More on discipline: the Janis Adams v. Los Angeles Unified School District case April 4, 2007
Posted by DrSlammy in 2008 Campaign, Education, educational reform, school discipline.trackback
The Adams case is perhaps an extreme one, but I keep hearing stories here and there that suggest it’s not as rare as we’d hope. Jo Scott-Coe has been tracking this one and offers a sobering take over at HorseSense and Nonsense:
The plaintiff, a teacher named Janis Adams, faced an extreme scenario: her face was superimposed into pornographic photos and circulated throughout the school; she was openly libeled as a former porn star who had had anal sex so many times she had to wear an adult diaper; in an accelerating pattern over a three-year period beginning in 1997, she was threatened in her classroom and off campus by students she knew well, who did not themselves suffer any significant disciplinary action, despite her reports. UTLA helped Adams secure a restraining order, but the conditions deteriorated to such an abusive level that Adams had an emotional breakdown and was driven from the teaching profession altogether.
It’s important to know that, in the original trial, after less than half a day deliberating, the jury ruled against LAUSD, saying that it failed to take reasonable steps to protect a teacher from ongoing harassment that created a hostile work environment. The jury also awarded Janis over $4 million in damages for economic and emotional distress. Here’s the twist: when the District filed Hail Mary motions to vacate the financial judgment, the judge didn’t merely reduce the damages–he stated that any teacher, in effect, voluntarily waives her civil right to a workplace free of harassment because she works with kids all day.
So, we have Federal mandates that hold school systems “accountable” for scores on standardized reading and math scores, but there’s no accountability for extreme teacher harassment or assuring a marginally safe working environment? You’re kidding, right? How much has the LAUSD spent fighting this case? And what could that same amount of money have accomplished on the teacher safety front?
I’m sure there’s more to this case than I yet know, and if anybody here does know more I’d love to hear some detail.
[THX to Dr. Mike Pecaut for passing this along.]
Here’s coverage from the Student Press Law Center. This case dates back to 2000.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=392&year=2002
Well, this is fascinating. And you know I’m a defender of the free press. I guess my question is whether or not we buy that this is legitimately a press issue?
There’s some more interesting linkage on the comment thread here: http://community.livejournal.com/educators/224576.html?view=874560#t874560
In my most current NEA magazine, there is an article about teachers and myspace. Several teachers in the article had been harassed due to the creation of fake myspace pages. You can read this article online. I think the appalling thing about all of this is the lack of consequences these students and their parents face.
My own experience in the classroom is that some students do not know how to take responsibility for their actions because the adults who have raised them, never hold them accountable.
The MySpace issue and Web 2.0 in schools in general is a concern. The internet is moving way faster than teaching and school administration. I wrote about this here:
http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/10/28/the-trouble-with-web-20/
The MySpace question troubles me – a LOT. On the one hand, I simply don’t believe minors have the right to wantonly slander innocent teachers and administrators. On the other hand, there is the question of how far a school’s authority should reach. Do I think a principal has the right to suspend a student for something that student did at home on his own computer?
Let’s be clear about this. The REAL problem is … parents. If I had a kid doing what these kids were doing, I assure you, the last thing you’d have to worry about was a continuing pattern of harassment.
But how do we address that?
In the long run, I believe that a serious commitment to education solves these kinds of problems, at least to some degree. But if we don’t address the immediate crisis, it prevents us from ever getting to that long-term goal. And I fear that the short-term answer is going to wind up being heavy-handed and pissing a lot of people off.
Maybe the most effective answer, the one that poses the least threat to our overall civil liberties, is a clear articulation of the difference between a minor and an enfranchised citizen. In my view, until you’re 18, you don’t have the full boat of Constitutional rights. You’re legally a child and are on “probation.” Once you turn 18, then you have the full boat of rights, but you also become fully responsible when you cross certain lines.
The ambiguity in the system currently regarding that moment of full citizenship creates all kinds of problems, I think. Is a Constitutional amendment needed to nail this down?
“Once you turn 18, then you have the full boat of rights, but you also become fully responsible when you cross certain lines.”
Actually, laws restrict some behavior until you’re 21 (eg alcohol consumption gambling), so in some respects, you’re not a fully enfranchised citizen until then.
I hear horror stories from teachers about kids whose behavior would get them arrested on the spot, tried for battery, and locked up in juvie if they hadn’t done it in a school. But for some reason schools are like professional hockey rinks for kids – they’re an extralegal entity.
Maybe we don’t need a Constitutional amendment (although one might help out some), but we definitely need what amounts to actual law enforcement in our public schools. I’m not suggesting that we have cops patrolling the schools (although there are certainly schools where this would be advised), just that the same laws that apply to kids off school grounds also apply to kids on school grounds. There are entire sub-cultures of kids for whom suspension or expulsion from school is a gift, not a punishment, but backed-up threats of suspension AND a criminal record might have more of a deterrant effect.
Well, I’m going to piss a lot of people off with this, but the way I see it the 21 drinking age is a problem. I’ve written about this before, but in general, I’m trying to think of any other example where a right or privilege is denied to a group of people based on demographics.
Drinking isn’t a Constitutional right, but it IS a privilege that has been addressed at the Constitutional level twice, which makes it a damned significant privilege. So what if we raised the driving age to 21 for blacks? Or said that Jews couldn’t enter a public library?
I agree completely about the odd extralegal status of school grounds (and hockey rinks). If it’s assault a foot off the property, it’s assault ON the property.
If you presented me with a Constitutional amendment that clearly articulated a hard legal enfranchisement age of 18 (or 19 or 20 or whatever made sense) I’d probably support it. Under this age you can’t drink or drive. You also can’t be sent to war. And you do not enjoy the full measure of Constitutional protections. You do not have free speech or free press rights, etc.
You turn 18 (or 19 or whatever) and you now have all those rights. And all the responsibilities that go with them.
I’m sure there are problems with this, but in principle it seems a good one to open up for debate.
Sound like a good secondary plank for your platform to me.
That’s kinda what I was starting to think.
Surprisingly (or perhaps not), the most informative, article about the Palisades issue was written by a reporter for a high school paper. It’s better than the other coverage because it delves into the undercurrents that inspired the paper to begin with. Here’s the link: http://www.layouth.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Issue&action=IssueArticle&aid=1128