Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Ignorant Righteous v. The Lower Merion School District: The Rush to Judgment
There is a reason why I ceased to support the ACLU after a brief affair with the organization as a college student. Whenever a group operates within a narrow framework that denies the nuance and complexity of our ultimately human lives, it becomes irrelevant. The ACLU was, as expected, one of the first to rush in with an amicus brief in support of Michael and Holly Robbins, whose lawsuit against the Lower Merion School District, alleging improper use of the district's webcam feature on school-issued laptops, through its spyware software, has delighted trigger-happy journalists. The media, from the Philadelphia Inquirer to the BBC and every single web-tech blog and newsfeed has been opining about the case, and, more often than not, been more than happy to add that slippery little "but" to the end of that hypocritical sentence, "We don't have all the facts," before vilifying the entire district. It was only a matter of time before the FBI came in; an unnecessary escalation, clearly, considering the opinion written by noted legal expert Orin Kerr for the legal blog, Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/ February 18th, 2010)
The Lower Merion School District is nationally known for its academic achievement, some of which is due to its outstanding facilities (it is one of the wealthiest in the nation and both high schools are brand new this year), but most of which is due to its cadre of exceptionally dedicated parents and teachers and staff who consider the raising of children to be a team-effort. To those who say that the laptop initiative was just another example of wealth trumping prudence, let me say that the entire state of Maine has a similar laptop program and it has nowhere near the wealth of this one district. The program, in both parts of the country, was initiated by intelligent people who felt that familiarity with and access to a personal laptop would give their students the ability to access a world of digitally communicated information and that it would significantly enhance their educational experience. Those people also presumed some degree of honor on the part of students and their parents.
In the case as it is described in the complaint, we are presented with vague allegations leaving much to inference. Nowhere does it state basic facts like who took the alleged photo, what it showed or where the school district saw it, or whether the feature was activated because the computer was reported lost or whether there was a deliberate attempt to spy on a student in legal possession of a computer. Rather it omits these vital facts with bearing on the merits of the case, and jumps to inferring cyber spying with a view toward pedophilia.
In the larger context, we have a student whose school record and whose previous use (or abuse, if such there was), of the loaner laptops, are not part of the discussion, even if such information has a bearing on the veracity of the statements made by him and his parents and may even significantly undercut the entire basis of the allegations. Even more baffling is the fact that there is now a Federal gag order on the school district which prevents any administrator from speaking about any aspect of this case, or laptops, without prior consultation with the lawyer for the plaintiffs. According to that lawyer, Mark S. Hartzman, quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer (February 23rd, 2010), says he "wanted to make sure the district didn't spread falsehoods about his client, 15-year-old Blake Robbins." He also mentioned that he wanted "a fair opportunity to talk to our clients," meaning other students and parents who might have been affected by the laptop-security program." And yet, no other district parent or student is named in the complaint, and neither parents nor students have rallied en masse behind this suit, quite the contrary; in a matter of hours, nearly 500 rallied, publicly, behind the school district. Besides, is it fair, for anybody anywhere, including this family or their lawyer, to be free to spread any rumor they liked about this school district from neighborhood conversations to national TV? Even though some of the most hard-hitting statements made in the case are contradicted by what is now common knowledge?
Here is something I understand: all students in the school district were aware of the existence of the webcam feature on their computers as well as the district's laptop recovery capability; the only oversight that is indisputable is that the district did not require written consent specific to this aspect of the program. Here's another: There were eighteen computers recovered after 42 separate instances of activating the recovery software in a district with more than 2000 computers out on loan. And a third: there were no official complaints made to the district about the existence of this software, or about the methods used to recover those lost computers, until one student went, without any discussion, from being asked, as far back as November 11, 2009, about his possible involvement in activities prohibited by the school -- after a snapshot was allegedly taken of him on a laptop that, it is alleged, had been reported missing -- to a class action lawsuit in February.
As a foreigner, I could say, "Ah, America." If such an allegation was made against a child in Sri Lanka, the first response of the parents would be to sit him or her down and obtain the cold hard truth. The next response would be to speak to his or her teacher. The third would be to speak to a principal. There the matter would, in all probability, end, but if it did not, there might be a hue and cry at the parent-teacher meeting, or the alumni meeting. In a very rare instance, a newspaper might be involved.
I could say that, but I am not just a foreigner looking in. I am the parent of three daughters within this school system. As such, I am both sad and furious because I know that sanity is not the particular purview of Sri Lankans and that there are thousands of American parents who feel exactly as I do. I am sad that a school district with all the accomplishments for which it could be recognized is now being made synonymous with perverse actions and furious that those are actions which have gone from rumor to fact without any print or audio or visual media person stopping to take stock of the real facts of the case, or the glaring omissions in the complaint, or the back-story. I am sad that students within the district have been subject to personal attacks and insults from people outside the district, in public, for being part of this district, and sad that they are being made to feel ashamed of schools in which they have always felt the greatest pride, and with justifiable cause. I am sad that even in this enclave of privilege, there are parents who feel that there is more to gain from lawsuits -- the Robbins' involvement with the Montgomery County court system, albeit not always voluntary, is a matter of public record -- than there is to be gained from working in partnership with school officials and teachers or, at the very least, being considerate of the community that has been asked to support the unfolding of their son's childhood alongside that of their own children.
If this district were to file counter-suits against every person who dropped the term "alleged" from their comments, blogs, news articles and other rants, it could probably rebuild all eight elementary and middle schools from the ground up again. But it won't, and I am glad since, as guardians of our children, the objective is to teach them not merely academic skills but also moral behavior with regard to the acquisition of wealth; eschewing civil dialogue in favor of lawsuits is not the lesson it wishes to impart. I join with other parents in this district to stand behind the school officials who have strived, consistently, to help our children achieve their highest potential as human beings. We're still waiting for the national media to take an interest in our version of this tale but, to go by the hard-hitting New Yorker piece ‘Non-Stop News,' (New Yorker, 1/25/10), when media men such as Peter Baker of the NYT make statements such as this, "We are, collectively, much like eight-year-olds chasing a soccer ball...instead of finding ways of creating fresh, original, high-impact journalism, we're way to eager to chase the same story everyone else is chasing, which is too often the easy story and too often the simplistic story -- and too often the story that misses what's going on," I anticipate we'll be waiting a good long time.
- Posted in
66 Comments so far
Show AllThe author does not really make her case. In fact, she never makes clear what her point is.
We all know that there are cellphones with photographic capabilities everywhere but none of us expects someone to follow us into the rest room to take a shot of us on the john.
q
In 1973 the Supreme Court recognized a citizen's right to privacy...the right to be free from intrusive snooping by government agents into our private lives.
How would this writer react if the school's assistant principal had brought a ladder to her home and peeked into the bedrooms of her daughters looking for a missing computer? How would that intrusion be different?
This piece strikes me as an overly emotional reaction to some poor news coverage and ignores the magnitude of the underlying transgression by people in authority who have overstepped their bounds.
Are you f-ing kidding me? Forest and trees my friend and I think you're thick in it. Besides all this about 'achievement' (and what does it mean in our 'elite' institutions to be successful anyway? To be a hedge fund manager or weapons designer perhaps...) but the issue of the ire is about surveillance and the security state we're living in and is developing. And this state develops with either the tacit acquiescence or active help of the privileged and the powerful.
I saw this story on Democracy Now and they just said what happened and played the coversation of the school's IT consultant or some such person and it was indeed chilling. Not for its nefariousness but for its BANALITY. Like, "yeah, we can remotely activate a webcam in a students home and we think this is great." How in the f%$& can anyone argue for 'balance' in this case. Well, yeah, they used to lynch black people often in the south but the lynchers said they deserved it... now that's balance.
Where are our human values? And I'm not just talking of the mainstream media. With your privledge comes responsibility, and not responsibility to decide FOR someone but to purposefully surrender your power in ways that are morally and ethically humane. So get out of your fu&$#^g gated communities.
Big Brother is the school? Yet another right infringed upon of the student by the mis-educational system. Free speech is curtailed. Zero tolerance for nail-clippers. Teachers discharged for patting some pupil on the back. Sexual harassment charges for a quick peck on the cheek.
Have the schools gone utterly mad?
In a word: yes.
They are scared and arrogant at the same time -- a very bad combination. Scared of losing funding and the support of the community. Scared of controversy in what they teach. Arrogance in treating students as commodities in a school factory. Arrogant in their draconian treatment of a child's human rights.
Gary
"I like a teacher who gives you something to take home to think about besides homework."
-- Edith Ann, [Lily Tomlin]
Written consent? From whom? Children? Did I read that right? The children were supposed to grant consent? Fire all of the school employees involved and sieze their pensions as partial payments to the upcoming lawsuits.
Thus far the news sourses I've read made clear that the students and parents were NOT informed of the camera's remote ability. And the school administration made this clear. We also KNOW of an improper use as the school has admitted that an administrator used at least the claim of using the camera (was he lying to the student?) to observe inappropriate behavior in the student's home.
The fundamental assumptions of this article are wrong.
A better option that costs no more than the programming required to give the school administrators invasion avility is readily available with the installation of GPS tracking equipment and informing all that the computers have it.
Actually, neither the family nor the district have said WHO took the picture about which the student was confronted. The district has clearly stated that their ability to remotely activate the webcam to recover a lost or stolen computer has ONLY been used for that purpose.
Ah I see the apologist for the Sri Lankan regime is back.
And not surprisingly, she's written an article apologising for wannabe totalitarian school administrators, who seem to think that they can regulate students' activities outside of school.
Gotta agree there. I've found serious fault with a previous article from this author. And don't think that her opinions belong on a progressive politics website. It's more suited to one of the New York reactionary rags like the Post or the Daily News.
The content here is ludicrous. She decries the attacks on the reputations of persons of authority (public trust), and then proceeds with ad hominem (and vague) attacks on the student (a minor), and the parents.
This is trash and I've learned nothing substantial about the dispute.
I'm outraged, disgusted, and more than anything else saddened that Common Dreams would host this piece of pro-authoritarian garbage on its Web site.
Why? The argument is about the short sightedness and self-serving mentality of the plaintiffs that lead them to drag an entire school system down rather than actually find a solution to their concerns - which they never attempted to do. Is CommonDreams a place where people gather to cheer on the litigious maniacs who have drive this country into the ground on everything from health care to education? Hmmm. How very progressive! The point of being a progressive is precisely to find communal solutions that respect people as human beings, not simply jumping on a bandwagon and beating a drum from a safe distance hoping that someone somewhere else will get up and dance.
Don't sweat it. Like the editors of this site, much - maybe most - of the readership of Common Dreams is quite willing to listen and consider; even if, in the end, they disagree.
CD commenters are... more passionate.
:)
Sorry folks... this is still America (as much as I don't like things currently either).
If I loan you a laptop, then you have no rights to expect privacy, etc. in the use of "my" laptop. This has been ruled on in courts across America time and again.
You don't have to sign anything.
If you use an employers/schools/etc. IT equipment, then they may examine and track your usage in any way they want... even in a bathroom...
As much as this case disturbs me... the courts will stand where they always do and rule with the School Board.
They loaned IT equipment to students with software capable of tracking the use of said load equipment. Students took the laptops and used them... their use was inspected... some violated use rules and have been "punished". End of story...
If the students want a level of privacy, they must provide their own laptops. (If that's allowed by the school district)
But how about this idea...? How about teaching math, reading, penmanship, slide rule use, creative problem-solving, logic, rhetoric, etc... you know, a basic education... and not providing toys and game devices to the kids? Whoa... what a concept, huh?
The issue isn't simply whether the students violated use rules.
The issue is whether the students violated rules that have nothing to do with the use of the computers. The issue is whether the school was trying to enforce rules and behavior OUTSIDE of the school, by using the webcams as a monitoring tool.
I'll put it this way:
If a kid used the computer to access porn, then he obviously broke usage rules.
If the kid drank some beer, and was recorded doing so by the webcam, he did not violate any usage rules. He was spied on.
If the kid drank some beer, took a picture of himself doing it on his school computer, and then got in trouble when the school found the picture of underage drinking, the kid was just stupid.
Or do you still keep your child porn on your work computer, thinking it's private because it's your private file?
The picture was NOT taken by the kid.
That is the point of contention.
The school does NOT have a right to make recordings, without permission.
Wow. I own a slide rule, and haven't used it since I bought my first calculator in 1976. What a great punch line to a post from someone who obviously hasn't been following the case.
If the laptop actually WAS reported stolen, why did an administrator (allegedly) suggest the alleged victim that he had been engaging in inappropriate behavior at home? It wouldn't have been stolen, then, would it?
It's true that we don't know the whole story but your response is bizarre. And an IT person allowing an outside computer onto the school network should be fired immediately.
(1) Who reported that the laptop - in possession of this particular student - was stolen? Was it the student or someone else?
(2) If it was the student who reported it lost, then what was the "lost" computer doing in his bedroom?
(3) If it was someone else who reported it lost, we're still back to wondering what a "lost" computer was doing in this student's bedroom.
Read the Philadelphia Inquirer today.
If you loan me a laptop you do not have to right to use it to spy on me.
If you loan me a laptop and then use it to record something i say then you have broken a federal wiretapping law.
Also, what if a 14 year old girl was changing in her room when the school turned on the camera? This school disrict is now making child pornagraphy.
Further, while only one student has filed a lawsuit there have been many that have spoken out against the policy.
Could you direct me to the place where those "who have spoken out against the policy" have recorded their arguments?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124043452
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/19/earlyshow/leisure/gamesgadgetsgizmos/main6223044.shtml?source=related_story
I take it you never bothered to look.
But NO, they are FORBIDDEN to bring their own laptops, and when some did they were confiscated.
To the apologist for totalitarian policies who wrote above article, THIS is the point:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/25/author_shane_harris_on_the_watchers
And OF COURSE anyone who is concerned about civil liberties is ignorant and self-rightous, that goes without saying Mr. Limbaugh..er..Hannity..er.. Ms. Freeman.
I find the piece refreshing!
Rather like a glass of ice-cold water thrown in your face.
I found it a rivulet of well-intentioned words cascading down a cataract of reality, babbling sweet nothings - evoking an image of mental masturbation. Then nothing!!!
The author, like others of her ilk and age, completely miss the meaning of 'right to privacy'. This attitude is endemic in our society and culture. People under a certain age do not understand the concept of privacy - to wit, Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In, My Space and a 1000 other places to expose one's dirty shorts in public.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the connectability of these sites but do not understand the need to let people know how many bowel movements I've had. I don't know about others, but I find it intimidating to be required to participate in this milieu just to find work.
That said - I still don't undertstand this vacuous driveling.
Unfortunately we have reached the point in this country where it is best to assume everything you do is being monitored and take appropriate actions to protect yourself. If you have a laptop or PC/Mac that has a camera on it put a piece of tape over it, and put some sound deadening material on its mic.
Any two-way device like a Cell Phone should also be stored in a sound deadening area like a desk drawer for example.
I am also surprised that an article like this is out on CD. The author says the "allegations" that were made were just that, mere allegations, she seems to imply without merit. Well that is what court cases are for. If it has merit it will go to trial, if it does not, then it wont. If the student can prove his case he wins, if not, he looses.
The author states: "If this district were to file counter-suits against every person who dropped the term "alleged" from their comments, blogs, news articles and other rants, it could probably rebuild all eight elementary and middle schools from the ground up again."
My understanding is that any crime, or civil action, that has not been decided in a court of law must be referred to as "alleged" or the reporter/news station could be sued. So the school district has every right to sue those entities.
IMHO this is a very strange piece of writing, I'm not sure what the point of it was.
No kidding! So far all we have are "allegations" that Cheney colluded with the fossil fuel industry, that the Bush Administration was involved in torture and extrajudicial "renditions," that ANYONE was guilty for Plamegate . . . or that Adolf Hitler was anything besides a dog lover. No jury verdict, no guilt! Magic, ain't it?
Except of course that this school district is not trying to teach people that they should resolve conflict through lawsuits. That's the point of the article - but perhaps you didn't read it before you made your comment.
Was the kid spied on? Yes, or no?
If yes, the fault is entirely on the part of the school district. Your precious school district caused the conflict.
Actually I read it a couple of times, and the article vs the title leads to some confusion. I also watched a carefully worded press conference given by one of the heads of the school district. She stated that "She" did nothing wrong and listed all the things "she" did not do, but never said the school district as a whole never did these things. It seemed a bit misleading to me anyway.
Also if the school district is trying to teach virtuous behavior to people by saying they should not resolve conflicts through lawsuits, maybe they can also teach that people by example that they should follow the constitution and bill of rights, and not illegally monitor people in their homes, (if they did indeed do that).
You are so right! A very strange piece...Another poster here read my mind when they said they were "surprised to see this on CD." I too do not understand how this sneaked in here; there does not seem to be much of a point to this essay!
Wow the comments here are a bit shrill and one-dimensional. I though there was a bit more diversity of thought and tolerance for complexity and moral grey zones among the readership. Guess I was wrong. I have children in the district as well and I share the author's dismay at the way a very complex story has been packaged by the national media. I don't think the author has any doubt about whether the district overstepped their legitimate authority here -- the author's concern is rather with the media-fueled spectacle and the damage that causes. And about how that seems to stem from a lack of trust in our schools. It's so easy to be righteous.
For whatever reason I am reminded of that famous cartoon in which the pro-life demonstrators rally round the pregnant mother, and the last frame has the mother with her child, in need of support for raising the child, while the protestors move on the next pregnant. After the national media has had its spectacle, the settlement paid, what damage will be left behind to the school district. Why the rush to litigation. As just one aspect of the "local" complexity, consider this piece in the local rag. Doesn't quite fit so well with the righteous narrative (Sorry I'd write more but I have to get outside to catch the snowflakes before they fall on my sidewalk and someone slips and decides to sue me).
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20100225_Laptop_family_is_no_stranger_to_legal_disputes.html
You want trust?
Don't spy on the kids. And then don't try to use that spying to punish the kid. And don't try to defend the spying on the kids.
And don't try to make ridiculous analogies to someone slipping on your snowy sidewalk.
The damage caused is caused by the school district's actions. And the people who make apologias for wannabe tyrants. Not the media. Not the class action court case.
I have to agree with the first sentence from Makus @ 12:36. Although I do not think the author of the piece made her case, nevertheless I was interested to get her point of view. There is no reason to attack the author for her views. There is every reason to examine her arguement and than refute it if possible. In this case it is a piece of cake to form an alternate position with at least as much validity.
Send all vice principals to Gitmo for some R&R.
Especially those of Fairfax Va circa 1960s.
BH4J brigade (Bong Hits 4 Jesus)
True, I'm objectively pro-"Bong Hits 4 Jesus".
Maybe that's why my first thought while perusing this most unpersuasive essay was that it read as if it were written by a zealous alumna or a relative of the justifiably beleaguered administrators-- or possibly ghostwritten by one of the administrators under fire.
Then I got to "I could say that, but I am not just a foreigner looking in. I am the parent of three daughters within this school system". Voilà!
This piece is rhetorical and psychological damage control by a conflicted parent trying to rationalize the sordid truth that Big Brother multiplied by pissant school administrators equals Peeping Toms.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Except that it is quite conceivable that parents in this school district know more than the real peeping toms who are those on the outside looking in.
Exactly as conceivable as the speculation that Ru has been on the horn all day encouraging allies to rally to her support on comments threads.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I salute the author for expressing the thoughts of many parents in the district whose views have not been portrayed in the media. The majority of families within the LMSD are proud of their school district. This event took on a life of it's own without a reasoned, deliberate examination of the "facts". A negative impression of the LMSD has spread like wildfire. The result has been hurtful to students, teachers and administrators. It seems as though our ability to have compassion for everyone involved has gone out the window. Did you see the look on the Vice Principals face when she was "finally" allowed to tell her side of the story? She is a human being with a family and a reputation as well, a woman who has dedicated her life to education. What about her rights? Or the students at Harriton who are now confronted by students from other school districts because they go to "THAT" school. What about their rights? This issue has hurt many people who have no voice in the media. Under these circumstances, when the stakes and stress levels are high, we all need to take a step back from our emotions and remember that education is our common goal. Not greed, not being right at the cost of hurting many people, and have some faith in a school system that has provided us with an exemplary education for our children. Families "choose" the LMSD. They move to our neighborhoods to send their children to our schools. Let's not forget this. No system is without flaws. But the way in which we deal with them, all of us, makes the real difference.
Exactly. Compassion goes out the window the minute people start to hide behind titles and institutions and then we wonder why our kids feel frantic and insecure in this world.
The piece is entirely irrelevant to the simple question asked, and this is called propaganda. The simple question is whether the school district spied on the students or not. Period.
One is also tempted to infer from the propaganda bilge offered here that it is probably the main content of the other "creative and political writing" by the author of this piece. Excellent reason to boycott it.
What the hell is the thesis of this obvious diatribe? And its author is supposedly reknowned?!
It would have been much better for her to just come out and say "I hate the ACLU" and leave it at that rather than waste so many words and bandwidth.
If this essay were turned into me for grading, it would be red-penciled to death and returned for a rewrite.
Agreed regarding the lacking of solid non-emotional sourcing. Must back her argument with sound sources. I always tell my students to back their arguments in their postings with reliable documentation.
The issue at hand is the unwarranted use of the equipment, not how good the school is which from all accounts, is a very good one. What students do away from school may be of concern to the school as it is reflective on that particular institution. However, it is none of the school's business, but that of the parents what that child does in the privacy of his own home.
What a beautifully written reasonable discussion of the issue. Unfortunately the mainstream media seeks to stir up controversy instead of just reporting on it. The mainstream media has missed an opportunity to investigate this issue and educate the public. Instead the media has exploited this child - a child who appears to me to be exploited by his parents..
"What a beautifully written reasonable discussion of the issue."
Really? Is this person serious? Must be a friend of the author. What issue? F.Y.I. The "issue" (to most people who don't live in said school district) is the development of a surveillance state, not parochial politics of only local interest or overarching questions of education, though that conversation is long overdue.
And its not just about teaching our children compassion, but teaching them about JUSTICE and when and how to fight for what is right.
And since when has the MSM ever investigated and educated the public??? Sorry, that must have been shrill and we can't have that...
Here's the opinion of a legal expert. It's amazing how people run screaming "surveillance state!" without ever bothering to get the facts: http://volokh.com/2010/02/18/a-few-thoughts-on-robbins-v-lower-merion-school-district/
That article only addresses the LEGAL issue.
It doesn't address the ETHICAL issues. I'm not surprised that you can't come up with an ethical argument to justify spying.
In any case, from your volokh link:
"The schools violated the Fourth Amendment rights of students when they actually turned the cameras on when the computers were at home."
The school violated the Fourth Amendment rights of students.
The school violated the Fourth Amendment rights of students.
The school violated the Fourth Amendment rights of students.
The school violated the Fourth Amendment rights of students.
The school violated the Fourth Amendment rights of students.
One thing I've learned about Americans is that few of them believe in civil rights; and few of those few believe their precious darlings should have any rights at all.
I'm getting the feeling that CommonDreams is being spammed by some of the more authoritarian parents from the school district, or just "progressives" with an authoritarian streak (I'm from Colorado; there are plenty of that ilk in Boulder).
"The first response of the parents would be to sit him or her down and obtain the cold hard truth. The next response would be to speak to his or her teacher. The third would be to speak to a principal."
And the author knows that did not happen . . . how? This rambling and pointless piece could have been condensed to: "Folks, this is a wealthy school district serving affluent smart people, so naturally none of its employees are capable of making a mistake."
Just read the court record of the complaint. Here's the link:
http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf
Also, check out the papers today in Philadelphia.