There's something distasteful to me about any organisation having such control over its members outside the bounds of its own function. It suggests they sit above and outside civil law and society, if they can impose beyond their own boundaries.

Right on the money, Dana... whenever we have a safety meeting at work and they start going off about safe driving or safe lawn mowing, I get up and walk the fuck out. :thumb:

It really depends on the contract they signed. Actually, it was called a 'statement of cooperation', so maybe it wasn't any kind of binding contract.

The level of control here seems a tad high. I understand that many people believe public schools to be anarchic pools of violence and debauchery, but I think that resorting to rigid authoritarianism is a high price to pay.

Maybe they could just let him off if he agrees to wear a scarlet 'D' to school every day.:cool:

Yes, He may be a "representative of his school", but I think this goes a bit too far. They are teens going to a teen dance. If they taught him properly (should have for the money they charge) Then they should STFU and not worry about it. They should expect and treat him as some type of ambassador for the "prestigious" school and not treat him like an escaped convict.

That is not the way these religious organizations work. Look at this from Liberty University a well known religious university:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University

Most school school sports teams will kick out or at least bench a player if he is found to be doing something against the rules off-time, like drinking or drugging. Would you be against that too? Just curious.

We had a recent encounter with that earlier this year - an 8th grade cheerleader was caught shoplifting at the mall, and they removed her from the squad. If I was her mom I would have done it, even if the school didn't.

Absolutely Juni. The problem I have is with the more morally based prohibitions. Dancing? Going to another persons dorm room? What clothes you can and cannot wear off campus?

Under-age drinking, taking drugs and shoplifting are all criminal acts. It is reasonable for an organisation to say they don't want somebody representing them (as in a cheer leader or member of a school sports team) if that person has committed a criminal offence. It's particularly relevant in the case of the benched players, because alcohol and drugs directly impact on their performance.

The rules about not dancing and the like...I wonder how much choice children get over whether or not their parents sign them up to these strict regimes. But they are being expected to adhere to a standard of behaviour which most adults would feel a) that it was an unreasonable infringement on their free time and b) somewhat insulted at what those rules say about how those who have to live by them are perceived by those who write them.

What I don't like, what I really, really don't like, is it suggests at no time are these children 'free'. They don't have 'free time' because it's owned by someone else. Bad enough that parents have such absolute power, to hand it to someone else on their behalf seems wrong to me.

"....and participating in unauthorized petitions":eek:

Wow. What a nice way to trample on 1st Amendment rights.

We are discussing legal behavior here. Dancing and signing petitions are both legal.

BTW, if my parents signed me up for someplace like that I would do everything possible to get thrown out in the first week. If all it took was signing a few petitions, then that would be pretty easy.

Everything that is fun or feels good is a test from God to see if you really love Him. You see, He is very, very insecure, and if you really, really, really, really, really loved him, you wouldn't want to have fun or feel good.

Crap. I almost forgot. This is because He loves you so much.

If a boy can't take a chick to a dance, how is he supposed to cop his first grope? On the bus? With his sister? They really haven't thought about this.

I'm inclined to think I'd do the same...except that I don't have the kind of parents who'd have done in the first place. I'm guessing a parent who'd sign their kids up to that sort of regime is already comfortable with stringent rules and punitive measures. Might be a more frightening propect for their child to rebel than it would have been for me. That said. I recall being terrified and dry-mouthed phoning home for Dad to come get me after we'd staged a mass walkout and student strike at school (they caught the ringleaders, of which I was one, through our own stupidity, but thats another story).

If I, with a dad who'd never hit me or even ground me for more than a week (and then end up relenting on day 3) was terrified of 'being in trouble', wtf does a kid who knows their dad is going to belt them, or ground them for a month, or make their life hell for weeks, do?

I see stuff like these schools and my back is instantly up. Our children are legally powerless. They sit at the centre of a system in which various parties vie for control and power over them. With the new emphasis on child welfare and compulsory education (necessary as a lot of that is) we have exchanged absolute parental power over children's lives, with absolute state power over children's lives. To then add to that powerless by enrolling them in systems which are as dismissive of their individuality as any prison is of their inmates just seems wrong to me. Parents are all that stands between kids and school/state power. To give that upn on their behalf, is a betrayal imo. It may be well meant (in fact I am pretty sure it is most of the time). But that doesn't stop it being grotesquely unfair.

:notworthy

... which will be appearing in a thread in the near future, please? :D