Sunday, November 11, 2007
at
7:58 AM
|
Principal curbs kids' Internet activity: "When students post their faces, personal diaries and gossip on Web sites like Myspace.com and Xanga.com, it is not simply harmless teen fun, according to one Sussex County Catholic school principal.Ok, I certainly have to acknowledge that there are some legitimate concerns here. I am a father, and I would certainly NOT want my daughter posting certain information online for any strange person to see. There are far too many stories about the Junior High or High school coach/teacher/principle/etc. that arranged some kind of hookup at a local fleabag motel with a very young child through some kind of chat room or other. No reasonable parent wants their child taking these kinds of risks.
It's an open invitation to predators and an activity that Pope John XIII Regional High School in Sparta will no longer tolerate, the Rev. Kieran McHugh told a packed assembly of 900 high school students two weeks ago.
Effective immediately, and over student complaints, the teens were told to dismantle their Myspace.com accounts or similar sites with personal profiles and blogs. Defy the order and face suspension, students were told.
While public and private schools routinely block access to noneducational Web sites on school computers, Pope John's order reaches into students' homes.
The primary impetus behind the ban is to protect students, McHugh said. The Web sites, popular forums for students to blog about their lives and feelings about their teachers and schools, are fertile ground for sexual predators to gather information about children, he said.
Students, who asked to remain anonymous out of concern for disciplinary action, said the majority of the student body protested the new rule. They tried to argue that they have freedom of speech and the school should not control what they do at home."
. . .
Still, I have to take serious issue with the decision of the principle to order these students to dismantle their blogs. Why dismantle? Why not simply order them to remove identifying information, or send notes to parents with the suggestion that they discuss the potential dangers with their children? Wouldn't that be the responsible and openminded approach?
Still, I guess that wouldn't stop any online criticism of the school . . .
Of course, the Church has historically approached these kinds of things from the same angle. Fortunately for many of us, the heresy card doesn't hold much weight these days. That card trumped a lot of free thinkers back in the Dark Ages and the days of the Inquisition. Now, the method is suppression of the freedom of speech by whatever means are available. Sometimes, excommunication is the catchword, sometimes it's just plain "Salvation" or "Sin".
Unless someone takes Pope John XII Regional High School to taks on this - in a legal venue - they'll get away with it.
What I don't understand is why they didn't take the covert approach. A simple letter to the parents could have included a number of cases where children were victimized through online activities. A simple suggestion that parents make sure their children are not including any important information in their online blogs would have incited a lot of parents to order their children to dismantle their blogs (which, right or wrong, is still a parents right and responsibility), and most others to at least read them and discuss what their children are writing online. The effect would probably have been fairly thorough.
All things said, I agree with the official reasons given by Pope John XIII RHS, but I seriously disagree with their decision to threaten students with suspension. Monitoring the online activities of a minor is the responsibility of a parent, as is understanding the general activities of said minor. This is NOT the business of anyone else, unless they are in some way injured by said minor.
The kid setting off cherrybombs in front of my house at 1:30 AM is only my business because he is causing me and my family harm (you ever try to earn a living on 4 hours sleep or manage a 4 year-old who thinks the house of falling down at 1:30 AM?). That doesn't mean it's my responsibility or right to punish him. It's only my right to address the situation through socially acceptable means - which don't include beating the stuffing out if him, screaming profanity out the window at him, or taping said cherrybombs to his arse and seeing how he likes the loud noise then (well, naturally all of this occurred to me, I just decided not to act on it). I can, however, express myself in a (relatively) civil manner to a family member or I can call the police. Either way, the kid gets the message (in most cases, if the parents are reasonably involved) and no more noise at 1:30 AM.
Pope John XIII RHS didn't chose the most obvious solution, which would have been to read the content posted that was critical of the school and learn (gods forbid!) how they could improve their students' experience or at least address the students' concerns. Nor was it any of the other generally socially acceptable methods, like contacting parents. I hate to be a party pooper, but attempting to oppress the students is NOT a cool approach.
Here's the real kicker:
One student, who identified himself as a senior who was expelled, wrote that "pope john kicks you out once you think freely."Now, there are all kinds of possibilities there, like the student in question could be a "problem child", but this does seem a little well worded to be that cut and dry. Thinking freely has always been the true purpose of education, but has also been the bane of organized religion, and their most abused target.
Posted by
admin
Labels:
Info IT
0 comments:
Post a Comment