Re: DSM: Sudbury Schools in an Urban setting


Bruce Smith (bsmith@coin.org)
Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:58:05 -0700


At the risk of beating this dead horse a little further, I feel I must
respond to a couple of points.

I find Prohibido1's insistence that (my paraphrasing) "open campus means he
didn't break a rule" and "the school needs to follow its own rules"
untenable at best, a smokescreen concealing the real issue: was this
child's habit of walking home alone dangerous or not? Prohibido1 clearly
believes that this child was punished for making his school look bad, yet
conveniently overlooks the possibility that this child's behavior might
actually have been unsafe *for*the*child*. Prohibido1 seems stuck in seeing
open campus as a blank check which students may spend however they wish,
and which the school may never regulate, even when personal safety and
responsibility are at issue.

If walking home alone was unsafe for this child, given his age, the route
he took, etc., then it's unsafe. Period. I don't know about others, but I
consider repeatedly endangering onself an extremely serious situation,
*regardless* of how it affects the school's image. Isn't the child's safety
what matters most?

Why insist on viewing this as a case of the school's covering its ass?
What's vague about "activities that present a real or potential harm to
personal safety are not permitted"? What's contradictory in treating open
campus as a right to be exercised responsibly, as opposed to an invitation
to dangerous behavior? Thank God the individuals and JC at my school hear
more testimony than has been presented in this discussion before they make
charges such as we have heard.

Bruce



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:33 EST