathy for the Spoonerite criticisms of the Constitution (among others), I’m of the opinion that the systemic problems we face are inevitable and irremediable consequences of a design flaw, even assuming best intentions and efforts at fixing it along the way. A bit fatalistic, I know.
So although skepticism toward anarchy is well-founded, well-documented, and well-received, so too is all of the same toward government. And today’s government, it seems to me, is beginning to make anarchy look like a very appealing alternative by comparison.
Jay,
“Sadly, as we can all attest at this point, it has no bearing on reality. George’s observations are accurate.”
I didn’t say they weren’t accurate. I said his terminology is wrong. This in itself is highly unusual as Carlin was without question a precision language user. He was, however, not a lawyer and he is using terms of Art. The essence of that bit is to highlight the authoritarian nature of government and that said authoritarianism is expanding. No one paying attention would argue otherwise. However, the notion that rights are mere privileges is simply wrong as a matter of the natural law theory underlying our Constitution. I’m sure Carlin knew the difference between a right and a privilege, but he was also a comic engaging in social criticism. As such, he employed hyperbole to make a point but that point was actually about authoritarianism and the erosion of democracy (in the sense of a form of government where power vests ultimately in the people). In that regard, there are far more stories on this blog that illustrate that than just the ones about cops behaving badly. Sadly, the hyperbole is becoming less hyperbolic – especially since Obama’s Kill List ultra vires policy – but it remains hyperbole nonetheless.
What you point to is both a cultural problem and a legal problem in how our society has built our law enforcement agencies. The cultural problem is rooted in the “us vs. them” mentality which was exacerbated if not created by the militarization of the police which started in the mid-60’s. Daryl Gates should have a special seat in Hell for his role in that but the ball he got rolling in Los Angeles has been put into overdrive by the manifestly unconstitutional Patriot Act. One could write entire treatises on that Gordian knot. The second problem is a legal problem and it isn’t just with with LEOs but with all of government. That problem can be summed up with one word (and you point to this): accountability. Namely, the lack thereof. I think there is a simple solution to this problem although enacting it would require quite a bit of political slight of hand. Let me preface this by saying this isn’t a new idea. I’ve said similar things in various contexts here before. In addition, I should also stipulate I am not a fan of mandatory minimum sentencing . . . with one exception.
If you work for government, be it in LE or an elected official, if you’re convicted of any crime involving abuse of your office or while acting under color of authority, you should face the maximum sentence possible without exception and be banned from working for government or holding office for life. The reason is simple. In those positions, you operate with powers granted in public trust by the people. When you abuse that trust, you should face serious consequences and if you are not willing to take that restraint upon your actions, McDonald’s is hiring.
That recourse is weak when LEOs act criminally is a systemic problem that can be remedied.
That being said, it is still possible to assert your rights in such a way as to protect them without resorting to violence. It’s usually some hammerhead who gets belligerent that suddenly finds themselves resisting arrest. First and foremost, stay calm. Relaxed if possible. “That’s none of your business, you &*))*(*)( pig!” gets a much different response than “I think I’ll remain silent on that topic, officer”. Then the key is knowing your rights. Many (if not most) citizens are blissfully unaware of both their rights and how and when to assert them. You should also be smart about when and where you confront the police. Make sure there are civilian witnesses, or better yet, have documentary evidence of the encounter.
But the best way to avoid this kind of trouble?
Is not to be there when it starts.
“Now, pray tell: What is the difference between what you proffer — indeed, what we already have — and an anarchistic society in which which we all find a manner in which to fend for ourselves (i.e. to have the real opportunity to “assert and defend” our “inherent rights”, as you suggest)?”
That would be the rule of law which while eroding hasn’t completely vanished. In a truly anarchistic society? The cops are going to be the least of your problems. While your rights may be absolute under the state of nature, they are only retained by your ability to protect them. That’s the whole rationale for forming social groups with formalized legal systems – to avoid the inequities of self-help, create stability and order and derive mutual benefit.
Philosophy is wonderful. I love it. I even agree with your assertion above.
Sadly, as we can all attest at this point, it has no bearing on reality. George’s observations are accurate.
You can “assert and defend” your inherent rights, as you suggest, which, for example, include those of defense against unlawful arrest as recognized even by our Unquestionably Wise Elders:
And yet, one who resists unlawful arrest today — of which there are innumerable instances — is liable to be killed in the process of resisting as a matter of precaution on the part of “officers of the law.” For this offense, as has been documented countless times on this very blog, there is most likely and most often absolutely no punitive action, least of all in any legal respect, against the “officer of the law”, and therefore and quite obviously no meaningful recourse for the victim who might have “asserted and defended them”, as you suggested.
In other words, the effective reality — apart from any articulated philosophy or ideal of law, in practice or otherwise — is that the government may kill you irrespective of your rights or innocence; and you may kill no officer irrespective of the same.
Now, pray tell: What is the difference between what you proffer — indeed, what we already have — and an anarchistic society in which which we all find a manner in which to fend for ourselves (i.e. to have the real opportunity to “assert and defend” our “inherent rights”, as you suggest)?
I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts.
Bill,
Also, the WordPress spam filter has been acting up lately and grabbing things it shouldn’t. I hear it sends those comments to the moon.
mespo,
Love the letter and sage advice. Whoa-HO!
Signed,
Krusty
_______________
Jay,
No right in the history of humankind has been retained or recognized without the willingness to fight for it. Don’t get me wrong. I love George, agree with him on the vast majority of topics and miss him all the time, but in this instance, his hyperbole to make a point about the dangers of encroaching authoritarianism is not technically accurate from a legal or philosophical standpoint. Your rights are inherent. Your individual willingness to assert and defend them is a choice.
Remember in 1994 they passed CALEA, that 2 billion dollar spook works in Utah is monitoring everything; email, VOIP and internet traffic so people watch what your say 1984 is here…
5th amendment right… LOL. That’s cute.
Hasn’t anyone heard? They kill citizens now. Not so much as the pretense of an indictment. So what’s a 5th amendment right?
RIP Georgie.
We teach… you OBEY!
Superintendent and Principal of a public school. They are state actors who have deprived the teacher of rights secured by the Constitution. He has been damages. He can sue for damages and for injunctive relief. He can sue for punitive damages. He gets a jury trial. He can get atty fees. See Title 42 United States Code Annotated, Section 1983, and 1988. Read the annotations. Those are the case opinions of appellate courts and district courts which show you how to allege these things in a Complaint. Go find a lawyer who passed Con Law
Wow, Dr. Jack Barshinger: “Always Learning, Always Growing.”
Go hide your face in a closet. Do these people understand that they are living examples for students? Totally arrogant fool.
A little OT:
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_polk/haines_city/new-iris-scanning-program-to-keep-track-of-kids-at-school-sparks-outrage-among-parents (with video)
New iris-scanning program to keep track of kids at school sparks outrage among parents
Polk School District issued apology
HAINES CITY, Fla. – A new program designed to track students using iris scanners backfired for the Polk County School District.
The uproar from parents started when their kids came home and told them someone was scanning their eyes.
“I thought it was kind of creepy, it’s kind of like big brother looking after your kids,” said Emily Palmer, who has a son that attends Bethune Academy, one of the three schools in the Haines City area that is part of the pilot program.
It’s called the Eyelock Iris Identity Management made by Stanley Security Solutions. A video on the company’s website shows how the biometric screening system works.
The district decided to try it out on a trial basis on about 17 buses at Bethune Academy, Daniel Jenkins Academy, and Davenport School of the Arts.
Parents would get text alerts when their child gets on and off a bus.
The problem is no one explained it to parents.
“She came home from school and said they were doing eye scans on the bus and I thought that was a little unusual since nobody notified us,” said Dennis Delaney, who has a daughter in the fifth grade. “There was no note, no letter, nothing.”
The district planned to send out a letter that explains how it works and gives the option for parents to opt-out if they don’t feel comfortable.
But the staff mistakenly forgot to send it.
“I would have had the same questions, so I apologize to those families because that was not our intent. The intent was not to cause chaos or confusion with the parents,” said Rob Davis, Senior Director of Support Services for Polk Schools.
He said the district is working to ensure the company destroys all the initial iris scans of students.
The program is now on hold so the district can make sure the mix-up is straightened out.
Davis said they still hope to get the go ahead with the pilot program by the start of next school year, but this time every parent will receive a letter and will have ample time to opt out.
“There’s not a day that goes by that we don’t have a parent that is frantic about, ‘hey my child was supposed to be home by three o’clock, and I just got off work. It’s five o’clock and they’re nowhere to be found’,” he said.
“This was never supposed to be forced on anyone. It was an option for parents.”
more of what could possibly go wrong.
And after reading anonymously posted’s link….
“In this case, District teachers, social workers, guidance counselors, psychologists and others worked together for over a year …”
well, no, they bought one off the shelf, assumed by professionals, and since Dryden found out about only 10 minutes before class, I have to wonder about teacher involvement.
How can you be insubordinate if you aren’t told in advance? Must be this is a top-down-do-as-I-say school where you are insubordinate if you don’t jump when told to do so.
“An April email communication to parents said their children could choose not to take the survey, but they had to notify the district by April 17.”
So if the survey wasn’t given to Dryden until the day of, and the school won’t release it to press b/c it’s proprietary, I suspect that parents didn’t really know what was being asked and probably, that the survey wasn’t anonymous. And they only had the option of opting out, not assertively opting in.
My social studies teachers would have given the test without a whimper. They were sooo bad. I might have chosen my course of study differently if I had a Mr. Dryden.
Hey Jude and BettyKath,
Thanks, but one of my comments from yesterday never made it out of moderation and it was moderate in tone…mentioning only that most lawyers
won’t join protests in the street, but well be interested in suing someone.
Bill and Jude, wordpress does the censoring. more than two links goes to moderation limbo. so do posts with certain words. i don’t remember the words.
One of my best units was one I developed and revised over the past twenty years. It was The Bill of Rights and Students. Talk about engaged students.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130525/news/705259921/
“Dryden said it was just “dumb luck” he learned about the contents. He picked up surveys from his mailbox about 10 minutes before his first class. Seeing students’ names on them, unlike past surveys, he started reading the 34 questions.
“Oh. Well. Ummm, somebody needs to remind them they have the ability not to incriminate themselves,” he recalled thinking. It was particularly on his mind because his classes had recently finished reviewing the Bill of Rights. And the school has a police officer stationed there as a liaison, he pointed out. Barshinger said the results weren’t shared with police.”