[freehunter]

Is it a basic civil right? To not be monitored in school? Schools have cameras, they have security guards, they have teachers watching you constantly, they have screen monitoring software on the computers, they have locker searches, and all of these have been upheld as Constitutional because in a school, students have no right to privacy.

Whether this particular case (which admittedly is different from other privacy cases I've seen), the girl is choosing to be at this school. The school gave her the option to opt out of the program and just have a normal card, and she refused. The school then gave her another option, which is to return to the school she is legally required to attend rather than the one she is choosing to attend. That seems more than reasonable to me.

[lutusp]

> Is it a basic civil right?

A very good question. The answer is that courts decide this sort of thing, and the notion of "civil rights" is a moving target over time.

But if her civil rights are violated, then the fact that she volunteers to be there instead of another school should not be allowed to interfere with the judgment.

How am I so sure? Well, as one example, African-Americans must be allowed to attend the school of their choice, and the argument that they have alternative schools is (in the eyes of the law) insufficient. The south famously argued that African-Americans had their own schools and shouldn't be arguing for admission to other schools. The Supreme Court disagreed.

> The school then gave her another option, which is to return to the school she is legally required to attend rather than the one she is choosing to attend. That seems more than reasonable to me.

Read the history of the U.S. Civil Rights movement, from beginning to end. Then ask yourself whether what you've just said is fair and reasonable.

[freehunter]

I agree that I would like the courts to decide on this. We're all armchair observers just making our commentary the way we see it.

I'm not certain that the Civil Rights Act comes into play here, though. The problem there is that the government were mandating that people had to go to different schools just based on their skin color. On the other hand, magnet schools are inherently and legally discriminatory; they discriminate on talent. You're legally required to attend school, but you can qualify for attendance in a magnet school. They're not telling the girl to go back to the girl's school, or back to the black person's school, they're telling her to go back to the same school everyone else goes to, the normal school, the regular school, the legally mandated school. High school is not an alternative school, magnet high schools are. It's not discrimination to make someone go to a school everyone else goes to. Not everyone gets into a magnet high school; she did, and now she's been disqualified. Magnet high schools are not a right.

[lutusp]

> I'm not certain that the Civil Rights Act comes into play here, though.

But it does. This person wants to attend a particular school, but that school violates her civil rights as a precondition for attendance. It's a clear violation of the civil rights rulings that were handed down in the 1960s. It would be like requiring people to take a literacy test before voting, but only in particular places. Beyond the civil rights implications, it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

> The problem there is that the government were mandating that people had to go to different schools just based on their skin color.

Yes, but that's coincidental to the legal issues. If the people in question had been women, or another minority, or of a particular religious persuasion, or any number of other traits, the same laws would apply. Race has always been coincidental to the legal arguments.

> On the other hand, magnet schools are inherently and legally discriminatory; they discriminate on talent.

Sometimes true, but a red herring in this case, because the girl is qualified to attend. Because she is qualified, her civil rights become the issue.

> Magnet high schools are not a right.

Actually if it's a public school, yes, it's a right. The reason? If a particular person is qualified to attend this publicly funded institution, then any other equally qualified person should be able to attend also, and if not, the school had better have an excellent reason why not.

If it were a private school, the rules would be different, but this is a publicly funded school, therefore constitutional protections are in force.

[freehunter]

I would love to see this kind of back and forth in the opinions of the Supreme Court. You're making some interesting arguments I haven't thought of. Unfortunately with the religious freedom claim, I doubt we'd see this come up.