Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Matt, Boston, MA on June 29, 2009:

Matt Sedan: SAT scores are deliberately weighted so that the average score on each portion is about a 500. This allows it to actually test relative performance, as opposed to a score on which everyone is expected to get 90+% correct, which tells you almost nothing about the relative performance of test takers.

In contrast, most people taking a class are required to get a 70% (?) or higher to pass, so classes are weighted so most people can pass. Scores for classes and for SATs are designed for completely different purposes, and are not in any way comparable.

Posted by Ralph NY on June 29, 2009:

I'm not surprised that it was Justice Thomas that dissented. I remember when he was being confirmed and the allegations of sexual harassment that were brought against him. Personally I believed they were true, and with that in mind, I can understand his attitude towards women and therefore his dissent in this case.

Posted by Louie, Georgia on June 30, 2009:

I am personally very wary of this decision that negates any personal responsibility for the administrators who knew or should have reasonably known about an illegal search. I agree with the commenter who said that this basically just made ignorance of the law, or at least feigned ignorance, a perfectly acceptable defense. This will have far-reaching implications. Where does that line get drawn?

To address the point, like with the "Don't talk to cops" thing, if your words, actions, or results of a search can be used against you in a legal situation, then you should have rights, and it should be regardless of age. After all, if the offense is serious enough, then you could potentially be accused as an adult. What kind of position would you be in if you had no rights against questionings or illegal searches, and once the prosecution basically has everything it needs, then you are told you can now exercise rights? Why bother then? No, this must start at the beginning. That position is not that contrary to being able to maintain order and discipline in a school. But Randy is right, a 13-year old who has just been told by a person in authority that refusing to answer a question or command will get them in even more trouble is not usually going to refuse.

That's why the student should at least be able to have a parent in the room. It should be the rule, if not the law. School admins and teachers should also have to take a minimum of 40 hours training initially, and 20 per year, in continuing education that specifically trains them in how to administer searches and questionings, what is correct, and what constitutes "unreasonable or excessive."

Sound onerous? Not to me, as long as the school offices amounts to interrrogation rooms, courts of conviction, and punishment tribunals all rolled up into one, and the only one even vaguely familiar with the rules gets to claim later that he didn't understand the law, and is allowed to shrug and say "Oh, well." In any case, how much more or less onerous than millions in taxpayer dollars defending heavy-handed tactics from admins out of control, and trying to put these genies back in the bottles? This also says nothing of innocent children being forcibly undressed and mercilessly browbeaten at the hands of people she or he has been instructed to trust and obey.

I see nothing wrong with public schools that are run properly. But let's face it, there are valid points against them. Any public school that pays the head football coach 25% more than the principal or headmaster has lost its grip on its responsibilities. Yes, I also think it is downright atrocious that a school admin can have a student hauled off to jail on weapons charges for having a nail clipper with a 1 1/2" barely functional "blade", all the while he sits there with a 4-6 inch long razor sharp knife in his pocket.

But people should keep in mind that private schools are not immune from ZT, either. Some people also have to weigh the school diploma against a GED, which, to some people, amounts to being a "drop-out diploma." Right or wrong, that is the perception.

Posted by Seth, Mpls on June 30, 2009:

I wonder if the FBI might be persuaded to take an interest in this case.

According to http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Posted by Jon, Ohio on July 8, 2009:

I'm so glad to see common sense has finally prevailed in a society where common sense is all too often avoided. It's good to see our Supreme Court defending this person's constitutional rights (which is what they are there for). I hope this a lesson to all who embrace stupid communist and socialist laws and rules in the name of safety and justice. I think that if we didn't allow stupid people who are incapable of thinking for themselves to obtain positions of power in this country, we wouldn't have them making up stupid laws and rules for them to follow blindly. Thanks for the positive update, Randy!

Posted by Cheri, Missouri on July 18, 2009:

Wow. Ibuprofen? I carried Ibuprofen with me all the time, because I use for cramps and the occasional headache. Since when is Ibuprofen a dangerous drug?

---

Since zero tolerance. -rc

Posted by DennIs, san francisco on July 19, 2009:

Cheri asks, "Since when is Ibuprofen a dangerous drug?" I saw a dilly on TV the other day say that coffee is "a drug, an intoxicant".

Posted by Don, Ontario, Canada on September 24, 2009:

DennIs - coffee technically isn't, but caffeine is. It's a potentially lethal substance when consumed in high doses.

Of course, so is sand. Or water. That being said, caffeine is the widest-used psychoactive drug in the world, and caffeine addiction is becoming the most serious issue you'll never hear about. When you take every potential problem it can cause into consideration, it may well turn out to be a more serious issue than smoking.

Just food for thought, mind you... but while we do have a responsibility to fight ZT and fear-mongering (in my opinion, at least) we also have a responsibility not to dismiss things out of hand before we've done our own research on them... even if they are statements made in a (again, my opinion here) stupid and sensationalist manner.

Coffee? Not a drug or an intoxicant, technically. Caffeine? Very much so (there is a condition called "caffeine intoxication" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV published by the American Psychiatric Association - number 305.90 to be precise.)

Posted by Ed in Florida on September 26, 2009:

Reminds me of when the suits in our NY home office implemented a ZT policy on knives. I've carried a pocket knife since I was 12 and won't leave home without one. (I rarely fly anymore). At my annual hiring anniversary meeting with the new plant manager and a rep from HR, I told the manager what I thought of the knife policy. He turned to the HR rep and asked, "Is this true?" And pulled pocketknife from his own pocket. On the spot he changed the policy, telling the HR rep that to a paper pusher a knife might mean one thing, but to people who work with their hands it's a tool.

Posted by Seth, State College, PA on December 3, 2009:

Let me first say that I completely agree this is a insane thing that happened and totally inexcusable. But, I'm a sucker for facts and I'd just like to set it straight that it was in fact prescription Ibuprofen, as well as Naproxen. I still feel the Supreme Ct ruled in the correct manner, just thought that needed to be clarified. Thinking it was Advil or Tylenol makes the school district seem not only far too strict with the ZT policy, but also far worse than moronic in the strip search (although they were quite moronic, idiotic, and down right stupid; especially when the girl IS AN HONOR STUDENT).

I feel the biggest problem with this case was the fact that the child wasn't given the benefit of the doubt seeing as she was an honor student and didn't even have a prescription narcotic but simply an anti-inflammatory drug.

P.S. - I actually stumbled upon this by doing research on Clarence Thomas (the only dissenter in the S. Ct.) for an upcoming court simulation in which I have to be him.

---

You're correct that the facts are important, but you're mixing them up. You say it wasn't narcotics, but rather prescription ibuprofen. WHAT was? A strip search revealed no drugs at all -- not prescription, not over the counter. There was an unsubstantiated allegation that she had 400 mg ibuprofen, which is a prescription drug if that amount is in one pill (and over the counter if it's in two pills). Yet she was not in possession of any drug whatever: the unsubstantiated allegation was proven false. And that is a very important fact indeed. -rc