EDITORIAL: Of student rights and school rules

A breach of common sense is a breach of the school rules… Universal school rule

There was once a time; now, we suppose, unfortunately relegated to the nostalgia of those things we might have maintained, when principals, or headmasters and headmistresses as they were termed back them were allowed to run their respective schools as they saw first. In those days, it made no sense for a pupil disgruntled by an adverse decision to complain about it to his or her parents, for the prevailing culture demanded that the principal’s word was incontrovertible law.

However, with a greater appreciation of the concept of rights, not in itself a bad thing, there grew a misconception that any decision that went against the pupil’s interest was an infringement of his or her rights, never mind that neither the pupil nor his or her parents would have been able to articulate the nature of that right with precision.

Take, for instance, the recent brouhaha at the Lodge School where the principal determined that no beards should be worn by pupils of the school. What appeared to be a perfectly reasonable instruction for the school environment was immediately met with resistance, some praying in aid the pride of young men; others resorting to the dubious exception of the contraction of a skin disease that precludes shaving. No one sought to recognize that by his entry into the institution, pupil thereby implied surrenders some of his rights to the freedom of expression to the extent that the restriction is in accordance with the existing school rules. It could not be seriously argued, for example, that the pupil should be able, in pursuance of his or her freedom of expression to dress as he or she prefers in a fashion inconsistent with the established school uniform or to loudly converse with his or her neighbor in class while the teacher is trying to demonstrate a difficult concept to the rest of the class.

In our view, while it would be absurd to assert that the pupil has no rights whatsoever while at the school; and that any infringement of those rights might lead to a constitutional motion against the state or a personal action against the principal. Nevertheless, our view of the matter is that by submission to the rules of the school on entry through signature, the parent or guardian and the pupil thereby agrees to limit some of these rights that are inconsistent with the school’s code of discipline. This is especially true of the freedom of expression, not so much in the ability respectfully to express one’s ideas, but more so in the tendency to conduct or deport oneself in any manner one might think fit.

Last week, another such incident was reported where there were reported incidents of parental protests against the treatment of those pupils who arrived at school late by the principal of St. Leonard’s Boys School. Regrettably, we are given to treating late arrival with jest, terming it “Bajan time” and such like.

However, it may be properly regarded as a form of bad manners, unless adequately justified.

Since it may be agreed generally that the purpose of education is to prepare the young for responsible citizenship, the official censure of a lack of punctuality by pupils seems rational, Amazingly, the protest this time was not about the infringement of a right … simply that the pupils had been kept too long in the sun. Seriously?