Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Warning lands Batavia teacher in hot water
Batavia Illinois Daily Herald ^ | 05/25/2013 | Susan Sarkauskas

Posted on 05/27/2013 3:58:51 PM PDT by sharkhawk

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: JRandomFreeper
You are trying to say that a Social Studies teacher, teaching the 5th Amendment, is in some way counter to established curriculum?

That seems to be what you are saying. If so, the established curriculum needs a jump-boot restart. I'm beginning to think you might benefit from one yourself.

Wow, talk about going WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY out of context!! Let's go back and review where we are. The teacher, rather than take his dispute with the survey to the school administrator, took it to the students. Which suggests that the teacher is not/will not/can not follow established protocol. It is logical, then, to assume that IF this teacher can not/will not observe protocol in one area, there is a reasonable likelihood of him not following protocol in another.

Suppose he teaches his students that the 5th Amendment only applies to people over 35 not being required to incriminate themselves? Is that following the curriculum?

So, when I said that if he is unable to take his dispute with the survey to his supervisor(s) (i.e.) school administration and, instead, takes it to the students, in what other areas does he veer from established protocol??

I have had many teachers who didn't agree with parts of a course curriculum and gave the course their own interpretation. Did we learn the material that was approved by the school/Board of Education? Not necressarily.

If a teacher disagrees with something he/she is required to present, the responsible, adult approach is to address it with the folks in charge of the school who may have approved the curriculum. If they don't agree, he may need to seek employment at a school whose teaching philosophy more closely agrees with his own. That's all I'm saying.

61 posted on 05/27/2013 8:24:06 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
The school board can sod off. He taught the 5th amendment without your strawman arguement about it not applying under the age of 35.

BTW. You never answered how the Constitution doesn't apply to those under the age of 18.

/johnny

62 posted on 05/27/2013 8:29:19 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
And one more thing, Dusty.

Free men don't ask permission. That's for slaves and serfs.

Free men do, and do right.

/johnny

63 posted on 05/27/2013 8:31:12 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Explain in full, with citations.

I'm going to do it this way. Supose you have a really cool motorcycle to sell and a kid comes over to buy it from you. He has 1/3 your asking price in cash and signs an agreement to pay the remainder over the next 9 months. The kid shows you his driver license and you make the deal.

2 weeks later, a woman shows up at your door with this kid in tow and demands that you take the motorcycle back and refund the kid's money. You, believing that you have made a fair deal with the kid, decline and find yourself being sued. How do you think the case ends up?

You lose because the kid is only 16, a fact you knew when you looked at his driver license. The law has long held that minors cannot enter into any contract because they lack the knowledge, maturity and experience to fully understand the agreement they made and they are not responsible enough to comprehend their obligations under the terms of the agreement and the law. This is a long standing legal tenet that also covers such things as Constitutional rights. Minors traditionally do not have full Constitutional rights becausre they are too inexperienced, too immature and too irresponsible to handle them appropriately.

So, whether you sold the kid a motorcycle, a Coke machine or an airplane ticket, if the sale was made without parental approval and consent, the deal is null and void in the eyes of the law because the purchaser was a minor.

64 posted on 05/27/2013 8:38:26 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
If you really believe that, why do you not hold that the "survey" had to be submitted to the parents?

If you read my reply #33 to Dr. Sirvana, I did exactly that!

65 posted on 05/27/2013 8:40:56 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Horsecrap. Contract law has nothing to do with Constitutional law.

Contract law is generally STATE law.

Thanks for playing. Try again.

What part of Constitutional rights are only for those over 18? And where do you get that?

/johnny

66 posted on 05/27/2013 8:41:51 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
Twisted, badly.

Taken out of context.

67 posted on 05/27/2013 8:42:04 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
the deal is null and void in the eyes of the law because the purchaser was a minor.

Once again, horsecrap.

I bought an Opel Kadett when I was 16. Dad had a fecal hemorrhage.

It was a done deal, I paid cash. State gave me a valid title in my name. I insured it.

I did move out that year.

/johnny

68 posted on 05/27/2013 8:45:34 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Wow, talk about some hhhhhuuuuugggggeeeeee leaps of presumption!!

The teacher, rather than take his dispute with the survey to the school administrator, took it to the students. Which suggests that the teacher is not/will not/can not follow established protocol.

To you perhaps, but not universally.

It is logical, then, to assume that IF this teacher can not/will not observe protocol in one area, there is a reasonable likelihood of him not following protocol in another.

Where did you study logic?

Suppose he teaches his students that the 5th Amendment only applies to people over 35 not being required to incriminate themselves? Is that following the curriculum?

Irrelevant - and a preposterous presumption

So, when I said that if he is unable to take his dispute with the survey to his supervisor(s) (i.e.) school administration and, instead, takes it to the students, in what other areas does he veer from established protocol??

Irrelevant

I have had many teachers who didn't agree with parts of a course curriculum and gave the course their own interpretation. Did we learn the material that was approved by the school/Board of Education? Not necressarily.

That's nice, but again irrelevant.

If a teacher disagrees with something he/she is required to present, the responsible, adult approach is to address it with the folks in charge of the school who may have approved the curriculum. If they don't agree, he may need to seek employment at a school whose teaching philosophy more closely agrees with his own. That's all I'm saying.

If you read the entire story you would have caught the part where he said, "I made a judgment call. There was no time to ask anyone," Dryden said. If the survey had been handed out a day or two before, he said, he would have talked to an administrator about his concern.

My opinion is that he chose the right decision, and for the right reasons.

69 posted on 05/27/2013 9:10:25 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

This wasn’t part of the “curriculum”. This was an intrusive “survey” which the school had no business trying to intimidate students into taking.


70 posted on 05/27/2013 10:21:02 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Liberalism. Ideas so great they have to be mandatory.-FReeper Osage Orange)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Once again, horsecrap.

Not horsecrap.

I bought an Opel Kadett when I was 16. Dad had a fecal hemorrhage.

It was a done deal, I paid cash. State gave me a valid title in my name. I insured it.

Had the sale been challenged, you would have lost the car and the seller would have gotten it back. Even if you paid the entire amount in cash, had there been a court challenge, the court would have had to reverse the sale because you were a minor. And, there would have been a presumption by the court of a contract for sale which the court would have nullified, regardless of whether it was documented or not. A contract is, simply, a meeting of the minds. The seller exchanged his vehicle for the cash you offered; therefore, in the eyes of the law, a contract for sale was made and executed.

You miss the distinguishing factor. In your case, there was no court challenge to the sale and you were allowed to keep your car. There is NO law against a 16 year-old OWNING the vehicle, which is why you were allowed to register the title and insure the vehicle.

I did move out that year.
71 posted on 05/27/2013 10:24:34 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
My opinion is that he chose the right decision, and for the right reasons.

And, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

72 posted on 05/27/2013 10:25:50 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
What part of Constitutional rights are only for those over 18? And where do you get that?

Have you ever heard "the law is an ass?"; or "justice is blind"?

We may disagree on the way that the law is applied, but courts and lawyers don't really care what we think, they apply the law the way that they see fit.

You may think it horsecrap and that's your choice. Frankly, we clearly disagree on this issue and more discusion won't change either of our minds. And, since you've started down the "horsecrap" path, taking the discussion to the gutter with personal attacks is likely to follow. Thank you for an interesting exchange of views.

73 posted on 05/27/2013 10:34:04 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Your rights as a parent and individual will be given away when you allow authorities to have access to you your child's imagination or do you think the civil rights-less little children of yours couldn't inadvertently cause you a great deal of legal problems. If that's the case you shouldn't have any.
74 posted on 05/28/2013 7:17:14 AM PDT by bdfromlv (Leavenworth hard time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

75 posted on 05/28/2013 7:25:59 AM PDT by ErnBatavia (Piffle....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bdfromlv

I’d give you a response if I had any idea what your point is. I don’t understand what you are trying to say.


76 posted on 05/28/2013 9:06:18 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson