[Ashitaria]

I like the bill of rights. What I don't like is how it is ignored in schools, for some reason that I do not know.

For example, the 4th amendment, the right to not consent to a search. Why is this amendments so frequently ignored in schools? The 5th amendment, the right to remain silent, is also frowned upon in the school. Technically, the school cannot force you by physical means to talk, but they can detain you for more than three hours, the maximum detainment term in most states, thus violating the 5th amendment.

Why is not PC applicable in schools? Should not children have right as well?

[General Lee]

I can give you two theroies both of which have truth in them
One is the sensible theory and the other the southern nationalist theory
First for the sensible theory. Children are thought not to be as intelligent as adults and therefore do not have the same rights. Whereas a adult can remain silent to avoid self-incrimination a child cannot because children are considered schemy. Children are thought to be inferior to adults and therfore devoid of the same rights (sound familier).
Now to the southern nationalist theory. In 1860 the southern states seceded from the union five years later they were forced back by force of arms. First the Federals experimented in southern schools taking away the rights of southern children in their schools and requring everyone to attend grades k-12. Southern veterans from the War of Northern Agression held firm conservative southern and therfore conservative american beliefs (sadly this included in some points racism but that is another topic). As the south started to out yankee the yankees our beliefs waned and with it american beliefs for as long as the south held firm the Federal government could not do the same to the rest of America. The more southern beliefs died the more rights were taken away from Children. Children being used to having no rights when they become adults do not mind if they have no rights so long as they can eat, sleep, and spend their money. Therefore paving the way for a depost.
The reason the Federals could not do the same to the rest of america until the south gave way was because they feared anotehr revoultion if the south caught wind so they started with the hard rocks first and used the guise of "reconstruction" to accomplish it.

[timeless]

For example, the 4th amendment, the right to not consent to a search. Why is this amendments so frequently ignored in schools?

Skinner v. Railway Lab. Execs. Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989)
"For the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable. What is reasonable, of course, depends on all of the circumstances surrounding the search or seizure and the nature of the search or seizure itself.Thus, the permissibility of a particular practice
is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests." (Internal quotations omitted; internal citations omitted; emphasis added.)

The 5th amendment, the right to remain silent, is also frowned upon in the school. Technically, the school cannot force you by physical means to talk, but they can detain you for more than three hours, the maximum detainment term in most states, thus violating the 5th amendment.

That's not what the Fifth Amendment says. The relevant section is: "...nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." This isn't a criminal case. There you go. There's no violation of the Fifth Amendment here.

[teddy564339]

I like the bill of rights. What I don't like is how it is ignored in schools, for some reason that I do not know.

For example, the 4th amendment, the right to not consent to a search. Why is this amendments so frequently ignored in schools? The 5th amendment, the right to remain silent, is also frowned upon in the school. Technically, the school cannot force you by physical means to talk, but they can detain you for more than three hours, the maximum detainment term in most states, thus violating the 5th amendment.

Why is not PC applicable in schools? Should not children have right as well?

General Lee hit a bit part of it. A lot of it also has to deal with the fact that (a) schools are public property, not private property, and (b) it's a large group of minors that the school is in a lot of ways legally responsible for.

[snail]

Children are not subject to the same legal consequences for violating laws, and are not protected with the same rights as adults. It seems vaguely related to the idea that animals are also exempt from legal responsibility, and are similarly denied certain liberties and protections, including the freedom from having their most basic rights (to live, and to not be harmed) violated. Until they are born, children are treated as though they have no right to live, and until they are eighteen they are treated as though they have no right to be free from physical assault, except when the assault is sexual or leaves visible marks. Perhaps this is because children, like animals, are not considered rational enough to give meaningful consent to anything that happens to them. Therefore, their protests against violation are seen as equally irrational or unimportant. The assumption is that children don't know what is best for them, and that it would be dangerous to give them too much freedom to set their own boundaries. Mostly, this is because adults underestimate the validity of their feelings and needs.

[timeless]

Perhaps this is because children, like animals, are not considered rational enough to give meaningful consent to anything that happens to them. Therefore, their protests against violation are seen as equally irrational or unimportant. The assumption is that children don't know what is best for them, and that it would be dangerous to give them too much freedom to set their own boundaries. Mostly, this is because adults underestimate the validity of their feelings and needs.

If a 12 year old decided that they wanted to go out and drink and do drugs, would it be appropriate for a parent to physically restrain them to prevent them from doing this?

[General Lee]

That assumption is correct from what i have seen. Although some children are mature enough to do what is best for us most of us do not know what is good for us and there is where adults come in. To dismiss a child's protest is inhumane but it does follow your logic and the fact that if a child has been shown to be irrational in the past how could he be rational now.

[General Lee]

If a 12 year old decided that they wanted to go out and drink and do drugs, would it be appropriate for a parent to physically restrain them to prevent them from doing this?

Yes but only to a point. Personally i am more in favor of letting children run free and make mistakes from 4-8 when they are likely to avoid drugs, sex, and alhchool and make trival mistakes that will show them that they do not know everything and need parentel guidance. That is what happened to me when i was between those two ages and although it was unintentinal i realzied i did not know it all and needed adults to guide me in most instances. Once you are past the age of 8 however things are more likely to happen to you so i must say that it is between the two ages previoulsy discussed that children should have little adult guidance.

[wisdom]

Children are not subject to the same legal consequences for violating laws, and are not protected with the same rights as adults. It seems vaguely related to the idea that animals are also exempt from legal responsibility, and are similarly denied certain liberties and protections, including the freedom from having their most basic rights (to live, and to not be harmed) violated. Until they are born, children are treated as though they have no right to live, and until they are eighteen they are treated as though they have no right to be free from physical assault, except when the assault is sexual or leaves visible marks. Perhaps this is because children, like animals, are not considered rational enough to give meaningful consent to anything that happens to them. Therefore, their protests against violation are seen as equally irrational or unimportant. The assumption is that children don't know what is best for them, and that it would be dangerous to give them too much freedom to set their own boundaries. Mostly, this is because adults underestimate the validity of their feelings and needs.

Mostly true. Highlighted portion not true in many places - any suggestion of like more than a swat of the arm can summon the authorities. I'm glad I am not a kid now. It seems like youths have fewer rights than they did just a few decades ago.

[crazitaco]

so far, everyone only speaks about the rights of children being restrained, however, what about high school students who are 18 who are technically legal adults?