Bullying

Bullying has literally been around for centuries. Whether it was pushing books out of a "nerds" hands, actually physically hurting someone, or simply calling another person names, it exists and has existed all around the world. I think it is completely unrealistic to believe that the entire problem is going to completely be solved considering as time goes on, bullying gets more "sneaky", more high tech, and more dangerous.
When we talked about the case of United States vs. Lori Drew, the bullying wasn't even kids on kids, it became something grown adults took part in. Lori Drew was the mother of a young girl who went to school with Megan Meier, an 8th grader at Immaculate Conception School in Missouri. Drew wanted to see if Megan had been saying negative things about her daughter on MySpace, so she created a fake account and pretended to be a boy named Josh Evans. After a little time of flirting and creating a relationship, Josh told Megan that the world would be a better place without her and he no longer wanted to be her friend. These actions ultimately led Megan to kill herself. The main thing that truly gets to me about this case, is the fact that a 47 year-old woman had nothing better to do with her life than terrorize a 13 year old. That is the textbook definition of pathetic. It doesn't matter that Drew thought Megan was saying nasty things about her daughter because as a mother, Drew should have used the opportunity to teach her child that sometimes fighting back is not the answer, but rather deal with the problem as a mature and growing girl. Instead, Lori Drew paved the way for her daughter to never leave high school, even as a 47 year-old woman. Drew was convicted but then acquitted for charges of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but not charged for her direct actions in harassing the young girl who took her life as a result of this woman's actions. This in some ways is the perfect example of how bullying has taken a dangerous turn, it is no longer about fighting your own battles because in some cases the players aren't following the rules.
When we were watching the MTV series, If You Really Knew Me, I was surprised at how strongly I believed that challenge day could be a real solution to the entire bullying problem. I do not think that bullying is necessarily a problem at Deerfield, but that is not to say that people don't start drama, girls don't say nasty things to each other, or that people are made fun of. As horrible as it may sound, I somewhat think that those actions are part of growing up because you need to go through those things to realize how juvenile it is as an adult. There are always going to forms of bullying taking place, but I really believe that Deerfield has implemented a policy that is enforced; zero tolerance when it comes to bullying or harassment. With all that being said, some schools (like the ones Jamie Nabozney attended) really have no control, or choose not to take control, of bullying problems. I think that programs like challenge day are real solutions to this problem because it eliminates the lecturing aspect that so many kids have experienced when the topic of bullying is brought up. Challenge day is interactive and gives students an opportunity to see that they may have more in common with the people they bully than they might originally think. It gives a personal addition to people who may not be seen as human on a daily basis.
The problem of bullying can't be eliminated completely, it just is not a realistic goal. However, we can work to find effective and working solutions to keep the problem under control.

Students and the Fourth Amendment Response

While I truly believe that the ideas of the Fourth Amendment should be held to a high and serious standard, I do believe that the perameters laid out by the Supreme Court are both reasonable and necessary. The overall idea of the search of a student is well within the guidelines needed to keep students, teachers, and the school safe and well protected. In some cases, the search of a student may include that of a random drug test conducted in an extracurricular setting.
In the case of Vernonia vs. Acton, it was stated that when signing up for sports within a High School, students are willingly subjecting themselves to a lack of privacy such as changing, showering, and traveling with the team. When a student is knowingly signing up for a sport that involves a lack of privacy, who is to say that the school cannot then take necessary actions to ensure that their students are not taking part in illegal or harmful activity. While i personally don't agree with the idea of drug testing in a high school enviornment, I do understand why the courts would rule it within Constitutional rights to do so. Privacy cannot be an arguement when the idea of privacy is already halfway out the door.
The Supreme Court stated after the case of NJ vs. TLO and Vernonia vs. Acton that a warrant or probable cause was not necessary for the search of a student as long as the seach was reasonable as well as that drug testing was within Constitutional rights of the school to do so. After looking over the evidence that was presented in the cases as well as the debate in class, I have to say that I agree with the stance the Supreme Court has taken on drug testing within a High School enviornment.