?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

this makes my blood boil


I cannot recall hearing a story on NPR that has every angered me as much as the one I heard this morning.

Supreme Court To Hear School Strip-Search Case

Redding says she was then asked to strip down to her underwear and stood there while the nurse and secretary inspected her clothes and shoes.

"Then, you know, I thought they were going to let me put my clothes back on, but instead they asked me to pull out my bra and shake it, and the crotch on my underwear, too," Redding says.


I cannot find any circumstance where this is acceptable behavior. When you hear more of the details surrounding the allegation is just gets worse.

A 13yr girl should never be subjected to this kind of treatment. To me this is almost akin to being molested by a teacher.

There's a special place in hell for an administrator who thinks this is acceptable behavior.

Comments

(Deleted comment)
gatsbyfan
Apr. 22nd, 2009 01:15 am (UTC)
In this case, I don't think making them (school officials) strip in front of an audience is adequate punishment for that kind of treatment.

Maybe if they were made to do it while it was projected on the jumbotron in Times Square.

Maybe.

This afternoon's summary mentioned that Judge Ginsburg has a visual reaction to some argument about how it was like changing in a locker room. BULL SHIT.
watson1
Apr. 22nd, 2009 01:44 am (UTC)
I haven't read the articles from today, but the argument about the locker room is grounded in two prior Supreme Court decisions, allowing 1) drug testing athletes and 2)drug testing students involved in extra curricular activities. Specifically, one of the arguments that the Supreme Court accepted in those cases is that students are subject to a reduced expectation of privacy. Because they regularly get undressed in locker rooms.

I'm not surprised the attorney for the district made that argument -- and it probably worked with several judges (e.g. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts). The key in this case is Kennedy -- but he bought the same argument with regard to the reduced expectation of privacy in the drug testing cases.

/more info than you probably wanted to know
gatsbyfan
Apr. 22nd, 2009 02:03 am (UTC)
No, it's interesting... But I'm a total nerd. I love listening to Nina T give the Court Update.

What was being mentioned in the highlights from today:
Scalia apparently discovered that children sometime sniff permanent markers looking for a high as he questioned why the school confiscated them. "They sniff them?" Scalia said.

"That's what kids do, your honor, unfortunately," Wright said.

"Really?" Scalia said.

And Justice Stephen Breyer can expect years of teasing after a misstatement as he was trying to point out that it might not be unusual for children to hide things from teachers in their underwear.

"In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day, we changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear." Breyer hesitated as he realized what he said as the courtrooom erupted in laughter.

He quickly recovered and added: "Or not my underwear. Whatever. Whatever."
watson1
Apr. 22nd, 2009 02:15 am (UTC)
Nerdiness is good. :) I love listening to Nina Totenburg, as well. She does an excellent analysis of what is going on with the court. Scalia is an idiot, but I think we all knew that. And Souter was pretty funny. :)

I just checked the court's vote in the drug testing cases:

The Vernonia case, which dealt with drug testing athletes, was 6 - 3. The three dissenting were Stevens, Souter and O'Connor.

The Earls case, which dealt with drug testing students involved in extracurriculars, was 5 - 4, with O'Connor, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissenting.

Based on that previous voting pattern, and highlights from today's oral arguments -- I think the court is likely to find the strip search constitutional. But, then again, the court surprised me today by restricting police powers during the search of a car. I guess we'll know in a couple of months.
gatsbyfan
Apr. 22nd, 2009 02:18 am (UTC)
Based on that previous voting pattern, and highlights from today's oral arguments -- I think the court is likely to find the strip search constitutional. But, then again, the court surprised me today by restricting police powers during the search of a car.
I know. I got the alert this morning from the WSJ and had to read it twice because I thought I read the ruling wrong. That really surprised me.

Based on that I have a little more hope that I normally would.

We really need another liberal/moderate woman on the Court.
watson1
Apr. 22nd, 2009 02:34 am (UTC)
Based on that I have a little more hope that I normally would.

I hope so, but the majority included Scalia and Thomas. I'm not sure what they were thinking, but the fact that they voted with Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg is really freaking me out.

We really need another liberal/moderate woman on the Court.

We do. I think that Obama will nominate a liberal/moderate woman, but I'm afraid it's going to be as a replacement for Ginsberg. I'm incredibly pleased to see that she has come back, but I'm afraid she's going to retire because of her health problems.
anatolealice
Apr. 22nd, 2009 02:08 am (UTC)
I guess I can kind of see how there would be a 'reduced expectation of privacy' in those situations (though I still don't like it) but it shouldn't apply to all students. And it cuts a little close to the whole 'well she was wearing skimpy clothing so she was asking for it!' rape defence.
watson1
Apr. 22nd, 2009 02:20 am (UTC)
I agree, on all counts, Ana. I think it's easier to make the argument about a reduced expectation of privacy in the case of athletes because they do change in locker rooms. I don't recall members of the chess club doing the same thing, though.

I don't agree with the decision in either of the previous cases, but I'm afraid the court will follow precedent.