parent learns woe of governmental intrusion

This week a parent found that the ever-increasing intrusiveness of the government can extend to her children even when the children are not in school.  Her son and some others were bantering back and forth with another child through text messages and cell-phone calls.  The children were jibing one another about whom each happened to be, even though the cell phone displayed the caller's identity. 

To get the last “a-ha,” one of the children took his cell-phone to school, showed one of the teachers and said that the others were imitating her. 

Even though the teens came forward, admitted their role in the texts and ensuing phone conversations and apologized to the teacher, the teacher was upset by her name being used even in jest. 

The teacher demanded that some but not all of the children be punished.  Unfortunately, rather than calling parents of the students involved and allowing parents to handle the situation, the school (government entity), showing its disdain for parents, chose to usurp the roll of the parent and administer punishment for the activities of the children which occurred on a Friday night far from school grounds. 

One of the parents contacted an attorney who agreed that the school had violated due process rights by not informing the parent about the appellate process or her rights to have the action reviewed by a higher commission within the school system. 

The attorney noted that schools operated in a gray area called IN LOCO PARENTIS (in place of a parent) rights.  The idea behind this power was interpreted by Sir William Blackstone of England in the 1700's to define the student-teacher relationship in a day and age when schools were boarding schools and parents were unavailable for immediate disciplinary input.  This power, established through common law in Britain, was carried over to the United States upon formation. 

Although not expressly written into US or state law, this power has been tested through case law and has gone both ways regarding governmental intrusiveness depending on the judiciary interpretation of the time when rendered.

IN LOCO PARENTIS is not a well-defined legal formula since it stipulates different treatments for different people at different times.  

The mother, upon hearing this explanation, was shocked to find that the school could possibly administer stigmatizing punishments so easily for off-campus offenses with the only actionable response being expensive litigation. 

Far from a school administration executing punishment in place of a parent who is hours away (by horseback or foot, I might add) to maintain good order, the school executed the over-reactive punishment even though the parent was less than 2 minutes away by automobile.

Even though the children apologized up front and were not disruptive towards the class, the teacher, the school nor the school system, their honesty and good order was met not only with verbal reprimand but by bullish interrogation by the resource officer as well as threats of further citation. 

Rather than the most minimal punitive actions as a reward for their honesty, the school embarked upon escalated punishments for these students. 

As a community, do we not wish to teach our children that the government is to be limited, if not completely non-existent, during people's private lives? 

By not voicing opposition to governmental intrusiveness during offenses that should be handled by the parents or the judiciary, do we not teach our children that governmental entities are the end-all/be-all of people's private lives? 

If you spank your children at home, today, does that school deserve to spank your children again for the same offense tomorrow? 

This instance would be comparative to the federal government sending a US marshal to indict someone for jay-walking after a beat cop already wrote a ticket and the city court gathered the fine. 

It is either through voluminous community outcry or expensive litigation by one individual that governmental intrusiveness can be limited.  In this instance, one parent did not transfer her responsibility to discipline her child for a joke done in poor taste; the government (school) chose to exceed and/or ignore her punishment and institute a stigmatizing punishment in front of her child's peer group based on the discomfort of the teacher.