School, Where do you draw the line?

rate_me said:

super craig said:

rate_me said:

super craig said:

rate_me said:

And yet they chose to associate themselves with the group. It doesn't matter if you didn't help someone rob a bank: if you're in the get away car, you're getting in trouble too. They aren't exempt from consequences just because they made a stupid decision.

In which case the students should be investigated and if they are found not to have done anything wrong not punished, rather than being punished purely by assocaition. The bloke in the getaway car (providing he didn't know what they were in the car for and had just come along for a ride) would be investigated and if he didn't have anything to do with it would be let off. Same as this group, many off them joined to show their displeasure of a teacher, that doesn't mean that when one or 2 of them decides to start making threats, everyone in the group automatically supports them.

But if they didn't support the more "outspoken" ones, they should have left or publicly stated disagreement. Silence implies consent. They might not have taken part in it, but they did nothing to stop it, and therefore they approved of it.

This was a facebook page, unless they are regularly checking every group they join then how are they to know what is being said? I know that I've joined groups that I've never looked at again, who since I joined could now be preaching any sort of hate and I wouldn't have a clue that they were doing it, doesn't mean I consent to it. Are you fully aware of what every organsiation/group etc you've ever joined are up too? To use your getaway car analogy again its like me willingly getting into a car, falling to sleep then someone uses the car with me asleep for a crime and me then being fully accountable and having consented to the theft/murder/rape while I was asleep, when I wake up.

Actually, I have never had a facebook, and I don't really intend to make one in the future. Thus, I don't have any groups to check or not to check. However, I don't see the point of being a member of a group if you won't check it whenever you have the chance.

In addition, you'd need to actually prove you were asleep in the car while it happened. If one of the criminals thought he would get a lesser sentence if he testified against you he'd certainly do it. What alibi would you have for being somewhere you shouldn't have been or doing something you shouldn't have.

From what I can gather its not the fact that the group exsisted but that it was these couple of students who threatened violence that made it a problem. So the other students are being punished because the group they joined was used by other people for a purpose that wasn't the intended use of the group. So how is that different to say someone posting something on this site in a long dead forum and all of us being punished since we failed to denounce it?

Equally I would assume the purpose of this group would have just been to show the number of people dissatisified with the headteacher, as so many things are on facebook, its more about the numbers showing support for the title of the group than any sort of meaningful discussion.

Also for the car thing, I would have to prove that I was asleep but also the the prosecution would have to prove that I wasn't and unless the police launch a full investigation into each of the children involved in the website then I don't see how they can be punished, certainly I really don't see how the school could punish them.

Oh and I don't know why this didn't click earlier in response to something you mentioned earlier but no reports said whether or not any of the kids did actually say they disagree with the minorities comments. Can anyone find any information on how this event was followed up? I can't find anything at all about this case.

super craig said:

From what I can gather its not the fact that the group exsisted but that it was these couple of students who threatened violence that made it a problem. So the other students are being punished because the group they joined was used by other people for a purpose that wasn't the intended use of the group. So how is that different to say someone posting something on this site in a long dead forum and all of us being punished since we failed to denounce it?

The difference there is that they willingly joined the active group knowing that it was called something like "Principal X is a phallus" and in doing so chose to associate themselves with it. In your example, we are already here and did not participate or associate ourselves with that particular area. We did not take part in, in any way, a group created solely for the purpose of giving an entity a bad image. However, if this site was something like "illegal stuff.org" or "immoral conduct.com", then there should be punishments regardless of level of participation. (No, I'm not saying that this group was necessarily illegal or immoral. That example was another of my hyperboles)

super craig said:

Equally I would assume the purpose of this group would have just been to show the number of people dissatisified with the headteacher, as so many things are on facebook, its more about the numbers showing support for the title of the group than any sort of meaningful discussion.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point in joining any groups if there is no intent of meaningful discussion.

super craig said:

Also for the car thing, I would have to prove that I was asleep but also the the prosecution would have to prove that I wasn't and unless the police launch a full investigation into each of the children involved in the website then I don't see how they can be punished, certainly I really don't see how the school could punish them.

I thought that it had been said at some point that the school itself didn't punish them, but the police did, or something like that.

super craig said:

Oh and I don't know why this didn't click earlier in response to something you mentioned earlier but no reports said whether or not any of the kids did actually say they disagree with the minorities comments. Can anyone find any information on how this event was followed up? I can't find anything at all about this case.

That is a valid point. If anyone did express any sort of disagreement, then that person should have been exonerated.

rate_me said:

super craig said:

From what I can gather its not the fact that the group exsisted but that it was these couple of students who threatened violence that made it a problem. So the other students are being punished because the group they joined was used by other people for a purpose that wasn't the intended use of the group. So how is that different to say someone posting something on this site in a long dead forum and all of us being punished since we failed to denounce it?

The difference there is that they willingly joined the active group knowing that it was called something like "Principal X is a phallus" and in doing so chose to associate themselves with it. In your example, we are already here and did not participate or associate ourselves with that particular area. We did not take part in, in any way, a group created solely for the purpose of giving an entity a bad image. However, if this site was something like "illegal stuff.org" or "immoral conduct.com", then there should be punishments regardless of level of participation. (No, I'm not saying that this group was necessarily illegal or immoral. That example was another of my hyperboles)

super craig said:

Equally I would assume the purpose of this group would have just been to show the number of people dissatisified with the headteacher, as so many things are on facebook, its more about the numbers showing support for the title of the group than any sort of meaningful discussion.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point in joining any groups if there is no intent of meaningful discussion.

super craig said:

Also for the car thing, I would have to prove that I was asleep but also the the prosecution would have to prove that I wasn't and unless the police launch a full investigation into each of the children involved in the website then I don't see how they can be punished, certainly I really don't see how the school could punish them.

I thought that it had been said at some point that the school itself didn't punish them, but the police did, or something like that.

super craig said:

Oh and I don't know why this didn't click earlier in response to something you mentioned earlier but no reports said whether or not any of the kids did actually say they disagree with the minorities comments. Can anyone find any information on how this event was followed up? I can't find anything at all about this case.

That is a valid point. If anyone did express any sort of disagreement, then that person should have been exonerated.

So if the group had been called something like 'We disagree with Mr X regarding his policies on the required length of shoelaces' and then someone hijacked the group about how they wanted to kill him everyone would still be in just as much trouble? After all regardless of the title the topic would still be opposing his plans and this could be seen to harm the reputation of the school.

Could it not also be argued that if the kids did chose to associate themselves with that group then that is exactly what did they, associate with the group, not everyone in the group, and the group was harmless. At the end of the day regardless of whatever group you join you can't decide who else joins.

I saw a story, randomly searching internet, about a boy in school. it happened in quebec (Canada) and in a catholic school. meaning the they can probally do this. happened i think in 2001.

Story is here:
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2010/04/its-official-quebec-school.html
What do you think of this?

rate_me, forgive me if I sound rude, but given that you don't use Facebook, I don't think you're particularly qualified to be commenting on the finer aspects of its usage. You say you don't see the point in joining groups if there is no meaningful discussion going on; maybe you don't, but the vast majority of people using Facebook would, I think, disagree. Joining a group can often, for a lot of people including myself, mean nothing more than agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the title. Think of it less as a forum for discussion than as a sort of mass voting system, where trends in public opinion can gather momentum quite quickly as more and more people see their friends joining a group expressing in its title a certain opinion and deciding they too agree with it. This isn't to say discussion can't happen on Facebook; it can and does. But that isn't the only or even the primary feature of the groups system. Expecting people to be well informed on the goings on of every group they've joined, therefore, is at best na�ve, at worst wholly unfair.

super craig said:

So if the group had been called something like 'We disagree with Mr X regarding his policies on the required length of shoelaces' and then someone hijacked the group about how they wanted to kill him everyone would still be in just as much trouble?

No. Just the one guy who went off the deep end.

super craig said:

After all regardless of the title the topic would still be opposing his plans and this could be seen to harm the reputation of the school.

It could be seen as such, but not nearly to the extent that the other topic would. "We disagree with Mr X regarding his policies on the required length of shoelaces" is much more civil and may even be interpreted as a sign of maturity among the student body, as they don't resort to childish insults to protest.

super craig said:

Could it not also be argued that if the kids did chose to associate themselves with that group then that is exactly what did they, associate with the group, not everyone in the group, and the group was harmless. At the end of the day regardless of whatever group you join you can't decide who else joins.

So then they wanted to be counted as saying that "The Principal is such a c**k", as the group title said?

Shadow_Lord said:

Joining a group can often, for a lot of people including myself, mean nothing more than agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the title. Think of it less as a forum for discussion than as a sort of mass voting system, where trends in public opinion can gather momentum quite quickly as more and more people see their friends joining a group expressing in its title a certain opinion and deciding they too agree with it.

So they agreed with the sentiment in the title, not even bothering to look into it beyond that? And for that they should be exempt from punishment?

Shadow_Lord said:

Expecting people to be well informed on the goings on of every group they've joined, therefore, is at best na�ve, at worst wholly unfair.

How is that unfair? Is it na�ve to expect someone to read a contract before signing or to keep an eye on their stocks?

« Last edited by rate_me on May 2nd 2010 »

Oh come off it. A group on Facebook is not a legally binding contract, nor does it involve any money. As such, it would be ludicrous to pretend that it warrants the same level of scrutiny. If you join a pressure group, say, do you first meticulously investigate the character and activities of its other members? I should expect not; you join because you agree with the group's core aim. Perhaps you'd leave if it was later brought to your attention that certain fellow members were acting extremely inappropriately, but if little was required of you save your continued membership, such would not be the case - if you chose not to partake in further activities with the group, you could not be held responsible for what goes on during said activities. Certainly, your participation, should the group be found to be behaving inappropriately, should be investigated, but if you were genuinely unaware, would it be fair to punish you? It is the same for a group on Facebook, save for, given the ease of joining a group - literally a single click - an even smaller proportion of that group's members can be reasonably expected to be aware of goings on in it, and so it makes even less sense to dispense blanket punishments of the sort you are defending. By joining a group, one endorses only the core of what that group stands for - in the case of a Facebook group, its name and its description. In all else, one is fully within one's liberty to be given the full benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty - no?

rate_me said:

super craig said:

Could it not also be argued that if the kids did chose to associate themselves with that group then that is exactly what did they, associate with the group, not everyone in the group, and the group was harmless. At the end of the day regardless of whatever group you join you can't decide who else joins.

So then they wanted to be counted as saying that "The Principal is such a c**k", as the group title said?

Yes, and I still don't see how you get from supporting that statement to supporting the threats that he recieved, unless you are suggesting that agreeing that someone is a c**k is on the same level as threatening to kill someone? At the end of the day its hardly the worst thing he could have been called and in itself doesn't warrant any sort of investigation.

To put it another way its like the 'recent' thing with the Catholic church in Ireland and the covering up of child abuse, you can either say that since the vast majority didn't speak out against it (as they didn't know, could be argued they shouldn't join unless they knew everything), that all Catholics agreed with it, or that it was just a few people that in no way represented the majority. Sorry for the slightly extreme example, its the only thing I could think of that's slightly topical and fits in with this.

Shadow_Lord said:

Expecting people to be well informed on the goings on of every group they've joined, therefore, is at best na�ve, at worst wholly unfair.

How is that unfair? Is it na�ve to expect someone to read a contract before signing or to keep an eye on their stocks?

I think you will have to go a long way to compare facebook to the stock market. Equally I don't think the vast majority of people are going to be bothered watching their 'I like Toast' group with the same sort of intensity that someone watches their billions of pounds they've invested. It is at the end of the day supposed to be a litle bit of fun, you can't approach eveything in life as though its the most serious thing in the world.

All I'm saying is that they should have to accept that it was stupid to join a group attacking the principal who actually cares about shoelace length. I don't think that they should all be punished equally, and that the school had a right to have the group taken down. While facebook is nowhere near as serious as stocks, I personally see no reason to join a group that there is no intent of participating in regularly.

When I was in school, I got banned from computers for accessing administrator accounts.

Man I was a rebel.

We had people hack through Administrators accounts, take down the firewall and cause havoc, but doing that is against school policy.

How does that affect the conversation gogo?

Yes, but facebook is not school property either. They can't touch it as long as it doesn't lead toward actually threats to the principal. Besides, for me, that could simply generalize the way a lot of kids feel. And we will post crap like that. It's expression. It's insulting yes, but we will say it anyway. And say it to your face too.

gogobananas said:

When I was in school, I got banned from computers for accessing administrator accounts.

Man I was a rebel.

Yea rebels 4 lyf.

ANyways at our school if they catch you posting something or joining a group vaguely refering to our school any known person who goes to our school is suspended.

ShadowStriker64 said:

gogobananas said:

When I was in school, I got banned from computers for accessing administrator accounts.

Man I was a rebel.

Yea rebels 4 lyf.

ANyways at our school if they catch you posting something or joining a group vaguely refering to our school any known person who goes to our school is suspended.

That doesnt seem right, thats like if you saw your school principal at the grocery store and flicked him off, and he suspended your for it.... It doesnt really make sense

rate_me said:

I personally see no reason to join a group that there is no intent of participating in regularly.

Well, as you said, thats your personal opinion. Which is fine, but just because you wouldn't join a group if you had no intention of focusing on every single one of thousands of daily posts doesn't mean the rest of us can't join a group & focus on one area of it, or none at all.

that's like people joining Super Cheats, making a couple of posts/threads then either forgetting about it or not caring about it anymore. Would you hold all of them accountable for the actions of a small minority?

SS64 said:

ANyways at our school if they catch you posting something or joining a group vaguely refering to our school any known person who goes to our school is suspended.

Is that, 'caught posting/joining a group referring to your school within school hours?' or just if you do it at any point in time, even if its outside of school.

Unless your a private school, I'm pretty sure the school doesn't have that level of authority. I know none of the public schools here do. I'm a member of a group called "You know you were to Karamu High School when...." which was set up for current & ex students to post stories about teachers & other students from their schooling days. At most, all the school could do was issue a statement that went something like "We have contacted Facebook and any harmful comments/posts that are made on this group will be reported & deleted immediately. Only students and ex students will be allowed to join, any person who hasn't attended Karamu will be kicked out of the group immediately."

That's about as far as they can go. It's more to protect the public reputation of the school more than anything.

sphynxx said:

rate_me said:

I personally see no reason to join a group that there is no intent of participating in regularly.

Well, as you said, thats your personal opinion. Which is fine, but just because you wouldn't join a group if you had no intention of focusing on every single one of thousands of daily posts doesn't mean the rest of us can't join a group & focus on one area of it, or none at all.

that's like people joining Super Cheats, making a couple of posts/threads then either forgetting about it or not caring about it anymore. Would you hold all of them accountable for the actions of a small minority?

SS64 said:

ANyways at our school if they catch you posting something or joining a group vaguely refering to our school any known person who goes to our school is suspended.

Is that, 'caught posting/joining a group referring to your school within school hours?' or just if you do it at any point in time, even if its outside of school.

Unless your a private school, I'm pretty sure the school doesn't have that level of authority. I know none of the public schools here do. I'm a member of a group called "You know you were to Karamu High School when...." which was set up for current & ex students to post stories about teachers & other students from their schooling days. At most, all the school could do was issue a statement that went something like "We have contacted Facebook and any harmful comments/posts that are made on this group will be reported & deleted immediately. Only students and ex students will be allowed to join, any person who hasn't attended Karamu will be kicked out of the group immediately."

That's about as far as they can go. It's more to protect the public reputation of the school more than anything.

Na its during any hours.Still they suspended more people today cause of it.

Really?

So they're suspending people for something that they really have no power over? Does it say anything in the school rules about this kind of thing? I don't know what its like where you are, but here, even for public schools, upon entering, you have to agree to, and sign a document saying you agree to the school rules and will follow them etc. That way they can control things like haircuts etc etc. So if there's nothing about this kind of thing in your guys rules, then they can't rightly enforce this policy as its not something that was clearly laid out & agreed upon by both parties (in this case, the school & your self & parents)

That's exactly right.. If they don't make sure you are aware of it, or have it writing...Or actually just have it in writing, it's over. It's like Miranda rights, you don't have read to you, you can get off pretty dang easy. Our school makes us sign policy, plus teachers make you sign your policy. It's pretty normal here. Enforcing the rules is only works if it set in stone.

« Last edited by Craizen on May 27th 2010 »

We never have to sign anything.They dont even have a rulebook at the ofice.In fact i dont even know most of the rules and i've been there 2 years and 5 months.Still though maybe they are trying to increase our schools rep cause some students go up to the village(the after school hangaround place)and cause trouble.we even got banned their from 8:30 to 3:40.

ShadowStriker64 said:

We never have to sign anything.They dont even have a rulebook at the ofice.In fact i dont even know most of the rules and i've been there 2 years and 5 months.Still though maybe they are trying to increase our schools rep cause some students go up to the village(the after school hangaround place)and cause trouble.we even got banned their from 8:30 to 3:40.

We have a "handbook" but they dont make us read it or even have one if we dont want to buy it. It costs like $5 and a lot of kids just dont want to pay the money to read the schools rules. They also add some as they go along... when i got suspended last trimester, i looked in the handbook and found nothing about the reason they suspended me... its kind of a messed up system i think, I am just not sure how to fix it

I'm a parent and a student, so I've seen what our local secondary schools publish in their handbooks in addition to my university. The students at my child's school are given a handbook that they must bring home and review with parents. Parents and students sign a page in the handbook and return the page to their homeroom teacher. Most of the rules stipulate are focused on appropriate attire and define their policies on bullying and sexual harassment. Obviously, theft is an issue they discuss as well. In our school district, I know that grades kindergarten through 8th (ages 5 - 13) are given a handbook. Not sure about the older students.

From the perspective of a parent, I'm glad that they outlined the rules and provided a means for all students and parent to know from the beginning of the year what those rules are to avoid potential issues later.

With regard to facebook groups designed to attack a faculty member, I don't understand why that is even an issue unless threats were directed at faculty members or students. The only issue that comes to mind is that it may be in conflict with that school's bullying policy and any students that joined would be reinforcing that perceived behavior. I'm on facebook and signed up for several groups, but never join unless I've read what people post or the information provided by the creators of the group. Some people don't review before they join, and I don't think that is wise.