Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Neil, UK on May 22, 2009:

I have several thoughts on this story.

Firstly, my experiences were in many respects similar to those of Ruth in the UK, except that I was upset because I wasn't ever allowed to put anything in writing. I often thought that this was so that there wouldn't be anything in my favour if the matter came up again. Perhaps I was fortunate after all.

Secondly, Ruth in WA doth protest too much in using England as the epitome of restrictions on rights. Yes, it has its faults, but where do you think America got "Innocent until Proven Guilty" from?

Thirdly, I can't follow Bergman's argument. How does "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?" argue in favour of allowing citizens to threaten (and if necessary use) physical violence?

Fourthly, I'll admit that if I happened to hear that someone was reading about concealment of weapons here in the England, I might raise an eyebrow, because that would be an illegal act. In the US, however, of course it isn't. I'm amazed that the librarian (whoever it was) didn't take that into account, even given that they were too stupid to realise that laws themselves were being researched rather than techniques.

Finally, I would hope that this incident would enourage the boy - despite the debacle, his rights have been confirmed. He may know that he was being watched, but he knows that, given that he was doing nothing wrong, he can't be interfered with - the definition of privacy.

---

It's illegal in England to read up on the laws regarding concealing weapons? Because that was what this kid was doing -- not reading about how to conceal weapons. Big difference. -rc

Posted by Jill, Ontario Canada on May 23, 2009:

Regarding Janice in Fort Worth's comment, "... 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."

Having worked in both public and school libraries, I have to say that I suspect that the librarian in this case was not worried about offending this young man. Rather she was, at best, uncomfortable in addressing a teenager directly or at worst (and quite a bit more likely), afraid of initiating a conversation with a teenaged boy who was reading about guns/gun laws.

It has been my experience that librarians, librarian technicians and para-professionals who work in public libraries will talk a good talk when it comes to the ALA's statement on Intellectual Freedom. But when the chips are down these staff prefer to deal with nice middle class senior citizens or young mothers with preschoolers. Teenagers are seen as disruptive and not a little frightening.

When I managed a department in a small city public library, staff were openly resistant to my attempts as a manager and to the efforts of my Teen Services librarian to engage our local street kids in library programing. They were so threatened by the changes that they demanded that a security guard be put in place. They were very happy when this resulted in fewer "rowdy" teens disrupting the daily routine.

In Public Libraries, Intellectual Freedom for kids is great in theory and is trotted out proudly at conferences and seminars, but the actual practice in the real world certainly does not reflect these lofty ideals.

I suspect that this is a case just happened to get press coverage. I am very sure it is less of an isolated incident than one might hope.

---

Sadly, I'm sure that last statement's true. -rc

Posted by David in USA on May 23, 2009:

As far as Miranda and its applications. There are actually very few LAWs about Miranda rights, that is something the Supreme court could change its mind on tomorrow.

But as for how it applies in this case: If you look at much of previous Supreme Court cases involving many children and constitutional rights, the court does not grant children the full rights of adults. They have LIMITED free speech and have been punished at school for exercising it outside of school. They have limited protections against search and seizure, especially at school. In most states that I'm aware of it is illegal for police to question a minor without a parent/adult present, but I believe they could get away with saying that they were there at the request of the school and the principal was the one questioning them.

Posted by alice, battle creek MI on May 23, 2009:

As Benjamin Franklin put it, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Yes. And all the comments about sacrificing someone's rights in order to be safer - You could have been talking about the new Preventive Detention or the old Guantanamo. They're just wrong, too.

Posted by Don, North Carolina on May 23, 2009:

I think the librarian was definitely in the wrong. No matter the child's rights according to some court, the parents should have been consulted in privacy if there was a real concern. The librarian was just a nozy parker, and should be relieved of duties.

Posted by Bergman, Seattle WA on May 24, 2009:

David,

As the act of committing a crime will demonstrate, just because something is illegal, does not prevent someone from doing it.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in quite a few cases on the subject of freedom of speech by minors, and the majority of the rulings, in particular the most recent ones, the court has ruled that a minor's freedom of expression may be curtailed only when the purpose of that expression is to directly disrupt the purpose of education. In other words, the sort of speech that amounts to screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Time and again, the Court has ruled that unless the school can present a compelling case that the speech is directly disruptive, the school must permit it.

Unfortunately, there are far too many so-called educators who find the slightest dissent to be disruptive. Wearing a t-shirt that opposes the Iraq war? Disruptive. Wearing a t-shirt with a provocative but anti-drug abuse message? Disruptive. Dare to hold an opinion that differs from the mainstream? Disruptive. In almost every case of this nature that makes it to the Supreme Court, the kid wins.

Equally unfortunate, though, is the way school boards seem to fall into a gray area of the law. They are not executive, legislative or judicial. As such, it can be difficult to find someone willing to exercise authority over them, in disputes. The school board is judge, jury, executioner, lawmaker and cop. The people responsible for hearing (or denying) appeals are the same ones who wrote the original decision. This is why attempts to dispute zero tolerance cases tend not to end well for the parents and child. It also tends to cause the schools to act as if they are exempted from the Constitution (both State and National).

When both unfortunate attitudes are combined, the results are such extremes of tyranny that would likely make the founders of the United States bore out the ends of their graves. And what it teaches the kids is beyond appalling. The Constitution is merely a guideline, to be ignored whenever convenient. Authority must be obeyed, even when it oversteps its bounds or acts in ways that its own charter or mandate forbid. Due process is whatever Authority says it is. And there is no appeal, no mercy, and no justice. For anyone.

Posted by Jackie, Tacoma, WA on May 24, 2009:

Thank you to everyone pointing out the recent and disturbing trend to prosecute children as adults for crimes they have committed. It has been awhile since I read up on this, but my understanding was that originally the purpose of the Juvenile Court system was to work with children and teens because people recognized that developmentally they are at a different stage in life. Someone who is seven years old, or ten, or.... does not have the same understanding of the world and ability to make appropriate choices that an adult does. Furthermore, someone who is younger will hopefully have more of a chance to be rehabilitated, at least in theory.

Given this background, I have found recent trends increasingly disturbing. We take away the freedom and rights of kids. More and more, they are not allowed to be alone -- those of you who are older, think of the age at which you were allowed to be unsupervised, and think of the rules for kids now (some would argue that the world is a more dangerous place now; from what I have heard [although this is open to debate], we are more AWARE of the dangers now, but they were still around years ago). Many are not taught "adult" responsibilities in the house until they are much older than was formerly the case. And so on and so forth. Not to say that the old days were always better, but kids did used to have more responsibility. Then after letting them have fewer and fewer rights and responsibilities to learn about the way of the world and their place in it, people demand that they be treated like adults if they have committed a crime that is frightening and terrible. Consequences? Yes. I support consequences for one's actions 100%. But treating them as incapable and incompetent in so many areas of their lives, and then suddenly judging them as an adult because of a crime they have committed... How is this going to protect our people and make it a safer place?

Posted by Richard, Brighton, England on May 27, 2009:

I wonder why the school didn't send the librarian away, telling her to mind her own business. Instead, it responded as if it had the right to judge the child, even though the actions to be judged didn't happen in school. Scary.

Posted by Darrell, Pennsylvania on May 27, 2009:

America lost control of the public school system around 1970 when someone decided school children had rights. Prior to that schools ran very tight ships. Dictatorial leadership upheld strict rules. Teachers could teach and not time manage their pupils. Then the revolution began. Rights were lost but it appeared as though the losses were one sided. Everything has changed and not for the good.

The librarian needs to be taught a lesson in the only way she will ever understand. Actions may have consequences. Her actions should have very straightforward consequences. Termination may not be the answer, but a few week's in the street without pay may do the trick. Perhaps she could write several hundred times in longhand, "I will not violate anyone's right to privacy again." Or perhaps she could read the documents she "protected."

Posted by Mekhong Kurt, Bangkok, Thailand on June 14, 2009:

I love all your work; I *especially* enjoy your crusade against ZT.

Though I got certified when I was studying for my undergraduate degree to teach from 7th grade through 12th grade, I never did so except during my student teaching. I did, however, eventually become a university teacher, and one step removed from K-12 education, I remain greatly interested.

While I believe ZT isn't the only factor in the deterioration of education for our young people, it certainly plays a significant role.

An earlier contributor mentioned we began losing control about 1970 -- and I reckon that may be arguably about right; I graduated from high school in 1969.

Yes, we had some strict rules; violations indeed carried consequences, as they should have (and as I know from experience!). But we were gradually given increasing freedom, as we grew up, to *be* responsible. Blow it, and go to the back of the line. Handle it, and move on along.

I don't know how much of that was influenced by growing up in rural Texas and going to a school with a *total* student population, K-12, of less than 200, in a town of maybe 700-800 by the time I graduated. Heck, when I was younger, but my parents allowed me to ride my bike into town (we lived on a small ranch outside the village), if I messed up, it was just understood that any and every adult had authority to intervene, especially if I was presenting a danger to myself or others. And yessir, I did get a couple of spankings along the way -- nothing serious, mind you -- from adults who were neither my parents nor in any legal sense my guardians. But socially, they *were* my guardians, if they chose to take on that responsibility.

My Sister continues to teach kids with attention disorder in grades 5-9, and she regales me with horror stories of ZT, especially when the program first started. Someone would see one of her students taking a pill, and without investigating, call the police, who of course had to investigate. Fortunately, the local police in that nearby small town have some sense -- but sometimes townspeople, mostly new to the area, would scream "but you have to ARREST that drug addict!" Or whatever. And these kids sometimes need continuing, even life-long, medication.

In two ways, I don't have a dog in this fight: I live abroad, and I've never had kids. But I sure hope American parents take the time to check into their kids' schools, and not just about the quality of teaching (though of course that's critical), but about this dadgummed ZT stuff as well.

Cheering you on from half the planet away...