The usual ideologues are making the usual assertions. There's a claim that police in schools reduce overall achievement--which seems counterintuitive. I'm trying to parse the research paper on the subject and not finding some data I'd hoped for--I may report back on that later.
The question that bothers me is: Why does anyone care what students--teenagers with little experience and notoriously poor judgment--think about school policing policies?
5 comments:
Well, there is that whole "consent of the governed" thing...
Remember that one login that Rantburger shared back in '04 or so, "latisfishwrap". Though now that I think of it, wrapping fish in bull[yaay] would be a horrible idea.
Well, there is that whole "consent of the governed" thing...
The LA Times article this post links to informs us that a district poll indicated that 52% of students felt safer when there are cops on campus, with 13% of students who felt less safe when there are cops on campus.
So much for "activists."
Campus cops often are good sources for finding out what is going on. Campus cops have informed me that some students will tell them things that they won't tell to other adults on campus. If you see a campus cop schmoozing with the students, you know you have a good one.
@ J Melcher - and how young would you go treating students as adults who should be offering some kind of consent? Schools overstep a great deal of their mandate and always have. But keeping kids safe seems like a reasonable one to retain.
I say this as a father who has had school resource officers be a little suspect in respecting my sons' rights. It's still worth it. Pathological kids can get out of control fast and hurt a lot of people.
AVI asks me: how young would you go treating students as adults who should be offering some kind of consent?
Well, modern slaughterhouses design the entry hall ways with a u-turn than tricks the cows or hogs into thinking they are, after the turn, moving away from danger. We lie to the livestock. The Nazi concentration camp guards told prisoners about to be gassed/killed, that their destination would be showers, to clean up and remove fleas or lice. The guards lied to the condemn. In both cases, and in many similar cases, the point is the powerful working to obtain consent and cooperation from those within their power.
MUCH much better if such consent can be obtained honestly, of course. And where the powerful are, philosophically and theoretically, merely those holding temporarily delegated powers any member of the group might exercise; consent is implicit in the social contract. Among children: Today I wear the banner and hold the sign of the crossing guard -- tomorrow it may be you. Today I play the game; tomorrow I serve as umpire. Consent and respect the symbols of the office, please.
Back to your direct point -- "consent" to serious power -- more than the crosswalk or the ball field -- can't be demanded of or given by those incompetent to consent. Sure. Consent must derive from their own guardians. Parents, usually. Among parents, collective and majority rule decisions must be obtained. Too often in public schools parents are pushed aside by the local version of "The Swamp" -- soi-disant experts and bureaucrats -- who arrogate all decision-making authority only to themselves. Neither students nor parents nor most of the frontline employees -- even cops, if any -- get a say. All those are seen by the chancellor or superintendent as equally childlike. It's age-independent.
Post a Comment