|
|
|
|
|
by mlyle
1405 days ago
|
|
> What about the things that happen between children outside their homes, like at a neighborhood park? I absolutely think it's relevant whether student A punched student B in the face at the park yesterday, when they're dealing with a dispute where student A seems to have done something that's in a grey area to student B. "Playful" jostling that student B doesn't appreciate is very different with the context of the prior punch in the face. Of course, the problem schools face is that objective facts about what's happened between students-- in or out of school-- are frequently not known. > Maybe schools should mind their own business instead of becoming totalitarian states that use permissive precedents to dig into everyone’s business. Someone1234 posed some good questions above. I don't have all the answers. I endured nearly a decade of terrible bullying because it was literally no one's business, though. Would not recommend. |
|
That's right, but the solution is not to empower schools to operate their own investigation departments so that they can enforce their own laws on our children through a governance system best described as a Medieval lordship. There must be limits on their authority.
For children in abusive home environments, schools ought to refer these cases to the State. For children involved in bullying relationships, schools ought to refer these cases to the State. There are more adequate checks and balances on the actions of State than within the unelected fiat systems of governance in public schools. State and local governments can direct the appropriate responses of social workers and law enforcement. There is no rationale for protecting violent bullies from the law by adjudicating their behavior within the nonstandard and arbitrary discipline systems of schools.
Schools are not law enforcement and have powerful incentives to act capriciously to keep production moving: as you shared - they didn't look out for you and they didn't stop your bully.