In a story that has been making waves throughout St. Blog’s Parish, one Catholic high school has decided that enough’s enough and it is going to crack down on its students … by banning students from blogging, not just on school computers on school time but even from the comfort and privacy of the kids’ own homes.
"When students post their faces, personal diaries and gossip on Web sites like Myspace.com and Xanga.com, it is not simply harmless teen fun, according to one area Catholic school principal.
"It’s an open invitation to predators and an activity Pope John XXIII Regional High School in Sparta will no longer tolerate, Rev. Kieran McHugh told a packed assembly of 900 high school students two weeks ago.
"Effective immediately, and over student complaints, the teens were told to dismantle their Myspace.com accounts or similar sites with personal profiles and blogs. Defy the order and face suspension, students were told.
"In the arena of unregulated online communities, which has largely escaped the reach of schools, Pope John appears to be breaking new ground. While public and private schools routinely block access to non-educational Web sites on school computers, Pope John’s order seeks to reach into students’homes.
"’I don’t see this as censorship,’ McHugh said this week. ‘I believe we are teaching common civility, courtesy and respect.’"
(Nod to the Curt Jester for the link.)
Dawn Eden of the Dawn Patrol has a post requesting opinion. Although I am not (yet) a parent or a Catholic school educator, here’s mine:
The policy stinks.
As others have pointed out, it is unenforceable, usurps parental authority within the parents’ own home, and does nothing to teach teens responsible use of the Internet. A letter to parents outlining the dangers; a rule forbidding blogging on school computers on school time; a policy disallowing students to name the school, school employees, or fellow students in an identifiable fashion on their privately-maintained blogs; and a student assembly to teach the students safe Internet habits may well have been far more effective.
That said.
If I were a parent of a student, I would require my child to obey the policy.
Catholics are not supposed to be rugged individualists with a me-the-Pope-and-Jesus worldview (although some American Catholics unfortunately appear to be formed by such a quasi-Protestant worldview). They are members of a larger community that inculcates the virtue of obedience to legitimate authority, religious and civil, in all things but those that are inherently sinful. Children should learn that while growing up may free them from that obedience to parents that is proper to childhood, it does not free them from the requirement of obedience to lawful authority. Practicing the virtue by obeying their parochial school’s authority can prepare them for the obedience they may one day have to give to a bishop or religious superior.
Legitimate authority may make prudentially unwise decisions. Granted. But parents who place the value of their child’s freedom to express himself on the Internet while under parental supervision over and above the value of teaching their child the virtue of Christian obedience — even when it’s difficult to be obedient to a prudentially unwise rule — do their child no favors. Far better, IMHO, to express to the school one’s displeasure with the policy while refraining from bad-mouthing the school to the child and requiring the child to follow the policy while it’s in effect.
JIMMY ADDS: Much of what I am about to say would be moot because I am a strong advocate of homeschooling and would not plan to put my children in an outside-of-the-home school, but here goes. . . .
I concur with everything Michelle said about the badness of the policy, and I respect her opinion regarding how she would handle the issue in her family. That’s a matter of parental choice. In my case, I would do things differently. Since the school has no legitimate authority over what the child does at home (that’s the parents’ domain), I would use the situation as an opportunity to teach the child the difference between obedience to legitimate authority (mine) and resistance to illegitimate authority (the school’s telling him what he can and can’t do on the Internet at home). I would therefore require my child to ignore the policy. (I would also explore taking action against the school, such as having recourse to the diocese.)
If the child wants to blog that would be fine with me–AND we’d have to face the issue of blogging anonymously to avoid the school policy–BUT no posts would go up without prior parental authorization of them (which would be a household rule irrespective of the school’s policy). If left unsupervised, kids say things that they shouldn’t, and in the electronic age they need to learn what is acceptable to say on the Net and what is not. In the process of parental reviewing and approving of posts, the child would learn the difference (gossip about classmates and teachers being things that fall into the unacceptable category).
It is battles like this over who has more authority over my child that helped make the decision to homeschool a “no-brainer”. Thanks for reminding me though!
If the policy was in effect at the beginning of the school year, that would be one thing. Parents and students would know the rule going into the school year, hopefully with eyes wide open. To violate a pre-existing policy, you get what you deserve. But to change the rule in mid-year is fundamentally unfair.
This is a parochial school, meaning that tuition was paid. To disagree, or to “get caught” will probably mean the forfeiture of the tuition money – not an insignificant sum.
I disagree with Michelle’s advice. School officials making policy for the home is not lawful authority. I would tell the school (politely and respectively, of course) to stick the new policy where the sun doesn’t shine.
I think most comments will (understandably) probably be about the school’s intrusion on parental authority.
I’m interested in another element too…
[The policy] does nothing to teach teens responsible use of the Internet.
This really bothers me.
I know many young people who use the internet to academic and faith-forming advantage, and blogging can be a good way to learn. Yes, there are too many young people who get involved in unsafe behavior and morally problematic activities, but they do not have to. Education and guidance in responsible internet use would, in my opinion, be a better response than prohibition.
I don’t share your view that this is unlawful authority and unfair and should be protested. Why? Well, I know high school kids, and I used to be one, and what does a high school kid need with a blog?
Just like they don’t need a cell phone, nor do they need to IM for hours every night, nor do they need a car when they are 16.
In my opinion, most kids would be better off WITHOUT all these things, rather than with them, which seems to be the way things are going nowadays.
That said, if I let my child have a blog, I agree with Jimmy that I would have to approve every post–something it seems many of these kids’ parents were not doing.
Does the school have authority to tell kids what they can and can’t do while at home? I would say that if it affects what happens at school, like kids posting secrets and mean gossip about other kids, then yes they do have that authority, especially when some parents allowed this to happen and may not even care if other kids’ feelings were hurt anyhow.
“I don’t share your view that this is unlawful authority and unfair and should be protested. Why? Well, I know high school kids, and I used to be one, and what does a high school kid need with a blog?
I don’t see how the fact that a high school kid doesn’t need a blog has anything to do with whether this is unlawful authority.
“Just like they don’t need a cell phone, nor do they need to IM for hours every night, nor do they need a car when they are 16.”
So would the school have authority to forbid students from using a cell phone or having a car off school property outside of school hours?
I disagree. I too used to be a high school student, and I myself often was and still am upset by quite a bit of the ridiculous stuff that goes on amongst high school folks. That being said, the idea that one should prohibit students from using something simply because it is possible that they would use it inappropriately is dangerous, unAmerican, and unChristian. It also sets a precedent that in society one ought to prohibit any item or technology which could be misused, regardless of whatever potential positive applications may exist. In such a society, automobiles, computers, even books would be forbidden.
Furthermore, one could extend the arguement further. What does an adult need with a blog? Would an adult survive without one, or be in a good state for the lack of one? Would not a computer be dispensable in the life of an adult? Of what use at all is a car to anyone of whatever age? The arguement may be made, and quite rightly, that adults do have uses for these things. However, the point is not to argue whether these items are useful, it is to argue whether these items are necessary. To even an adult, they are not. Do you need your car to drive to work? In that case, you could get another job. The car is useful in that it allows you to keep the job that you prefer or that perhaps pays better, however you would survive in another job, and indeed your status with God, which is all that really is necessary strictly speaking, would not be affected. In fact, the necessity of any of these things is actually nonexistant, as Franciscan Friars prove by their day to day living.
Thus the question need not be about necessity, but usefulness, and in fact, I would say that blogs, IMs late at night, and cars can all be very useful, both to adults and to young people. I myself, in my days as high school student, often used all of these things to greatly advance my education, and in fact was able to suceed far beyond what I otherwise would have been able to.
On priciple, I generally give wide lattitude to institutions and their rules. In this case, I think there may be some prudential issues, but I understand it. There are a host of activities that are not edifying, and reasonable people are called to identify these things when rearing children. Maybe this will reverse a trend of children being encouraged to express themselves, and instead, children will once again be patient observers.
In regards to enforceability, there are many off campus activities that are successfully regulated. For example, most Catholic schools have an involutary requirement that students do so many hours of “volunteer” work. I can’t think of a school, in general, that doesn’t have a policy against off campus drinking. These are certainly enforceable things, although they cannot be universally enforced due to an inability to universally observe these things.
I really think the debate here comes from a modern belief that children should progressively given more adult “rights”. Certainly there is a subsidiarity issue here. That said, when parents have surrendered the right to educate their children to an institution, the institution assumes those rights. In other words, any time a higher order takes over a lesser order’s role does not mean that ipso facto there is a violation of subsidiarity.
I really think the debate comes from parents thinking whether their kid is or isn’t permitted to maintain a blog during non-school hourse is the parents’ business, not the school’s.
Darn tootin’.
Um, no. In the first place, parents don’t “surrender” their right to educate their children, they delegate their children’s education to the school. The right to educate their children remains the parents’.
In the second place, what parents delegate is precisely the right to educate — not to make any and all decisions about how their children will conduct themselves outside of school as well as during it.
Hypothetically, if I were to send my child to school*, the school could set policy on what I permit my child to wear to school; the school could NOT set policy on what I permit my child to wear to the mall. It could set policy requiring my child to do homework; it could NOT set policy on my child not being able to watch cartoons on weekends.
Likewise, the school could set policy on the uses my child is allowed to make of the computers in the computer lab or the library; it cannot set policy on the uses my child is allowed to make of the computer in my house. By sending my child to school, I have not surrendered the right to parent outside of school hours.
That, of course, depends on what you mean by “taking over.”
————————————–
*Hypothetically, because we homeschool.
The realm of after-school activities should be completely in the jurisdiction of the parents’ judgments. With a few exceptions, the school has no business regulating the lives of kids outside of school hours.
If a school decides to start down the road of regulating the lives of students after school, then that inevitably will lead to more restrictions. Blogging is not the most harmful activity. If the school was consistent, it would also have to ban many activities which are worse and riskier than blogging.
I am in high school, and blogging has increased my knowledge tremendously. I would say that blogging, if conducted in the proper manner, would be more beneficial to teenagers than adults- since teenagers have developing brains that ought to be nurtured as much as possible.
If the school had authority over students’ lives outside of school, then the imposement of the rule rule would be just (although the rule in itself would be stupid), and therefore must be obeyed. But as it stands, in my opinion, the school has no jurisdiction outside of school (again, there are some exception). It is an infringement upon the rights of the parents.
Just to clarify, in case my point was not clear: I am not saying that the school was right to infringe on parental authority within the home.
I am saying that the school is a legitimate authority in a child’s life and that it is important that parents foster respect in their children for the legitimate authority of others. That authority may be used unwisely or may be misused, but so long as the authority is not requiring of the child something that is inherently sinful, my argument was that the parent would be well-advised to require the child to follow the rule while it is in effect. This does not preclude a parental right to protest the rule to school or diocesan administration.
In other words, we may have the right to give our children permission to ignore school policy that we feel infringes on our parental rights. But is doing so the prudent thing to do, or should we focus on teaching our child a more important lesson: That sometimes we obey not because we understand or agree with the justness of a particular decision by an authority in our lives, but because we respect that authority.
Such a habit of obedience while continuing to pursue justice will serve the child well when dealing with a spouse, a religious superior, or a bishop who also may make prudentially unwise but not inherently sinful decisions.
I’m on the school board of my son’s grade school. We recently instituted a similar policy. I’m a computer guy and was shocked by what some of these kids get into. They post pictures of themselves and their friends. They post all kinds of personal information that could very easily lead predators to victimize others in the school. We also provided an evening to educate the parents about these kinds of issues. As usual, those with the most need to know did not attend.
My son is forbidden to use the computer without permission – yet he sometimes “forgets” to ask. Or he’ll use it at a friend’s house. Make all the home rules you want, but kids who want to find a way around them will.
This is a safety issue. Ignorant/irresponsible parents can allow things by ignorant/misled kids that could get my kid hurt. And as was posted above, my kid doesn’t need a cell phone, nor does he need to IM or blog. Call me a Big Brother toadie, but I fully agree with this policy.
p.s. if your home-schooled kid has friends outside your family, (s)he’s as at-risk as any of us communally schooled low-lifes…
I can’t think of a school, in general, that doesn’t have a policy against off campus drinking.
Yes, but underage drinking is a violation of the law. Blogging is legal.
This is a safety issue.
All the more reason to educate parents and students about the issues, rather than simply prohibiting the activity.
Michelle, after your clarification, I still disagree.
In the secular world there is civil disobedience. There is a Catholic equivalent to this in standing up and pointing out error. I don’t have a cannon law reference handy, so it anyone who is knowledgeable on this point, please correct me if I am wrong.
This could be a teaching moment. Teach respect for proper authority, but also teach that it is a right and a duty to stand up bad law/policy.
That being said, the parents should review all of their children’s postings for proper content and have them remove any and all inappropriate material.
I wouldn’t comply with the School. Indeed I would send a nasty letter informing them they are usurping my natural rights as a parent & that their order is null & void in my house. I don’t see a mere Catholic School as the equal to the authority of the Church. Thus I see no reason to comply with an unreasonable order given by those who in fact hold no objective authority over me. Let the local bishop or the Pope rule that teenagers may not post blogs then I will obey.
But short of that. No way!
Let the local bishop or the Pope rule that teenagers may not post blogs then I will obey.
If it were a state or federal law, which it’s not in this case, I’d also encourage obedience.
What the school is doing here is the moral equivalent of one Bishop issuing orders to a Parish in a diocese not his own. In that case it would be a usurpation of the rights of the native bishop.
My God given natural rights to govern my children within the moral Law belong to me & my wife. Not Father, not some Catholic School. Father can tell me a certain action is immoral BUT I & MY WIFE ALONE descide what is prudent for our children. The School may take an advisery position. But I will not allow my authority as a Father to be UNLAWFULLY usurped.
I’m reminded of that Scene in OUR LADY OF FATIMA movie. The Priest orders Jacinta to go home & stop say Mary is speaking to her. Jacinta’s Father gets in the Priest’s face & says “Just a minute Father! This is MY LAND! You can’t tell my daughter what to do on my own land”.
Interesting scene from classic Catholic film.
What the school is doing here is the moral equivalent of one Bishop issuing orders to a Parish in a diocese not his own. In that case it would be a usurpation of the rights of the native bishop.
My God given natural rights to govern my children within the moral Law belong to me & my wife. Not Father, not some Catholic School. Father can tell me a certain action is immoral BUT I & MY WIFE ALONE descide what is prudent for our children. The School may take an advisery position. But I will not allow my authority as a Father to be UNLAWFULLY usurped.
I’m reminded of that Scene in OUR LADY OF FATIMA movie. The Priest orders Jacinta to go home & stop say Mary is speaking to her. Jacinta’s Father gets in the Priest’s face & says “Just a minute Father! This is MY LAND! You can’t tell my daughter what to do on my own land”.
Interesting scene from classic Catholic film.
I am subject to State, Federal, natural, Church and Divine Law. But I AM NOT subject to the Laws of some Catholic School I pay to educate my children. If they don’t want to continue to accept my money because I won’t allow them to usurp my natural rights as a parent. Fine! That is their right to allow whoever they want into their school. But don’t pretend it has anything to do with following legitimate authority. Because it doesn’t. It’s more like the Canadian goverment passing laws it intends to be binding on American while they are in America. That usurps national Soverenty. The Congress & President wouldn’t stand for it. Well I won’t either.
btw that last post was directed at pha last comments.
Cheers.
I mean second to last post….
N.J. Students Ordered to Take Down Blogs
A Roman Catholic high school has ordered its students to remove personal blogs from the Internet in
Michelle,
I appreciate the clarification, and ditto it.
SDG,
The term education is a bit of a misnomer here. Inculcate is what we are really doing with children. Parents who send their child to a Catholic school expect their child to be inculcated. This means more than just learning mathematics tables. A parent’s goal is for their child to be shaped and molded.
BenYachov,
There is no compulsion on your or anyone else’s part to send your children to a private school. As my mother would say, it is obnoxious to join an organization or a community and then demand that they change their practices to suit your needs. There is a fine line between demanding change and mere advocacy. I wouldn’t discourage parents from advocating, but to claim this is unconsciencable is a bit much.
btw that [second to last] last post was directed at pha last comments.
But I don’t see how your posts are relevant to my comments??? We’ve both agreed that the school shouldn’t be usurping parental authority.
We call it “away school” around here. We’ve got friends in parochial, private, and public schools. It’s just easier to call them all “away”.
In the precepts of the Faith, yes. Since blogging is neither contrary to the Faith nor inherently scandalous or morally problematic, the policy falls outside the school’s charter. My point stands: The school can set policy on how my child is allowed to dress at school or what s/he is allowed to do online in the computer lab. It cannot set policy on how my child is allowed to dress at the mall or what s/he is allowed to do online under my roof.
“‘I can’t think of a school, in general, that doesn’t have a policy against off campus drinking.’
“Yes, but underage drinking is a violation of the law. Blogging is legal.”
And both school and state are infringing on parental authority if they presume to tell me I can’t serve my chidren wine at the family dinner table.
And both school and state are infringing on parental authority if they presume to tell me I can’t serve my chidren wine at the family dinner table.
Most law enforcement personnel would not consider that particular practice a violation of the law, or at least not one worth their bother, to begin with. So no, they’re not really infringing on your parental authority in this case because they don’t care whether you serve your children wine at the family dinner table.
But I do think it’s absurd to suggest that a school has no interest in whether its students obey the law, even outside the school.
Blogging, however, is neither illegal nor immoral. The school has no reasonable grounds for its outright prohibition.
>There is no compulsion on your or anyone else’s part to send your children to a private school. As my mother would say, it is obnoxious to join an organization or a community and then demand that they change their practices to suit your needs.
I reply: I agree 100%. But of course springing this on the parents in the middle of the term without giving them the oportunity to decide before hand if they want to send their kids to a school that tries to dictate to them what prudent activities their own children may participate in in their own home is low.
Sure they can kick my kid out if I refuse to comply. But they can’t tell me their actions are NOT a violation of my natural rights as a parent.
>But I don’t see how your posts are relevant to my comments??? We’ve both agreed that the school shouldn’t be usurping parental authority.
I reply: I was building on your points & I failed to state that clearly. Sorry about that.
I was building on your points & I failed to state that clearly. Sorry about that.
What a relief! I was wondering what I’d said to make you think I was defending the school! 😀
I am a Catholic school K-12 president.
I think the decision to “ban” posting stuff on on line journals is both unenforceable, as some have commented, overextends the school’s reach in a manner that infringes on parental sovereignty, and ultimately, may do more harm that good. There is, however, a level at which I MIGHT agree.
It’s unenforceable because there’s no Catholic school that has time to track down articles each day students could post. If they have that kind of time, they need to cut their tuitions and remove some folks on their staff. Besides, kids can simply use pseudonyms, which many do already.
It violates parental sovereignty. A school might suggest to parents it’s bad policy to let their kids spend time on blogs (though as a fellow blogger myself, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with blogging–the more important problem is internet porn and solicitations), it may even host workshops for parents to understand the “dangers” involved. But Catholic schools cannot insist on something that isn’t within their purview if a parent objects. “Blogging” is no more evil than TV. Some TV is bad, some good. It simply misunderstands the medium to try and ban it completely.
Finally, policies like this simply stoke the rebelliousness of teens–much more attention and passion for blogging will result, rather than be relegated to that of a passing fad.
Now, there IS one side of this which I believe is reasonably enforceable and defensible:
Students who attack others in our school in a mean-spirited, un-Christian way, or who portray our SCHOOL in a manner which is inconsistent with our mission could be subject to disciplinary action. Private expression is one thing. Attacking someone else, or representing our institution, is a different animal entirely.
>Students who attack others in our school in a mean-spirited, un-Christian way, or who portray our SCHOOL in a manner which is inconsistent with our mission could be subject to disciplinary action. Private expression is one thing. Attacking someone else, or representing our institution, is a different animal entirely.
I reply: 100% with ya on this one!
I’ve heard of people getting fired for their website (dooce.com), but students getting expelled? I understand the school being concerned with the school’s image, online predators, etc. But really–a more moderate policy requiring them to keep it anonymous (no name/picture, etc) would probably be more in line. To a degree, getting online, or say… on TV and “hating” on a teacher, or a policy, is usually unacceptable, and unbecoming of a student in a catholic school, but I really do think a more moderate policy can be found. Blogs really are useful toward encouraging kids to write and read, and useful to help them journal and get out feelings of frustration, etc.
I graduated in june, but my (public) high school actually suspended 2 girls for blogging about a teacher (They thought he was coming on to them, and that they wished someone would fire him).
Anyway, the teacher was later fired for videotaping changing rooms. The school then obviously did the sane thing, suspend the girls again for conspiracy (even though he was guilty as sin).
Moral of the story, schools shouldnt muck in the students’ lives unless its actaully a dangerous situation.
The site, Myspace.com has become very popular at my school. Most of the students have an account. And latley there has problems with some students posting rude comments about students and even teachers. While its wrong, I feel that if the students are doing it at home then they can. A school can not in know way control what teenagers do at home or on there own computers. If the school is concerned then they should just send out letters to parents informing them about these blogs and how to check to see what there child is posting. Other than there is nothing wrong with it. Unless….the student posts threats to other students, teachers or the school as a whole.
Wow…Just wow.
First, I notice no one (except I think one person) who actually saw some kind of middle groud, or for that matter, the heart of the issue. ALMOST no one is suggesting to allow the kids ot kepe the blogs, but teach/explain to them why they shouldn’t post pics or personal info (like phone #s, address, etc). It’s all, one extreme or the other (Ban it or allow whatever!). and it’s wrong. Explain about predators, the dangers, etc. Then, if it continues, take the next step…
As for the need of a Blog in general, I think a journal is very good for somoene to have, at ANY age, be it a teen, child, or adult. A journal (which is what a blog more or less is) is a healthy way for a person to vent frustration, to remember precious moments, or to simply log daily events.
I also don’t think a parent should have to “approve” of what their kid wants to write in a [more or less] private journal. I understand the net isn’t per say private depending on site (Myspace, Xanga, etc) but some are (such as Live Journal if the user wants it to be).
It takes away from the point of the journal, for them to relay their own thoughts and therefore find some kind of sense of self, or understanding of themselves.
However, there are 2 other points in relation I think should be thought of:
1.) And this is just my opinion, but a kid younger than say, 12, doesn’t even need ot touch a computer, let alone be surfing the net. Computers are too expensive for a child with no concept of what (s)he is doing to be allowed on it and risk screwing it up.
2.) I find it somewhat hypcritical that adults teach others’ to be indifferent, tollerant/respectful of other people’s beliefs and opinions, and yet, as soon as that that is those people stink, or whatever insults kids/teens hurl, it’s then wrong. So opnion only counts if it’s something good about you? What happened to “Sticks and stones”? Can’t tell kids it’s just words and then react like this…
My 2 cents…no refunds