BOE to vote on student privacy

BOE Expected to Vote on Student Privacy 5/26/09, Will Hear Final Testimony at Meeting Prior to Vote

May 22, 2009

ACLU encourages all to attend Tuesday’s BOE meeting in person – 3:00 p.m., Queen Liliuokalani Building 1390 Miller Street, Room 404 (across from Queen’s Hospital)

Aloha everyone:

Over the last month, the Board of Education held hearings on proposed changes to the Hawaii Administrative Rules regarding student privacy and discipline. The Board of Education will be voting on these proposed changes on Tuesday, but you have one more chance to submit testimony. The vote will be very close – every piece of testimony will help defend students’ constitutional rights!

Please take 30 seconds today to e-mail testimony to BOE_Hawaii@notes.k12.hi.us. Sample testimony is below to cut and paste, or write your own.

We also strongly encourage everyone to attend Tuesday’s BOE meeting in person – 3:00 p.m., Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404 (across from Queen’s Hospital).

For ACLU’s testimony, or to see the proposed changes, visit www.acluhawaii.org/ch19

Mahalo!

SAMPLE TESTMONY
To: Hawaii State Board of Education
Via E-mail: BOE_Hawaii@notes.k12.hi.us
Date/Time: Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 3:00 p.m. Queen Liliuokalani Building, Room 404
Re: Proposed Changes to Chapter 19

Dear Chair Toguchi and Members of the Hawaii State Board of Education:

I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Chapter 19 because they erode student privacy without making our schools any safer.

First, the list of “contraband” is overly broad. The new rules would allow school officials to search every pocket of a student’s backpack, pants, or purse just because the student might have a cell phone. Students with braces could be sent to detention because rubber bands are “contraband.” Any student suspected of having chewing gum could be suspended. School are not prisons, and students shouldn’t be treated like inmates.

Second, some of the proposed definitions are so vague that they will inevitably lead to claims of discrimination. For example, the rules prohibit “inappropriate physical contact” – including consensual physical contact – between students. But the rules don’t explain what conduct is “appropriate” or what is “inappropriate” and will vary from person to person. School officials might believe that it’s “appropriate” for boys and girls to hold hands but “inappropriate” for two girls to do so. Similarly, the rules prohibit “using words in an inappropriate way” and “low-intensity failure to respond to adult requests” – completely meaningless phrases that could have parents screaming at teachers if they enforce – or they fail to enforce – the rules.

Third, I strongly disagree that school officials should be able to search students’ lockers – and their personal property contained in the lockers – at any time, without cause. The rule changes for locker searches are unnecessary (as well as unconstitutional): current rules already allow for searches of students whenever there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. The rules also allow for the immediate search of any locker if school officials believe there is imminent danger from the locker's contents. Therefore, as currently written, the rules in Chapter 19 already give school officials ample ability to keep our kids safe, while preserving their constitutional rights to privacy and free speech.

Fourth, I think that the use of drug-sniffing dogs is invasive, unnecessary, and a waste of scarce educational resources. Even the best drug-sniffing dogs are wrong between 12.5% and 60% of the time. Large numbers of completely innocent students may be detained and questioned by school officials and even the police, creating an administrative nightmare without making schools any safer.

Fifth, the rules now authorize suspensions of up to 92 days and drug testing of kindergarteners. This move towards “zero tolerance” in schools simply makes no sense: children and teenagers will make mistakes; it’s the Board’s job to make sure that children get the tools they need to become productive, responsible members of society – not to give them criminal records and punish them with suspensions so lengthy that the students may never catch up to their peers.

We are teaching our children the wrong civics lesson. The U.S. Constitution protects Americans from unsubstantiated searches, but allowing school officials to search through students' personal effects without cause is a glaring affront to this bedrock constitutional right and teaches a miserable civics lesson to our students. By allowing suspicionless searches, we are mistakenly teaching young people that they must choose between being safe and free. Our constitution was built on the foundational idea that Americans can be safe AND free.
These changes take our school system in the wrong direction. Please do not implement these proposed changes.

© ACLU of Hawaii, P.O. Box 3410 Honolulu, HI 96801
Ph.: (808)522-5900 Fax: (808)522-5909 Email: office@acluhawaii.org
This is the web site of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii and the ACLU of Hawaii Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.
Privacy Policy.

Navigate:

Archive

Aclu Hawai'i

follow acluhawaii at http://twitter.com

Monthly news and updates