Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Tom, Indianapolis on May 16, 2009:

Well, in defense of the school system (I agree it's broken, but WHY?) I have to comment that MANY of the problems we see in our children started LONG before they entered school. At HOME, where the kids were parked in front of a TV at best, or otherwise generally allowed to run wild. I'll grant that some parents actually parent, but far too many are merely caretakers - and some of that's literally true, by the way.

I drive a school bus - and I see far too many children who seem to be raising themselves. When one of them is disciplined, they blame everyone (the parents, that is), instead of the face in the mirror. Perhaps some few parents are trying, but even there, so many have bought into the touchy-feely theory of child development that it's pathetic.

I don't know what the solution is, but the schools HAVE become a prison environment... but often with good cause - NOT "good intentions", but valid reasons! This is Saturday, 5/16 as I write this; yesterday afternoon at dismissal, a young man was arrested at school with several bags of marijuana in his possession. I won't go into the merits of whether or not pot should be legal; that's a whole different topic (and then there's the "at what age", and a whole 'nuther set of blog entries). The young man was cursing, swearing at the officers and administrators, and strenuously attempting to resist arrest and flee.

I'd almost be willing to bet, however, that his parent(s) (if any), will be blaming the school and threatening to sue because their son was manhandled to the ground, slapped in cuffs and hauled off to jail in front of his friends! Definitely a blow to his self esteem! Oh, by the way - this is a MIDDLE school child.

So, yeah. Our public schools have become all too much like a prison - in self defense.

I don't know where the solution is, but I do know where it has to start: at home. Indiana has an approach that shows some promise - charter schools, which ARE public, taxpayer supported schools, but non-traditional in that they're self-contained; they report only to the state and the chartering authority (usually the mayor).

Then there's home-schooling (and those kids still need to meet academic standards as well), and private schools. I noted that most of Indiana's best schools are private; in fact most of them are Catholic schools! (from the last round of standardized test scores)

I guess that's all I wanted to say; our public schools have deteriorated because the parents have ALLOWED them to deteriorate.

---

I definitely agree that there are terrible parents doing a terrible job, and that they are part of the problem. So why are the good students with good parents forced to suffer too? "Because some of the kids are bad" (absolutely true) doesn't translate well to "We must slap all kids down." -rc

Posted by Andara - Long Beach, CA on May 16, 2009:

So, Ray, Hinesburg, VT said, "Until you have actually worked in a school and dealt with all the problems you do not have the understanding to criticize."

Has he ever worked in a school? I notice that he conveniently omitted any reference to his own professional experience.

I am not a teacher myself, but happen to know a number of teachers (including one of my cousins), and all of them are disgusted by the things they are forced to do as part of their job that has nothing to do with either teacher or looking out for the welfare of their students.

But that is neither here nor there. The issue at hand right now is the complete disregard of a child's rights and her own professional ethics by a woman who has access to as much information as she could desire and chose instead to be scared, misinformed, and to invade the privacy of a patron in direct opposition to the standards she was taught and charged to uphold.

---

Correct. "Unless you've done it, you have no right to criticize" is bullshit. Exactly who pays for this terrible service? You guessed it: everyone, whether they have kids or not. And according to him we mere citizens should keep our mouths shut. I don't think so. -rc

Posted by Jeffrey, Las Vegas on May 16, 2009:

The librarian should be fired without references. It's patently illegal, and if that student should be arrested or charged, I should be charged as well. I like thrillers and mystery novels. Oh, they taught me the best way to steal a car. The Innocents by Harlan Coben gave a great insight... those hide-a-keys are a car thief's best friend. Just go up the local Wal-Mart or other supercenter or mall and run your hands along the wheelwells and find a hide a key, and the car is yours.

I got that information courtesy of the Las Vegas Clark County Library District and, of course, Harlan Coben. Another tip from the USA Network series Burn Notice. If somebody wants to break into your house, a hide-a-key is their best weapon. Rocks which conceal keys are easy -- if the lock is near the key, they know what it opens. If you need a hide-a-key, put it at least a block away from your house, like in a church or grocery store parking lot.

Posted by Ruth from Washingon state on May 16, 2009:

Frankly you were way, waaaayyyy, too easy on that stupid librarian. It is nobody's business to report or even comment on what someone checks out of the library. I worked at one for two years and those were the main things my boss constantly told us. It is none of our business and everybody has the right to read what they want to. When that right goes we just might as well call ourselves England and give up the rest of our rights to the you-must-behave-as-we-say police. Free thought must be encouraged in our children, right or wrong doesn't matter, it's their privilege as citizens of this country. I'm not in favor of frivolous lawsuits, but I would definitely sue her if I was his parents.

Posted by Adrian MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA on May 16, 2009:

I have been receiving the free copy of T.I.True for several years and I generally agree with what you write.

However, in this instance, the Librarian, rightly or wrongly is acting as a Whistle Blower and perceived that a crime might be in the making. I guess it is a situation of Privacy over Prevention of a criminal act which may or may not be in the making.

The real problem in America is the total freedom and access to firearms which is not the case in Australia & England.

Until you legislate that only those people who need firearms are legally allowed to bear them and perhaps that may need change to the American Constitution, Acts of carnage like the Colombine School Massacre will continue to occur on a regular basis.

In any case, the storage of legally owned firearms is also in need of overhaul and prevention of easy access to them by children should be a major issue.

---

We already have legislation that only those who need firearms is allowed to have them. They're called "sane, law-abiding citizens," and those who are not are not allowed to have them. I did already address the concept of the librarian's concern. This sort of concern is exactly why her profession has ethics standards. She presumed the kid was guilty of a crime and called authorities. The standard in the U.S. is that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and we have fought wars to uphold that principle. You suggest that their bloodshed be in vain. I suggest that we honor our hard-won principles. -rc

Posted by Janice in Fort Worth, TX on May 16, 2009:

A quick note to Adrian Melbourne, Australia: I don't have statistics for all 50 states, however when Texas passed the concealed handgun laws, violent crimes dropped significantly. Responsible people can carry weaponry responsibly, and the possibility that your potential victim may pull a gun on you IS a deterrent.

Regarding the story in question: THANK YOU to all who pointed out that if the librarian was concerned, she could have easily asked the young man if she could help him with additional references. That would have been such an easy answer. I suspect that she was scared that she would "offend" him. We have become a nation of people who are more afraid of giving offence than interested in standing up for what is right. "If I open my mouth I may be sued." seems to be our new motto. So sad.

Regarding the current state of schools: While my son is certainly no angel, he has grown into a responsible man of whom I am very proud. While in school, most of the problems we had were due to the "Zero Tolerance" policies. In one instance, I barely saved him from detention for bringing zinc throat lozenges to soothe his throat when he had a cold. In another instance, he was suspended for a week for ALMOST throwing a punch at someone who had picked a fight and had already hit him! I informed the principal that if he had started the fight, I would fully support the suspension, but I do not expect my child to stand there and be a punching bag just to abide by school policies. We spent that week going to movies and playing video games.

Posted by Marjory, Netherlands on May 17, 2009:

Adrian,

I am too from a country where gun ownership is handled much differently from the US. I am not pro-gun (for the country I live in and know).

BUT, regardless of the gun ownership issue, the boy was not reading gun handling, explosive making, or ways to murder. He was reading about laws. Laws on guns, true. But since when does reading about laws make you a bad person? (I'll omit the obvious bits about lawyers here)

So what whistle is this librarian blowing?

With all the facts I see in the story I cannot think of anything why the librarian should call the police. We could discuss the usefulness of a call to the parents, but even that: since when do we want people NOT to know the law? I would be impressed with a son would having initiative and discipline enough to go to the library and read laws (they take a bit more energy to read than comics).

And then, there are some nice comments about the ethics and official policy that a libririan in the US has to adhere....

No, even from abroad, with a possibly broader view on this, I cannot agree that the librarian is in any way right. I vote too for sacking her without reference.

Posted by Dex in CA on May 17, 2009:

Just to be fair to library director Perito, it is not clear from the actual news story that Perito was in fact the person who called the school - as opposed to saying that she needing to "look into" the issue of someone calling the school.

Of course, according to the article, she then stonewalled further inquiries as to explaining the incident, or providing the instructions actually used within the library.

A commenter on another blog claims that someone working in that library raises constant alarms over things being read that supposedly need police attention. If true, Perito is at least guilty of continuing to employ, or to use the volunteer services of, a complete idiot - without taking appropriate actions regarding patron privacy.

Perito also seems to be ignoring the NY law requiring patron information to be kept private: NY CLS CPLR subsection 4509: "Library records, which contain names or other personally identifying details regarding the users [...] shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except that such [...] shall be disclosed [...] pursuant to subpoena, court order or where otherwise required by statute."

I'm, of course, vastly amused by Pelham Manor school's spokeswoman, Angela Cox, who said that calling police was "a responsible step".

Apparently an ordinary Assistant Principal like Pelham Manor's Lynn Sabia lacks the skills to question an ordinary teen on their book reading habits - and requires a police DETECTIVE to help her determine that the teen was frightened of shootings at colleges and researching laws.

---

On re-reading the story, I see where your uncertainty regarding who called comes from. As you note, my interpretation of "had to look into" the case was that she called personally, but on reflection I agree it's somewhat ambiguous. Good point on that it's against state law for the library to make such a call; perhaps the librarians need to "research the law" a bit themselves! -rc

Posted by Bergman, Seattle WA on May 17, 2009:

Adrian,

It has been established by the courts in the US that the police are not in any way responsible for protecting the citizens from crime, violent or otherwise. The duty of police is to investigate crimes, arrest the perpetrators, and deliver them to court for trial. The sole responsibility for protection from criminals falls upon the citizens themselves. A citizen who lacks access to weapons lacks the ability to defend themselves and their family.

While it's likely that a home invasion robber who slaughters an entire family will be arrested and convicted, that does not do the dead citizens much good. Being able to defend oneself and ones family is a good thing.

Plus, given the preamble to the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments don't grant any rights at all; They merely recognize rights that no government has even the slightest authority to infringe in any way. Changing that portion of the Constitution would not only be dangerous (the same language is used in both the amendment recognizing the right to be armed as in the right to freedom of speech and assembly), it would, in effect, amount to an abdication of authority on the part of the government that did such a thing.

If the government loses its moral authority and has no authority left except that granted by physical violence, why should anyone respect the law at all?

Posted by Catmoves, Albuquerque on May 17, 2009:

For Adrian, MELBOURNE,AUSTRALIA: I lived in Aussie for some years and when my ship docked at Sydney, I was informed that I could not take my English made .303 rifle into Victoria unless I belonged to a "shooting club". So I promptly made up my mind to move to Brisbane, where my "dangerous gun" was not only allowed, but welcomed. I believe customs there might have thought I was going to help shoot out the rabbits.

P.S., my daughter lives there now and she has ranked expert with far more powerful weapons than my old rifle.

I have already written to the head librarian in Pelham, included a link to Randy's email and suggested she might like to read all of his works.

As for the unidentified librarian, I think this is a case of a liberal becoming a conservative. Or maybe the other way around? But the panicked woman seems to obviously need a change of vocation.