Tuesday, January 15, 2013
A Case Study in Justice
After reading the case study on p. 45 of your books, please answer the following questions: Was justice served in this case? Were the students acting justly? Were the teachers and administrators? Please complete your answer in AT LEAST 10 thoughtful and well-constructed sentences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe justice was served in this case. The students were doing something against the school handbook on school campus. Smoking is not allowed during school, but the students thought they were off-campus and most of them were 18 so they believed it was ok. Even though their argument is somewhat valid, the handbook still says no smoking and it was during school hours. The freshman who was smoking is a different case though. He is not old enough to smoke AND he was doing it on school campus. If it is true that they were doing drugs too, then they are doing something against school rules and it is illegal. The administration was just in giving them punishment, but the problem was allowing the student back in. The student received a punishment he deserved, but since the school didn't want a bad reputation, they let the student back in. I believe they're putting they are putting reputation before morality in this instance.
ReplyDeleteI think true justice was not served in this case. All of the students were doing the same thing, yet they received different punishments. It was wrong for the principal to assume because he was a freshman he was pressured into smoking. It was his choice and it could have been his idea. I also thought that it was not fair that the student whose parents donate a lot of money received special treatment. I understand that it was wrong of Mr. Green to grab him, but the student should have cooperated. It was wrong that the other students who cooperated received harsher punishments than the kid who did not. This was not just. The school should have given everyone the same punishment. The students were not acting just, for they were trying to argue that they had not done anything wrong. Mr. Green was not acting just because he grabbed a student. The principal was not acting just because she did not give everyone the same punishment and she let the teacher of easy for grabbing a student because he is her brother-in-law. There are many things that were unjust in this case.
ReplyDeleteWhile the students deserved punishment, I do not think justice was served. Suspending the freshmen was the right choice, because the kid is new to high school and doesn’t know how everything works yet. I believe he deserves a second chance. I also agree with the punishment the three seniors all originally received, because they are closer to adulthood and have been in high school long enough to know what is acceptable and what is not. Two of the three had already committed offenses at the school, but since this was their first time caught smoking, that should be punished separately. Although the third had not been in trouble for anything else, he should be given the same punishment as his friends for committing the same offense. What is unjust about the case is that Ms. Smith let the third student back into the school. This student had parents who gave money to the school and were upset about Ms. Smith’s brother-in-law’s actions towards their son. Ms. Smith let personal issues and relationships get in the way of her punishment. She wanted to avoid controversy for her brother-in-law and also benefited the school by keeping the wallet of those parents around. Letting that student back into the school was not fair to the other students who committed the same offense. Her personal life prevented justice from being served.
ReplyDeleteI believe justice was given. the seniors had been repeat offenders who were smoking on school grounds though it was clearly not allowed. Mr. Green may not have handled the situation perfectly but the problem there is more scandal related and not very important to the judicial process. there was circumstantial evidence they were using an illegal drug, and hard, very clear evidence they were acting against school policy. The students were not acting justly. If they were, they wouldn't have been smoking stuff in school. Mr. Green did shove a student, but I believe the use of force was necessary as the student was breaking school rules again by refusing to come to the principals office. the principal herself, in my opinion, handled the situation very well, given harsher punishments to the repeat offenders who should have known better, and lighter punishments to first timers who may have had little idea of what they were getting into. the handling of the punishment for the third senior is one of interest. just because he had been failing classes didn't make him a previous trouble maker. True, he did break school policy both by smoking and refusal to go to the office, but we only have circumstantial evidence that Mr. Green didn't hit him like the parents thought. the administrators did not act justly when they pressured the principal to let him off easy because his parents were big donors to the school. they were more concerned about money than actual justice. If I had been the principal I would have tried to ignore the administrators and found out the truth as to whether the student had been hit, maybe by checking for marks. if he had some I would let him back in like in the booklet. If he didn't have marks, I would have still expelled him then maybe given a talking to for Mr. Green, just so he changed his behavior in the future.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel justice was served. While I do feel the students are at fault, I feel the principal made a few mistakes in deciding how to handle the situation. A punishment was needed but I feel that expelling them was a bit harsh. Also her assumption that the freshman was pressured isn't fair to the other boys involved. Her final mistake was in letting the senior with parents who donated to the school back in. She already expelled the other two seniors and suspended the freshmen. This means that for four boys who were all doing the same thing, receive three different punishments. The school put their financial situation and reputation before doing what's right. By letting the senior back in, it shows just how unfair the ultimate decision of the principal was. Mr. Green is also important to mention because he did "force" the student back into the school building. It's unfair that the principal assumed that Mr. Green did nothing wrong at all in how he handled the situation at the start. In closing, while I feel that what the students did was wrong, I feel that the principal and administrators handled the situation and punishments unjustly because they were unfair and biased in their decision making.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe justice was served in this case. The students were not acting justly by smoking illegal substances near, if not on, school property. They also had been past offenders as well. Mr. Green was acting justly to the best of his ability. The only action that was questionable was his forcefulness in grabbing the kids. Ms. Smith made the sound initial decision to expel the senior. She also made the right decision to be slightly more lenient with the freshman. I believe that the angry of the parents directed towards Mr. Green was completely unjust and that it was unfair to put Ms. Smith in a tough position because of the family’s respectful sum of donations to the school and the possibility of a scandal. Due to these circumstances, Ms. Smith decision to not expel the students was not just because it gave in to the evil powers of money and blackmail and let the students go unscathed for their heinous acts. However, considering Ms. Smith’s position, her decision was understandable. If she persisted on getting the kids in trouble, she would risk the possibility of an even larger controversy about the new teacher Mr. Green’s treatment of the kids.
ReplyDeleteBefore I answer the questions, I would like to include that I believed this "case study" to be poorly written and confusing to read. "The park is at the edge of campus was where many students ate lunch". Also, the fact that the seniors are 18 is irrelevant because there is no minimum age to smoke cigarettes. If the rulebook states specifically "on campus" and the school does not physically own the park, then it is not property of the school and the school has no legal jurisdiction to assume any action based on the phrasing of the rule.
ReplyDelete1. Justice was not served. I do not believe any action was warranted, and the expulsion of 3 students but not the fourth based on solely an assumption that peer pressure was involved is certainly not the way to handle such a situation. If she were to act based on her knowledge of the seniors' previous records, and assign the freshman a lesser punishment only because he/she had no record I might feel differently. Also, letting a student back into the school as a response to allegations against the teacher is an irresponsible way to handle the situation.
2. There is no evidence that the students were smoking anything other than cigarettes. No tests were taken to prove otherwise. On top of that, they were not on school campus. No matter how the park is used by the school, it is not owned by the school. The students were participating in activities neither illegal or unjust.
3. Mr. Green was doing what he believed to be his job. If I were Ms. Smith, I would take a closer look at the rules and laws before concluding on such a rash decision.
Justice was NOT served in this case. Though Ms. Smith had all intention of punishing the students according to school policy, she did not. She expelled the three seniors on false accusations of smoking on school property. While the smoking was very wrong and not just to the freshman or to the people around them, they were not technically breaking any school rules. Therefore, Ms. Smith unjustly punished them! Who knows how that expulsion could effect their futures? It wasn't even appropriate for her to do so. The way she handled it infuriates me. She obviously only wanted to teach these kids a lesson, but if so, I believe she should have given all four students equal punishment, for they were all doing the same activity. Age should not matter. If a child lives in the 21st Century and goes to a private school, he or she knows the dangers of smoking, and should be punished accordingly. The students were doing a nasty, harmful activity, but the fact that they moved away from school property shows that they care about not breaking the rules and respect the rules. All they wanted to do was smoke a cigarette, just like a student at Paideia may go out to Starbucks for lunch and smoke a cigarette on their patio. They were NOT smoking weed, which is an activity that should be harshly punished because it is illegal. I believe that just because these kids may not have been the best students does not mean that they should be punished harsher.
ReplyDeleteYes, the students did do something against school policy, but off campus. Justice was not served to the right degree. Expulsion was obviously not the correct choice. It was completely legal for the seniors to be smoking cigarettes off of school grounds, to the charge that it was pot, the students must be given the benefit of the doubt. When adults see kids smoking they assume it is marijuana if it does not clearly represent a cigarette. A drug test was not taken immediately to observe what contents were inside their sample.
ReplyDeleteExpulsion should not have even been considered, because it was off campus, the school, in my opinion, has no grounds to do anything about off campus lifestyle. A schools job is to ensure a good education and try their hardest to make sure a student is able to go to college and a college of their choice. If a kid wants to smoke cigarettes, pot, or whatever they please, the school should not be able to control what goes on outside of school. While I do believe the school should be able to inform the childs parents and/ or authorities if needed. Although a kids parents are great contributors to the school, the principal should have stuck to her guns, it is unfair, biased, and unjust to allow a punishment to be lifted because of a families donations.
Every child should be punished the same, with the exception of the freshman who was "under pressure."
I do not believe justice was served. Going strictly by the rules, the seniors were not at fault. The park was off-campus, so they were not breaking the school handbook’s rule about smoking on campus. While the students may have been smoking pot, which would have been a valid concern for the school as it is an illegal substance, there is insufficient evidence to indict them on those charges. I believe that expelling the seniors was too extreme of a punishment. I do not believe the students were acting justly in smoking. Regardless of what was technically correct as per the handbook, the students were not acting morally. Mr. Green should not have handled the resisting senior so roughly. The administrators were wrong in expelling the boys, but also appear to be corrupt in the fact that they choose money over integrity by allowing an exception for the boy whose parents contribute funds to the school. I believe the teachers and administrators could have handled the situation much better.
ReplyDeleteI feel that justice was not served in the end. The four teenagers did not act justly because of their use of illegal substances. If the four teenagers were smoking cigarettes, the freshman would be unlawful because he was underage. The seniors also made an unjustly action by influencing the younger student to smoke. Mr. Green’s action taken towards the third senior could be questioned, but I think that Mr. Green took the right action by reporting the four teenagers to Ms. Smith. At first, Ms. Smith took the justly action by expelling the three seniors based off of previous records and suspending the freshman. But after receiving pressure from the school, Ms. Smith made an unjustly action by allowing the third senior back in the school. Just because the senior’s family has an important influence towards the school, Ms. Smith shouldn’t have let the senior back into the school. So I think that in the end of the situation, Ms. Smith did what was right by expelling the students but was wrong in letting the third senior back in the school.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that justice was served in this case. The students were treated differently, and Ms. Smith was looking out for HER best interests instead of the students like she should be as the principal.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the students actions, must notice the difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". The letter of the law is the actual law. In this situation, following the letter of the law, the three seniors would've been fine but the freshman would've been partaking in an illegal action on the state level. Technically the park is public property and not part of school. Therefore what the seniors were doing was completely legal. The freshman, on the other hand, was smoking under the age of 18 which is illegal. The spirit of the law is how people actually treat the law. In this situation, following the spirit of the law, all four students would be smoking during school on school property which is not allowed, and the freshman would also be partaking in a legal actions. To sum that up, I think that all four students were acting in-justly.
I also feel that Ms. Smith and Mr. Green's actions were immoral and in-just. Ms. Smith was only concerned with how she would look, how her family would look, and have the school would prosper from her decisions. As a principal of the high school, Ms. Smith should've been focused on the best interests of the students and making the best decisions about the situation. Not about her personal life.
Justice was not served in this case. Assumption was the basis of the principle's decisions, which is highly unjustified. Assumption should not be used as reason enough to expel a student or exempt another. Classifying property that wasn't school ground as school ground on the basis of convenience is also extremely unjustified. Using blackmail and bias to act in favor of certain students over others absolutely crosses the line. Sure, the students should have known better than to smoke pot in a public place, but their punishments certainly shouldn't have been in the hands of school officials, and irresponsible ones at that. While Mr. Green was acting on most likely his moral values, Ms. Smith was playing the favorite game, which is unprofessional for anyone in her position. Mr. Green did his job as an educator, whereas Ms. Smith broke conduct, school law regulation, and more importantly gave these students unjust punishments. The students intentions weren't clear, but they should have all equally received the exact same punishment – of which isn't expulsion. This case is a perfect example of corruptness within an administration.
ReplyDeleteI think justice was served and then taken back. I think the students were defiantly not acting justly by smoking close to the school. The students then went on to act more unjustly by lying and disrespecting a teacher. One student even refused to walk to the principles office, which is very disrespectful to the teacher taking you. Over all the students knew the rules of the handbook and the one that stated no smoking on school ground and they decided to bend the rule by doing it in the park. They were in the wrong and the administration was just in punishing them. I felt that Ms. Smith did a good job of choosing the punishments for the repeat offenders. I was perplexed though by how she then let one student back in because he complained and threatened to sue and his parents had donated a lot of money. She basically let him back in because he was rich and was willing to stir up trouble for the school. She was morally wrong for letting him back into the school. Since he’s a repeat offender it’s safe to say this wont be his last run in with her.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that there was enough evidence of what the kids were smoking to expel them from the school. Since it is legal for 18 year olds to smoke, I think the students should have been suspended for doing it on school property. I think the principal didn't have enough facts and she assumed that the freshman had been peer pressured into the situation and let the student off with a lesser punishment. These things make me believe that justice was not served. The students did not act justly, because they went against the social norms and broke the rules of the school. The administrators did not act justly either, though. I think that the punishments should have been consistent for all three of the seniors who were previous offenders. Originally this is how the school dealt with the situation, but they went back and essentially let one of the students back in because his parents have a lot of money. I think if the school had given the same punishment for all of the students who were repeat offenders and then a lesser punishment for the student who had not previously broken the rules then justice would have been served. I think the school had it correct at first, but by allowing one student to have a lesser punishment ruined the justice.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that justice was served in this case. All were guilty of doing something wrong, yet they were all punished differently for the same crime. This was based on the principal's relationships with certain people surrounding the case. She had many influences, therefore was not impartial. Some punishments were way more extreme than others. What they were doing was wrong, but I felt the consequence was too harsh and unjust.
ReplyDeleteI think the students were unjust in this situation as well. They were doing wrong, and knew the rules perfectly well. Ms. Smith was unjust, assuming and giving into persuasion easily. Mr. Green was doing his job, and was acting justly in trying to do the right thing for the school and kids, but he didn't do it in the best possible manor.
In this case study, I feel both students and teachers are wrong. Already having been confronted by the honor council for three previous infractions, the three seniors should have learned some lesson. While at their age smoking cigarettes is completely legal and they are technically off-campus and therefore allowed to, morality should tell them otherwise. Firstly, they are in the presence of a freshmen and would influence him negatively; second, as the teacher stated, while it is off-campus the students use it as if school property; So according to the ideas of the school community, it is thought of and used as school property. You would think that a teacher would be able to punish a student based on suspicion, but (im not quite sure) to my knowledge, a teacher would need more evidence than “smell” to bust a student for doing drugs. If the teacher were to be wrong, those consequences would be worse. Mr. Green was in the wrong accusing them when he only saw a cigarette and no drugs, and when he yelled/dragged one of the students to the principal’s office. The Principal then made an unjust decision to expel/suspend, firstly based on this suspicion, and second she expelled the seniors because they “should have known better” while the freshmen was most likely pressured by them to do bad things. She’s basing a decision simply on assumptions and what she believes they should have known or what their morals should have been. If she were to suspend all of them that would be a more fair punishment. I do believe though that all the students were dishonoring their morals and the teachers were being unjust.
ReplyDelete