In class we watched several videos that had to do with bullying. The first video we watched was on the case of Jamie Nabozny. Nabozny was severely bullied throughout his schooling years because he was gay. When Nabozny and his parents went to the school and informed them of what was going on, the school basically told them that boys will be boys and there was nothing that they could do to stop other children from bullying Nabozny. Eventually Nabozny attempted to commit suicide and then decided to run away and these actions made his parents realize that what was going on was not okay and something needed to be done so their child would be safe, like he should be. Jamie ended up suing the school and the teenagers who harshly bullied him at school. His was the first case of bullying that ended up winning in court.
This story was truly inspiring. I felt proud of Jamie Nabozny for having the courage to sue the school not knowing whether or not he would walk out of the courtroom winning or losing. It shows that one person can really change the entire country's rules because of what happened to him. Jamie Nabozny did not deserve to undergo what he went through and was rewarded with money for compensation. Money can't buy back Nabozny's childhood and no one should have to go through what he did.
Rachel Neblett was a 17 year old girl who seemed like she had everything going for her. She was a cheerleader, a talented gymnast and she had a lot of friends at school. One summer she started receiving threatening emails. Neblett had not told her parents of this until it became more of a serious issue. Neblett's teachers and principal were informed, once her parents found out, so that they could keep an eye out for her at school. Neblett eventually commit suicide because of her fear for her life from the anonymous e-mailer. To add to the cause, one of her best friends committed suicide six months after Neblett did because of her inability to cope with Neblett's death.
Neblett's father created a nonprofit organization, Make a Difference for Kids, to spread awareness of anti-bullying and anti-suicide across the country. Organizations like Make a Difference for Kids is a great way to get the anti bullying message out there. The more organizations like this, the less kids and teenagers will be to feel the need to bully others at and/or out of school. Bullying has shown to be an immense problem in many parts of the US and is something that may not ever actually go away, but can be helped. Many teens and even young children are feeling that suicide is the only way out of bullying but that shouldn't be so.
To see more about Rachel Neblett's organization visit: http://www.makeadifferenceforkids.org/rachael.html
I don't think that bullying is an issue at Deerfield High School. No one I know is personally bullied and I know that I don't personally bully anyone. I feel fortunate that bullying is not a big problem here because teenagers should feel safe in the places they are. If bullying becomes a problem there is always the deans office to settle any disputes between teens. Bullying can be minimized all around the country and if students at a high school, like DHS, are activists on non bullying, it may help with bullying problems at other schools.
yours truly,
Amy
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Students and the Fourth Amendment
A study at Columbia University reported that, "ssubstance abuse adds at least $41 billion dollars to the costs of elementary and secondary education in terms of special education, teacher turnover, truancy, property damage, injury, counseling, and other costs." Who in their right mind would want to spend 41 billion dollars for children and teenagers to do something illegal and something that's hurting themselves? Enforcing a policy where students need to be drug tested on occasion is a beneficial option for students to, in a way, be forced to stay clean.
It has also been reported that by the time that a class reaches their senior year in high school, more than one-third of the class have used or do use drugs. In one specific school, one third of students may not seem to be that high of a number, but if looked at in a broader view, one third of high school seniors throughout the country adds up to millions of teens. So many students have used and abused drugs, that a drug testing policy would only help the problem.
Some policies have students drug tested if they want to be a part of an extra-curricular program at the school they attend. This policy reduces the amount of athletes and students involved with the school's activities that do drugs. Drug testing has shown to keep students away from the drugs and in the activities their school provides. Drug testing these students is a good way to start a policy in the school, but a drug testing policy should be in place over all of the student body.
Drug testing policies not only keep kids away from illegal activity but also improve their academics at school too. It was shown that "80% (2002-2003 school year) and 79% (2003-2004 school year) of schools with random drug testing programs achieved scores higher than the state average on the mandated graduation test for grades 10-12." It is clear that students who attend schools with a random drug testing policy have better academic scores than those who don't. Doesn't it seem like a good idea not to spend 41 billion dollars on drugs and achieve better scores on nation wide tests than average?
Many may argue that drug testing is an invasion of the privacy of students. Schools would not be drug testing if they were simply wanting to invade the students privacy, but rather that the school is concerned for their student body's safety and well being.
In an article in a newspaper from Connecticut a parent, Mr. Katz, shared a story they had experienced sending their child to a high school with out a drug testing program. Mr. Katz stated, "My son Ian died September 10, 1996... student drug testing could have saved our son's life." another article from Alabama reported, "We have had only 6 positive test results since adding random drug testing... Some community members have asked me why don't we just stop the program. I responded: What, are you kidding? We've saved 6 kids, Even if we only save one more-- what's a child's life worth?" It is important to note that drug testing is not a way to infringe on a students privacy or their fourth amendment rights, it is solely a way to keep the students of America safe.
In the case ACLU, the strip search of student Savanna Redding, was ruled to be unacceptable of the school. In my opinion, since Redding was said to have sold her prescription strength ibuprofen, it was okay that when she did not admit to her wrong doings that the school could thereafter search her. The search dealt with a student who had allegedly sold drugs at school. Whether or not a school has a drug testing program, a student is not allowed to sell drugs, or anything for that matter, at school.
The case Rutherford v. Missouri was an extreme way of handling their program. I agree that it was a violation of the students fourth amendment rights because there was absolutely no reasonable cause that they would conduct the test. There must be a meaningful cause for a school to conduct a test as such.
It has also been reported that by the time that a class reaches their senior year in high school, more than one-third of the class have used or do use drugs. In one specific school, one third of students may not seem to be that high of a number, but if looked at in a broader view, one third of high school seniors throughout the country adds up to millions of teens. So many students have used and abused drugs, that a drug testing policy would only help the problem.
Some policies have students drug tested if they want to be a part of an extra-curricular program at the school they attend. This policy reduces the amount of athletes and students involved with the school's activities that do drugs. Drug testing has shown to keep students away from the drugs and in the activities their school provides. Drug testing these students is a good way to start a policy in the school, but a drug testing policy should be in place over all of the student body.
Drug testing policies not only keep kids away from illegal activity but also improve their academics at school too. It was shown that "80% (2002-2003 school year) and 79% (2003-2004 school year) of schools with random drug testing programs achieved scores higher than the state average on the mandated graduation test for grades 10-12." It is clear that students who attend schools with a random drug testing policy have better academic scores than those who don't. Doesn't it seem like a good idea not to spend 41 billion dollars on drugs and achieve better scores on nation wide tests than average?
Many may argue that drug testing is an invasion of the privacy of students. Schools would not be drug testing if they were simply wanting to invade the students privacy, but rather that the school is concerned for their student body's safety and well being.
In an article in a newspaper from Connecticut a parent, Mr. Katz, shared a story they had experienced sending their child to a high school with out a drug testing program. Mr. Katz stated, "My son Ian died September 10, 1996... student drug testing could have saved our son's life." another article from Alabama reported, "We have had only 6 positive test results since adding random drug testing... Some community members have asked me why don't we just stop the program. I responded: What, are you kidding? We've saved 6 kids, Even if we only save one more-- what's a child's life worth?" It is important to note that drug testing is not a way to infringe on a students privacy or their fourth amendment rights, it is solely a way to keep the students of America safe.
In the case ACLU, the strip search of student Savanna Redding, was ruled to be unacceptable of the school. In my opinion, since Redding was said to have sold her prescription strength ibuprofen, it was okay that when she did not admit to her wrong doings that the school could thereafter search her. The search dealt with a student who had allegedly sold drugs at school. Whether or not a school has a drug testing program, a student is not allowed to sell drugs, or anything for that matter, at school.
The case Rutherford v. Missouri was an extreme way of handling their program. I agree that it was a violation of the students fourth amendment rights because there was absolutely no reasonable cause that they would conduct the test. There must be a meaningful cause for a school to conduct a test as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)