2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

shelly,

The "giving up" comment is more or less responding to the drum beat in here that public schools have "failed", and I agree that online schools are not best for everyone...hence my concern.

My perception of the whole online school system for K-12 is that it is more of a response to parents that want to remove their children from classrooms for whatever reason than a coherent educational strategy.  I see some value (a lot of value in specific cases), but I also see, for instance, trade schools as a more efficient way to alleviate many of the problems in public schools.

I mean, an online school can be great for students X, Y, and Z, but they leave students A, B, and C in limbo.  Whereas, moving students A, B, and C to a non-college track is a win for all six students.

You seem to agree with a lot of that, so I am really just clarifying my stance for other readers.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I do not necessarily see a problem with providing other options for kids not performing well in public schools, but...

The trend here seems to be: classrooms are overcrowded, schools teach to the middle, kids are out of control, so I am going to pull my kid out.

OK, fine, I understand why a parent would want to do that.  But, it seems like the wrong kids are leaving the classrooms.   Allowing this on a large scale would essentially turn public schools into repositories for kids no one cares about and eventually cause their collapse.

Instead of allowing kids to leave public schools because they are having a hard time in an overcrowded, rowdy Algebra classroom, why not bring focus back to the validity of vocational education and provide that as an alternative for kids that have no interest in college?

It just seems like we are trying to force all of our children into college and view vocational education as insulting these days.

This is not the whole problem and not a whole solution, but it just seems that we have given up on public schools and are starting trends in the wrong direction.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I know the world would be a better place without guns.  But what difference would a gun ban make?  The U.K. is highly restrictive (believed to be the most restrictive in the world) on guns yet their violent crime rate per capita is 5x ours and they are more of a police and surveillance state than we are.

I am not implying causation like the nutjobs at the NRA would, but it is certainly not a forgone conclusion that disarming the citizenry is a first step toward making the police more polite and our country safer than it already is.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I guess if our violent reaction is allegedly induced, by our perceived aggressiveness, or militarism, of the police, then I can only imagine it would work the other way around, creating a vicious cycle. Gun-toting public, versus, gun-toting police.

Where is that obvious, though?

Think of all the changes in the police force.  SWAT is no longer the only section of police departments that receives military training.  I was stopped for speeding in Florida by an officer in urban fatigues.  Officers are carrying assault rifles in their trunks.  This is not perceived.  This is direct knowledge from officers I knew in Florida.  You can even search for advaced tactics training courses for police on the Internet.

Now, how much has really changed in terms of the threats officers face on a day to day basis?  Handgun ownership has held steady around 20-25% of households in the last 30 years while long gun (assault and normal rifles, shotguns, etc.) ownership has dropped from 42% to 29%.  Though I couldn't find statistics, I would intuitively guess the overall historical per capita gun ownership has been decreasing steadily since, beyond the abstract idea that we might have to overthrow the government and the irrational idea that a rapist is around every corner and a gun unconditionally protects from said rapists, guns have a decreasing relevance in everyday life.

So where is the mutual arms race?  What are the police reacting to?  Aside from feeling like I live in a police state when I see an officer that blurs the line between military and police, I think those questions fuel my agitation with police because the answer is always some vague threat like gangs that have a myriad of other solutions and are irrelevant to most police officers anyway.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

@ echolynch

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Fundamentally, I think people should be allowed to own guns.  If the government and the criminals have all the guns, the power of the citizenry is marginalized.  I think that argument stands on its own without distorted stories about Australia.

To everyone else...

I have this nagging feeling that criminals are reacting to police, not the other way around.  The number of criminals carrying assault rifles is extremely small.  The number of police carrying AR-15s is overwhelmingly large.  Not to mention the insanely overwhelming superiority of a SWAT team in both armament and training.

Just seeing a police officer in military clothing agitates me, your average white, law-abiding citizen.  I can't imagine being confronted by SWAT.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Chief Sizer,

Policing is not a job.  It's not something you live away from.  It's public service.  Your duty as a public servant is to walk in front of a bullet for a citizen if you have to.  You can't have that level of dedication to public service if you think of yourself as a company (refer to your 'customer service' comments), focus on officer safety, allow your officers to live in the suburbs.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I don't buy the argument about assault rifles, and the statistics do not bear that argument out.  Saying handguns were probably cheap and inaccurate...or even less prevalent...in the 70's is, at best, weak and, at worst, most likely not true.

The facts are: policing has become a commuter job, the police are most concerned with their own safety (as Sizer constantly refers to 'officer safety'), and officers are absurdly better armed than any criminal they will most likely ever encounter.

Those three things are really starting to come to a head.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

People rarely say the entire "Tree of Liberty ... refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants" quote.  In fact, they use it to justify external wars.

The whole quote refers to internal revolution not external adventurism and Jefferson even ends the quote with: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."

So, in fairness, Jefferson also strongly distrusted government...  That being said, Jefferson had a much more nuanced and complex view of government than populist rhetoric.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Thomas Jefferson did not say: "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."

Gideon John Tucker did.

I know, irrelevant...just sounded a little trite for Jefferson.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Emily said something to the effect of: Isn't it a failure of the system if you have to call a specific person instead of trusting the system?

I would say: No, it's effective peace officers working around an already failed system in which the police are disconnected from the people they are charged to protect and, in turn, are becoming more militaristic to protect themselves from us.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Someone on the show mentioned "Bones" as a TV show friendly to Asperger's...

I find this incredibly interesting.

I watched one episode of "Bones."  What I took from that episode was that it is a typical, formulaic network show and that it portrays intelligent people as socially inept for the sake of trite comedy.  In fact, my parents thought the show was funny for precisely that reason: "Haha, it's funny because she is smart but totally socially clueless."

I have the same opinion of "Big Bang Theory."  I was blown away when my mom told me that she finds "Big Bang Theory" funny because it reminds her of my high school friends and me (we went to a magnet school for math, science, and computers).  The show was so trite and obviously a caricature of intelligent people.

Anyway, it never occurred to me that Bones is supposed to have Asperger's.  I just saw it as the networks continuing the tradition of the whacky negro or the booksmart Asian.  Racial stereotyping is not acceptable anymore, so fall back on the nerd stereotype and really push it to the extreme.

In fact, knowing now that Bones is supposed to have Asperger's makes it that much worse to me.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

You side with religious minorities, but do you side with minorities that most religions oppress?  The example scottmil gave is homosexuals.  Should homosexual students have to be reminded every day that their teacher (most likely) believes they are evil?

As far as people wearing headscarves because they think they are cool goes...  Schools can set dress codes.  If the headscarf is religious, it has to come off by law.  If it is not religious, then you are at the mercy of the dress code.  Most likely, the school is going to make you take it off because it is accepted as a religious symbol regardless of your belief.  I do not see how this poses any issues.

As far as not wearing headgear goes...  Tell me the difference between a man not wearing a hat and a man not wearing a hat because it is his religion.  Or a man wearing shorts and a man wearing shorts because his religion forbids pants.  You can't tell the difference, and that's the point.

Personally, I value Freedom of - and Freedom from Religion equally.  Mainly because they are both expressly given in the Constitution, and the rights of the state (teachers) should never trump the rights of individual citizens (students).  Ever.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

@ scottmil

Someone else posted a link to a US Supreme Court decision that allowed teachers and students to make certain political statements.  The case specifically dealt with students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War.

The Supreme Court decision ultimately allowed that students and teachers have (limited) free speech in the classroom.  ...which is not at odds with this issue.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Or a practioner of the Kama Sutra, all naked and sexually aroused?

Come on Tom, that's just silly.  No one can stay aroused all day long.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

That case is different in a subtle way.  That case deals with students and teachers having First Amendment rights in general...  Is it OK for a student or teacher to wear an armband protesting a war?

This situation deals with the First Amendment rights of the teachers coming in direct conflict with the First Amendment rights of the students.  ...Is it OK for a teacher to express religious faith?

In this case, courts recognize the First Amendment rights of the students at the expense of the First Amendment right's of the teacher since the teacher is an agent of the state and expressing religious faith violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Teachers taking a position on a war does not violate anyone's rights as long as it does not disrupt the educational process.

Thanks for the link.  The federal Depart of Education opens their guidelines regarding religion in schools with the quote: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."  I was wondering where that came from.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Yeah, definitely agree with that.

David asked me where I would draw the line earlier.  My basic response is that the Establishment clause trumps the Free Expression clause for teachers in the classroom.

I did said that there can be value to a balanced discussion about faith between students and teachers where appropriate in the classroom.

But, yeah, you are convincing me that the teachers need to be strictly neutral.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

This is a really good point, but most religions also believe that people of other faiths will suffer similar fates.

Of course, that's kind of like you being a circle of people where every person, except you, has a gun pointed at every other person's head.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The more I think about Cooper v. Eugene School Dist No. 4J, the line it walks seems even more fine.

The Oregon statute prohibits religious dress, so the Court did not even address the issue of jewelry since the statute does not address jewelry.  That kind of seems lazy to me.

The problem is, a Muslim headscarf is essentially equivalent to a cross.  As far as I know, Muslims do not have equivalent iconic jewelry, so Muslims are limited in ways Christians are not.  ...which, of course, is not constitutional and is contrary to the spirit of the rest of the Court's decision.

Then again, I could be wrong.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

@ David

Good question, because Penny and I are probably going to start agreeing...

The line is drawn at the students' right to freedom from religion since teachers have no right to free exercise in the classroom as agents of the state.

As long as the laws meet that requirement, I am satisfied.

I do support the voting public's right to go further and completely ban any religious expression by teachers if they really want to, but...

Doing that probably becomes counter productive.  As Penny said, we need every good teacher we can get.

But, also, I see educational value in allowing teachers and students to engage in a back and forth discussion about their faiths in the classroom when appropriate.  Obviously, as soon as a teacher says something like "Islam is evil," then the teacher violated the Establishment Clause and should be punished.  But, in general, a balanced discussion exposes teachers and students to valuable perspective on other cultures.

Fundamentally, this is what the Oregon Supreme Court wanted to preserve.  By making the punishment for wearing religious clothing so harsh, the Court feared the state was causing a chilling effect where teachers would avoid anything religious because they feared for their jobs.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Penny,

First, while you did not say anything about it, I realize my statement about "common sense" is kind of harsh.  It was not really meant to deride you any way.  It was just a shotgun response to my general anger over how people apply that phrase to just about every complex issue we face.

Anyway...  My basic point was that I believe your reading of the Constitution is too liberal (lowercase L) and the courts tend to agree with me.

The Oregon Supreme Court decision to which the summary links has a really interesting section in which they recognize the inherent conflicts teachers present as "...[individuals] entitled to express [their] individual beliefs and [agents] of the state who [represent] its authority to [their] students."

Basically, they recognize the conflict that arises because of a teacher's right to Freedom OF Religion and a student's right to Freedom FROM Religion.

The Court had to address the constitutionality of the Oregon statute and upheld it because they actually felt that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment compelled the school district to remove her from the classroom for wearing religious clothing.  They did decide that revoking her teaching license was unconstitutionally harsh, though.

Children are compelled to attend public school if they do not attend a private school or home school.  That, together with the nature of the classroom, gives teachers, in their role as agents of the state NOT individuals, a captive (and very impressionable) audience.

This means the state and federal governments are well within their constitutional bounds to limit the freedom of religion of a teacher.

Now, is banning head scarves, turbans, prayer shawls, etc. overboard?  Probably.  But, it is not unconstitutional.  It is just a standard of secularity on which the state decided.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context