...doesn't stay in Europe: http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x1191416752/What-happens-in-Europe-doesnt-stay-in-Europe Long story short: "A group of about three dozen students took a trip over April vacation to Paris and Barcelona where many drank alcohol — in countries where it is legal — but came home to find last week that they were suspended for nine days. “The school is punishing us for something out of their jurisdiction,” said junior Nicholas Gosselin, who started his suspension May 5. “I thought it was unfair and unjust and tried to fight it, but I can’t get far.”" Question is: does the school have the right to punish students for acts out of the school's jurisdiction, when the act wasn't illegal where it was comitted? Counterargument: "In all, 16 students were suspended. Superintendent Linda L. Galton said the suspensions were made because the trip was school-sponsored. “Whatever regulations or laws are in place in other countries are really moot if you’re operating under the auspices of the School Department,” she said. “It’s just like any other trip.”" I can argue both ways, although I tend to lean in one direction, when 2 contradictory rules/laws exist but one rule is overriding the another one.
If they were sponsored by the school, the school can decide what is appropriate on the trip. Sucks but thats how it usually is.
But back on home turf, does the school have authority over non-school hours? Inotherwords, is a school privy to what goes on between official school hours? And there again, the lowly stool pigeon is overlooked.
I'd say that if students want to drink and it is legal to do so in another country then they should be allowed to do so. They just wouldn't be able to bring back any alcohol from wherever they were visiting.
Well, to use an analogy, sextourism. In certain Asian countries it is legal to have sex with underage kids, underage meaning by American standard. But Americans caught doing so are being prosecuted on American land. So....
I really don't know which country actually allows that, I really think there are laws preventing that in every country that I know of. Perhaps I may be wrong if you can prove that there are countries which legally allow that. It seems that there are countries which have children being used as slaves to do what they are told to do or they get killed if they don't by those who operate such sex businesses. Drinking alcohol and sex businesses aren't really much the same thing.
School authorities are acting in loco parentis. Resonsible parents choose a school that will supervise their children more or less according to their own standards. Parents have a right to trust that school to do its best to enforce the rules they have agreed on, explicitly or implicitly. So if it's a school rule that minor children may not consume alcohol, presumably expressing the rule those children live under at home, then that rule is not suspended just because the children take a school-sponsored trip into a different legal jurisdiction. There are countries where it's legal for children over the age of 16 to have consensual sex. If the school had taken them on a field trip to one of those countries, do you suppose the parents would have been content if the monitor came back and said, "Your daughter had a wonderful time screwing the natives?" Is this a boarding school? If so, then the answer is yes. But even if not, when you entrust your children to the care of school personnel during an overnight trip, you have a right to assume that they will be under the care of responsible adults who will do their best to simulate the home environment with all of its rules. If they were at home you'd be there. The school staff is taking your place, acting in loco parentis. They don't just say, "Here we are, kids. Have a good time seeing Bangkok and we'll meet up again in the morning." As for the stool pigeon, I'm sure he was soundly rewarded for his good deed by his classmates. But it should not have come down to that. The kids should have been under much closer supervision. I agree that regardless of the rules you want to teach your children, you should not teach them to inform on each other over minor transgressions. Murder, sure, but not underage drinking.
I looked it up, it is actually illegal in Thailand, but they estimate 20K underage sexworkers, and generally it is an "accepted" act. A better example would have been visiting Amsterdam and smoking weed. Then coming home and getting arrested for it. The point is juristiction, where one ends and how far one can be stretched. For Fraggle: "The kids didn't sign a document stating no drinking was allowed. In fact, there was supposed to be a document for the parents to sign if they chose to allow the kids to drink that somehow never surfaced. The kids received 9 days suspension because any longer would have required a hearing, and I guess the administration didn't want to spend the time or effort to pursue that. They imposed the harshest sentance that required the least amount of energy. The school handbook states no drugs or drinking on school property or on school sponsored trips. This trip was sponsored by E F Tours and only used the school as an outlet to get the kids together. The main reason for backlash from the parents is because the kids not only were suspended, but also kicked off the national honors society and sports teams. "
What a crazy world. The parents don't give a damn that their kids are boozing, but they raise hell if they get kicked off of a sports team--for actually breaking the team rules, since virtually all high school coaches will throw you off the team for drinking. And we wonder why kids grow up with such a cavalier attitude about rules.
I am not exactly sure about the circumstances, but here is a version: I think the chaperones were actually present because they went to a bar collectively. Now the teacher can actually say that it was a controlled cultural visit, and it was much better than if the kids sneak out on their own and get drunk. After all nobody got hurt...
But no one was arrested were they? I still believe that whenever a person travels to another country and can do stuff there they can't while in their own country, no one should be hassled for doing that when they get home.
That's a reasonable attitude for adults, but not for children. As an unrepentant hippie who became one of the rare libertarians with liberal roots, I'm one of the most outspoken advocates for legalization of all drugs. But I'm also a firm believer in the principle that one does not emerge from the womb with the full set of adult rights, and I don't want children taking psychoactive drugs before their bodies, emotions, judgment and endocrine systems have matured, and that includes alcohol. If these kids were under eighteen and their parents believe as I do that they should not be given alcohol, then I don't care what kind of Dionysian paradise they visited. When they get home they're going to be hassled for violating the family rules, and they're not going back to a school run by the adults who tacitly or actively encouraged it. Yes of course this must be adjudicated and perhaps a less draconian result will ensue, but we all need to develop the maturity to live by our own ethical standards even when among people whose standards are different. When in Rome, try not to insult the Romans, but don't do as they do if they're fools. The laws of various countries are replete with precedents for judging the behavior of their citizens while abroad. Until recently Irish women could be prosecuted for leaving the island pregnant and coming back not. (I assume that went out with EU membership.) In the USA you can be prosecuted for conspiracy if: you send your unfaithful wife to Crapistan to visit your family, and while she's subject to their laws your loyal kinfolk commit a perfectly legal honor-killing.
Again, it is a jurisdiction issue. The school can claim, that as long as the student is on a school approved trip, he/she has to behave according to the rules. The company who organizes the trip actually makes parents sign papers letting the kids drink. (or not...) Maybe Boston Legal makes a show on this subject and we can hear Alan Shore's argument...
It was at his previous firm on "The Practice" that they convicted the Crapistani of conspiracy to commit murder for sending his unfaithful wife to visit his family.
no they do not!! it's enough that schools can tell perants what to pack in they're kids lunch boxes! if they had a chance they would tell us how to raise our kids out of school, but they can't!
