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.’"
GET THE STORY.
(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).