Here's something you might be interested in.
One of my lawyer friends donates time and money to the ACLU. I always give her crap about it.
It seems half of what they get involved in I'm against.
Sometimes it's a man writing a blog about his love of child pornography. And they'll fight to say he has the freedom of speech.
The two most recent stories take place close to home.
One happened in Reno.
The ACLU was upset that the school board voted to implement a full calendar-year of random drug testing for high school students who participate in sports.
The logic by the school board is that if athletes are doing steroids or other drugs, between seasons, they have a better chance of catching them. Why the ACLU would have a problem with this just baffles me.
When I played high school basketball, I had to get a physical. That involved the nurse grabbing my balls and asking me to cough.
It seems that if students want to participate in activities, they can agree to be drug tested, or whatever that activity requires. If that's selling candy bars or doing a car wash to raise money for the band, or submitting to drug tests. How is that a violation of a students "rights"? For any student that had a problem with this, I'd ask if they'd prefer the school just drop the program they want to be involved in. Either because it was too expensive or because it wasn't worth the legal hassles with the ACLU.
I remember the schools would occasionally check our lockers. Again, nobody should have a problem with this. If they do, they can opt to not use a locker.
Even closer to home, in Ramona, a school is having problems with the ACLU. A girl (I believe she was 12) wanted to do a report on Harvey Milk. The teacher let her, but had all the other students take home a permission slip to show their parents. Half of the parents didn't feel comfortable with their children hearing this report, so when the girl gave it to the class, it was only half full.
Now, why in the world is this an ACLU issue? And how could they have a problem with this?
They claim Harvey Milk is an important figure in history and blah blah blah. Well, nobody is disputing that.
To me, the school did EVERYTHING RIGHT in this instance. They didn't tell her she couldn't do a report on Milk (which to me, they should've had the right to do...not that I would've necessarily agreed with that, but a school should have the right to tell you who you can and can't write about).
When the school thought about how there might be a parent or two out there that freaks out about this, they were smart enough to send out permission slips. And apparently they were right to do so, as half the parents objected.
How in the world can anyone have a problem with this? If anything, this is an example of how a school did everything right.
One of my lawyer friends donates time and money to the ACLU. I always give her crap about it.
It seems half of what they get involved in I'm against.
Sometimes it's a man writing a blog about his love of child pornography. And they'll fight to say he has the freedom of speech.
The two most recent stories take place close to home.
One happened in Reno.
The ACLU was upset that the school board voted to implement a full calendar-year of random drug testing for high school students who participate in sports.
The logic by the school board is that if athletes are doing steroids or other drugs, between seasons, they have a better chance of catching them. Why the ACLU would have a problem with this just baffles me.
When I played high school basketball, I had to get a physical. That involved the nurse grabbing my balls and asking me to cough.
It seems that if students want to participate in activities, they can agree to be drug tested, or whatever that activity requires. If that's selling candy bars or doing a car wash to raise money for the band, or submitting to drug tests. How is that a violation of a students "rights"? For any student that had a problem with this, I'd ask if they'd prefer the school just drop the program they want to be involved in. Either because it was too expensive or because it wasn't worth the legal hassles with the ACLU.
I remember the schools would occasionally check our lockers. Again, nobody should have a problem with this. If they do, they can opt to not use a locker.
Even closer to home, in Ramona, a school is having problems with the ACLU. A girl (I believe she was 12) wanted to do a report on Harvey Milk. The teacher let her, but had all the other students take home a permission slip to show their parents. Half of the parents didn't feel comfortable with their children hearing this report, so when the girl gave it to the class, it was only half full.
Now, why in the world is this an ACLU issue? And how could they have a problem with this?
They claim Harvey Milk is an important figure in history and blah blah blah. Well, nobody is disputing that.
To me, the school did EVERYTHING RIGHT in this instance. They didn't tell her she couldn't do a report on Milk (which to me, they should've had the right to do...not that I would've necessarily agreed with that, but a school should have the right to tell you who you can and can't write about).
When the school thought about how there might be a parent or two out there that freaks out about this, they were smart enough to send out permission slips. And apparently they were right to do so, as half the parents objected.
How in the world can anyone have a problem with this? If anything, this is an example of how a school did everything right.