Kieran King, Pt. 2
June 22, 2007 · By Joel
Don’t you hate when Colby Cosh comments on a subject about which you’ve already said something? He always makes it look so easy:
What fascinates me about the case of Kieran King, the Saskatchewan high school student who was threatened, punished and slandered by various officials over the past three weeks for talking with some pals about the health effects of marijuana, is that it explodes almost every single utopian cliche about public schools that has been ever propounded by their employees and admirers. It’s almost glorious, in a way. Ever heard an educator say “We’re not here to teach students what to think — we’re here to teach them how to think”? BLAMMO! “We encourage children to make learning a lifelong process.” KAPOW! Poor Kieran didn’t even make it to age 16 before someone called the cops.
So then, how would everyone feel if condom machines were manditory in school washrooms as a compliment to sexual education? Just throwing that out there for discussion.
Business dealings and healthcare are recognized as elements within a school that the administration rightly has control over. What students say to each other in their spare time, as long as the criminal law is not infringed, is not. Our Charter of Rights does not endow us with the fundamental freedom of access to prophylactics, though I think that might have been in the Meech Lake Accord somewhere.
I am not being flippant when I ask the question about condoms in bathrooms. It illustrates my point that finding the line in the sand between public safety and private freedoms is not an easy one to draw; especially when we are talking about children in publicly funded schools.
I have no doubt that Kieran is a good kid, that his mother raised him properly, and that the school is over-reacting. I am also pretty certain that the rise of drug use and violence (sometimes deadly violence) in public schools accross the country have administrators scrambling to find that balance between a safe and a learning friendly environment. However, it is important to note that there are MANY parents who react quite strongly when it comes to the safety of their children, and insist that administrators limit the personal freedoms of all children in order to ensure their safety from real or perceived threats. Such groups of concerned parents often ban together, and push their agenda quite successfully until policies are adopted by school boards, and then implemented by administrators.
I feel sorry for the administrators at this school, actually, because they are damned if they do, or damned if they don’t in this situtation. They cannot very well say that “doing drugs isn’t harmful if it is done in moderation” and not have parents in thier offices screaming blue murder anymore than they can suspend this kid without having the media eat them alive for restricting freedom of expression.
So rather than talking about why or why not this poor student is being victimized, the real discussion should be about where we need to draw that line in the sand. Because until that conversation happens, then administrators are left guessing, or at the whims of advocacy groups with agendas you may not agree with.
Rather than discuss the issue and expose the rift within the “school community” the administration would prefer to create the David E. Lynch fantasy version of universal harmony by pouncing on the kid who raised the question.
The real question for the administrators and teachers, which they don’t want to ever be asked, is:
“Hey, teacher, you must have smoked up when you were our age. What do you think of the effect of drugs on your brain?”
As long as the condom machines come with a free insert about the Human Papiloma Virus, prostate cancer, the heart warming effects of cervical cancer for unsuspecting young women, and the increased risk of step children being beaten or sexually abused by their unchosen stepfathers and a picture of the effects of latex allergies on penile tissue I would be fine with it.
That’s right Marsilio, make kids scared of their bodies. SMART. I think the sex ed curriculum is pretty good at informing kids in a way that isn’t biased, which is kinda the point of the original post, right?
Anyone else have any ideas where that line in the sand should be drawn?
Can I stick with the line the Charter draws? I still don’t know what was complicated about what I said yesterday. Parents can “react” to what’s said by kids in the cafeteria all they like. The Charter gives the school an answer by which they are specifically bound in law. It’s their formal duty to tell these complaning parents “Sorry, but Kieran was expressing a constitutionally protected, non-hateful political opinion outside the classroom, and in an appropriate manner. Can we direct your attention to these handsome brochures on immigrating to Singapore?”
“Can I stick with the line the Charter draws?”
Sure. But I was curious as to why schools have pulled candy and coke vending machines, adjusted cafeteria meal plans to alleviate concerns about heart disease, obesity and cellulite deposits and disallowed cigarette vending machines in schools.
For consistency’s sake, I hope the inflatable water balloon vending machines contain a note about the risk of leakage; you know, to keep pedestrians safe.
While the Charter violation is the immediate issue at hand, there is the larger issue of compulsory schooling. A private school has the option of booting students for this type of behavior.
“I think the sex ed curriculum is pretty good at informing kids in a way that isn’t biased, which is kinda the point of the original post, right?”
That’s certainly a matter for some debate, but rather than threadjack Colby’s point, I’ll gladly commence a separate post if you’re interested in discussing it elsewhere.
Smarter Than Ezra: based on your logic, if a debate over the public school curriculum arose between the 51% of Ontarians who believe in evolution, and the 26% of Ontarians who believe “God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years” would we not have to compromise, and teach something like, “God created human beings in their present form more than 10,000 years ago”?
This is not a question of what parents want… we’ve looked down that rabbit hole in certain US states, and it ain’t pretty. This is a question of right and wrong.
But Colby, the Charter question is, to my mind, a secondary concern.
What’s a bigger problem is what you said in your column: all the rhetoric we’ve ever heard about public schools says they’re supposed to be teaching students how to think, how to engage in critical debate, how to evaluate competing arguments, etc. This was a textbook example of what public schools are supposed to promote.
Thus, even if Wawota school was, legally, a Charter-free zone, protecting Kieran’s free speech in this instance should have been a no-brainer.
If you want to see freedom of speech in action in a public school try and enter into a debate about whether schooling should be public and whether teachers should be unionized.
We’d be very interested in hearing the results back at ThePolitic.com
Joel, you misunderstand my point of view completely. I don’t think that policy at public schools is a matter of majority rule. Furthermore, I am talking about policy and not curriculum as a matter of debate (Ministries of Education already do a good job of that on their own). My question is quite simply this: where should the line between public safety and personal freedom be drawn in the public school system given the rise in violence and drug use among teenagers in Canada? Leave religion out of it, or at least, for religious school boards to discuss.
S-t-E: I don’t see a conflict in this case. Kieran was using his personal freedom to tell his classmates that pot is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco (which happens to be true). Public safety would, in fact, have been enhanced if Kieran had been allowed to get his message across.
OK, so then, if your opinion, the line in the sand should be drawn closer to personal freedom, rather than public safety in the respect of public schools. Anyone else have an opinion? These are children, after all.
Anon: No. You persist in presenting this as a dichotomy between freedom/safety, which characterization I reject. Even if I accepted that Kieran’s speech did in fact advocate marijuana use (which I don’t) — how does that endanger anyone?
Even if you reject the characterization, Joel, doesn’t mean that school board officials and administrators do. A “zero tolerance” drug policy is still that. In fact, when I was in high school, kids were sent home to change if their clothes were not appropriate as a way of keeping their hormones in check. Was this a violation of their freedom to express themselves through harmless clothing? Yes. Was it still the school policy? Yes.
So reject away. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to public school policy, boards have to make decisions that do have to balance freedom / safety. Feel free to pat yourself on the back for sending a letter, puff your chest out, and stand on your morals, but at the end of the day, administrators need to deal with real questions, real situations, and the safety of 1000s of children.
No one said the rules were fair, but hey, not much is fair when you are a teenager.
Was it still the school policy? Yes.
…
No one said the rules were fair, but hey, not much is fair when you are a teenager.
So what exactly is your point, then?
No one’s disputing that it was “the rules”/school policy to discipline free speech relating to drugs. My entire argument was that the policy was an asinine, unfair, petty, and counter-productive one.
My point is you are acting like a teenager that isn’t getting his way without weighing the bigger picture, which is what school boards do when setting policies.
“My entire argument was that the policy was an asinine, unfair, petty, and counter-productive one.”
And again, like a teenager, you complain, but do not propose a solution for discussion. At least I tried to frame the discussion in a way that could lead to an outcome.
And again, like a teenager, you complain, but do not propose a solution for discussion. At least I tried to frame the discussion in a way that could lead to an outcome.
Don’t squelch students’ free speech. Let them compare the relative benefits/disadvantages of pot/booze/tobacco to their hearts’ content.
That’s my solution, as I thought I made clear.
Your solution fails to take into consideration the multitude of issues that are attached to it (drug use in schools (and the potential violence present with drug use), providing a safe learning environment, the power of suggestion and peer pressure that many of these children face vis-a-vis substance abuse, teen pregnancy, etc.) and therefore, is not good or rational policy advice. I guess we will have to leave it up to the school boards to figure out, since nothing interesting, innovative, or practicle has come from this discussion.
I am all for arming children with the right type of information to make informed decisions, which is a curriculum issue. But frankly, Joel, I am not sure you have thought your way through this one.
Anon.: I’m sorry you don’t find free speech “practicle [sic].”
It would truly be a shame, however, if this is a reflection of the kind of critical thinking (and spelling) going on at XXXX.
In my view, the right to free speech (and every other right) should be treated as a side constraint. in other words, if a given policy — no matter how wonderful w/r/t combatting drug use, violence, pregnancy, etc. — conflicts with a right, that policy is off the table. Decisions have to be made within the limits imposed by inviolable rights.
Even if you reject that view, however, I still think it an uncontestable proposition that the onus of proof be on the infringer. That is, if you want to muzzle Kieran, show me evidence of a link between knowledge of the facts about marijuana and violence. Show me evidence of a link between knowledge of the facts about marijuana and pregnancy. You can’t, because they’re not there.
Joel:
Whatever your views are on Anon’s opinion, it is total BS that you posted that IP address. Why would you do that?
Because it’s a government address, I thought it was kind of funny. I don’t think it can be traced back any further than XXX. On second thought, you’re right, though, I’ve taken it down.
I apologize.
Posting IP addresses? Is that the new policy on thepolitic?
Are government workers not supposed to participate in blog discussions here? If so, then that should be clearly stated in the mandate section of this website; and furthermore Greg has the ability to block GoC IP addresses, if he so wishes. You would think that engaging public servants would be encouraged, rather than discourage. I must be really naive.
Next, even if you blocked the IP address out, it is still a pretty shitty thing to do. In fact, it is extremely hypocritical. You used your administrative ability on this website to intimidate another blogger by posting his/her IP address at work. Do you not see the parallel between what you did and what you are accusing the administration at Kieran’s school of doing? You have just lost any credibility you may have had in this discussion, or any further discussions on thepolitic.
So here is my free speech for the evening. Apology or not, I think you are an idiot and I am extremely happy you are not in charge of public policy at public schools because you do not have the ability to look at an issue from multiple perspectives. That is how good decisions are made, and how bad decisions are eventually over-turned – public dialogue.
An email will be sent to Greg about this, since, it is in fact his website, and he should make the call on this one. In sincerely hope he removes post 23 (and actually, I would think you would want to retract that statement yourself). If you have the balls to post your email address publicly, I will cc you on it.
I, however, doubt you actually do have the balls.
I agree that I shouldn’t have posted the IP. It was not an attempt to intimidate anyone. It was meant to make the point that I’d expect a higher level of critical thinking from Anon. Nonetheless, I reconsidered, I apologized and I removed it. Chill.
No, I will not chill on this one. Irrespective if your intent, it was a very intimidating tactic - did you even think of the ramifications of your actions before you posted it? It was hypocritical, and shows your lack of maturity. It also shows that you do not understand the difference between a right, and a privilege, which attendance at a high school (or university for that matter) is. Let me use a pop culture quotation that might help you out “with great power comes great responsibility”. Spidey senses tingling at all?
Anon’s point, which you clearly didn’t get, is that there are more things to consider in public policy than your post suggests, and that administrators at public institutions have a multitude of issues that need to be weighed when making decisions about what is an is not appropriate in a public school. Their primary function is to ensure a safe environment for students to learn. I don’t think anon claimed that there is a co-relation between any of the things in the list, but that decision makers must take those things into consideration when procedures are developed.
Freedom to express yourself, is one thing, but respect is quite another (again, something you still need to learn). If administrators at public institutions have reasonable cause to think that an individual’s actions disrupt the safety or learning environment in anyway, then it is their responsibility to remove that student until a resolution can be found. Yeah, it sucks that this kid got the boot. Yeah, they probably over-reacted. Yeah, there is room for more discussion.
The public policy question at hand, and again I repeat, is where the line in the sand should be drawn? This is still up for debate. Obviously you want the line drawn on the other side of freedom so that no one can touch it - I think a LONG line of policy makers with actual experience in public education would disagree (and have - which is why the policy stands as such). It is important to note that children do not have the same rights as adults - in fact, it is the one thing that you can legally discriminate againt in this country - which is why they have a seperate system of law that protects them because of their inexperience and tendency to do stupid things without thinking. You seem to understand that perfectly, right? Posting IP addresses was my first hint you would understand this.
If you don’t have the ability to understand this complex question, then here is a course I think you should enrol in come next September:
http://www.wlu.ca/calendars/co.....8&y=23
If you have already taken it, then I won’t be sending my kid to your university any time soon.
“It was meant to make the point that I’d expect a higher level of critical thinking from Anon.”
Furthermore, who the hell do you think you are trying to hold anyone to account when you cannot demonstrate what you expect from others?
Thank you Joel.