Thirteen-year-old Savana Redding of Safford, Arizona, was strip searched by middle school administrators, on a tip from another student who claimed she had contraband Advil hidden in her bra. Her lawyer argued to the Supreme Court this week that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. School officials didn't bother to search her desk or locker, or even question additional students before they made her strip down to her skivvies.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer revealed himself to be less than equipped to hear the case. From Dahlia Lithwick's great Slate piece on the topic:
"In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day, we changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear." Click Here!Shocked silence, followed by explosive laughter. In fact, I have never seen Justice Clarence Thomas laugh harder. Breyer tries to recover: "Or not my underwear. Whatever. Whatever. I was the one who did it? I don't know. I mean, I don't think it's beyond human experience."
Wow, so your history of bullying now constitutes legal or moral precedent? I'm sorry, did I miss a shift in our legal justice system by which judge's adolescent hijinks were sound juris prudence? It gets even more bizarre...
By now, even Justice David Souter has ditched Wolf, musing that if he were the principal in a school, he "would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search ... than have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry."
Dead? By a couple of Advil?
The combination of disregard for young women's bodily integrity with total hyperbole about the potential effects of a couple of Ibuprofen is infuriating. Students deserve the same rights as their oh-so-adult counterparts, regardless of and, hell, especially because they are subjected to the horrors of the adolescent locker room.
Thanks to Annasara for the heads up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Strip Search at the Supreme Court.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13228
If the school was really that worried that she had something seriously dangerous, they should have made her sit there while they called the police and her parents. The teachers should not be pretending to be police.
Agree 100%.
Teachers are powertrippers, that's all it is. They like to pretend that they're the kings/queens of the castle.
I understand your anger, but calling all teachers "powerstrippers" is overgeneralizing. Since I'm in the process of getting my teaching degree myself, I've spent a decent amount of time in the classroom.
I can say without hesitation that if I knew something like this were about to take place, I would call the student's parents immediately, administration be damned, and would refuse to perform the strip search. I have no doubt that the cooperating teachers I have worked with in the past would do the same.
So, while you have the right to be angry, it's important to bear in mind that not all teachers agree with the way this situation was handled.
That is a huge generalization to make about teachers, not to mention that it wasn't even the teachers who searched the girl. If you're going to insult someone, at least get the person right. It was the administration that made the decision to search the girl, and it was the female school nurse and female school secretary that did the searching. I'm really not trying to get off topic here, but I get very irritated when people hear horrible things about schools and then blame the teachers for it. Please realize that teachers have very, very little say over what happens outside of their classrooms (and even inside of it too). I'm a high school teacher, and I am so tired of being blamed by students and parents for everything that goes on in the school that I have no control over.
That being said, it is disgusting that this child was searched like this, especially over some basic pain medications. Who thought it would be alright to humiliate a child this way over an unsubstantiated rumor from another kid? Also, if the school really does suspect some type of criminal activity, then they should get the school officer (or, if the school doesn't have one, they should call the police). The thing that really upsets me is the way the case is being played out in the Supreme Court is being played out. I have been reading and listening to the coverage, and some of the judge's comments are horrifying (I forget the exact names of the judges I'm thinking of, but I'm sure there's a transcript online somewhere). They seem to think that it is completely normal for adults to strip search a child, and they completely disregard how this incident changed this girl's life.
Uh, sorry for my typos. It's been a long day.
I find it really funny that the only two people who bothered to contradict my statement were teachers.
Well, I'm not a teacher and I also think your statement was a gross oversimplification.
If there's any generalization I can glean from my experience as a student it's that teachers are unusually selfless, often sacrificing a lot of money--especially where I'm from in the Deep South--to try to help kids lead better lives, though of course there are always less honourable individuals in such a large group.
Anyway, this story is disgusting; the comportment of these Supreme Court justices are particularly disturbing.
I'm not a teacher and I definitely think your statement is absurd. Also, maybe the reason they responded to it was because they understand first-hand how little control teachers actually have? We have an idea that teachers are in charge of our kids, but as someone who used to go to school board meetings, the teachers are lucky if they can plan their own curricula and they have NO say on drug policy.
"I find it really funny that the only two people who bothered to contradict my statement were teachers."
So, it's still ok for you to make a sweeping generalization about a group of people, as long as the only people who object to it are part of the group you mocked? Also, you didn't seem to respond to any of the points I and other people made about the fact that it wasn't even the teachers who were involved in this incident. Not to mention that many other people have responded to you statement indirectly. Regardless, what happened to this girl was terrible, and there certainly are some shitty teachers out there, but let's not malign an entire profession.
Do you also find it funny when only women are outraged by sexism? That happens a hell of a lot but I'm assuming you still find their complaints valid even if no one outside of the target group speak up.
For the record, I'm not a teacher and I think your comment was extremely stupid. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a teacher, but to generalize all teaches as power trippers is ridiculous.
that is an excellent comment about how the police and her parents should have been called instead of the teachers 'taking the law into their own hands'.
i never thought of that.
i really hope that comes up in the case more so than this 'people would put crap in my underwear all the time when i was changing for gym' (?) nonsense.
I don't agree with this particular strip search in this particular instance, but this is a far fetched argument being made. Sometimes we do want our teachers to be cops, and the SC has ruled for some time that minors in schools have reduced rights in a variety of ways--reduced rights under the 4th Amendment, reduced rights under the 2nd Amendment, reduced rights under the 1st Amendment--because of the need to balance their rights with their health, safety & education. Students cannot necessarily publish anything they want in school newspapers, nor wear the clothing that they could off campus, nor even store the perfectly legal Ibuprofen in their lockers.
I had a friend bring a gun to school & store it in his locker, should the teachers not search the locker because they weren't cops? Suppose instead of ibuprofen, it had been crack that Savannah had been accused of having? Or what if it had been poison, or arsenic? The school in this case made a bone headed decision because it dismissed common sense, but that same common sense suggests that there could be cases where a strip search is indeed warranted. That's the balance I hope the SC manages to draw.
And if a strip search is warranted, then call in the parents and police. The school is not and should be some sort of Judge Dredd fantasy world.
Your analogy with the gun is totally not the same thing as a strip search. It was in the locker, not on the person, in their underwear.
My point about the gun was that we DO expect schools to act like cops in certain search & seizure situations, since you can't reasonably argue that teachers don't have a right to search lockers for guns or other contraband. Having established that (and the SC has clearly established that point) teachers can act like cops in certain limited situations, the only question is how far does this ability extend? Perhaps its because I'm familiar with people on, errr, 'both sides of the law', I can imagine the need to conduct a strip search. I don't think its over ibuprofen, but if Savannah were suspected of distributing heroin, or some hardcore drug, it would be reasonable. Or, what if she were suspected of hiding bullets in her panties?
Ibuprofen simply fails the common sense test.
The difference in searching a locker or desk vs. the person is that a locker is school property, it's their responsibility to make sure kids aren't storing anything dangerous in it.
HOWEVER, even if Savana had been hiding heroin or bullets instead of Advil, the teachers still had no right to conduct a strip search. They are not law officials, and while we expect them to keep their school safe, they should not be allowed to have the same rights as police officers.
Plus, the fact that she's 13 makes this story all the more disturbing.
"The difference in searching a locker or desk vs. the person is that a locker is school property, it's their responsibility to make sure kids aren't storing anything dangerous in it."
So you don't think schools have the right to search a student's backpack? Or their person? That's far fetched. How many assaults and killings would we have if schools didn't have that ability? This would be turning the clock back 40yrs in the very same country that has seen unprecedented violence in its schools in recent years. There's a reasonable line here that allows school officials to search for dangerous or illicit contraband, but not for ibuprofen. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. In many schools violence and drugs are a dangerous, and everyday, reality.
unfortunately, you're right.
perhaps some sort of protocol for contacting a student's parents first, or a search by a medical professional with some sort of warrant (to prevent the attempts to humiliate others by tattling), or some sort of x-ray machine, would strike a better balance. because, in many schools, including my high school, weapons and illegal drugs are big problems. i lost friends and classmates to overdoses and drive-bys, and snuck out of school once when there was a bomb threat.
this girl's dignity and rights are of the utmost importance, as is the right of everyone to go to school in a safe environment.
There's a big difference between searching lockers and strip searching. Lockers are school property and the school has a right to search them, and the student knows that. Even backpack searches are not invasive. However, I'd still argue that they need better probable cause for any of those searches-- taking the word of a student who is just trying to get out of trouble themselves, with no corroboration, is not a good enough reason. What's to stop kids from tattling on anyone they don't like to get them strip searched?
If they thought she was hiding a gun or heroin in her panties, they absolutely should have called her parents and the police. That's some serious stuff and it shouldn't be the school's job to deal with it. Or, you know, if she actually did have a gun in her panties and wanted to be given lighter punishment by the school instead of entering the legal system, they could have given her a choice to produce it or have the cops called.
There are so many things wrong with this particular situation its hard to know where to start with the arguments: ibuprofen, hearsay, not questioning her, searching elsewhere, or checking into the story properly first, not calling her parents first, etc.
I remember an episode of Boston Public where they thought some girls were putting rolls of pennies in their vaginas (to make it seem like they'd gained weight because they were being monitored as anorexics). I don't remember exactly what happened but I'm pretty sure they didn't search their vaginas.
"However, I'd still argue that they need better probable cause for any of those searches-- taking the word of a student who is just trying to get out of trouble themselves, with no corroboration, is not a good enough reason. What's to stop kids from tattling on anyone they don't like to get them strip searched?"
Lol, you make them sound just like prison informants.
Dude, I'd way rather be in prison than middle school again.
This is a minor point, but Savana Redding was accused of having prescription strength ibuprofen, not over-the-counter Advil. This makes a difference because the prescription classifies the drugs as a controlled substance and that's the school's basis for their actions-- part of a zero tolerance policy.
That said, still ridiculous. And, that Pantheon said, if the school really was concerned they should have called the police.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Prescription drug does not mean scheduled substance.
It's not even true that all scheduled drugs require a doctor's prescription. So the two groups, Scheduled Drugs, and Prescription only drugs aren't related in a simple way at all.
(And to back up that claim, look up Schedule V, which includes things like cough suppressants with small amounts of codeine, these can be sold, by a pharmacist, to patients even without a doctor's prescription)
Many Prescription drugs are not scheduled at all. Prescription strength ibuprofen is one of those (although there may be a scheduled formulation that contains an opioid like Codeine or Morphine), most antidepressants aren't scheduled either.
So, as I said, That's just not true.
Oops, I just realized I wasn't clear there, because I changed terminology. "Controlled Substance" is the same as "Scheduled Substance," the two terms are synonymous. They refer to drugs covered by the "Controlled Substances Act," which created a category systems for controlled substances called "schedules."
Controlled Substances and Scheduled Substances are the same, and they are not the same as a prescription drug, although and I should have noted this, most Controlled Substances are available only by prescription, but not all as I pointed out previously.
I misused the phrase "controlled substance," but the overall point was not wrong. The fact that the pills were prescription strength is what made them fall under the school's zero tolerance policy.
It's just more proof of how stupid zero tolerance policies are that they don't distinguish between a pill with the strength of two OTC Advil and, say, heroin.
Prescription strength ibuprofen is 800 mg of ibuprofen, which is the equivalent of taking 4 regular ibuprofen. If you have a bottle of ibuprofen, you have quite a bit of prescription strength ibuprofen on your hands. The only reason its prescribed is so people don't have to pop 4 pills every 8 hours for pain.
According to wikipedia, Tylenol #3, which is a prescription painkiller, is a schedule III substance.
Tylenol 3 contains codeine, which is a narcotic.
I heard the girl interviewed on NPR yesterday morning, and it was heartbreaking. They didn't tell her what was going on and strip-searched her before really asking her any questions or doing any other investigating, and all because an ex-friend of hers they had caught with pills had pointed the finger at her.
It was a well-done story, but I was a little uncomfortable with the way that the reporter kept emphasizing that she was an honor student and had never been in trouble before -- if she were not a great student or had previous disciplinary problems unrelated to dealing drugs, would that have made it okay for them to strip-search her for Advil without evidence or proper investigation?
You should all read the entire slate article (linked in the OP). Its pretty appalling and funny at the same time. Have they decided the outcome yet? That article makes it sound like they're leaning towards siding with the school, but it doesn't mention a decision.
Supreme Court decisions come out a few months after they hear arguments. So they'll publish the decision some time in the summer. June I think?
I remember when I first read about this girl's story. I cried. It was just so...humiliating. And I wasn't even there. And now asshats like Judge Thomas are basically laughing at her experience. This whole thing is ridiculous. Schools should not have this right.
Dead by Advil is possible. Dead by Tylenol is actually more likely.
As someone who has taught middle school students, I can say that plenty of them aren't mature enough to be trusted to carry their own medications around. Also, you can get cases where, say, a kid has an allergy to Drug X, and knows not to take it. That kid gets hurt, and another kid offers Drug Y, which is something that's generally thought of as fairly innocuous, and so the kid takes Drug Y, not knowing that Drug Y is actually the same thing as Drug X or contains it or something, and needs to be rushed to the ER, and that can be a liability issue for the school.
All that said, though, strip-searching is completely not the way to enforce this. I can't believe that any adult actually thought it was OK to strip-search a 13-year-old child.
exactly. i remember some of my middle-school classmates doing some of the most ridiculous things possible (at times, myself included---lots of fun with shopping carts in parking lots!), so i understand only wanting them to get their drugs from the nurse, even if it's only for a headache or cramps or something.
but to strip-search this girl is beyond all sense of reason. good lord.
call her parents, send her home, keep her in detention....anything else would be better than strip-searching her.
however, and this is not to defend this school's actions, let's just remember that today's public schools are charged with some very difficult tasks: educating a huge range of students with all manner of issues, and keeping those same students safe, all the while with very few resources, and a whole bunch of parents who will sue for almost any infraction. in that climate, it's no surprise that zero-tolerance policies have sprung up. hell, i'm surprised *anything* constructive can happen in that climate.
"As someone who has taught middle school students, I can say that plenty of them aren't mature enough to be trusted to carry their own medications around."
The scenario you give could happen in or outside of school. Then who would be liable?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people aren't allergic to mild pain relievers like ibuprofen or aspirin, and a student carrying them in school is really not a big deal. Maybe if another student had said she had some sort of narcotic pain killer like Percocet or Vicodin, they could have called her to the office and informed her parents/the police, but that's not what happened.
No decision yet-I'm not sure how long it takes after oral arguments for the court to rule, but if you want to read the entire transcript of the appalling things that were said, it's online.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-479.pdf
I'm so angry that I just can't even form a coherent sentence. It's awful enough that Savana Redding had to go through such an experience, but it makes it even worse that Supreme Court Justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg's fabulousness excepted) would be so insensitive and obtuse. Lockerroom bullying and sexual harrassment aren't okay in the first place, let alone precedent for excusing the violation of a young girl's bodily integrity. If children are pulling off or sticking things into other children's underwear in the lockerroom, we ought to respond with concern and stop it! Not suggest that it authorizes the adults to behave callously and precipitously.
That transcript just floored me with how ridiculous the discussion was. I have a hard time believing that the justices could be so clueless, insensitive, obtuse and frat-boyish. It was so unprofessional it's just staggering. My heart breaks all over again for Savanah, having to hear all of that joking at her expense.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the School, I want an all new court.
Can we keep Ginsburgh? She's pretty kick-ass.
I already want an all new court, except for Ginsburgh. At least half should be women (and not the Dr. Laura/Palin kind )
Wow! I was once searched by school officials (some kid lied and said I had a pocketknife) but not striped searched. It just shocks me because isn't having a knife at school is worse than having Advil.
Even the lawyer in that transcript seems to be having difficultly trying to explain why they strip searched her, keeps going back to "Health and Safety" of the students.
Is the family capable of suing the school not only on grounds of 4th Amendment violations but maybe also Sexual Assault and Corruption of a Minor? At least according to my book since this was done without a warrent or police around, I think this constitues as some form of sexual assault.
This is ridiculous... A teenager could go into any drug store and buy as much ibuprophen as she wanted. The only differnce between presription and OTC is that OTC is 200mg and prescription is usuallly 800mg. That it should be a horendous crime to bring it into school is way out of proportion. I knew someone who tried to commit suicide by taking a bottle of prescription ibuprophen, and thankfully it just made her puke. The danger involved is pretty minimal.
Strip searching teen age girls for ibuprophen is just inappropriate. I really think we need a bit more common sense when it comes to school saftey.
I used to stick ibuprophen in the watch pocket of my jeans when I had cramps in high school, and I knew girls who carried whole bottles around and shared. Guess what... no one ever died or got sick.
I think it's much easier to understand school officials acting out of fear--fear of a new drug epidemic and all the bad publicity--than just power tripping. Yes, freaking out over Advil is silly (in my high school, the principal's secretary kept a secret stash for students with aches), but 1)there is and was a huge clamor over kids abusing prescription drugs, and 2)some of the prescription painkillers are dangerous (Tylenol 3, available by prescription is a narcotic.)
Several of my friends are teachers, working long hours in badly-run schools when they could make significantly more money in a variety of jobs with more prestige. I doubt they are unique. Teachers are a dwindling and underappreciated resource--you'd do better to direct your anger where it's warranted--at fearmongering in our society and a deplorable decision by SCOTUS. I hope the justices will some day learn enough to be ashamed of the cavalier attitude with which they dismissed scarring and unwarranted symbolic violence.
also, wow.
why is no one pointing out that school bullying is done by OTHER CLASSMATES and that this was done by people in authority?
someone in authority doing this type of behavior, this treads into the gray area of 'not quite rape' or at least sexual assault in my book.
someone who holds power over a minor should NOT be doing something like this AT. ALL. and it disgusts me that the court looks like its going to side with the school. and also really, if the school gets a pass on this, it sets a bad precedent for them and other public schools to continue or even escalate this type of behavior. this is terrible for this girl personally but its even worse if this becomes the norm for ALL school children because of this crap.
I'm a teacher and I really resent the offhanded "teachers are powertrippers" type comments. Many of us are working VERY hard to make sure that students are treated with dignity and respect---facilitating anti-bullying campaigns, running GLBTQ Alliances, building respectful environments in our classrooms, etc.
When I heard the story yesterday it indicated that a school secretary was directed by an administrator to do the search. . .it wasn't even a teacher.
And BTW, no (overworked, underappreciated) teacher I know is advocating for the "right" to strip search students. Talk in the faculty room is that this is a ridiculous misuse of power that my district would never stand for.
What do you mean, "basic human integrity"? Listen, if we don't secure the contraband drugs from this terrorist, the hostiles will get the nuclear device! Millions of innocent people will die! There's no time!!!
Perfection.
There are two separate issues here. (1) Should the school be so worried about ibuprofen, and (2) Should they have strip searched her?
For (1) my feeling is probably not, but its understandable that they are. Kids could have other drugs and claim its ibuprofen, kids could have allergies, people sue all the time over everything nowadays. So its somewhat understandable for them to freak out over something like that even though its ridiculous.
But the answer to (2) is a complete and resounding no. If the issue was breaking rules, she should have been sent home. If they really thought she or someone else was in danger, they should have called in the police and her parents. I can't understand why it was in any way necessary to strip search her. What happens next time a strip search comes up empty and they say "well, maybe she hid it in her vagina"? Are we going to allow school secretaries to do cavity searches on children without calling their parents?
And a third issue is that if the schools ARE going to pretend to be police, shouldn't they have to follow similar rules to the police? Like, probable cause, and not just taking hearsay from someone who was trying to get out of trouble themselves?
The SC disagrees. They've ruled that schools do have the right to search for & seize contraband, just like cops do...the question this case pushes is just how far that ability goes. Hopefully they'll come up with a common sense approach.
Kids aren't adults. They don't have the responsibilities and they don't have the rights...(but at least they don't pay taxes :-)
Actually, children have to pay income tax if they earn a sufficient amount of money (and the cut-off isn't that high, depending on the sort of income)...
Yep--I had to pay income tax as a kid because the money that was basically for college accrued enough interest to qualify. And it wasn't insignificant. As I recall it was around $800. No deductions, since I was like ... 12.
Something about taxation without representation comes to mind ... though the fact that my mom's name was on my bank account leads me to think that if you said a kid under 18 couldn't pay taxes, the parents would just shove their money into an account under the kid's name.
I think a majority of the comments here certainly show that a strip search is not reasonable, and I agree. The case Lithwick cited to (New Jersey v. T.L.O.) sets out a reasonableness test. Unfortunately, given the comments during oral argument and current attitude of the Court, I doubt this case is going to come down on the side of student privacy. Reasonableness varies.
The down side of a reasonableness test, for both administrators and students, is that it produces uncertainty. Administrators don't know what they can legally do, and the chance that they might violate a student's privacy rights is increased. On the other hand, sometimes bright line tests can produce absurd results. However, I fail to see how requiring a phone call to a parent first could ever be absurd.
Finally, this is a bit off topic, but keep in mind that corporal punishment is still allowed in many public schools.
SO many things about this case bother me. First, that a school administrator couldn't come up with a better alternative in searching for drugs than to strip a 13 y/o down to at least their underwear (evidently, the court has questions as to whether the search went beyond even that. The school evidently didn't even search her locker or desk first. The lawyer arguing against Savana claimed that it was in issue of possibly preventing an imminent drug-use incident (and that the school was sensitive, cause they'd recently had some kind of OD situation involving prescription drugs)--but there's no way that doing a strip search then and there would have prevented any such incident. In a situation like this, why not allow the police to come in to determine what steps to take, and why not call Savana's parents? Second, Savana was strip-searched on merely a tip from another girl, a supposed friend, who was not punished when the search of Savana turned up NOTHING. Hell, all the witness here said was that Savana gave her a pill, not that she had more of them on her at the time, so the threshold for suspicion to justify the strip-search was even lower. So any vindictive little shit could just accuse a classmate of having drugs on their person, and get her strip-searched on that basis. What a powerful way to try to humiliate somebody. Third, I can't believe how dismissive some of the Justices are in regard to a strip-search being traumatic for the student--this is a 13 year old kid, who didn't even actually have any drugs on her. Could you possibly shame somebody any further? And really, couldn't Breyer push his empathy a little bit more, even consider that his fond old high school memories might not exactly match the reactions a 13 year old girl might have in a markedly different situation than just getting dressed after gym class? After all, it's not merely the undressing that's violating in this situation, but the accusation, the shaming that goes along with being forced to strip in front of two people in authority because someone has accused you of some "crime." Lastly, it may just be the circumstances involved with arguing in the S.C., but Savana's attorney doesn't seem to be very effective in the way he argues--he really doesn't do an effective job selling the humiliation that comes with this kind of interrogation, but again, that may be a technicality because of the way S.C. arguments are presented.
It does not suprise me at all that clarence Thomas laughed at his stupid joke. Look up anita hill see what u find! He does not care about Womens rights! He should not be a supreme court justice to begin with!
This is really off topic, but the title for this post was wildly misleading.
When I was in middle/high school, I routinely carried 8-hour Tylenol for headaches, cramps, etc. Whenever I wanted to take it, I would do so discreetly, like in the bathroom, and I never mentioned having it to any of my classmates, unless they specifically asked me if I had any Tylenol, and then I made sure to tell them it was the extra-strength/time kind. I feel as though if you are allergic to a drug you need to be aware of what you are taking, especially if it comes from someone else. 13 is old enough to start taking responsibility for yourself.
So, even if Savana had actually had any medicine on her, she certainly did not deserve to be humiliated and have her privacy invaded like that. Obviously she wasn't handing out "free samples" in the cafeteria.
So for all of you teachers complaining about the comments regarding teachers on power-grabs, you should be policing your coworkers.
I was a "good" student, but I was still annoyed and sickened by the behaviors of a good chunk of the teachers in my middle and high schools. Even university. First there were the dirty old men who used their positions of authority to gain access to young women. We had several of those--many of whom had been previously put on leave following accusations of touching and so on, but were allowed back into their jobs for whatever reason.
Then there were the ones who pretended to be nice but tried to subtly screw over students by "losing" homework or "improperly filling in" forms. (These were the worst, because they then blamed the students for their own "errors" which were not errors at all.)
And finally, the Overlord types, who obviously just became teachers to have some authority. One case that comes to mind was a social studies/coach guy who had to sub my band class several times because my teacher had issues. He decided that if you got up from your seat or said one word you would receive detention and gave us assignments on a whim like writing a 5 page report ... on a video of a symphony orchestra performance. (I think he was fired the year after I graduated. Probably for being such a dick.)
So, sorry if you're so offended that someone thinks that teachers become teachers for the power, but ... it sure seems to be common enough. In my experience I would say at least half were on some kind of power trip.
"First there were the dirty old men who used their positions of authority to gain access to young women."
There are perverts in every profession. Teachers who sleep with students are not usually defended by other teachers.
"Then there were the ones who pretended to be nice but tried to subtly screw over students by "losing" homework or "improperly filling in" forms. (These were the worst, because they then blamed the students for their own "errors" which were not errors at all.)"
95% of the time it IS the kid's fault. I remember in school telling teachers they must have lost my homework, then doing it at lunch and sneaking it onto their desk when they weren't looking. They aren't trying to screw you over, they have just been screwed over too many times by kids who lie to them.
"And finally, the Overlord types, who obviously just became teachers to have some authority. "
Coach-teachers are often assholes. However, it's not the teacher's fault that the schools protect these guys at all costs. Every teacher in my school ganged up on our girl's lacrosse coach/social studies teacher because so many girls were complaining about him. He kept his job until there was a class-action lawsuit, because his team was winning.
Remember, the teachers have NO SAY in their coworkers. They can't "police" them because they have no power over them. They aren't involved in hiring or firing.
You had some bad teachers. That doesn't mean it's the other teachers' fault. Or that teachers are involved in this case, which they were not.
Exactly! I have no say over what other teachers in my school do, and I can only report something if I suspect there is some sort of criminal activity involved or a violation of the state code of ethics for educators (assaulting a student, using drugs or alcohol on campus, stealing money, etc.). If a teacher is just an ass, then there is nothing I can do. There are tons of horrible teachers, and there are also tons of wonderful teachers. Most teachers are somewhere in the middle. Should students have better teachers? Absolutely, but there are so many things in education that will have to change for that to happen, and all teachers will never be perfect.
The problem is that commenter that people took offense at didn't say "Some teachers are on a power trip." (Of course *some* are. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the profession, and like in any profession, a percentage of them are not good at their jobs.) They said "Teachers are powertrippers," thereby thoughtlessly writing off an entire profession based on his/her bad experience in education. And using anecdotes to support those generalizations about a HUGE group of people is just wrong---they would certainly be called out on it if they said, "Well, women are emotional. I've met a number of women who cry easily, so it sure seems to be common enough" and they should be called out on this kind of stereotyping, too.
. . .especially since the people who did the strip search and the people who ordered the strip search WERE NOT TEACHERS. School nurse. Secretary. Administrator. NOT TEACHERS.
Ok, what about the school nurse? Where the hell was her professionalism in this? If she's trained enough to identify what the pill was, she should bloody well be trained enough to know it's unethical to strip search a teenager without direction from legal authorities. Everyone's talking about administrator's making a stupid decision (which they totally did) but why didn't the school nurse put her foot down and say no and tell them to call the cops? She had a duty to protect that girl as a patient. Instead she collaborated in intimidating and traumatizing this girl.
Rip up her nursing license ASAP!!
Also, I have to take issue with all the articles and reports from the SC hearing that refer to having to expose her "pelvic" area. C'mon, let's call it what it really is. It's her genital area, not her pelvis, that they were looking at in the search. Pelvis means the bones, so you can't look at someone's pelvis unless you cut them open or read their x-ray.
I could ran about this for days!!!
Wow...the hysteria and hyperbole over drugs [[war on drugs, war on drugs, war on drugs]] continues...Well this would not be the first time a girl was a victim of unreasonable search and seizure due to the "ZOMG DRUGS!...TERRORISTS!...WMDS!...ADVIL!...WE COULD ALL DIE!" fear mongering. Here's something I find 10x more scary than any "drug"...in order for you to be stripped searched or even cavity searched (read: unreasonable search and seizure) all any person of authority, cops, school administrators, etc. has to do is say the magic word "She might have *scary music* DRUGS!!!" "Quick, take her clothes off!".
Yeah, THAT will stop teenage girls from taking advil when they have cramps. I mean we all know how well these alarmist drug policies have worked to keep America completely drug free!
Seriously people, do you really want some school authority to just be able to point to you or your daughter and say "you could have advil...STRIP HER!" (and for some "reason" it always seems to be that they are stripping and searching the GIRLS)...It's not very far from having "random strip searches", and then pretty soon, "mandatory stripping in order to be allowed on the premises"...Wake up and smell the coffee people. I'm not some Libertarian extremist, but all these policies do is accomplish little to nothing at the cost of our freedom from unnecessary search and seizure (a constitutional right, btw). And I'm definitely on the side that believes this girl was totally and completely violated. I'm just shocked at the number of people here who agree that the school acted appropriately.
ok first of all what scares me the most is that of all the teachers who posted here not one of them know that ibuproven when taken with another easy to get over the counter drug gives you a all day high,and from what the court oral argument's say that is what they were planning on doing..if it comes down to who is going to strip search my 13 year old self i would rather it be a school nurse then a police officer any day,in my school the nurse is also the same one who gives beginning of the year physicals..and finnaly the students in a lot of schools don't have parents that can be contacted those kids would be sitting there for a very long time.there are schools in this country where teachers are escourted by armed gaurds.this is a lousy situation but schools need this law to keep gang bangers from shoving drugs down their pants and daring teacher's to do something about it..if one embarresed kid stops one kid from o.d. in school then i'm for this law