Chers parents,Plusieurs élèves de 5è et de 4è nous ont récemment confié qu’ils leur arrivaient de se rendre à des fêtes non encadrées par des adultes en fin de semaine. Des témoignages fiables ont fait état de consommation d’alcool et de marijuana par certains de nos collégiens.
Le Lycée recommande vivement à tous les parents de rappeler à leurs enfants les dangers inhérents à ce genre de situation. N’hésitez surtout pas à appeler les parents qui reçoivent afin de vérifier que la fête sera bien encadrée par des adultes. Et si vous êtes les organisateurs d’une fête, nous vous rappelons que vous êtes légalement responsables de tout ce qui se passe sous votre toit, que vous soyez présents ou non.
La protection et la sécurité de vos enfants sont notre plus grande priorité, il en est de même pour vous, nous le savons.
N. L’H
Chers parents,
Several seventh and eighth grade students have recently communicated with us that they attended unsupervised parties during the weekends. There have been credible reports that alcohol and marijuana were consumed by some of our Middle School students.
The Lycée strongly urges all parents to remind their children of the dangers inherent in this kind of situation. Please consider calling your fellow parents to ensure that any party your child attends is properly supervised. If you plan to host a party, we remind you that you are legally responsible for any activity that occurs in your residence— whether you are present or not.
The safety and security of your children is our highest concern, as we are sure it is yours.
N. L’H
47 comments:
And the point of your post is what? That rich preppies do the same type of shit as ghetto kids in high school?
Perhaps the point is that the school doesn't need to be tellin' parents what they should and shouldn't be doing and who they should and shouldn't be calling. What these kids do on their own time is their own business.
Our brains work completely differently. I don't see a problem with the school warning the parents that they are legally responsible. They might have done that to cover their asses! And sometimes, parents are really out of touch with their kids and may not know the depths of their shenanigans!
Our brains do work differently, because I don't see how any CYA was necessary for what kids do on their own time. That is based on the assumption that the school is responsible for what kids do outside the school, which is Big Brother in effect. Schools displacing parents.
Parents know what their kids are doing and to what they will be exposed. Some just choose to play dumb because they are too lazy to actually put in the effort to do something about it.
The school has no business telling them how to be better parents. It starts with a party where they may have been some weed, next it's food and next it's how parents talk to or discipline the child.
Slippery slope.
You are a trained attorney. Are you telling me that the school has no liabilities whatsoever towards the students? If some school official found out that kids were getting fucked up either on campus or off, are you saying that they ought to keep silent because that isn't their business?
That reasoning might work in a rational world but then again in a rational world, the school wouldn't have a need to send out such notices in the first place.
I don't understand how you claim the school is trying to tell parents what to do. It seems the school is NOTIFYING the parents of some untoward activity and then warning the parents about possible legal consequences of their childrens actions. What is wrong with that?
We do think differently and that is why the world is diverse and beautiful.
However, the underlying philosophy is that it takes a village and we need to look out for one another as people. You don't seem to believe that, or am I wrong?
II,
I have to agree with Mahndisa here. You don't REALLY think that parents know everything their kids are doing do you? Or are you one of those parents who would not under any circumstances believe anything negative about your kid?
They aren't telling the parents what to do. They are merely reminding them to handle their business, before it gets handled for them.
Are you telling me that the school has no liabilities whatsoever towards the students?
For a private weekend event at a kid's house? Absolutely not. The only person potentially on the hook is the parent who owns the house. And I am sure that someone paying $22K a year for that school is well aware of legal risks and has an attorney on call for just these sorts of things.
Are you suggesting that if one of those kids choked on a chicken wing at dinner, that the school would somehow be liable for what was on the menu at home?
If some school official found out that kids were getting fucked up either on campus or off, are you saying that they ought to keep silent because that isn't their business?
Don't mix issues. What happens on campus is the school's business. What happens off campus is not.
That reasoning might work in a rational world but then again in a rational world, the school wouldn't have a need to send out such notices in the first place.
The school didn't need to. The school's responsibility ends at the end of the school day. That's when parental responsibility begins.
I don't understand how you claim the school is trying to tell parents what to do.
Then you are not paying attention. You like people snitching and telling on others. Which is the essence of Big Brother.
If parents were so concerned about what the other kids at school are doing, they could easily find out themselves. It's called personal responsibility.
It seems the school is NOTIFYING the parents of some untoward activity and then warning the parents about possible legal consequences of their childrens actions. What is wrong with that?
Well, for starters, school administrators are not lawyers and any attempt by them to offer legal advice would be the unauthorized practice of law which, believe it or not, is a crime.
Also, if any facts in the notification were incorrect, the legal ramifications of defamation would be a whole lot worse than some non-existent liability for what happened at the party. If a school sent around a notice like that about my kid, my house and my parenting, they would have a lawsuit on the desk on Monday morning.
More importantly, why is it up to the school to tell parents what some kids did? Perhaps this time everyone agrees the conduct was wrong. How about next time? Will there be a notice about who the kids had sex with? What they ate? Are there no rights of privacy?
it takes a village and we need to look out for one another as people.
Indeed it does. It's called family. It's called neighbors. It's called church. Not some snitchy bureaucrats. By your logic, bureaucrats in China or Russia telling parents what they can and can't do is simply part of the village.
In Europe, it is illegal to homeschool because it is seen as an interference with the State's role in "developing" the child. This isn't much different.
You don't REALLY think that parents know everything their kids are doing do you?
Do they know everything their kids do? Maybe not. Do they know their kids' character? Yes.
Or are you one of those parents who would not under any circumstances believe anything negative about your kid?
Not at all. What does that have to do with anything?
Then we will agree to disagree on this issue II. No, I don't believe that beaurocrats in Russia and China have any right to tell parents how to raise their kids. But this is a separate issue. You have clearly run in circles where children and their parents have functional relationships. Otherwise you would not have said that parents know the character of their children. It should be that way, but often is NOT.
No, the school administrators cannot give out legal advice but they can apprise parents that they are legally responsible for the conduct of their children, which is what they did.
They also pointed out that some of the STUDENTS themselves told school administrators about these happenings. So where is the defamation aspects to their letter? They did not name individuals at all nor did they knowingly make false statements to screw up someone's reputation.
Clearly if they were brought up on a defamation suit relating to a communication of this type, the suit would be defensible. This note does not contain any elements for a defamation cause of action at all.
And why would you be so willing and eager to sue your child's school if you got a note like that? Just for the sake of suing someone, that makes you look petty and litigious.
Defamation explained.
Parents know what their kids are doing and to what they will be exposed. Some just choose to play dumb because they are too lazy to actually put in the effort to do something about it.
The school has no business telling them how to be better parents. It starts with a party where they may have been some weed, next it's food and next it's how parents talk to or discipline the child.
Slippery slope.
ridiculous, uninformed, purely speculative wiseacring....,
A school such as this one has an explicit and enforced code of conduct. As an intentional community with its own academic, social, and reputational interests to protect, how could it be otherwise?
Clearly, having members of the community slipping, for whatever reason, reflects badly on the school as a community of interest.
The school was perfectly within its rights and acting with the utmost professional responsibility to "climate set" with regard to the reported conduct of its constituents.
As an alumnus of, and past and present board member/officer of parents associations at similarly constituted schools, this letter looks pretty much like a standard communication in response to allegations of misconduct.
A school such as this one has an explicit and enforced code of conduct.
Nah Craig. What was notably absent from the letter was any reference to any alleged code of conduct expected of the students. Such a code of conduct would be the only thing that would make this letter make sense.
In fact, this letter didn't even say we'll kick out any kids who smoke weed or drink alcohol. It didn't even say kids shouldn't smoke weed or drink alcohol. No climate setting there my friend.
Just a pathetic scolding of parents and a substandard attempt to tell the parent whose house at which the party happened what could happen if someone snitched to the cops.
No code of conduct at the school. If there were, this would be a letter about an investigation and a threat about consequences to follow.
You have clearly run in circles where children and their parents have functional relationships. Otherwise you would not have said that parents know the character of their children. It should be that way, but often is NOT.
Where it is or it is not is beside the point. Irrelevant. It's the parents' job to know what their kids are up to. They need to quit outsourcing their responsibilities.
No, the school administrators cannot give out legal advice but they can apprise parents that they are legally responsible for the conduct of their children, which is what they did.
You mean they are just stating the obvious. Again. No need. No reason.
That's an interesting hypothesis Dina. Unfortunately, it doesn't conform with the practical application prevailing within private independent schools.
While investigation/threat letters may from time-to-time emanate from overzealous and underemployed attorneys in public school disciplinary offices, even those functionaries would never address themselves to specifics.
In a community of interest which depends for its revenues and endowment on the continuing goodwill and generosity of its parents, grandparents, alums, and significant others, and whose public reputation is of paramount importance - such matters are handled with EXACTLY the type of mild remonstrance demonstrated in the letter anchoring this thread.
No formal censure required.
The parents know who fucked up and who needs to be ostracized and sanctioned. The community is a self-policing one which will likely drive the offending family(s) out of its midst - depending of course - on exactly who they are in the communal pecking order.
That's the way it's done.
Having seen it happen at least a half dozen times over the 20+ years of my own direct association with these schools, everything else is merely conversation....,
I feel ya Insurgent.
Lost in the doo-goody proselytizing of the Radical Secularists to whom schools are temples and sanctuaries of truth is the misplaced value of this little 'Proclamation of Warning' handed down by the High Priests of Private Schools.
They should send letters to parents alerting them that their children may have attended parties where GMO and high fructose corn syrup were served.
GMO & High Fructose corn syrup will harm far more kids than will either marijuana or alcohol.
Send letters home warning parents that their children are eating a diet at school guaranteed to give them cancer.
Send letters home warning parents that their children may have been injected with a "Swine Flu Vaccine" that was never tested and contains dangerous adjuvants.
How apropos. A Plantation police state raising a generation of little snitches, snitching on the harmless, while ignorant of the harmful.
Actually DV, the Berkeley Unified
School District DOES work on feeding the children nutritious meals and they've fought to get rid of non organic milk and junk food in the schools. Not everyone or every institution is part of the oppressive plantation you so often invoke:
"The changes we are making are part of a district-wide effort called the School Lunch Initiative (SLI). SLI has two primary goals: to serve more nutritious and delicious, freshly-prepared meals using locally-grown food to all of our students and to educate children in kitchen, garden and academic classrooms about their food choices and the impact those choices have on their health, the community and the environment.
We are extremely proud of the accomplishments we are making, including the following:
* Salad bars in all of our schools
* Hormone and antibiotic-free milk
* Fresh fruit and vegetables served daily
* Almost all of our food made from scratch
* All bread and dinner rolls are organic
* All other rolls are whole-grain"
Lost in the doo-goody proselytizing of the Radical Secularists to whom schools...,
SNIP!!
{{{yawn}}}
fek was right, same old shit warmed over....,
DV said
"GMO & High Fructose corn syrup will harm far more kids than will either marijuana or alcohol.
Send letters home warning parents that their children are eating a diet at school guaranteed to give them cancer."
No, I don't think so.
Marijuana and alcohol combined has far more lethal immediate effects than GMO and HCFS. Give a kid a competency test after having one joint and three shots of vodka then give the same kid a competency test after having a Big Mac and a shake. Which has the worst immediate impact? Here's a clue; the one that has the possibility of the kid turning into a binge-drinker, cigarette smoker and can potentially lead to worse problems of social maladjustment and health issues.
GMO and HCFS do not trump out the effects of alcohol on the young body - such a conflated comparative indirectly makes under-age drinking permissible and the health and social risk of such behaviour is seen to be minimal in the face of GMO and HCFS and that is jst not true.
And by the way, the school was well within its rights to send this subtle letter.
Co-sign Nulan, DMG and Mahndisa.
And jst to be clear I'm not making a case against ganja, but its when it's combined with alcohol for the purposes of intoxication.
CNu said... fek was right, same old shit warmed over
Yup. And both you cornballhaternerds still here.
So quit playin' hard to get sweetheart.
"Give a kid a competency test after having one joint and three shots of vodka" KW
Kaaaaay Duuuuuuub!
Come on now sis.
Don't you think your comparison is a little out of proportion?
A JOINT & 3 SHOTS vs. A BIG MAC & FRIES?
lol. I mean.
For every joint some 16 year old has in America ... he probably average 40 or 50 Big Macs and 22 lbs of greasy Genetically Modified white starchy potatoes soaked in pesticide.
60% of the kids at the party will die because of what they eat.
How many will die because of marijuana?
Sending the letter from the school "cautioning the parents" is memetic management of Plantation Negros.
The fact that the "Proclamation of Warning" was from Lycee and in French impresses the bourgeois peasantry inspired by archaic fantasies pedantic sanctity.
M. Rigmaiden said...
Actually DV, the Berkeley Unified
School District DOES work on feeding the children nutritious meals
... why?
Is it that the Berkeley Unified School District has mastered teaching students to read, and to write to the point that they have time to WORK on feeding children nutritious meals?
If the school system and Plantation Government spent more time actually educating children instead of fucking up utopian social engineering programs that ultimately do more harm than good ... people
could
figure
out
how
to
eat
without being "told".
Bra,
I hear ya, but I said this aint abt ganja alone, I said a joint AND vodka; put that against 50 BigMacs if you wanna and tell me what the IMMEDIATE effects are.
Joint + Vodka / Herb + Poison = Intoxication, reduced motor skills and a hangover. The effect of combining alcohol and herb is far worse than taking either alone.
50 BigMacs = plenty of flatulence, indigestion and fast weight gain etc.
What's immediately worse, f'real?
Hold on a second...I gotta get in here...
KonWomyn,
Your comparison is way out of proportion. You cannot compare what a kid might smoke or drink in a weekend to the DRUGS in the food he/she CONSUMES on a daily basis.
The school should limit its responsibilities to what its responsibilities are, teach the kids math. As a parent I'll take care of what he smokes on the weekends or not. They don't have to remind me anything.
This is an official letter from a school to parents telling them to be careful about what their kids do or not based on what the school believes to be moral or right besides being legal or not, besides its dangers or not
C'mon!! This is more like a "Be careful, we are watchin' you" type of letter written based on what some sneaky kids told some teachers and they call it "credible reports". It is a joke to me.
What's next? They sending a letter to parents telling them about their kids might be having sex on the weekends?
Ces
I don't get the basis of your objection - why? If DV makes an assertion that GMO food is more harmful than a joint and alcohol; it's fair game and open to challenge. I'm drawing on an illustrative example *comparing quantities of two sets of specific things* to see which has worse immediate effect - NOT what a kid consumes on weekends and on weekdays.
DV: You are playing two sides of the fence here. On the one hand you chastise the private school for sending this note home and not chastising parents for feeding their students crap. Then I show you an example where the school district is working on healthy food for children and you dismiss it as a social engineering programme. This is called shifting the burden of proof as an evasive way to get out of a discussion.
And in CA, school grounds extend out a thousand feet or so from the school premises. This is why parents who are in proximity to a school can get randomly searched for drugs etc even if they are not on the actual school premises. Therefore liability does not merely extend to the edges of the schoolyard but a bit farther out.
Similarly, if some students came to school administrators and told them of this conduct by other students and the administrator did nothing...if in the future one kid died of alcohol poisoning at one of these parties, who will the parents sue? The school administrator who knew that this crap was going on but did NOTHING and said NOTHING because it 'wasn't his business'.
This is taking the 'snitching' meme a bit too far. And in fact, that school administrator might have a hard time getting out of a negligence claim EVEN if he or she is not at fault for the students' behavior.
As an attorney, II you know that the school has legal obligations and needs to protect itself against possible liabilities. If they had not sent that letter out, they could easily be sued on negligence because:
"There are four elements that must be present for negligence to occur: (1) the teacher must have a duty to protect students from unreasonable risks, (2) the teacher must have failed in that duty by not exercising a reasonable standard of care, (3) there must be a causal connection between the breach of the duty to care and the resulting injury, and (4) there must be an actual physical or mental injury resulting from the negligence. In a court, all four elements must be proven before damages will be awarded for negligence."
Clearly, from a legal standpoint the school did right by trying to limit its liabilities.
Mahndisa, you and I have had discussions on the law before and, I hate to break it to you again, you hopelessly misunderstand. Both on defamation and negligence.
if in the future one kid died of alcohol poisoning at one of these parties, who will the parents sue?
Simple. The person who provided the alcohol to the minors.
If a kid dies of a heart attack from eating chicken wings, is the school liable for negligence for failing to warn of the dangers of chicken wings?
I don't get the basis of your objection - why?
Because I didn't get the basis of your comparison in the first place and it is not the core of the letter. If it was about pot or alcohol they would send me a flyer about the dangers of pot and alcohol, which I would throw away btw. But that is not what is in discussion here.
If DV makes an assertion that GMO food is more harmful than a joint and alcohol; it's fair game and open to challenge. I'm drawing on an illustrative example *comparing quantities of two sets of specific things* to see which has worse immediate effect - NOT what a kid consumes on weekends and on weekdays.
Well, of course alcohol and a joint has a faster harmful effect than a burger and fries. Just like a pill of Ecstasy has a faster harmful effect than one of Tylenol. But again, that is not what is being discussed here.
The school has no authority or implication whatsoever to tell, warn, advice, counsel the parents about their legal responsibilities as parents. The school has no legal responsibility to WATCH the kids outside of campus, period.
Am I right II? Please correct me if I am wrong.
The school is supposed to be an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, not a babysitter when the parents are not home.
The school has the same legal responsibility on students outside campus as you have if you see someone drowning and do not bother to help, None.
The writer behind the letter is a representative of the institution, not a teacher warning a parent on a private conversation. There is a huge gap there.
Ces
I think you need to read through the thread and see what I was picking up on - it wasn't in response to the letter but to something DV was arguing. This was his what he said:
"GMO & High Fructose corn syrup will harm far more kids than will either marijuana or alcohol.
Send letters home warning parents that their children are eating a diet at school guaranteed to give them cancer."
And that's why I said what I did.
It's interesting that our resident radical autonomists are all in support of the collective autonomy of "school."
Each primarily justifies his/her stance by claiming the "school" must protect against "liabilities."
But the "school" is BIG BUSINESS and so CAPITALIZING is it's primary concern. This CAPITALIZATION is mainly GAINED by the exercising of one's autonomy. BUT it is also GAINED by limiting the autonomy OF LESSER COLLECTIVES OR INDIVIDUALS (protecting against liability).
Now, none of this is inherently wrong IF NOT FOR THE FACT "schools" are supposed to educate first.
And so what is the lesson of the discussion?
The radically autonomizing paradigm is in play AND NO "school" HAS GENUINE AUTHORITY TO LIMIT ITS "LIABILITIES" OUTSIDE ITSELF.
The school has no legal responsibility to WATCH the kids outside of campus, period.
You got it Ces. If it did, then they may as well start placing snitches in the student body and sending out detectives on the weekends. I mean, if there really were some sort of legal liability for what these kids do off campus, the school would be insane for not doing such things. Maybe they should start demanding that the children submit their weekend plans for pre-approval.
The radically autonomizing paradigm is in play AND NO "school" HAS GENUINE AUTHORITY TO LIMIT ITS "LIABILITIES" OUTSIDE ITSELF.
Please explain ThorDaddy.
You know, up through high school, I didn't go anywhere without my parents knowing who I was with, having a phone number to call, talking to the parents, etc.
Any parent who doesn't take such precautions is essentially telling their kids that they could care less what they do and is giving their kids a green light to do whatever seems like a good idea at the moment. A notice sent home to such negligent parents is an exercise in futility...
...other than to reinforce the meme that the "school" and others have to step in when there are "bad" parents not doing their jobs.
The assumption is that the "school" is protecting against liabilities, but it could very well be a student or parents cutting their liabilities. Afterall, there are no refunds for bad "school."
And as for Berkeley and their nutritious meals, let's not pretend that they were doing anything other than raising more CAPITAL. The meals are a business decision or else they would have been feeding good food since the beginning AS THEY ARE A PLACE OF "higher learning."
II,
What I mean is that the "school" may protect against "liabilities" (minimize the autonomy of those in its influence), but it has no real authority to do so WHERE THE AUTONOMY OF OTHERS is/should be unimpeded (their house for instance).
But even further, because the "school" is FUNDAMENTALLY AUTONOMOUS (mostly in an economic sense, but probably ideologically) IT HAS NO GENUINE AUTHORITY over OTHER RADICAL AUTONOMISTS.
I think you need to read through the thread and see what I was picking up on - it wasn't in response to the letter but to something DV was arguing.
Oh, my bad KW. I might have gotten things mixed up.
As for your comparison...
I hear ya, but I said this aint abt ganja alone, I said a joint AND vodka; put that against 50 BigMacs if you wanna and tell me what the IMMEDIATE effects are.
Joint + Vodka / Herb + Poison = Intoxication, reduced motor skills and a hangover. The effect of combining alcohol and herb is far worse than taking either alone.
50 BigMacs = plenty of flatulence, indigestion and fast weight gain etc.
The mix of cannabis an alcohol would be a total new toxic substance, very dangerous indeed.
I would put it like these though...
Cannabis + Alcohol= Intoxication, some dizziness, holes in your brain, cirrhosis, pancreatitis, blood clots...
What will the immediate dangers be?
Intoxication, Depending on the excess of the substance consumed.
50 Big Macs = Intoxication, some dizziness, anxiety, high blood pressure, obesity, DNA degradation, depression, organ failure, autism, brain chemical imbalance, cancer...etc, etc, etc.
What will the immediate dangers be?
I don't know, you tell me KW. I don't think you wanted to make that comparison.
50 big macs? they will get you intoxicated and on the way to the hospital right away.
As for the competency test, sure pot and alcohol has an immediate effect in the brain functions. That doesn't mean it makes it more harmful.
But I think the point that DV wanted to make is that MORE kids are victims of FOOD than POT & ALCOHOL.
II, it is funny that you feel as though I'm incorrect although the law is on my side. You have stated that you did medical malpractice law or something right? So school liability issues aren't your field of expertise from what I gather.
In this country, since 1974 or so teachers and school administrators are mandatory reporters and if they suspect a child is being abused via neglect or otherwise (off campus) then they can be prosecuted for NOT saying anything if the child is found in a condition that care and diligence could have alerted proper authorities. This is why that letter cited in this post is important because the school is covering their asses for a possible negligence claim for NON REPORTING if a kid gets fucked up and dies from alcohol poisoning or whatever else.
The crime for not reporting is usually a misdemeanor but recently civil penalties have been imposed in such cases.
Apparently schools provide more of a service then giving children lessons on campus.
Besides that, for all this talk about Big Brotherism, if a kid is in trouble, don't tell me you would stand idly by and LET them implode if you could have done something to help.
M. Rigmaiden,
When you say the "school" is doing a CYA, what you really mean is that the "school" is trying to EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE by controlling the autonomy of its students and their parents. It's also sending the message to other "schools" to follow suit.
The question is whether this attempt at maximizing the "school's" autonomy by minimizing the autonomy of the student/parent IS LEGITIMATE?
Since the student/parent HAS BOUGHT THE PRODUCT and the "school" disposition is almost certainly ideologically liberal (read the letter) then the "school" can really only
posture or make the unprincipled exception that says the heck with tolerance and nondiscrimination, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS PRIMARY.
And since your interest seems to coalesce with that of the "school," you SIMPLY ASSERT THEIR LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO EXPAND THEIR POWER. You work to maximize the "school's" autonomy because it seems to maximize your autonomy.
There is the circular argument that ASSERTS the "school's" responsibility for controlling individuals outside its sphere of influence under the ASSERTION that the individual has GRANTED the "school" that responsibility. But if the individual(s) digresses then the "school" MUST CEDE or BE ILLIBERAL.
M. Rigmaiden,
What if an individual knew a "school" was promoting a deadly lifestyle and that individual proceeded to to tell the "proper authorities" to no avail, would giving that "school" greater authority be sensible?
Participating in a private school is a - p.r.i.v.i.l.e.g.e - i.e., subject to "private law" - duly constituted and upheld by its membership - as would be the case with any intentional community.
The spectacle of entertaining irrelevant hypotheticals with peasants and wiseacres - none of whom has claimed or exhibited ANY first hand experience as patron, employee, or constituent of a private school community - is the equivalent of wrangling with pigs over the quality of oranges.
Few diversions could be as pointless or useless...,
In this country, since 1974 or so teachers and school administrators are mandatory reporters and if they suspect a child is being abused via neglect or otherwise
And what does that have to do with a party on Saturday night?
Besides that, for all this talk about Big Brotherism, if a kid is in trouble, don't tell me you would stand idly by and LET them implode if you could have done something to help.
Depends on the situation, but I am not a school. So it's not the same thing. Apples and oranges.
Few diversions could be as pointless or useless...
And yet, here you are. :-) On Super Bowel Sunday no less.
listlessly kicking at an orange peel that bounced out the DV sty, reviewing homework, playing scrabble with my peeps, and watching the sound of music.
{I wouldn't wish that stuporbowel stupidity on a broke-dick dog....,}
^ WHO DAT???
Craigee,
No one is arguing that the "school" can't send out toothless letters asserting authority it doesn't have. The question is what is the point of such a fruitless exercise of the "school's" autonomy?
Post a Comment