> I'm just trying to find
> the words that explain the compromise of the SM using the extent of the
> govermental legal impositions on freedom.
I think perhaps you're stretching the facts (whether and why something is
against the rules at the school) and the definition of the word "hybrid" to
make your point.
At Fairhaven, anything that violates laws is against the rules of the
school. That rule was passed exclusively through the pure SM legislative
mechanism, and is therefore not a compromise of the pure model.
I think maybe the mistake you are making here, which is a common one, is
that absolute freedom is an underpinning of the model. I have heard another
new participant to the list express that idea as well. In fact, once
unleashed, we have found that these pure democratic groups of students and
staff understand quickly and intuitively that a culture is a balance of the
rights of a group balanced with the rights of individuals, and that no real
culture operates with unfettered freedom.
Suicide is illegal, and there are legal requirements that people have to
adhere to in dealing with a suicidal person. And our School Meeting members
have decided, fully within the context of the model, to include federal,
state and local as an adjunct to our lawbook. I therefore do not agree that
Sudbury schools such as Fairhaven in any way, shape or form represent a
compromise of the model.
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
firstname.lastname@example.org with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
subject) of the message:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 20:24:29 EST