Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

school orders students to remove blogs

Education Schools Student Blogs

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 31 October 2005 - 07:30 AM

Nonny, on Oct 31 2005, 04:28 AM, said:

That's a fallacy BTW, saying that someone, especially a child, must not have wanted something enough if they didn't know how to get it. 

Nonsense. We're talking about high school students here. Technically "children" for purposes of the law, but these were kids who had something that was taken away from them. They know what they had and they know that they don't have it anymore. If it's important enough to them, they would fight.

Nonny, on Oct 31 2005, 04:28 AM, said:

Actually, quality of education has been brought up in this thread. 

Nonny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


But you knew that the quality was substandard and you stayed anyway. Here we're talking about people who think that they're getting value for their money. Apples and oranges.

#62 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:27 PM

Broph, on Oct 31 2005, 04:30 AM, said:

Here we're talking about people who think that they're getting value for their money. Apples and oranges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that it's okay to give a child of the working poor an inferior education because the parents don't deserve value for their lesser amount of money?  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#63 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 05:28 PM

Nonny, on Nov 1 2005, 05:27 PM, said:

Broph, on Oct 31 2005, 04:30 AM, said:

Here we're talking about people who think that they're getting value for their money. Apples and oranges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that it's okay to give a child of the working poor an inferior education because the parents don't deserve value for their lesser amount of money?  

Nonny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I never said anything about what is "deserved". However, should someone be forced to buy a Hyundai if he can afford a Ferrari?

#64 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:32 PM

Broph, on Nov 1 2005, 02:28 PM, said:

Nonny, on Nov 1 2005, 05:27 PM, said:

Broph, on Oct 31 2005, 04:30 AM, said:

Here we're talking about people who think that they're getting value for their money. Apples and oranges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that it's okay to give a child of the working poor an inferior education because the parents don't deserve value for their lesser amount of money?  

Nonny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I never said anything about what is "deserved". However, should someone be forced to buy a Hyundai if he can afford a Ferrari?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I ask you if you think it's okay to give a poor child an inferior education, and you apple and orange me with automobiles.  :blink:  

Bored now.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#65 Heropa

Heropa

    Phantom of the Obtuse - Pubic Defender

  • Islander
  • 474 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 12:05 AM

Boy can you folks go around and around on an issue!

Nonny,  PLEASE, if you have to wonder if somebody is implying something read the post with the entire sentences aloud or something. You may have a mistaken inflection or be leaving out part of it in your thinking.  "Here" starts the sentence, implying contrast to what was just said in the preceding sentence.

"But you knew that the quality was substandard and you stayed anyway. Here (in contrast to you) we're talking about people who think that they're getting value for their money. Apples and oranges."

You all agree that it's bad of the school to use their contract like this. Some of you don't agree that the parents CAN let the school dictate at home actions. You may need to also recognize that some parents will and others may just wink and nod, pretending to play along. (like not praying over every meal) If, and I mean IF it's left unadressed with no moderation there will be some insurections from students.

I'd had the luck of getting expelled before I could get mad enough to tourch the Catholic school I'd gotten to the fourth grade at. But that was a matter of in school injustices. Being in a fight counted against you even if all you did was get hit. The trouble with stomping on the freedoms of humans, no matter how small, will stir an irate responce at some point. Sometimes they get creative.
Your Heropa.
Here for something- there you go.

If you can't say anything nice, be accurate.

#66 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 07:14 AM

Nonny, on Nov 2 2005, 04:32 AM, said:

I ask you if you think it's okay to give a poor child an inferior education, and you apple and orange me with automobiles.  :blink: 

Bored now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Nonny, inferior to what?! A poor child gets a public education. A rich child may be able to afford to go to a private school. That private school eduction may or may not be superior, but can you really say that the public education is inferior?! That's why I gave the Ferrari example. Should Ferrari not make better cars because some people can't afford them? Should they be forced to make the same type of cars that Hyundai makes? Should poor people automatically get pheasant under glass for dinner with a nice bottle of chianti? Who will pay for all of this?

The rich person may not "deserve" the "superior" education, but if he or she can afford it, why deny them the option?

#67 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 02:46 AM

Broph i went in grade school....5th grade if you need the exact date.  i don't see what my one year in a private non-Catholic school has to do with this debate/article in this present day.  i was simply mentioning that in response to making you aware that yes, i'm aware how much a private school costs because i was aware that my parents paid almost $2,000 for that year.  that is all.

Quote

Your other example and "what is next" is completely irrelevant!

bull.  if this school is going to tell the students they can't use blogs AT HOME, then things like telling the parents where they can and cannot take their children on vacations, allow them to go, etc, WILL BE NEXT.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#68 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 08:12 AM

Cheile, on Nov 3 2005, 07:46 AM, said:

i don't see what my one year in a private non-Catholic school has to do with this debate/article in this present day.

Many people who haven't gone to a private high school simply don't see the benefit of doing so.

Quote

Quote

Your other example and "what is next" is completely irrelevant!

bull.  if this school is going to tell the students they can't use blogs AT HOME, then things like telling the parents where they can and cannot take their children on vacations, allow them to go, etc, WILL BE NEXT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Again, you're making assumptions based on fact. Go back and read my response to the idea. If such a time comes, then at that time, just like now, people will make a decision. If they don't think that the restrictions and sacrifices of going to that school aren't worth it, then the simply won't go to the school anymore.

It really is that simple.

#69 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 12:56 PM

Quote

It's that simple.

no it's not.  apparently you don't see the connection because you persist in saying it is irrelevant.

how do you know the parents haven't figured out they've been duped in having their parental decision taken away with this rule?  there's no more articles besides the one.

and again you didn't address the point that HOW WILL THEY PROVE any of the students have blogs?  as i said earlier, their search on myspace, one of the sites accused by this school, found NO EVIDENCE of their precious little institution mentioned.  so if the kids don't mention the school, how can they prove anyone is breaking this rule?

meaning why add BS to the contract they cannot enforce?  it's THAT simple.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#70 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 06:18 PM

Cheile, on Nov 3 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

no it's not.  apparently you don't see the connection because you persist in saying it is irrelevant.

No, there is no connection because it's irrelevant.

Quote

how do you know the parents haven't figured out they've been duped in having their parental decision taken away with this rule?  there's no more articles besides the one.

Nothing has been taken away. When they were accepted to the school, they agreed to the rules. If they think that the rules are too restrictive, all they need to do is remove their child from the school. It's that simple.

The parents don't sit in the classrooms with the children. They don't see how the teachers treat the students. They don't see how the teachers discipline the students when the students act out. How are they not giving up their parental decisions there?!

Quote

and again you didn't address the point that HOW WILL THEY PROVE any of the students have blogs?

Um, maybe because I don't particularly care how they prove the students have blogs? If the student doesn't name himself and doesn't name the school, then is it even a blog that the school is interested in? Likely not.

How about your example of not letting the students go to DisneyLand for vacation? How would they know about/enforce that? Do you see why that's just as ridiculous?

Quote

as i said earlier, their search on myspace, one of the sites accused by this school, found NO EVIDENCE of their precious little institution mentioned.  so if the kids don't mention the school, how can they prove anyone is breaking this rule?

You can't prove a negative. You can only prove something when you have evidence. Maybe the kid who puts up a blog brags about it in school and gets caught that way.

There's also a little thing called the honor code.

Quote

meaning why add BS to the contract they cannot enforce?

Um, they can enforce it. I'm not sure why you said that they cannot enforce it.

#71 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 06:50 PM

Broph, on Nov 3 2005, 04:18 PM, said:

Cheile, on Nov 3 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

no it's not.  apparently you don't see the connection because you persist in saying it is irrelevant.

No, there is no connection because it's irrelevant.

where does it end?  today it is blogs, tomorrow it could be trips to the mall.  but you can't seem to see that.

Quote

Nothing has been taken away.

the parents' power to decide what their children may or may not do online AT HOME has been taken away.

Quote

The parents don't sit in the classrooms with the children. They don't see how the teachers treat the students. They don't see how the teachers discipline the students when the students act out. How are they not giving up their parental decisions there?!

this example is what is really irrelevant.  when they are ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, then the teachers and school adminstrators may tell the children what to do.  AT HOME, OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS, it is the parents who are in charge.  not the school.

Quote

Um, maybe because I don't particularly care how they prove the students have blogs? If the student doesn't name himself and doesn't name the school, then is it even a blog that the school is interested in? Likely not.

likely so or they wouldn't be throwing this asinine rule around now would they??

Quote

How about your example of not letting the students go to DisneyLand for vacation? How would they know about/enforce that? Do you see why that's just as ridiculous?

then show me an outlined plan of how they will prove any of these students have blogs.

Quote

Um, they can enforce it. I'm not sure why you said that they cannot enforce it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


see above.  how are they going to prove unless students are accessing blogs on school computers, on school grounds and/or school time?  without proof they cannot enforce this idiocy they call a rule.  how hard is that to understand, exactly?

Edited by Cheile, 03 November 2005 - 06:51 PM.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#72 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 09:06 PM

Cheile, on Nov 3 2005, 11:50 PM, said:

where does it end?  today it is blogs, tomorrow it could be trips to the mall.  but you can't seem to see that.

Check my prior posts for my position on the subject. It should be clear by now.

Quote

the parents' power to decide what their children may or may not do online AT HOME has been taken away.

Nothing has been taken away. The parents gave certain powers to the school. If they don't like what the school does with that power, then the parents can take that power away from the school. However, if the parents think that a blog is worth the education that the school is giving their child, then aren't they agreeing with the school that there are some things more important than blogs?

If the parents can take the child out of the school any time they want (and they can), then nothing has been taken away from the period. And nothing you say about mall trips or trips to DisneyLand changes that.

Quote

this example is what is really irrelevant.  when they are ON SCHOOL GROUNDS

That is exactly the point - location is irrelevant! If the school has control over the students while the students are on the school grounds, then according to your definition, the parents have given up parental control! Location is irrelevant! And if it's irrelevant on school grounds, it must be irrelevant off school grounds as well!

Quote

likely so or they wouldn't be throwing this asinine rule around now would they??

Who is throwing what around?

Quote

then show me an outlined plan of how they will prove any of these students have blogs.

I think I've stated quite clearly that this is not the point.

Quote

see above.  how are they going to prove unless students are accessing blogs on school computers, on school grounds and/or school time?

I've already stated several examples. If the students put their names and the name of the school in the blog, then the school knows that they're making a blog. Granted, a friend could always make up a blog and put their name on it, but then you'd have to track IP addresses and things like that.

Quote

without proof they cannot enforce this idiocy they call a rule. 

Who says that they'd never have proof? When this started, IIRC, they found 2 students with this type of blog. Those blogs were discontinued. The students probably had their names and the names of the school in the blog. Sounds like the school had all the proof that they needed.

You're trying to suggest that just because there are some ways to hide identity on a blog that all students must be able to get away with it. This is not necessarily true.

#73 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 11:51 PM

Quote

And if it's irrelevant on school grounds, it must be irrelevant off school grounds as well!

as usual you are twisting my words.  it is expected that of course teachers would have control ON school grounds.  OFF school grounds, that is up to the parents.

and show me where it was proven they found students at this school using blog sites.  the article actually says this:

Quote

A search of both myspace.com and xanga.com Wednesday by The Associated Press found no postings by users who mentioned the school.

wow look at that.  no postings.  therefore no proof!  unless you have some inside information from the press about the other blog sites they have searched, but the info hasn't been released. :sarcasm:

Quote

Nothing has been taken away. The parents gave certain powers to the school.

by lying to them, no doubt.  or twisting their words, as corrupt private schools like this are KNOWN TO DO.  (and before you start claiming i have no proof, i think Nonny's and my experiences are proof enough.  adults rarely see the problem until the damage has been done but that's off topic.  just a side point relating to the original.)

the original article made a mention of a VAGUE rule about "responsible Internet usage".  to any NORMAL parent, that means keeping the kid out of porn sites (obviously!) and maybe out of chat rooms.  and not letting them have free rein (i.e. time limits, machine not in their room)  only NOW is the diocese claiming that rule is about blogs with some lame excuse about cyberpredators.

maybe if the diocese did their research they'd realize that perverts don't waste their time keeping journals.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#74 NeuralClone

NeuralClone
  • Islander
  • 23,092 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 03:05 AM

First of all, let me start out by saying that the fact that this is a Catholic school is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The issue that is important here is that it is a private school. The fact that it is also a Catholic school has no bearing whatsoever on the contract the parents agreed to. Non-Catholic private schools do the same sort of thing all the time.

Is it too much to ask for people to not make sweeping, derogatory generalizations about religions or people you don't agree with? We get it. You don't like Catholics or their "ignorant" ways. Once again, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. So stating it repeatedly doesn't help anyone's argument in this particular case, nor is it proof of anything.

Also, a point no seems to have made yet is that if the students need to write that badly in a journal, they could always use pen and paper. You know, pen and paper, the method that has been used for thousands of years? If they want their friends to read it, they could always let them borrow it. Children have survived for thousands of years without blogs or Internet chat. I think these students should be able to survive for four years of their life without being allowed to write in a blog. If being able to write in a blog is that important to a child, then they may want to explore alternate, safer forms of journal writing, as I described above.

In response to the question of "where does it end," my answer is quite simple: with blogs and other things that are considered unsafe for children online. There has been no evidence whatsoever that this school intends on taking it any further. Until that happens and until we hear of students and parents complaining, there is no danger here. As I said before, children have survived for thousands of years without blogs so they should be able to survive four years without one.

Additionally, there is a major difference between disallowing blogging and disallowing a trip to Disney World. Cyberspace and the physical world have different laws and rules. What may seem like a vast violation of rights in the physical world actually may not be on the Internet. Also, one would assume that if a child were to go to Disney World, they would be with either their parents or their legal guardian(s). In other words, there would be someone there to help protect them potential predators. Blogs and the Internet are a different matter since the threats aren't as obvious or as noticeable (see my example below).

Another point I should make is that regardless of where parents send their children to school, they are always allowing the school to tell their children what to do. Yes, schools can tell children what is and isn't allowed on school property. However, schools do something else that is even more important than simply telling children what they can and cannot do: they indoctrinate children. Regardless of the type of school children are sent to, they are indoctrinated with a core set of beliefs and values. So simply by letting their children go to school, parents are letting schools tell their children what they can and cannot do. A school telling a child that blogging can be irresponsible is no different than telling them that having unprotected sex is irresponsible. Both can have severe and permenant consequences (see below for an example of why blogging can be dangerous). With the Internet becoming a bigger and bigger part of people's lives every day, children need to be taught the dangers of the Internet, as well as the Internet's power.

Cheile, on Nov 3 2005, 11:51 PM, said:

by lying to them, no doubt.  or twisting their words, as corrupt private schools like this are KNOWN TO DO.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions that are based purely on personal opinion and very little information. Have you visited this school, interviewed the children going there, talked with the administration, talked with the parents? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in that article that suggests that this particular private school is corrupt. Disagreeing with a rule that a school makes doesn't automatically mean that the school is corrupt. There were plenty of rules at my high school that I disagreed with but I didn't jump to the conclusion that the administration was corrupt. In fact, they were the exact opposite.

Quote

(and before you start claiming i have no proof, i think Nonny's and my experiences are proof enough.  adults rarely see the problem until the damage has been done but that's off topic.  just a side point relating to the original.)
That isn't proof. Those are personal experiences with two private schools. The experiences the two of you had are unfortunate but they don't automatically imply that all private Catholic schools are like that. So unless you went to this particlar private school, you have no proof.

Quote

the original article made a mention of a VAGUE rule about "responsible Internet usage".  to any NORMAL parent, that means keeping the kid out of porn sites (obviously!) and maybe out of chat rooms.  and not letting them have free rein (i.e. time limits, machine not in their room)  only NOW is the diocese claiming that rule is about blogs with some lame excuse about cyberpredators.
Define "normal parent." For you, normal means staying away from porn sites and possibly staying out of chat rooms. Other parents may find blogging to be equally irresponsible and dangerous, and I would agree with them.

Some parents may find blogging to be irresponsible and dangerous because many blogs are open for everyone in the world to see. That is extremely dangerous. All it would take is the name of the school and an IP address. Then all you would need to do is perform a trace route on the IP address, which would pinpoint the region of the planet the student is from. Once you know the region, finding the school would be trivial. All of this could be done in a matter of minutes. So the "excuse" about cyber-predators is hardly "lame." It is a very real threat and concern.

The point you seem to be missing is that the parents agreed to let the school determine what is and isn't safe for their children to do online. If the school feels that blogging could be dangerous for their students, then that is within their right, and I honestly think that that sort of reasoning is justified. They are the ones defining "responsible Internet usage." The parents have put their trust in the school. Otherwise, why bother signing such an agreement and why bother spending thousands of dollars for their children?

Quote

maybe if the diocese did their research they'd realize that perverts don't waste their time keeping journals.
The issue isn't that the "perverts" keep journals. The issue is that they can easily read them and track children online and may even be able to find them in real life. That is the danger. See above for why this is dangerous.

Edited by NeuralClone, 04 November 2005 - 03:06 AM.

"My sexuality's not the most interesting thing about me."
— Cosima Niehaus, Orphan Black, "Governed By Sound Reason and True Religion"

#75 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 07:11 AM

Cheile, on Nov 4 2005, 04:51 AM, said:

as usual you are twisting my words.  it is expected that of course teachers would have control ON school grounds.  OFF school grounds, that is up to the parents.

I've twisted nothing. You're the one who is concerned about parents giving up "parental rights", but they already do that by letting their children go and be guided by these "schools", rather than home-schooling their children. If the school is responsible enough to make sure that the child is taken care of on school grounds, why should it matter if they make up rules for when the student is off-grounds?

Quote

and show me where it was proven they found students at this school using blog sites.  the article actually says this:

Quote

A search of both myspace.com and xanga.com Wednesday by The Associated Press found no postings by users who mentioned the school.

That search was done a month after the directive. If you recall, the article said:

Quote

McHugh told them in an assembly earlier this month to remove any personal journals they might have or risk suspension.

That implies that there had been personal journals that could be linked to the students and most likely they were journals that included mentions of the school or personal information about the students. "Thompson said students aren't being silenced but rather told that they cannot post online writings about school or their personal lives."

Quote

wow look at that.  no postings.  therefore no proof!  unless you have some inside information from the press about the other blog sites they have searched, but the info hasn't been released. :sarcasm:

That's only proof that nobody is ignoring the rule in a flagrant manner. That doesn't mean that there weren't journals out there before. If nobody wears a purple sweatshirt to school, do you think that the principal would make an announcement saying that students should stop wearing purple sweatshirts? Of course not!

In any case, I fail to see what difference it makes whether there are blogs or not or if there were before the announcement. What difference does it make?!

Quote

by lying to them, no doubt.  or twisting their words, as corrupt private schools like this are KNOWN TO DO.  (and before you start claiming i have no proof, i think Nonny's and my experiences are proof enough.  adults rarely see the problem until the damage has been done but that's off topic.  just a side point relating to the original.)

Beat.

Beat.

Beat.

OK, read back up a few paragraphs when you said that the schools had the right to make up the rules about on-campus activities. Do you see that you're contradicting yourself? First you say that it's OK for them to make up the rules on campus; then you say that they may lie and twist words, even about things on-campus. If these parents trusted some rules on-campus, why shouldn't they trust rules for off-campus (and please don't tell me the parental rights thing again - they agreed to these rules)?

And yet when they were lying about things on campus, your parents and Nonniy's parents saw through the ruse and removed you from the schools.

Quote

maybe if the diocese did their research they'd realize that perverts don't waste their time keeping journals.

No, but you do realize that perverts do read these journals to target their victims, right? Go back and read my first post on this thread.

#76 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 10:59 AM

Not all private schools are corrupt.  Mine wasn't, but it DID make rules of what I could do off-campus.  You know what?  My parents agreed with them, so even if I hated them, I was stuck (my school for the most part said common sense things, so it wasn't really an issue for the most part)

Also, I know that internet preditors read things like that.  Going back to my highschool, one of the boarding students wrote somewhere online that lived at school and the name of the school.  Some man was found armed lurking outside her dorm by campus security, looking into the windows of the girls' dorm.  So she not only put herself in danger, but every other girl there.  Since the vast majority of people don't have security guards checking around their houses, preditors like that are even more of a threat, espeacially if some comment on a blog is made along the lines of "mom and dad are going to the local football game tomorrow, but I hate football so I refused to go..." - thereby basically telling anyone choosing to read that they're going to be alone.  

Besides, everyone seems to be ignoring the point that if the parents disagree they can remove their child from the school.  No one is forcing them to attend that particular school.  It is, in fact, rather the opposite.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Education, Schools, Student Blogs

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users