On the Strip Searching of Students and the ACLU
I must not be very imaginative.
I say that because I can’t think of a single thing that is so important that it’s worth strip searching a child in a public school, but so unimportant that it’s not worth calling that child’s parents first, and not worth calling the police first.
And the thing is that an appeals court pretty much agreed that if the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our persons didn’t apply to the actual body of a child in a school, who the heck did it apply to? The majority opinion said, in part “It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude.”
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case. CNN points out, emphasis mine, that “They will decide whether a campus setting gives school administrators greater discretion to control students suspected of illegal activity than police are allowed in cases involving adults in public spaces.”
Do we want school administrators to have more authority over kids than cops have over citizens? If you think that your kids should be able to go to school without the risk of strip searching on the say-so of a thick-headed administrator, based on the confession of another student who was already in trouble and probably trying to save her own skin, then you should be a supporter of the ACLU.
Cross-posted at Shortwoman.
Share This
Related Posts
-
State vs. Parent: The Crowding Out of Choice
Posted on Mar 24, 2013
-
America’s Culture is Signing on the Dotted Line
Posted on Mar 2, 2013
-
Mexico Drug War Disappearances Laid Bare
Posted on Feb 23, 2013
-
The Constitution For Us
Posted on Jan 23, 2013
Sometimes I wonder if anyone in America has any judgement left. And let's not forget that police also do questionable things….
Gives the lie to the notion that conservatives “love freedom.” Conservatism, which defines 4 of the 9 justices (and partly a 5th) is driven by authoritarianism, not love for liberty.
Conservatism means liberty for me, not for drug addicted punks and wannabe terrorists.
This isn't about drug-addicted punks and wannabe terrorists. It's about several administrators strip-searching an eighth-grader for ibuprofen. Not pot, not smack, not ice, not any form of drug that would pose a real danger. And as far as what conservatism means, I think different people have different definitions. For me, conservatism is associated with the last eight years, like it or not. And BTW, Bridget, I am a member of the ACLU. Yes, a card-carrying member. Literally.
Enemies of liberty always look for excuses to limit it.
No, enemies of liberty always look for new ways to get us all killed.
Elrod, then you have a very narrow definition of conservatism. What then of libertarians, who also consider themselves conservative? I think they'd object to being called authoritarian.
And lest you forget that it has been liberals that, in many parts of the country, that are implementing what I'd consider highly paternalistic (read: authoritarian) measures against childhood obesity. In my own state, banned sugary foods is the rule of the day in schools. I'm all for making kids healthier but it's the wrong approach.
Specific wings of both liberalism and conservatism are authoritarian. They're just authoritarian in different areas.
Allowing strip searches by school employees on the authority of a vice principal is not keeping us safe. That argument is ridiculous.
First, why don't we wait for an actual ruling before we condemn SCOTUS?
Then, if they do indeed rule in favor of the schools, let's make sure the roar they, and Congress, hear is fully bi-partisan.