School Admins Demand Access to Students' Cellphones

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-07-12 08:16am

besdes few people have the intellegence to get away with the stunts I used to get away with 18 years ago. Part of it being that the school wants to keep putting up with my friends and my own bullshit only because of the effect that expelling us would have on the school's grade point average (alpha nerds for the win). Sure we were being normal teenage assholes, it's part of being a teen, a bit of insanity that infects you when you about 11 and doesn't go away until about 22.

As for disruptive my senior year english/biology/culinary arts classes. I'm at the stage where I could be TAing the class as well (Culinary I was) and had the desk next to the teachers. Now while she'as having us do our work I'm playing chess with a nember of the faculty much to the other student's annoyance. Why?, because I had already locked in an "A+" for the class.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-07-12 08:59am

Zero wrote:My house, my rules could pretty much be used to justify anything. It could be used to justify beating your son within an inch of his life, but parents are held accountable to their actions against their children, just like school administraters are accountable for their actions against the minors in their care, and governments are held accountable for laws they make.

Are you such a fucking retard that you don't understand the difference between denying you your toys and beating you? Adults - have a duty to care for, educate, and protect children. They do not have to allow them to have *shit* in terms of toys unless they wish to.

It's pointless to talk about the current US president's actions too, since your authority over actions of the federal government amounts to jack shit, but that isn't an instant justification of everything those with that authority do.

What the fuck are you on? Adults get to argue with their government because they have a vote, and thus the duty and right to question their government. Children do not get a vote, just the right to protection and education. This is no comparison to a school/student relationship.

Your only real complaint here is that I'm a minor, which is a blatent ad hominem, and won't be true in 4 days anyway.

No, my complaint is that you don't understand why schools should be allowed to revoke any privileges you are likely to abuse, or have potential for abuse, or which they just plain don't like.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-07-12 09:03am

Lagmonster wrote:Are you such a fucking retard that you don't understand the difference between denying you your toys and beating you? Adults - have a duty to care for, educate, and protect children. They do not have to allow them to have *shit* in terms of toys unless they wish to.

I wasn't comparing the two situations, just explaining why your "my house, my rules" thing was bullshit.

What the fuck are you on? Adults get to argue with their government because they have a vote, and thus the duty and right to question their government. Children do not get a vote, just the right to protection and education. This is no comparison to a school/student relationship.

So should Canadians not have a right to discuss or complain about the actions of the US president? They have no say at all in what he does. Is it also your oppinion that all minors ought to refrain from political activity even though they don't have the right to vote? Does that also mean we shouldn't have to pay taxes?

No, my complaint is that you don't understand why schools should be allowed to revoke any privileges you are likely to abuse, or have potential for abuse, or which they just plain don't like.

Alright, if your complaint is that a rule allowing phones at all is likely to be abused, leading to students having them on in class, and causing general disruption, then I concede the point.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-07-12 09:05am

or the basic fact that school is like Triage. They won't do much for the realy smart students (they don't need attention), they will focus attention on the students in danger and can be helped, as well as the normal ones. The typical trailer trash or ghetto banger kid is just goinh to be ignored as a hopeless case anyways.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2006-07-12 10:28am

I don't understand the hostility towards Zero coming from Mike and Lagmonster. I know you two have serious curmudgeon reps to uphold, but really...

His request for a reasonable argument as to why a cell-phone in his locker represented a threat to all life on earth was a valid one.

"If we let a cell-phone in at all, there exists a credible threat of them being snuck out of the locker later on. Banning them completely removes the risk." is a reasonable counter-argument.

"You're a fucking kid, and the school can do whatever the fuck it wants, you whiney pussy.[/i]" is not the level of argument that I expected from this board.

P.S. I left my teens a long time ago, so I'm not saying this in solidarity with the "kid", I'm saying it out of genuine surprise and confusion at the reactions elicited here.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-07-12 10:49am

WyrdNyrd wrote:I don't understand the hostility towards Zero coming from Mike and Lagmonster. I know you two have serious curmudgeon reps to uphold, but really...

His request for a reasonable argument as to why a cell-phone in his locker represented a threat to all life on earth was a valid one.

No it isn't, asshole. It only has to be disruptive to allow cell-phones in the judgment of the administration, not a "thread to all life on earth". That's the only requirement: that the administration feels it is disruptive to what they have to do. This has been stated over and over and over. What are you, a goddamned blind man?

"If we let a cell-phone in at all, there exists a credible threat of them being snuck out of the locker later on. Banning them completely removes the risk." is a reasonable counter-argument.

"You're a fucking kid, and the school can do whatever the fuck it wants, you whiney pussy.[/i]" is not the level of argument that I expected from this board.

I already stated the reason earlier, you fucking idiot. He rejected it by claiming, in essence, that a reason must be made which satisfies him, not just the administration of the school. Learn to read, moron. Where the fuck do you get off lecturing me about quality of debate, you worthless shit? You apparently didn't even read the fucking thread, since the reason you asked for was repeatedly stated in previous posts.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2006-07-12 10:54am

His position was that a cell-phone in a locker doesn't disturb anyone. Instead of pointing out a reasonable scenario where it could, the responses amounted to "Fuck you, you're too young to matter".

And I was using hyperbole, which was probably a mistake in an exchange that that has gotten this heated.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2006-07-12 10:56am

Lemme get outta here. I should just have shut up, sorry.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-07-12 10:59am

WyrdNyrd wrote:His position was that a cell-phone in a locker doesn't disturb anyone.

In his judgement, idiot. I already pointed out that his judgment doesn't fucking matter. The administration deals with the entire school's problems, and if they're finding that it's a headache to allow cell phones on school grounds, then their judgment is more important than his. What the fuck is wrong with you, moron?

Instead of pointing out a reasonable scenario where it could, the responses amounted to "Fuck you, you're too young to matter".

No, it's "fuck you, the school doesn't exist to serve your convenience". Once more, learn to read. I'm getting fed up with your continual stream of misinterpretations, strawman, and dumbshit attitudes.

And I was using hyperbole, which was probably a mistake in an exchange that that has gotten this heated.

Blow me, asshole. It's not your hyperbole, it's your fucking misrepresentations and stupidity. Telling people that they haven't given a real reason when they have, misrepresenting rebuttals, etc.

WyrdNyrd wrote:Lemme get outta here. I should just have shut up, sorry.

Too late for that, asshole. You stay in this fucking thread and you answer the goddamned points. There are few things I hate more than people who try to get in jabs, especially when those jabs are fucking STRAWMAN DISTORTIONS, and then walk away saying that they just think you're too heated to discuss things rationally.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2006-07-12 11:04am

OK, I'm sorry, I didn't read the thread properly. It was not my place to speak up if I hadn't properly understood all the arguments to date. My response was emotional when it should have been rational, thereby making my original accusations completely hypocritical.

I apologise to Mike and LM, and promise not to again jump in half-cocked unless I want my ass fried. Which I don't.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-07-12 10:27pm

dammit mike, let's be somewhat socialable, it hasn't been more then a couple of decades since we were young and dumb our selves, we all went through that rebellious bullshit, and although we are now dealing with angry self directed insoulent younger people, it's quite the turnabout. Yes, they have the legal responsibility to do what they must to preserve order and a learning enviornment. Often when faced with a technology that they don't understand authority will over react in the name of safety (banning leathermen from the AV crews, when I was in highschool, not to mention swiss army knives on the grounds that they could possibly be used as weapons, or to open wine or beer? (of course a number of us started buying Souix City Sapirrella, just becasue the bottles looked exactly like beer, and it fucked with the vice principal's mind, that we were drinking root beer that looked exactly like beer, beer)We probably have seen a high school vice principal mistake an acidotic type one diabetic for a drunk (in my case the kid sued the school district, and got alllowed back into school, and a full appology from the administration.)

The point is?

like the who song goes, For the most part "The Kids are allright", sure we have to provide them with discipline and resistance, and they have to find their own way. They want all the freedoms of adulthood, and none of the responsibilities. And on the flip side Authority will abuse power, just as Machevelli said, things haven't changed from the office of the president down to the high school security personall (who like the prison guards at the wild fires were the most common source of drugs and alcohol anyways)

sorry It's all human nature

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-07-12 10:47pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:dammit mike, let's be somewhat socialable,

No. When someone misrepresents my position, he's lucky that I only flame him.

it hasn't been more then a couple of decades since we were young and dumb our selves, we all went through that rebellious bullshit, and although we are now dealing with angry self directed insoulent younger people, it's quite the turnabout.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, if the teachers told me to stop doing something because it was disruptive, I stopped doing it. I didn't call it a "right" and get whiny. Hell, my father would have skinned my hide if I pulled that shit.

Yes, they have the legal responsibility to do what they must to preserve order and a learning enviornment. Often when faced with a technology that they don't understand authority will over react in the name of safety (banning leathermen from the AV crews, when I was in highschool, not to mention swiss army knives on the grounds that they could possibly be used as weapons, or to open wine or beer? (of course a number of us started buying Souix City Sapirrella, just becasue the bottles looked exactly like beer, and it fucked with the vice principal's mind, that we were drinking root beer that looked exactly like beer, beer)We probably have seen a high school vice principal mistake an acidotic type one diabetic for a drunk (in my case the kid sued the school district, and got alllowed back into school, and a full appology from the administration.)

The point is?

like the who song goes, For the most part "The Kids are allright", sure we have to provide them with discipline and resistance, and they have to find their own way. They want all the freedoms of adulthood, and none of the responsibilities. And on the flip side Authority will abuse power, just as Machevelli said, things haven't changed from the office of the president down to the high school security personall (who like the prison guards at the wild fires were the most common source of drugs and alcohol anyways)

sorry It's all human nature

What the fuck does any of this have to do with the simple fact that if the administration finds it's a headache to allow cell-phones in school, they have every right to ban them? I know you're fond of tossing in your largely irrelevant personal anecdotes, but I'll be goddamned if I let you fool yourself into believing that I should be bowled over by them.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2006-07-12 11:07pm

Darth Wong wrote:No. When someone misrepresents my position, he's lucky that I only flame him.

How is it misrepresenting your position to point out that you appear to be acting in obnoxious manner just for the sake of being obnoxious? It should be fairly obvious to most readers that the amount of vitriol you are dispensing in this thread is far out of proportion to the content.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-07-12 11:50pm

1. I flat out said that the administration and the parents had the responsibility to limit or grant access to privledges or to take them away. This is not a rightt this is their burdonsom duty. Just as the adolescent must transition between child and adult, anything given without being earned is generally not respected.

Their job: to get all the rights and privledges of adulthood
Our job: just like our pasrents when we were kids: Make them EARN IT!

now the whole check the phones for drug dealers is just an administarive red herring. Why?

Because administration would have better luck spending resources auditting their own staff. It's impossible for one to opperate without a currupt school peersonell on some level. What, do you really want to look into some's text history to find out the school gossip? That trick never worked.

Next of Kin · Post by **Next of Kin** » 2006-07-13 12:26am

Dominus Atheos wrote:
They still have that rule.

Which is one of the reasons why kids need a cell phone.

Not really. I remember when I was back in high school that the pay phones in the school were good enough if I ever needed to call home for a ride or to call anyone else for that matter (i.e. friends or work). If the case were an extreme emergency then the school would call home and get in touch with my parents on my behalf.

I see the arguement circles around that it is okay to have cell phones in school but the general concensus is that they shouldn't be used in classes or in a disruptive manner. However, I can see teachers and administration wasting more time chasing down rogue cell phones and thus, disrupting the learning process. Do away with them.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-07-13 01:45am

I for one can't even imagine the high school I work at doing this sort of thing; they just put up signs this year on the classroom doors saying "secure and silence your cell phones", they're freely usable outside of the classroom.

I'm also not sure where this pay phone business comes in... do other schools not have multiple phone lines? Are students these days such jerks that the teachers won't let them use their phone for a quick call home? Hell, the office at work generally makes a phone available for calling home.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-07-13 01:53am

Uraniun235 wrote:I'm also not sure where this pay phone business comes in... do other schools not have multiple phone lines? Are students these days such jerks that the teachers won't let them use their phone for a quick call home?

I don't think it's the students who are the jerks. I think it's the administrators. I think they just want the money they make off the payphones.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-07-13 02:54am

Sharp-kun wrote:I'm all for banning phones at school unless the pupil has a valid reason for having one there. They are disruptive.

This does read more as a "if we have to we will" rule, which I'm not that bothered by. If I was a pupil however I would simply password the phone and refuse to give the code.

Missed this earlier: this little stunt would end with you at an expulsion hearing. Which you'd lose.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-07-13 02:56am

RedImperator wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote:I'm all for banning phones at school unless the pupil has a valid reason for having one there. They are disruptive.

This does read more as a "if we have to we will" rule, which I'm not that bothered by. If I was a pupil however I would simply password the phone and refuse to give the code.
Missed this earlier: this little stunt would end with you at an expulsion hearing. Which you'd lose.

On what grounds? I suppose they would have the legal right to take and look at any information on your phone, but they can't force you to answer questions.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-07-13 03:06am

Dominus Atheos wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote:I'm all for banning phones at school unless the pupil has a valid reason for having one there. They are disruptive.

This does read more as a "if we have to we will" rule, which I'm not that bothered by. If I was a pupil however I would simply password the phone and refuse to give the code.
Missed this earlier: this little stunt would end with you at an expulsion hearing. Which you'd lose.
On what grounds? I suppose they would have the legal right to take and look at any information on your phone, but they can't force you to answer questions.

Bullshit they can't. Gross insubordination and interfering with the school's legal right to search the phone. You think if he locks the phone and refuses to unlock it, the school has no choice but to go, "Oh well, nothing we can do" if it suspects drug dealing or another Columbine massacre in the works?

At any rate, any smart administration wouldn't go through phones unless it had enough evidence that the police, if necessary, could be called in with a warrant to search the contents of the phone, and if that happens, you're in really deep shit no matter what they find.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-07-13 03:18am

Graeme Dice wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:No. When someone misrepresents my position, he's lucky that I only flame him.
How is it misrepresenting your position to point out that you appear to be acting in obnoxious manner just for the sake of being obnoxious? It should be fairly obvious to most readers that the amount of vitriol you are dispensing in this thread is far out of proportion to the content.

Vitriol is not a "position", you idiot. I can be as vitriolic as I like, and this board has no fucking rules against it. No, it's misrepresenting my position by claiming that I was dismissing Zero's argument solely because he's young, rather than dismissing it because the school is not obligated to worry about his personal convenience when setting its rules.

I have no patience for whiny dipshits who make up "rights" (as if there's actually a right to bring your cell-phone around with you in school when you're a student there with no administrative recourse) and then pretend that others are obligated to respect these made-up "rights". Proliferation of made-up rights is one of my pet peeves, and if I choose to spew vitriol over it, that's my business.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-07-13 03:26am

Darth Wong wrote:I already stated the reason earlier, you fucking idiot. He rejected it by claiming, in essence, that a reason must be made which satisfies him, not just the administration of the school.

You never actually stated this reason. If I'm wrong, quote the post you made that specifically stated that the reason for such a rule is because of the risk of abusing it. I also never claimed that the reasoning must satisfy me, just that there has to be one. That I'm a minor has no bearing on that at all, and I didn't claim that the administration must bow to my desires and claims, so the fact that I'm not part of the administration has precisely jack shit to do with anything I said.

Furthermore, the fact that anyone isn't part of an administrative body which has a right to make such decisions had no bearing whatsoever on their criticisms of it, otherwise nobody but US citizens with the right to vote ought to be able to comment at all on anything the Bush administration does. Citizens of a state under a tyranical ruler also shouldn't be able to make any objections to what laws the ruler imposes upon them.

And before you take the strawman of claiming that I'm equating the school administration making rules to tyrany, let me just say right now that I'm just pointing out the bullshit inherant in the "my house, my rules" argument, and the implications of said argument.

So what the fuck does the blatent ad hominem attack on me (the fact that I'm a minor, and not part of the administration) have to do with the validity of a rule?

Darth Wong wrote:I have no patience for whiny dipshits who make up "rights" (as if there's actually a right to bring your cell-phone around with you in school when you're a student there with no administrative recourse) and then pretend that others are obligated to respect these made-up "rights". Proliferation of made-up rights is one of my pet peeves, and if I choose to spew vitriol over it, that's my business.

This is a blatent strawman. When did I ever say it was my right to have a cell phone? All I said was that a rule to inhibit having cell phones on campus at all is needlessly inhibitory in nature, a point which I conceded above as soon as Lagmonster pointed simply said that there was the possibility of students abusing the ability to have cell phones on campus. No where in any of my posts did I claim it was a right to have a cell phone.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-07-13 04:48am

Okay, I figured out the flaw in my rationale. Schools have in loco parentis authority, so they ought to be reguarded as parents. My analogies relating to governments vs. "my house, my rules" are flawed, because governments require the consent of those their ruling over to survive, whereas in the relationship between parents and children, it's the exact opposite; children need their parents, so their subject to their rules.

Since schools have in loco parentis authority, the same relationship in reguards to rules still applies to students. I'm still confused about how this works in reguards to foreigners complaining about my federal government, but that's only related to this debate through a flawwed analogy, so it doesn't matter.

However, this doesn't change whether a rule is actually effective or not, which is what I was initially trying to argue. Since this point was already covered, I concede.

Special thanks to Surlethe for helping me get this straight.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-07-13 09:06am

Zero wrote:You never actually stated this reason. If I'm wrong, quote the post you made that specifically stated that the reason for such a rule is because of the risk of abusing it.

So you were blind when I said "If I think it's disruptive, it's gone"- speaking in the viewpoint of the administration, correct? You're either an idiot or a liar if you think I never stated it before. If the administration finds that cell-phones in the school are causing a disruption, they get rid of them. Simple as that, asshole. And learn to fucking read.

This is a blatent strawman. When did I ever say it was my right to have a cell phone? All I said was that a rule to inhibit having cell phones on campus at all is needlessly inhibitory in nature, a point which I conceded above as soon as Lagmonster pointed simply said that there was the possibility of students abusing the ability to have cell phones on campus. No where in any of my posts did I claim it was a right to have a cell phone.

The mere fact that you think the goddamned school can't regulate what you bring onto their grounds means that you must think it's a right, moron. Otherwise you would have no grounds for saying that they can't restrict it, or demanding justification.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-07-13 09:56am

Darth Wong wrote:So you were blind when I said "If I think it's disruptive, it's gone"- speaking in the viewpoint of the administration, correct? You're either an idiot or a liar if you think I never stated it before. If the administration finds that cell-phones in the school are causing a disruption, they get rid of them. Simple as that, asshole. And learn to fucking read.

Since I was trying to argue about the effectiveness and necessity of such a rule, that actually wasn't really relevant to my argument at all. The administration may not have to justify its decisions to students, but that has no bearing on whether a given rule will be useful.

Darth Wong wrote:The mere fact that you think the goddamned school can't regulate what you bring onto their grounds means that you must think it's a right, moron. Otherwise you would have no grounds for saying that they can't restrict it, or demanding justification.

I'm not demanding justification from any school, and I never said that they couldn't regulate what I bring onto school grounds. I got a bit sidetracked with Lagmonster's talk about 'my house, my rules,' but it was actually completely unrelated to my argument about whether a rule banning all cell phone usage is necessary. Whether the school has to justify its decisions to me or not has no bearing on whether a given rule will actually be effective or useful, so 'my house, my rules' actually wasn't related to what I was originally trying to discuss.

Since I already conceded the point about potential for abuse of a rule allowing students to have their cell phone turned off and in their locker, there's really nothing to debate. Everything we're still arguing about just relates to a general misunderstanding.