If a student was read a Miranda type warning it would just further fluster them and escalate the situation. Since the student is not being arrested, they should not be read their Miranda Rights. In addition, the principal does not have the authority to read these rights to a student. A student should not be read their Miranda Rights during the time of questioning over a disciplinary
Schools have been evaluated by different organizations on whether or not they should be involved in off-campus cyberbullying. Some believe that they can be involved in off-campus to stop suicide or emotional distress and to stop them from putting the victim through lots of pain. Others believe that schools shouldn’t intervene in cyberbullying outside of schools because it affects their right to the first amendment which is “The freedom of speech”. Cyberbullying should be taken into the hands of the school if it happens off-campus because if nothing happens then it can get a child hurt or even killed. Students who are targeted by cyberbullies have no way to escape from the attackers brutality, who can drive the victim to suicide or self harm.
Just because a book has racial slurs, doesn’t mean it should be banned. Students hear racial commentary each and every day at school, so what good will banning a book do? It isn’t going to shelter students from racial jokes, because they will just hear them at school. Movies poke fun at different races, but they aren’t banned. Banning the book simply
The goal of the usage of this fact is to show readers this common term does not reflect real traits of smart people and can be treated as an insult because of that. It is one of the few examples of Fridman’s appeals to readers’ logic. The essay is based on general data; the author mentioned schools and universities promote negative attitude to smart students: “Nerds are ostracized while athletes are idolized” (Fridman). But he did not use any statistical or science data to support his position. For example, Fridman could provide data about scholarships and other types of funding for sports and other activities.
They will negatively affect students who really want to study and work hard. Some students in high school who care more about going to the university and they cannot wait to go there and be with people who work hard and take it seriously. Another reason why higher education should not be free is that students would not be able to handle the stress. Also they will drop out easier and this is wrong! Students will never work hard and they would mess around.
Mental illness is a true problem with citizens who are not seeking help to treat their mental illness. Mental illness is not something that the shooter should be blaming there actions of shooting the school on. The shooter is just trying to use mental illness to make him not get in too much of trouble for the actions that the shooter did with the school shootings. Shooting at students and staff and using mental illness as another reason you did it is not a good reason. Mental illness is a disease and not a factor you should be blaming a school shooting on.
Dress code seems to restrict freedom of students around the country. According to the book Students’ Viewpoints, strict dress codes don't allow students to express themselves. It's been a long time american value to practice the idea that americans can be as mean as they want to, so as that they don't directly promote violence towards anyone. We put up with just about anything that grinds our gears, because our disapprovement doesn't have the power to prevent others from saying or doing something. That should go for the clothing that children choose to wear in school, so as that they aren't hurting anyone.
The goal of a university education is to learn, and that cannot be done by receiving all work from other students, or other sources. If academic dishonesty goes unscathed, there will be negative consequences. Most people think that cheating on one test or plagiarizing one sentence in a paper is not a big deal, but even if a student never gets caught, they did not genuinely learn anything, and that is the meaning of the
(1) No party or candidate shall include in any activity which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic. (2) Criticism of other political parties, when made, shall be confined to their policies and programme, past record and work. Parties and Candidates shall refrain from criticism of all aspects of private life, not connected with the public activities of the leaders or workers of other parties. Criticism of other parties or their workers based on unverified allegations or distortion shall be avoided. (3) There shall be no appeal to caste or communal feelings for securing votes.
Another option would be to respond to the teacher and state that it is not my right to share a student’s confidential information with her and that it goes against the NASW Code of Ethics, but it would potential damage my relationship with her. Thus, I could potentially go against rather than support the value of the importance of human relationships by refusing to disclose a client’s confidential information. Conversely, a third option would be to state that multiple families at Dickinson Academy are struggling to access affordable housing and suggest that we work together to develop a centralized fund to support the basic needs of all the homeless families, but the student and his family would not receive the full donation being offered. Involve and inspect the NASW Code of Ethics, local, state, and national laws, and agency policies. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) serves as a guide for the daily professional conduct of social workers, and it is easily referenced when values conflict (i.e.
“Vague policy guidance leaves schools with wide latitude in developing and implementing grievance procedures for resolving sexual harassment complaints” and produces difficulties for a victim filing a complaint against a school in violation of these requirements because of lack of clarity as to what constitutes as a violation (Walker 2010). Title IX does not set specific standards on how to prevent campus sexual assault, support survivors, and settle sexual harassment complaints in a prompt and equitable fashion. The amendment provides no guidelines on what constitutes a prompt and effective response to peer sexual harassment While it does establish a minimum baseline for a sexual harassment policy as given above, other guidelines are only suggestions and are not required for the school to
However, academic freedom does not mean a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule, or impose his or her views on students (Nelson, 2010). When teachers use microaggressions whether they are intentional or unintentional students can feel harassed, threatened and also feel intimidated. In the end, academic freedom does not support the use of
The book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury shows censorship throughout the book to keep citizens in the dark about matters they should know about. The government does not want their citizens to know the reality around them. The reason given for censorship is to ensure the happiness of their citizens. Anything involving poems, stories or any piece of literature is prohibited. The idea is that people won’t be able to get ideas of revolting, personal opinions that are debatable and prevent knowledge spreading about what’s going on in there reality.
In fact, the prospect of guns in the classroom is more likely to cause professors to keep the conversation tepid and avoid certain controversies; everyone else will watch what they say, how they say it and to whom. This would be quite the opposite of the open and transformative exchange that universities have made it their mission to offer. There is a further point. As we saw in the aftermath of the Ferguson and Staten Island police incidents, and earlier with the Occupy Wall Street movement, university campuses are places where political protest takes root. Perhaps colleges are not quite the haven for political protest that they once were -- like, say, in the 1960 's.