On 2005-11-05 12:06:00, Lars wrote:
"As a lawyer, I say forget the legal analysis and consider this: any place that forbids criticism (other than of one's own self) and/or independent thought is an unhealthy place to send your kid. And private institution or not, it's contrary to our American values.
Couldn't agree more. The problem is not free speech and independent thought however, its determining the line between that and attitude.
To any kids there, I say speak your mind and when they say you've got attitude, tell them that their stifling of free speech and independent thought is contrary to the values we hold dear as members of a free society.
Couldn't disagree more and I think bad advise. How would you respond to your child if they responded to you as you advise? Would you let the child determine what's attitude and what's independent thought? I certainly wouldn't.
I understand your point, and its good advise for adults, but I think this is conceptually and legally wrong for the kids at Hyde.
Lets face it, many kids are at Hyde because of attitude problems, and you would no more give them a veil behind which to sheild there attitudes than you would your own kids (well, at least I with mine)!
And legally, the contract parents sign with Hyde gives Hyde the ability to stand in the place of the parent. That pre-empts virtually ALL free speech rights.
While California has a unique statute that protects some speech rights in private schools, in most states, there is no such protection. You can debate whether that's good or bad, but it is what it is.
Otherwise, as far as I can tell from what I have found on the web, almost all of the cases people site above are only applicable to PUBLIC institutions, and even with those, free speech at a high-school level is subject to a fair amount of restrictions.
http://www.splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=52 (Note that this page supports your concept that its bad practice, but my interpretation that there is no "right" of free speech. FWIW, I also don't think the authors were necessarily thinking of a Hyde-type school when writing this.)
http://www.hb-rights.org/2speech/http://privateschool.about.com/cs/stude ... rights.htm Hyde is only interested in their ideas - discussion of anything that brings them into question is not tolerated there.
This is actually what I think is the nub of your point. Not legalities. Not free speech. Its that you believe Hyde isn't open to dissent....and what this really comes down to is whether you think they either (a) simply don't like all dissent, or (b) will take issue with dissent that reflects, reinforces, or venerates attitudes that are conter-productive to character development.
I have to say in my experience, it clearly wasn't (a), and I saw a lot of (b). Is there dissent they shut down that was legitimate? Probably, but as an institution do they simply shut down all defense. Nope, sorry, I was there, and that was not the case.
Did they miss it once it a while? Sure, everyone is human, and maybe they are overzealous at times, but my experience was not anywhere close to the black and white you report. And did I see "dissent" very legitimately shut down time and time again. You betcha.