http://www.uchastings.edu/student-services/student-orgs/index.html

Changing the general campus rule that all student organizations are open to all students regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. for one group that demands exclusivity doesn’t serve the 1st Amendment or Hastings students. As you can see if you click the link, there are numerous special-interest political, ethnic, cultural and religious groups on campus but they can’t practice exclusion despite their area of focus. So if Surefire were enrolled at Hastings he could join the Iranian Law Student’s association, the La Raza Students association and . I’m sure some interesting 1st amendment activity would result. If some Hastings students want to form or join a church that rejects people who are homosexual or a political sect that demands adherence to the atheist-materialist philosophy of Ayn Rand, they can do that on their own dime and off-campus. The fact is that the Christian Legal Society is demanding extreme and exclusive adherence to political correctness according to their own POV, not Hastings. Hastings is trying to strike a balance of offering recognition to students with special interests and an open, non-discriminatory campus atmosphere. If they go down the road of allowing the extreme political and moral “correctness” of the Christian Legal Society to be enforced against their students, they’re opening the door to racist groups and the rest of it. The reality is that these groups will reflect the affinity and interests of students with a similiar focus, but the existing policy at Hastings of non-exclusion is something of a safety valve against crazies controlling a student group and “political correctness” of one stripe or another running amok.

A rule at Hastings is that student organizations don’t get to exclude other students. If you want an exclusive group there’s an easy solution – stop taking school money! You don’t have any first amendment right to it. Right?

Let’s say some students tried to start an atheist group at Notre Dame. Should the school be compelled to fund them? How about Woody’s favorite hobbyhorse, NAMBLA? I think not. This particular conflict is over procedure not speech. But the same principles apply and the school (the funding institution here) should have some say in the procedures school groups may and may not follow.

But, please, next time, try to make the comments somewhere under 1300 words. People just won’t read something that long in the comments section. Linking is better.

Thanks.

Currently there is a political conversation going on that is being dominated by a handful (most of the web sites regarding restraint are generated by a handful of parents and Protection and Advocacy (Government Funded Attorneys — everyone knows how well government funded anything doesn’t work) — if you look at the actual number of people in support of banning reasonable intervention, that number is again few and far between, this is especially apparent if you look at blogs and comment sections of articles where real people write in and the discussion is not being dominated by special interests).

The above said, the positions of the two sides are not that far apart. The solution being presented is where the disagreement lies. The no physical intervention movement is calling for an absolute ban on restraint and seclusion. Yes, this statement is accurate if you look at the actual position being presented, the position is really to eliminate all seclusion and all physical interventions. Indeed these same parents and advocate groups do not want police to be called even if their child is a danger to self or others.

We are fine with that solution as long as as the no intervention supporters can ensure that anytime a student is going to harm him/herself or another that they can be talked down, redirected or otherwise managed by means other than physical intervention before they hurt themselves or someone else. If you cannot make that assurance 100% of the time, then calling for 100% elimination of physical intervention is neither a practical nor a legal solution.

The few states that have gone to an unduly restrictive and inflexible policy have experienced a vast increase in the use of law enforcement and law enforcement tactics to manage situations that in the past were handled by teachers. Groups that were instrumental in effecting this change are now complaining that law enforcement is being used too frequently and students as young as 5 are being placed in handcuffs and students as young as 10 being subject to tasers. (See ACLU report http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/aclu-white-paper-says-guidelines-needed-police-schools) However if you unduly limit the interventions teachers can use, handcuffs, law enforcement, increased prescriptions and use of psychotropic and other medications (see http://www.ssristor ies.com/index. php ) are what you are left with.

You cannot expect teachers to intervene when the tools given to them are ineffective and not up to the task.

We invite you to try and manage a child older than 8 who is head banging, kicking, hitting, hair pulling, throwing things and biting. If you would not want to be subject to this kind of assault, why would you make others or the child his/herself subject to this type of assault and injury.

Recently there was an incident involving a student going to school with homemade bombs and a chain saw. The teachers restrained the student on the floor face down and were called heroes. Under NDRN’s solution, the teachers would have had to simply hope that they would be able to manage the student before blew up the school, murdered someone or activated the chain saw.

So how many lives were saved by the use of restraint in the above instance?

See, http://blog.taragana.com/n/prosecutors-charge-former-student-with-attempted-murder-in-california-school-bomb-attack-150524/

SAN MATEO, Calif. — A 17-year-old boy accused of detonating two pipe bombs at a Northern California high school while armed with a chain saw, sword and explosives was charged Wednesday with attempting to murder two faculty members.

See also, Heroes who stopped Hillsdale High bomber attack honored

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_13395976. Student was placed in a face down restraint and teachers were called heroes.

This story just goes to show that level of intervention allowed needs to be calibrated to the level of threat and harm presented. A one size fits all approach does not work. If a student can be managed without physical intervention — by all means. If a student can be managed standing or seated — by all means. If a student cannot be safely managed without physical interventin or standing or seated, then floor restraint i.e. in the case of the chainsaw bomber should remain an option.

A few other examples:

How about Schoolboy beaten to death as teachers look on

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/2009/08/schoolboy-beaten-to-death-as-teachers.html

Teen stabbed in fight at high school football scrimmage
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-teenparentaid,0,509529.story

Two juveniles sentenced for their violent escape – left one youth officer brain damaged (before they get to juvenile hall, the youth go to school)
http://www.fox28.com/Global/story.asp?S=11202269

Teen girl dug grave anticipating murder,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-19-nov19,0,6027124.column

See also Attacking Our Educators http://www.stoppingschoolviolence.com/bookstore_ssv.html

One cannot look at restraint and seclusion in isolation. You have to look at the use of restraint and seclusion in relation to what the alternative is. In the case of the school bomber, restraint saved lives.

You have to see how many injuries, fatalities, uncontrolled school environments, the effect on education, the effect on the perception of safety and the effect on actual safety that would occur if restraint and seclusion are banned. In otherwords, you have to look at each incident and determine when restraint and/or seclusion was appropriate or inappropriate.

We understand that there is a lot of frustration because this oversight is not being conducted, and parents are worried about the treatment and safety of their children while in school. We agree that there should be oversight and accountability. We do not agree that banning the use of seclusion and restraint is the answer as the educator will simply shift their obligation to law enforcement.

When you only allow intervention on the front end of the spectrum i.e. positive behavioral supports or the extreme end of the spectrum — law enforcement — tasers, handcuffs and pain compliance and overreliance on pharmaceutical products — you have a violation of indivdual rights and civil liberties as protected under the Declaration of Independence, the U.S Constitution including the 5th and 14th Amendments resulting in 1983 liabiilty for breach of due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities and failure to train. Not to mention supreme and state court rulings and state law (all states have a self defense and defense of others law that permit a person to act in self defense or defense of others in any manner that is reasonable) that such a restriction would violate. See also ACLU report http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/aclu-white-paper-says-guidelines-needed-police-schools.

In NY pursuant to a NYS audit, there were over 7,300 disruptive and violent incidents in 17 high schools. There are over 30,000 high schools nationwide and over 130,000 k-12 schools. Reports show over 1 million violent incidents a year in schools and the Department of Justice estimates that only 1 out of every 2 to 5 incidents is actually reported. So between the two numbers you are conservatively looking at approximately 2 -5 million violent incidents a year.

The statistics being used by no intervention advocates are not indicative. These groups claim that special needs students represent approximately 14% of the population, but account for approximately 22% of the restraints. While this might be true, the more relevant statistic is that while special needs students represent approximately 14% of the population, they account for approximately 38-42% of the incidents that generally require physical intervention.

The practical reality is that despite best efforts to manage behavior using only positive behavioral supports, children and teenagers can and do physically prey upon and bully other children in school and they can and do injure themselves and others during emotional tirades caused by the entire spectrum of disorders found in school age children.

The use of physical intervention should NEVER be punitive or misused to coerce compliance or for the purpose of modifying or altering behavior by teaching a child a lesson. Physical intervention is appropriate when used to provide for the child’s safety. Indeed most parents would expect that if it were their son or daughter inflicting self harm or being assaulted, that the school and its staff would take appropriate measures to protect their child from harm.

————–
Under the Hastings nondiscrimination policy, student organizations must allow fellow students to join and potentially seek leadership positions in any organization without regard to their status or beliefs….
————–

With this policy in mind is any group that might hold a minority view of religion, politics, social issues or whatever the case be at the mercy of a predatory group with bigger numbers?

This is the insane pc that people subscribe to now that’s a detriment to the minority and makes the 1st Ammendment moot.