“Total security for us and our children is only possible – if unlikely – in a totalitarian state” — Joseph R. Goodwin
I’ve long thought that at least 1/3 of Americans are ready for fascist rule. They want to live in police state with armed guards on street corners and random roadside checkpoints on the road to Grandma’s house. Because if you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide, right? RIGHT!?!?
This was painfully apparent in the days and months after 9/11, but not so much at the moment. It is, however, still true. If if want proof, look no further than the comments that have been left on any number of Gazette and Daily Mail stories about mandatory drug testing for Kanawha county teachers. The very thought of people being subjected to a clearly unreasonable, unjustified and unnecessary search makes these little fuckers foam at their mouths with glee. In ALL CAPS, no less.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It’s right there in the damn Constitution, which these inbred mouthbreathers might realize if they’d bother to keep reading after the Second Amendment.
TELL ‘EM, JOE BOB:
Goodwin said the Kanawha school system’s plan to randomly test 25 percent of its teachers and other school personnel each year was made even though it does not appear that there is a pervasive drug problem in the county.
He said that the school board’s argument that something bad could happen while a teacher under the influence of drugs was supervising children was based on an unreasonable kind of worse-case-scenario thinking. Goodwin asked why the board had not also passed a policy to randomly test teachers for tropical diseases.
In other words, the rationale of the learned men and women on the Kanwaha County School Board is that even though there’s no reason at all to believe there’s a problem, something bad could, maybe, possibly happen. So let’s throw the Fourth Amendment out the window and fuck with people’s lives unnecessarily.
It’s a shame that these people needed a federal judge to explain to them that they’re not allowed to do that.
December 29, 2008 at 6:29 pm
The teachers will ultimately lose this fight, I’ll make the prediction now.
They will lose because it has already been lost in other industries for the very reasons that HK has pointed out in his Blog. I must agree that he is right on the money in his analysis.
It is very unfortunate that we..the people…have become so complacent that we stand by and let our liberties slow drift away.
But who cares right?
As long as we have our cell phones, cable TV and a big SUV to drive everything is just peachy! Right?
December 29, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Sorry, but I feel the need to bitch about this. Hence, the second post.
This whole “If they have nothing to hide” mentality is just fucking dumb. It is absolutely fucking dumb! Our state I.Q. shines through with dumb shit statements like this.
“Having something to hide” is not the issue here.
The issue is the violation of civil rights, and “having something to hide” presumes that anyone who speaks out “has something to hide”.
Which is a violation of due process, speedy trial, innocent until proven guilty, etc, etc.
I sometimes wonder where people come up with dumbass shit like this. Nothing to hide indeed!
December 29, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I don’t know what the statistics are on sexual child abuse in the home, but I’m willing to bet it’s a bigger problem than students being somehow abused by teachers that use drugs. So why not mandate cameras in every home to catch these guys that rape their daughters? You can use the same reasoning, and probably get better results.
December 29, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Yes ai, and we can all have telescreens that we can’t turn off, and we can all be members of the party, long live Big Brother!
Good point!
December 29, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Jesus! A random drug test program is just one step away from Palestinian-like living conditions… or maybe Swayze’s Calumet, Colorado?!?!!!
Wolverines!!!!
I hate the Bible Belt idea of “you shouldn’t have been doing things you shouldn’t have been doing” line of thought as much as anyone, but this post and the comments thus far are pretty damn histrionic. My personal favorite being the idea that they think there is direct correlation between drug use and pedophilia.
Most of this comes from an elementary school principal being busted in the middle of cracktown with a little cocaína on his person. Now, I’m no prude by any stretch, and I’ve been known to have a little (lot) of coke in my pocket on occasion, but even I know that you can’t have that. What the hell is a decent parent going to tell their 5th grader about why Mr. Anderson can get away with that, but that they shouldn’t do drugs?
December 29, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I just want to say hello to everyone on the blog and say I’m proud to comment with many of you. It is a privilege that we can conduct this type of banter. But with situations like HK is brings up as well as heated issue liked net neutrality, we’re closer to losing them, than keeping them.
What would really make the hill people of this state tell the Inner Party and Big Brother to shove it up their asses?
December 29, 2008 at 8:19 pm
You think you’re tough for getting drug tested every day? There’s half a million scarecrows in Denver who’d give anything for one mouthful of what you got. They’ve been under siege for about three months. They live on rats and sawdust bread and sometimes … on each other. At night, the pyres for the dead light up the sky. It’s medieval.
December 29, 2008 at 8:27 pm
It’s a rouse. It’s fake outrage. There are more teachers high on legally prescribed pain killers than there are high on coke. It’s a way to destroy the teachers union and to find a way to privatize the education system. Legal prescribed drugs are way more harmful and somehow not an issue to these testing proponents than a toke on some endo smoke.
December 29, 2008 at 8:28 pm
West Virginia teachers have so much to deal with. This is an unconstitutional infringement on their rights. What will it accomplish? Nothing. It serves only to line the pockets of company lobbyists who are rabid to make money from the testing services. I hope that the first teacher who is required to test files suit big time. Call Marvin Masters. He would love to take this on. Right, Marvin? West Virginia teachers will not lose if well-represented.
December 29, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Jay- My point was not to make a link between teachers who use drugs and being a pedophile. Perhaps teachers ‘abusing’ children was not the right way to phrase it. But I can’t understand the danger to children in a classroom from a teacher who has a substance left in their system from the party the night before. E.R. took my meaning correctly. Where is the problem???? Whereas there certainly IS a problem in people’s very homes with child abuse of one form or another. So why not let the state enter our homes instead??? That was the point. Or what about babysitters and PRIESTS?!!!! Are our children safe with them? Hypocrisy. Not about children’s safety. Just about attitudes towards drugs. Illegal ones anyway. Good point crystal -
December 29, 2008 at 8:47 pm
The education system shouldn’t be privatized, but the teachers union should definitely be destroyed. They whine when they should be thankful and they lie whenever it suits their needs. They earn a good living and pissing in a cup does not equal totalitarianism.
Please address my point of how the parents of Pratt Elementary students were supposed to explain to their kids about their principal being on TV admitting that he had cocaine on him.
And I’m using that one because Principal Anderson went right back to work, whereas the other teachers that were busted around the same time were fired.
Did you know….. The Cuban General was played by Ron O’Neal who also played Superfly who was a coke dealer. Blog comment coincidence? I don’t think so.
December 29, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Several differences between babysitters/priests and teachers is that the former is a parent’s choice while the latter is not and taxpayers’ insurance has to pay to settle suits for teachers’ problems.
But we all know that it’s not about safety, it’s about several teachers getting busted around the same time.
It looks bad and it is bad.
December 29, 2008 at 9:00 pm
No one’s disputing that the thing at Pratt was a bad situation. The question is why a handful of teachers with drug problems justifies systemwide testing.
Parents have to explain bad behavior by grown-ups all the time. Your premise—that the horror of parents having to explain a situation to their kids justifies this kind of intrusion on every teacher in KC—is what strikes me as overheated.
I didn’t follow the Pratt story. I’ll assume you’re right that the principal went right back to work. But the propriety of that personnel decision is a completely separate question from whether every teacher in the system should be subject to random testing.
December 29, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I’m unfamiliar with the incident, but it seems to me he should have paid the legal consequences of having coke. Does that translate into random testing of all teachers? I don’t think so. I’d like to hear what you think parents should be explaining to their children about the many priests who have been found guilty of abusing children. Are children incapable of understanding that there are a lot of things that go on in this world that aren’t right? Are they damaged by the knowledge that their principal had coke on him? Will they become drug users as a consequence? Sounds to me like you just have it in for teachers for some reason.
December 29, 2008 at 9:14 pm
If a teacher comes in drunk or stoned, if a teacher is manic on coke, the teacher’s colleagues or students will deal with it effectively.
Big Brother does not need to horn in.
This testing business is nothing more than an affirmation of totalitarian governmental control. Once you cede power to government you are compromised.
And try to get it back. You can’t.
December 29, 2008 at 9:24 pm
And one more thing- if the kids are looking at TV and have seen their pricipal there, then they surely have seen a lot more. How will YOU explain to your children that our president invaded a country on false pretenses and so is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. And I could go on and on in this vein, the gist of which is in the list of what children have to learn about in this world, the principal having coke is low on my list of ‘most horrendous things our children must learn’.
How about giving lie detector tests regularly to presidents and legislators? They cause more damage.
December 29, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Sorry, that was me,not signed in
December 29, 2008 at 9:35 pm
The principal at Pratt was a “special friend” of Superintendent Ron Duerring.
The drug problem with teachers and aides is prescription drugs.
December 29, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I’m not a teacher, so maybe I’m just ignorant on this score. But a couple of the comments here seem to imply that teachers have a worse-than-average problem with prescription drug addiction. Is that a widely held belief that I’m not aware of?
December 29, 2008 at 9:52 pm
So if there was a piss test for pedophilia, you’d think it would be Stalinist to make priests take one?
December 29, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I’ve attended enough teachers private parties to say that there is in fact a drug problem. One teacher actually climbed through the school window to get into her class because she was late after being stoned the night before. While I’m sorry that it has come to this, everyone in charge of my children all day should be above reproach. They’re not.
December 29, 2008 at 10:14 pm
It’d be relatively cheap (cheaper than drug testing) to monitor teachers’ home internet use to see if they’re viewing porn (esp. child porn), gambling, visiting drug-related sites, or doing any number of other awful things. Are you in favor of requiring teachers to submit to that, too?
December 29, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that teachers use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. But I could be naive.
December 29, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Wow, we should all thank “I Know” for the anecdote. I guess that clears everything up.
Please. Most parents don’t give a fuck about who teaches their kids. They spend infinitely more time thinking about Mountaineer football than they ever do about who has to deal with their hellion children for 8 hours a day. So spare us all your bullshit righteous indignation about how the people who get to be “in charge” of your cracker spawn have to be above reproach. You’re just happy that they’re out of the house.
December 29, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Teachers are human. They have more to put up with than most humans do.
Leave Priests alone. There are bad Priests, sure. But good Priests have to bear that burden every day of their otherwise difficult existence.
Why not drug test and pedophilia-piss-test every citizen in the United State of America? Then, what would you do with the result? Line them up and shoot them?
Come on. Who is above reproach?
Don’t you believe in natural selection? Society weeds out bad actors.
December 29, 2008 at 10:43 pm
“Most parents don’t give a fuck about who teaches their kids.”
Wrong.
You’re an arrogant ass, HK, and assuming that ALL WV parents are bad at it is just your way of demeaning an entire demographic to excuse another demographic’s insistence on being treated as abused martyrs. WELL PAID, abused martyrs.
Not all teachers are bad, not all parents are bad, and you ain’t the Lone Ranger, so get off your high horse.
December 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Teachers are not well-paid. I wish they were paid more than lawyers.
Jay, he was just making a point. And it was a point that hurts b/c the truth hurts.
December 29, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I’m about as anti-Big Brother as anyone. Still, were I inclined to try to make the point, I’d start with freedom of contract: teachers presumably have no right to be employed by the State. *IF* the State chooses to so employ them, why can’t it be a condition of the teachers’ employment that they be tested for illegal drugs? If a teacher doesn’t want to be tested, he or she could resign; they wouldn’t be strapped to a table down in some basement somewhere. Can we agree that parents have a legitimate interest in not having their kids taught by persons under the influence of illegal drugs? We’re not talking about legally prescribed pharmaceuticals, but illegal narcotics (whether they should be illegal in the first place is a topic for another time). Making drug testing a condition of an employment contract does not, in my opinion, make the contract unconscionable. If the testing is indeed a condition of a valid contract, then implementing that condition does not strike me as an unreasonable search of the body or seizure of bodily fluid. This is especially the case if the only consequence is the teacher’s loss of employment, with the test results excluded from any subsequent criminal prosecution or investigation, thereby implicating only a potential property interest for due process purposes, and not any liberty interest. I may be slightly conflating my 4th and 14th Amendment analyses, but I suppose my main point is the honest question: why does an individual’s right to use illicit narcotics trump the collective right to ensure, to the extent practicable, a learning environment free from the potential influence of such narcotics?
December 29, 2008 at 11:43 pm
And here’s another point to contemplate, so long as I’m playing advocate to Mephistopheles: according to the Supreme Court, there is an individual right under the Constitution to bear firearms. Having read the literal language of the Second Amendment, I happen to strongly disagree with the Court’s position, but no matter. Does this mean that the State cannot bar teachers from bringing live firearms to school? If the State can make such a proscription a condition of employment, then where is the source of that authority? I have a feeling that when we get the answer to that question, then we’ll be getting to the nub of the matter on the drug-testing issue.
December 29, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Don’t our precious, fwagile-as-a-butterfwy-wing childwen have the right to grow up in a perfect world, no matter what liberties it costs the rest of us?
What wretched, sentimental, Big Nannyish thinking!
So, anyone who has responsiblity for children should be drug tested. So, parents, grandparents, babysitters, Scoutmasters, Sunday School Teachers, Clergy and Coaches obviously need to line up for the whiz quiz. Just how many billions do you want to spend on this?
The argument that you can always choose to walk away from your job if you don’t like the new rules is unsympathetic at best. If I have 18 years of service, and I don’t care to be searched without any scintilla of reasonable suspicion, I should just walk away from my job?!
The palpable self-righteousness of such arguments has more than a whiff of the leaven of the Pharisee.
December 29, 2008 at 11:48 pm
By the way, the line of reasoning that goes, “We can make you give up any right if we have it in the employment contract” went down in flames long ago. Anybody remember Lochner v. New York?
December 30, 2008 at 12:03 am
1. Not a perfect world, just a better one.
2. The burden on teachers amounts to being inconvenienced by peeing in a cup, and I will concede that there will also be some psychological cost – embarrassment, feelings of mistrust, etc. These are costs the State will also have to bear in the form of incrementally less satisfied employees, but the State may legitimately, if unwisely, choose to bear those costs.
3. We’re not talking about parents and happenstance social guardians. We’re talking about teachers, who are paid to educate our children.
4. Cost will be a factor in any testing program, but I believe our discussion is on the balance of rights in the abstract. We may assume for purposes of our discussion that cost is not an object.
5. Yes. If you are sufficiently offended by the new conditions of your employment, then you should walk away. I would.
6. I haven’t read Lochner in a few years, but I suppose its applicability would hinge on the unconscionability of the particular right sought to be curtailed. We’re not talking about “any” right; we’re talking about the right to be free from drug testing absent individualized suspicion.
I was rather hoping for a focused discussion, rather than generalized invective. I will also make clear, if I haven’t already, that I have an open mind on the subject. I’m just not sure that the answer is as cut and dried as Joe Bob makes it out to be.
December 30, 2008 at 1:06 am
1. A more intrusive world isn’t a better one. A world where everyone is constantly under suspicion unless they can prove themselves innocent is NOT a better world.
2. It’s so good of you to concede that some people might object to being searched without any shade of cause. The fact that you consider that objection unimportant says worlds about your analysis and the worldview that spawns it.
3. As for getting paid, many of the people I listed do indeed get paid to care for children. And since when are parents “happenstance social guardians?” But the question, surely shouldn’t be who gets paid, its who has the most influence on the fragile little darlings. After all, they can’t possibly survive if their homeroom teacher smokes a joint occassionally. Certainly parents are more important to a child’s development than teachers! So if testing teachers is necessary, certainly testing parents is crucial!
4. Why on Earth would I allow you to take cost out of the question, unless we’re just mentally masturbating? Cost is ALWAYS a question in ANY policy discussion. It may not be the definitive factor, but its always in the mix. It must be if we take the economic lives of people who work for a living and pay their taxes seriously. But you’re talking about spending money to intrude on innocent people’s lives. It costs nothing to leave them alone.
5. Why yes, most of us have so much money and social mobility that we can just walk away from our jobs on principle. Never mind our families and our mortgages! Here’s a factoid that may not have come up at your last Young Republicans’ Meeting – There aren’t very many trust fund babies here in West Virginia.
6. Actually, Lochner is the BAD example. It was cited all through the ensuing decades as the reason that the coal barons had every right to smother, evict, exploit, and even kill hundreds of people in the mines of this state. And frankly, the right to be free of ANY interference, no matter how slight Big Nanny and its supporters think it is, absent individualized suspicion is what every American has the Constitutional right to expect.
The invective isn’t generalized here, it’s quite specific. I’ve had quite enough “focused discussion” with people with no respect for the privacy of others. Eight long, unpleasant years. Spare me your “open mindedness” about incrementally dismantling people’s right to privacy. Miss Dick Cheney already, don’t you?
December 30, 2008 at 1:10 am
Hey, Jay –
“you ain’t the Lone Ranger, so get off your high horse.”
Pot, meet kettle.
December 30, 2008 at 3:26 am
First, I’d just like to say that being called an “arrogant ass” by Jay, fucking JAY, for fuck’s sake, is it’s own reward.
Second, everyone should know that “freedom of contract” was exactly what thug employers used to justify things like child labor and unsafe workplaces. “If they don’t like their job, they can get another!” Thankfully Cyberpaw is here to remind the Sheik what kind of fantasy world he’s living in. I’m sure we can eventually look forward to comment from Sheik Ybuti about how awesome the so-called “fair tax” is.
Finally, everyone please take note that we are 30 some comments in, and still, the only real argument the people in favor of drug testing can make is “if you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?” I mean, why should we let a quaint little thing like the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution get in the way?
December 30, 2008 at 6:51 am
I don’t know anything about Judge Joe Bob, but thank your lucky stars he’s doing his job. Don’t school boards have legal counsel, to spare themselves such a public embarassment as this? Fodder for a good civics lesson for the kiddies. I hope they have a Debate Club there.
December 30, 2008 at 7:45 am
Since we’re bulleting our arguments, please allow me to enumerate:
1) It’s always entertaining when a member of a family of hillbilly Machiavellis suddenly becomes the voice of truth and justice when he makes the almost unheard of statement that backs up HK’s position.
2) While I also disagree with the idea that if you don’t like the NEWLY ENACTED policies at your workplace you have to find another job, I think that equating a piss test with armed checkpoints is ridiculous hysterics.
3) I’ve had jobs that required submitting to random drug tests, and even though it was a pain in the ass, it wasn’t the end of the world. I simply altered my behavior slightly and got on with my life. Working around those things is not rocket science, and truth be told, I was kind of glad when an idiot who made those of us who were responsible drug users look bad got busted. Seriously, I couldn’t care less if Principle Anderson does a little blow here and there, but I do care if he’s stupid enough to get caught the way he got caught.
4) I called you an arrogant ass because there seems to be little or nothing about WV culture or native-born WVians that meet or exceed your lofty standards. My sense of humor runs mean sometimes, but I can’t imagine making an all-encompassing degradation of a demographic like you did with “Most parents don’t give a fuck about who teaches their kids.” I don’t think MOST teachers are incompetent, greedy and whiny, but the ones who are make the most noise and as always, it hurts the whole, and the teachers unions are the Pied Pipers of Pissiness.
5) In short, if you’re against random drug tests, fine – make your case. But leave out the hysterics and stereotyping.
December 30, 2008 at 7:45 am
Sheep. Line up here and barter your rights for safety. A man who would voluntarily forfeit his rights for the illusion of safety doesn’t deserve to have the rights to begin with.
Teachers, keep on toking.
December 30, 2008 at 7:54 am
I laugh at the the “if you aint’ doin’ nuthin’ wrong….” mob of mouthbreathers.
Joe Bob didn’t just rule against them (and that includes dumbasses like Pete Thaw and the rest of the pathetic, pandering, school board), he bitch slapped them into next week.
December 30, 2008 at 8:06 am
I see people in here are talking about some high horse.
By all means, let’s corral this high horse and test him for illegal drug use before he bucks a child and injures him in his equine-altered state……
December 30, 2008 at 8:42 am
Jay,
Does it matter that the principal of Pratt Elementary was acquitted of the charges, which is why he was reinstated?
Or is an allegation without a conviction sufficient to remove him from his job?
And out of curiosity, what do you mean in paragraph 3 of your last post, in which you said you “simply altered your behavior slightly” when required to take a random drug test? Surely you haven’t engaged in the same sort of behavior that you claim to find so objectionable?
December 30, 2008 at 8:44 am
Here’s a question for you -
Is there a correlation between drug use and bad teaching? Because that seems to be the assumption here.
Now, I’ve never done a study, but based on personal experience I KNOW that some of the best teachers have toked now and then. Whereas – and here I’m guessing- some of the WORST teachers my children have had probably never did. Although they may be prescription drug users for all I know.
December 30, 2008 at 9:24 am
Regardless of whether or not Anderson was acquitted, he was busted in Orchard Manor and ADMITTED THAT HE HAD A SMALL AMOUNT OF COCAINE IN HIS BACK POCKET. Automatic grounds for dismissal for a public educator, IMO.
I have no problem with drug use if the drug use itself is not a problem. As I said earlier, an elementary school principal getting busted in cracktown with coke in his pocket is a problem.
So, Billy, my objections are not with drug use, it’s with people who can’t keep their shit together causing problems for the rest of us. Using a little logic and self control will not dramatically impact one’s recreational imbibement.
Surely you can understand that Raglin, Thaw and the rest of those putz’s don’t give a damn if Anderson does a little blow, but they have to act when he gets busted like that, and a teacher gets busted with a fair amount of weight packaged for distribution, and a teacher has a meth lab blow up in his basement, etc…
I’m all for bong hits at the end of a hard day, but I also understand that heading off that sort of shit benefits teachers in the long run.
December 30, 2008 at 9:51 am
If we’d pay our teachers a living wage, we might recruit a higher class of personnel.
December 30, 2008 at 10:00 am
Mental masturbation? Mmmmm. I must have missed the part where any of us have any actual say in whether Kanawha County school teachers are tested. Absent that, that’s pretty much all we’re doing by engaging in this happy banter. It’s a bit disappointing (albeit not wholly unexpected) that I can’t advocate for a calm, rational discussion without all the Huxley hysteria. It’s obvious the topic strokes an emotional chord with many, perhaps more for the slippery slope it’s perceived to engender than for the narrow consequences of the particular policy at issue. And to be smeared as a Young Republican . . . heresy! I must have had a Denny Crane-like epiphany prior to entering the voting booth, because I distinctly recall leaving an appropriately dark impression.
Last point: I never claimed that drug testing is a good idea; in my judgment, it’s only marginally effective in insulating against actual danger, the financial burden (as Cyberpaw so tenaciously insists on pointing out) likely doesn’t justify those ends, and actually getting the teachers’ unions to agree (a necessary condition, in my view) is nothing more than a pipe dream. Indeed, that Pete Thaw is for something is probably the best argument in favor of being against it. The only question that remotely interests me is the abstract one whether the State *could*, consistent with the 4th and 14th Amendments, impose such a requirement. If the unions could engage in a valid waiver, then the right so waived must not be all that prominent in the Constitutional pecking order.
December 30, 2008 at 10:15 am
cracker spawn……that is so cool
Go HK !!!! State education is big brother so I guess they are
fucking themselves.
December 30, 2008 at 10:16 am
What are you talking about a living wage? Have you ever worked out what they make per hour, taking into account the time off? Its not bad for people who mostly have a 4 year degree. Our teachers also have incredible health insurance and retirement plans compared to teachers in other states that have higher salaries (like Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio). If they don’t like that, they should get rid of their union which is constantly upping their benefits which naturally results in less take home money.
I am not saying we shouldn’t pay them more if we had the money laying around, but a living wage, give me a break with the buzzwords. A friend of mine who just graduated with an education degree from WVU A couple years ago is already making over $30,000 a year in Mingo County…. He is playing a lot more golf than I am, too, since he is at his house by 4pm every day, never works overtime or weekends, and gets three months off in the summer to do nothing but a week of planning. Its not a king’s wage but not bad for just a bachelors degree.
Like I said, if the state could afford to pay more, and some kind of merit system could be worked out to make sure the money went to deserving teachers, they should do it, but this idea that our teachers are begging on the street corners for food is a little far-fetched.
December 30, 2008 at 10:20 am
Yeah, the “slippery-slope” aspects of this thread remind me of the “if we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to let some nutjob marry three goats and a possum” (il)logic.
And I don’t remember any cries lamenting the violation of Cabell County children’s Constitutional rights concerning drug testing.
Dear God, Won’t Somebody Think Of The Children?!?!?!?!
December 30, 2008 at 10:37 am
Wrong Jay. I opposed that too. And I did more than bitch on a blog about it. The surveillance state must be resisted at every chance.
Your first paragraph is incoherant. The argument that we can’t allow people to be searched without reasonable suspicion or consent isn’t a slippery slope argument. If we allow it, we are already at the bottom of the slope.
It takes no further diminution of those teacher’s rights to insist on their medical records (can’t have anyone with mental problems or diseases teaching our kids, now can we?) their credit reports, (can’t let them set an example of irresponsibility!) their internet browser logs (what if they’re child pornographers?!) or their sexual history (adulterers and home-sexuls teachin’ our kids?!).
If we can require so intimate a thing as bodily fluids, why not what Sheik and Jay would call “just pieces of paper! No big deal!” or, I suppose, Jay would tell us how he, clever fellow that he is, could conceal his paper trail.
The answer to all this is much simpler. Leave people alone unless you have an articulable, individualized suspicion. That’s all it takes – a willingness to leave people alone.
December 30, 2008 at 10:39 am
Demo’s got it right.
And there is also the peace of mind of knowing that in the coming bust cycle in WV in which a lot WVians won’t be able to buy a job that you will have a good job with good benefits. That kind of security is worth more than gold.
December 30, 2008 at 11:15 am
Without engaging in deep analysis, I’m simply and instinctively opposed to mandatory, random drug testing to prove myself innocent of illegal usage.
Where I worked we were subject to those tests. I was tested twice in 3 years then 3 times in one week.
Each time that I was tested I protested what I saw as an uncalled for invasion of my privacy.
BTW, the testing at my workplace eventually encompassed alcohol as well.
December 30, 2008 at 11:37 am
“I’m simply and instinctively opposed to mandatory, random drug testing to prove myself innocent of illegal usage.”
As you should be. Montani Semper Liberi.
A reasonable fear of repression is repression already.
Perhaps in the interest of full disclosure, I should share a personal experience with you, not to advance the argument, since the value of anecdote is very limited, but to let you know where my interest in the question may have begun.
When I was in College, I had a very workaday job doing mostly manual labor. The pay and benefits weren’t fantastic, but they paid for pizza and textbooks, which is pretty much all an undergrad needs anyhow.
One day I was called into the boss’ office and told that I was fired. Positive on a drug screen for marijuana. I knew at once that the test was false, since I had never used marijuana or any other illegal drug.
I protested, and insisted on a second test. The boss said he’d “allow” that, but I had to pay for it. Please note that although I was very worried about losing my income, I kept my cool and made my protest in a civil manner.
Well, on a student’s budget, it wasn’t easy, but I scraped the money together and went to the hospital and had a urine and blood test done. They came back negative, and I went back to my workplace to give the results to my boss.
The security guard informed me that people who had been terminated were not allowed back on the premises for any reason! So I mailed the results to my boss. I was answered by a letter on attorney letterhead, threatening me with prosecution for stalking.
Being a student, I didn’t know my legal rights, and I damn sure knew I couldn’t afford a legal battle with a large company. I hung my head and tried to get through the semester. Since no one was backing me financially, I ended up dropping out for a semester. Fortunately, the Veteran’s Administration finally caught up with me, and I finished my undergraduate work.
Every time I see someone say “It’s no big deal to pee in a cup,” I think of how it felt to lose that job, and what it was to lose something you wanted very badly, and worked for very hard because some idiot authoritarian thought it was easier to disregard your rights in favor of their policy.
You keep right on reacting “instinctively,” Montani.
December 30, 2008 at 11:46 am
i just cant wait until we have a society that wont allow sex with anyone other than your married spouse of the opposite gender………..gosh that would be utopia wouldnt it?…………TRASH ALL TRASH when big brother watches
December 30, 2008 at 11:53 am
Cyberpaw,
I ALWAYS asked for a blood test just to back up the urine sample.
I was ALWAYS refused. Regardless, I never failed the test.
One of my best friends wrecked a helicopter due to mechanical failure.
He was banged up a bit with a nasty, deep cut to the back of his leg which required interior and exterior stitching.
His boss told him that he didn’t require a urine test based on his boss’s personal observations but my buddy demanded a blood test all the same.
Without that test his career would have been destroyed.
December 30, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Fear of oppression is healthy if you have been paying any attention at all in the past 8 years (or longer). The war on drugs is a corrupt failure and is part of pharmaceutical and military industrial complex that is symbolic of everything that is wrong with modern society.
First, never forget the role our government has and continues to play to bring many so called illegal drugs into this country for the specific purpose of supporting their illegal mercenary wars (Iran Contra, Columbia, Panama, and Afghanistan just to name a few of the more obvious covert operations).
Also keep in mind many of these “illegal” drugs are naturally occurring plants, with real and tangible medicinal purposes. Marijuana is also in direct competition with big pharma, because grass is not only easy to grow, it is highly effective for numerous ailments (pun intended) and cuts in on the bottom line of the employers of powerful politically connected children (think unearned MBA’s, rising prescription drug prices and spineless government regulators) .
Pee tests for teachers is not only unconstitutional, it supports a totalitarian imperialist ideology that prevents society from moving forward. Keeping us stuck in a lock em up (for no reason and torture them until they confess) mentality, which is inhumane and represents a delusional sick blight on the progress humanity made over the past 2000 years.
No, if public safety were the real issue, rather than a clandestine attack on organized labor, then we would require all automobile drivers to be randomly pee tested no less than once per year. Alcohol prohibition didn’t work either, so the war on drugs is a lie, a fraud and brought to you by people who make a KILLING OFF SELLING LEGAL DOPE, which are by and large far more addicting and dangerous than an occasional smoke or even a snort.
Here is an idea – Pee test the politicians before they file candidacy papers, before the elections and way before they are allowed to dictate public policy.
December 30, 2008 at 1:24 pm
is random SUSPICIONLESS drug-testing.
Not only is it likely to be found violative of the 4th amendment in this case, it is an inefficient and ineffective method to solve the perceived problem.
Testing thousands of people (who may or may not include a representative number of those actually abusing drugs) is far more costly and will have far lower “success” rate than developing procedures to identify persons whose behavior gives rise to suspicion, document the specific behavior justifying suspicion and targeting those individuals for closer monitoring and supervision, including regular, scheduled drug tests.
December 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Thank you for telling your story, Cyberpaw. It’s in situations like these that I value the image of Byrd waving his worn Constitution in the air.
December 30, 2008 at 5:21 pm
If i read these cases right, Twigg vs. Hercules, 406 se2d 52, Rohrbaugh vs Walmart, 572 se2d 881 say random drug testing for private sector employees is a no-no unless there’s a good faith suspiscion, or the employee’s job involves public safety or safety of others (school bus drivers).
The rule is probably different for public employees like teachers. I’m not good on that area of law, but i say if there is some sort of structrual difference that allows random drug testing, that that policy is still just nuts.
Unlike the very first commenter on this post, I fear Pete Thaw is gonna cost Kanawha County schools a bunch of atty fees on this matter.
Probably not for the first time. I can’t remember all the crap he’s put us through, see. Must be all that blow i’ve been doin’. . .
December 30, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The argument “that something bad could happen while a teacher under the influence of drugs was supervising children” misses a crucial point — Drug testing ain’t cheap. The fact that the school board is ok with diverting the money away from educational materials should lead us all to worry “that something bad (such as the continued epidemic of ignorance) could happen while an underpaid teacher with shitty materials tries to educate children.”
Who do these assholes on the school board think they are? This draconian policy will certainly lead many good teachers to simply quit teaching and get jobs that actually pay more than the minimum wage. The school board needs to quit its meddling. Hell, I still have trouble wrapping my brain around the entire school board system which lets horribly underqualified winners of popularity contests dictate policy to well educated teachers.
December 30, 2008 at 6:44 pm
You folks can attack SheikYbuti all you want, but I won’t participate. Anyone who bases his/her handle on a Frank Zappa album and refers to Huxley is alright by me even when making flawed arguments. In fact, I would bet money that such a person is at least a part time fan of the hobby of which CyberPaw was once accused.
December 30, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Well, I still stand by my prediction, for the very reasons that have been pointed out in so many above posts.
But fear not, in just a few days, our legislature will meet for the 2009 session, and the very first to be calling for more money will be the teachers unions, as they do so well every session.
Secondly will be Kan. County School Board, championing for a random drug testing law statewide for ALL teachers.
Last, will be the taxpayers, footing the bill for the court battles that are sure to ensue, then, paying for the actual test themselves, quoting dumb shit like “if they ain’t got nuthin’ ta hide…..”
Only in WV folks. Sometimes I just have to laugh out loud.
December 30, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Says Jay:
You see, that’s where people are wrong. There’s no burden on us to make a case as to why the government shouldn’t be allowed to conduct an unreasonable and unnecessary search. For the umpteenth time, THAT’S NOT HOW WE DO IT HERE.
It’s up to YOU people to explain why you think it’s reasonable to make every Kanawha county teacher randomly piss in a cup just because 1 person had drugs on him. We await your explanation.
December 30, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Back to the future……it’s 1984, and I thought it was 2008 approaching 2009.
I apologize for my blindness.
December 30, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Well, actually that IS how we do it here. Are the students of Cabell County in the “public safety or safety of others” category? Does a person’s Constitutional rights start at the teacher’s lounge door? If it’s not an unreasonable search for them, why is it an unreasonable search for teachers?
“There’s no burden on us to make a case as to why the government shouldn’t be allowed to conduct an unreasonable and unnecessary search.”
Then what did Judge Goodwin listen to from the plaintiff’s side? Did they just sit there silently while Goodwin absorbed their position on their assertions by osmosis?
When an official body enacts a rule or law that another group disagrees with they go to court and make their respective cases.
The rhetoric on this thread has moved from Red Dawn to Braveheart:
Freeeee-doooommm!!!!
December 30, 2008 at 8:08 pm
If someone else wants to explain 8th grade civics to Jay, have at it.
I for one am tired of dealing with this moron. I continue to be amazed that someone who possesses such a flawed, fantastical grasp of how his own government works can manage to so much as turn a computer on, much less articulate an opinion.
But as long as he’s here, I never have to worry about being though of the biggest asshole in the comment section of any given post. Which is worth something, I guess.
December 30, 2008 at 8:29 pm
There’s the Constitution and then there’s the last 8 years of Constitional erosion. Tat was on top of the previous 16 years of unbelievable rulings. Who decided that allowing cops to seize property of “drug dealers” and allowing them to profit from the sale of such property was a good thing to do.
It’s easy to see why unreasonable search and seizure has become a fuzzy concept in the minds of many.
Cyberpaw, thanks for your personal story. The less power you have the more likely you are to be taken advantage of this way.
December 30, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I’ve been reading this blog for awhile and Jay is not the biggest asshole to post.
December 30, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“Jay is not the biggest asshole to post.”
Oh heavens, no. That’s a traveling trophy, and hard to hang on to!
Believe me. I know.
Thanks to those of you who said nice things about my anecdote. You should know that the whole thing DOES have a very happy ending. I went on to get my PhD, and a Law Degree, and have a pretty good life going, aside from a pesky health issue.
December 30, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Nice ad hominem non-response to my answer to your challenge, HK.
But what more should we expect from a Blogspot lawyer.
December 30, 2008 at 8:59 pm
And 8th grade is WV history. Civics is 9th grade.
December 30, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Aw, Cyberpaw, what’s the pesky health issue?
December 30, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Jay, when I went through the system it was one semester each Civics and WV History in eighth grade. Seventh was geography and ninth was American History 1492-1865. So, yeah, eighth grade civics works.
December 30, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Looselips, if I had you on my team o’ docs, it would have been solved long ago. :-) But seriously, if I get into that here, it will be an unnecessary distraction. Coal pile in a ballroom bad.
December 30, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I have a hard time actually believing Jay is real, his arguments are so dumb.
What the court was listening to from the plaintiffs, was the ARGUMENT that what the KCSB did (random drug testing), was unconstitutional. See, to infringe upon a constitutional right, the state has to jump through a few hoops. In this case, the KCSB didn’t jump through the right hoops. If they are forced to jump through the right hoops, they won’t be able to random drug test. They (KCSB) won’t be able to meet their burden. This is pretty much a given, based on the current constititional caselaw in this area. And, I doubt very seriously (since it’s a 4th amendment issue – ie, a federal issue/right) the WV Leg can authorize it either, to whoever mentioned that above.
Just like the defendant in a criminal case, has the right to FORCE the prosecution to prove they jumped through the right hoops (ie, to get a warrant, to search a car, a house, tap a phone, etc.), the plaintiffs in this case have a right to force the KCSB to show they jumped through the right hoops to infringe on the 4th amendment rights of the teachers.
When constitutional rights are at issue and are being infringed by the government, the game changes. The burden is on the state to prove WHY the rights should be infringed. And depending on the right, and the level of infringement, there are different standards the state has to meet, many of which, are pretty damn strict. See, we make it so it’s HARD for the state to legally infringe upon those constititional rights, so those rights are protected.
I can’t really break it down any more than that. If you need more information, or this isn’t clear enough, just remember, it’s down the street, not across the tracks.
December 30, 2008 at 10:56 pm
The 4th Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures, and reasonableness is generally evaluated by the courts in light of all the facts and circumstances existing at the time. So long as the drug testing issue arises in the context of a school board attempting, as it has in the Kanawha County case, to impose its will spontaneously on the teachers in its employ, it’s fair to consider things like cost, human error, and efficacy of remedy in the reasonableness calculus. In light of all that, Judge Goodwin likely couldn’t rule any way other than he did (even if he were ever otherwise inclined, which he isn’t).
The far more provocative question is what happens if and when the teachers’ unions become politically enfeebled to the point where they are compelled to accept some sort of drug testing as a condition of contract. Would the courts draw on the Lochner line of authority that Cyberpaw cited to strike such a provision as unconscionable, based on the sheer affront to privacy and dignity that testing poses? I might hope along with the vast majority of you that the courts would summon the requisite courage, but I am far from confident. Testing technology and methodology might improve between now and the date of decision, or there may be a renewed societal rage against the so-called “drug culture,” or both. And what happens to the presumed Constitutional “right to privacy” if Roe and other “penumbral” cases from the Warren years are overruled or otherwise consigned to irrelevancy? Will the privacy concerns of teachers who don’t want to pee in a cup be entitled to lesser weight in the reasonableness analysis?
Interesting times, these. HK picked a good issue for his blog.
December 31, 2008 at 6:14 am
OK, here it is:
it’s not an issue of whether random drug testing is unconstitutional because the courts have already ruled that it IS constitutional in some instances. (I’ve yet to see where someone here has said that ALL drug testing is unconstitutional and should be abolished across the board.)
No, the issue is whether teachers are equal to bus drivers in safety responsibility. The teachers union just went to court to ARGUE that teachers are NOT responsible for children’s safety and therefore not subject to random drug testing, which requires HK to convince himself and try to convince others that “most parents don’t give a fuck who teaches their children”. He’s wrong.
I’ll say it again and you should think about it from the general public’s perspective: The teachers union just went to court to argue that teachers are not subject to drug testing because they are not responsible for children’s safety. Brilliant.
They’re going to win this battle in the courts, but they’re going to lose yet another round in the court of public opinion. During the 2006 Teacher’s Pay Raise Demandathon, I had to turn the radio off when the president of the WVEA was on Hoppy’s show stuttering and stammering around because he knew his numbers didn’t add up. It was like listening to Fran Drescher laugh.
When I said “make your case”, it was in the context of ‘the discussion is valid, but the comparisons to a police state or 1984 are a bit histrionic’, instead of saying that the plaintiffs can’t just go to court and say “They’re wrong” and sit down – they have “make their case”.
Now, you can call me “dumb” or “asshole” or whatever you want. I don’t care. I’ve been called worse by better people than any of you. But you need to realize that arguing that teachers are not responsible for student safety will only deepen the negative impression of teachers as a whole by the general public.
Again, teachers will win in court, but at what cost?
And Brett, you’re probably right about 8th grade civics.
December 31, 2008 at 6:36 am
I’m not going along with this drug testing policy until I get to watch Pete Thaw pee in a plastic cup.
December 31, 2008 at 7:45 am
“I’ve been called worse by better people than any of you.”
Jay, there’s help available now for people with persecution complexes. That chip you’re carrying around on your shoulder is gonna warp your spine. Perhaps you could whittle it down with that axe you’re always grinding regarding the teacher’s union.
You’ve got the legal analysis wrong, too. The teacher’s union’s argument isn’t “we’re not at all responsible for children’s safety,” it was “we’re not responsible for their safety in the way that a bus driver is” – which is undoubtably true. A teacher isn’t going to drive homeroom off a bridge. Of course, you would have gotten that if you weren’t so determined to defame the teacher’s union at every opportunity.
December 31, 2008 at 8:04 am
That was a joke, Cyberpaw. Granted, it’s an old one, but I think it’s pretty recognizable.
What YOU would get, if you weren’t predisposed to support the teachers union no matter what, is that the parsing of responsibility between teacher and bus driver is pretty much unrecognizable to the general public.
Sure, they understand that homeroom is not going to go off a bridge, but that doesn’t make teachers less responsible for student safety.
But at least we’re progressing to the REAL argument of not that random drug tests are unconstitutional, but that teachers are or are not subject to them.
And that takes me back to my assertion that the whole police state rhetoric is overinflated and tedious.
December 31, 2008 at 8:26 am
The teacher’s union would be really surprised to find I’m “supporting them no matter what,” since I’ve sued them several times, representing a variety of plaintiffs.
I do not grant you the right to determine what the “REAL” argument is, especially since you seem to have a problem with a first principle concept of Western Jurisprudence – people have a right to be free of government meddling in their private affairs (and bodily fluids) unless the government can prove that there is substantial reason to believe that this individual, not a class of people, but an individual, has committed a crime, OR that there is a compelling reason, one that passes the absolutely highest level of judicial scrutiny, to encroach on their privacy. And the burden of that proof is on the government, not the individual.
Judge Joe Bob did that analysis properly, and came to the right decision. To the Court, the Constitutional question WAS the “REAL argument.”
Fortunately, Jay, the standard for Constitutional Law is not whether an individual’s claim on Liberty is “unrecognizable to the general pubic.” The Bill of Rights is there to tell us what the general public (acting through its elected representatives) CANNOT do to a minority.
Your issue is hollow, Jay. And whether or not police state rhetoric is “overinflated” and “tedious” is a matter of whether you see this as part of a pattern of increased survellance and burden-shifting. I do, and many others do as well. You’ll just have to bear with us.
December 31, 2008 at 8:31 am
And if you’re looking for what I’m “supporting no matter what,” its the right of individuals to be left alone, unless there is real evidence to support the assertion that they are committing, or have committed a crime.
You’ll find me on that side every…damn…time. And I hope its always so. I made a promise:
“I do solemnly swear or affirm that: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of West Virginia; that I will honestly demean myself in the practice of law; and, to the best of my ability, execute my office of attorney-at-law; so help me God.”
You may think its corn. I took it seriously.
December 31, 2008 at 8:43 am
What I haven’t seen in this thread is new hires. I am pretty sure that the radio report I heard indicated that the testing of existing faculty was not allowed, but that some positions (deemed to be similar to the bus driver) and all new hires could be tested. How is a new hire different? Maybe I just heard wrong (or it was reported wrong).
December 31, 2008 at 9:27 am
The comparison to bus drivers is interesting. Regarding anyone behind a wheel, cops can pull you over on their perceived suspicion, pat you down, search your car, and go from sobriety test to the hospital to take blood – all by intimidation before any presence of mind to call parents or lawyer. This goes on all the time in Morgantown, if you are a young male out late at night. It’s happened to numerous young people I know, some more than once. A back up car is always immediately behind, with drug sniffing dogs. A carload of innocent girls gets stared down by big, armed men. Some of these kids had small amounts, and some nothing. All were terrorized and totally mistrust police. There is “DWB” driving while black, and DWY driving while young. And it costs a lot of money to eventually get charges dismissed in the end.
This is not at all similar to the workplace issues, but is still a grey area IMO.
December 31, 2008 at 9:30 am
“You’ll find me on that side every…damn…time.”
Unless you are a school bus driver.
And isn’t that the problem here? The SCOTUS has said that random drug testing IS constitutional in some cases and until it’s overturned it’s the law of the land.
Therefore, and in spite of your Glory, Glory Hallelujah soundtracked soliloquy, the argument before us is whether or not a teacher is subject to random drug testing as the law is currently written. So any discussion on the real or perceived unconstitutionality of random drug testing must be argued from the position that NO ONE can be required to submit to one, and that makes YOUR argument that teachers can’t drive homeroom off a bridge hollow.
How you like them apples, counselor?
Cyberpaw, you would not be the first or last lawyer to argue a case that you vehemently believe is wrong, so using prior litigation as a litmus test is purely anecdotal.
December 31, 2008 at 9:41 am
And another thing: teacher pay raises, benefits, etc…are won in the court of public opinion, and taking this issue on in the manner in which the union has chosen makes it that much harder to win concessions in January and February.
That’s why I bring up the general public – I think the teachers unions are neither choosing their battles wisely and are waging them in a short-sighted manner.
December 31, 2008 at 9:44 am
This is a good discussion, I’m actually enjoying this one.
One note though – The reason that Bus Drivers are subject to random drug and alcohol testing is NOT due to KCSB policy. Federal law mandates that to operate a Commercial Vehicle in the U.S., that the driver must have a valid CDL (Commercial Drivers License). A school bus is a commercial vehicle.
Said vehicle now falls under D.O.T. rules, and D.O.T. says that anyone who holds a CDL is subject to random testing, and the employer must have random drug and alcohol testing program in place.
Not trying to change the subject, just making sure that KCSB wasn’t getting credit (or blame, depending on perspective) for something that they really had no control of.
Secondly, if this does pass through the courts, I’m inclined to agree with Jeanette Exner. The random testing should apply to ALL KCSB employees, every damn last one of them, INCLUDING the Pete Thaw.
I mean, “if they have nothing to hide”……. right?
December 31, 2008 at 9:50 am
“Unless you are a school bus driver.”
Do you even bother to read the posts of those you respond to, or are you intentionally disingenuous?
From my post: “OR that there is a compelling reason, one that passes the absolutely highest level of judicial scrutiny, to encroach on their privacy.” The courts have found that there’s a big difference between the danger posed by a stoned bus driver and that of a dizzy teacher at a blackboard. If you can’t see that, you’re actively avoiding seeing it.
“How you like them apples, counselor?”
They are as worm-eaten as they ever were. Why on Earth would I have to argue that a rule holds in EVERY case to assert that it holds in ANY case?
The courts have held, and I agree, that the privacy right must, under some circumstances (namely, obvious imminent danger or individualized suspicion) step aside for the public good. No one but a child or a religious fundie argues that a rule must be universally, eternally applied.
Now if you want to overturn 300 years of Common Law jurisprudence and eat the Bill of Rights for dessert, fine. Go sit with the rest of the neocons and Cheney worshippers over at “Little Green Footballs,” or “Town Hall.” But don’t pretend that the law says you can intrude on anyone’s privacy whenever you think it might be a good idea. That’s not what the text says.
As for your last paragraph, your prejudices regarding lawyers don’t interest me any more than your prejudices against teachers. I don’t take cases that I believe are socially destructive or unfair. Most lawyers I know don’t either. We have our share of whores, like any other profession, but despite what stereotypes you may cherish, many of us believe in what we do.
December 31, 2008 at 9:58 am
To Offroute:
Twigg v Hercules DOES apply to public employees. That’s not ro say that public agencies always follow the law in practice. I know of instances where the state Dept of Transportation violated that ruling.
December 31, 2008 at 10:03 am
on the subject of constitutional rights , starting tomorrow in harrison co no more smoking of any kind in our taverns and corner gambling joints.
December 31, 2008 at 10:09 am
BUT…if the discussion is about political tactics, then I’ll agree with you, in a qualified way. The teacher’s union’s tactics at the Legislature often baffle me. And I’ve been under the dome for many a session.
But I don’t agree that involuntary search of a person’s bodily fluids is an issue that they should blithely sacrifice for other gains. What else could the powers insist on that was LESS intrusive? Credit reports? (we don’t want our kids taught by deadbeats, do we?) Video rentals and Internet logs? (they might be kiddie pervs, you know!) Records of therapy sessions? (they might be crazed killers, hidden deep inside!)
If you allow the urine testing, you are probably allowing everything that a court would find LESS damaging to individual privacy. And it doesn’t get much more damaging than a demand to “whip it out.”
December 31, 2008 at 10:11 am
@Gordon
Twigg applies to Public Employees? Really? I’ll have to look into that. Thanks Gordon! As informative as ever.
December 31, 2008 at 10:20 am
“And if you’re looking for what I’m “supporting no matter what,” its the right of individuals to be left alone, unless there is real evidence to support the assertion that they are committing, or have committed a crime.
You’ll find me on that side every…damn…time.”
Does not include any caveats, Cyberpaw.
Just as you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. And once the courts decide that a certain civil right can be infringed upon in SOME circumstances it opens to interpretation just which circumstances those are.
My biggest problem with this thread has been, as I’ve said many times, the police state rhetoric which you defended by reciting your oath as an officer of the court.
Now, it seems to me that for someone to hold so dear the concepts of “Western Jurisprudence” only to add some fine print at the bottom like a fast talking car commercial announcer blazing through the M.S.R.P. bullshit is what’s hollow.
I guess I’m finding it hard to understand how you can throw “300 years of Common Law jurisprudence” under the bus once the kids get off it. And if it’s not thrown under the bus, we are suddenly living in a police state.
Seems like a pretty big leap of righteous indignation from the bus door to the school door.
December 31, 2008 at 10:38 am
You’re intentionally missing the point. And your selective quoting doesn’t help your legitimacy. Finally, I’m tired of your thoughtless, artless ridicule of anything that doesn’t fit your cynical worldview.
In short, you weary me. So this is it. One. More. Time.
This isn’t just a “matter of opinion,” and it’s not “fine print at the bottom.” Its the whole rationalist history of Common Law that you’re intentionally misinterpreting.
Listen closely.
THERE IS AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DANGER POSED BY A STONED SCHOOL BUS DRIVER, DRIVING A 14 TON BUS FULL OF KIDS, AND THAT POSED BY AN IMPAIRED TEACHER WHO IS DRIVING A DESK. THE COURT RECOGNIZED THIS, AND RULED ACCORDINGLY.
What is so difficult about that? And that principle is, that rights and risks must be balanced by the court, setting the highest possible hurdle for those arguments which impose on individual liberty.
Now, if that’s still unclear to you, go get a course in Constitutional Law. Or if you’ve had one, pay attention this time. I’m not your free tutor.
December 31, 2008 at 10:54 am
For those of actually interested in learning something about the subject, and at the hazard of igniting a lawyer discussion that will bore every non-lawyer here, restrictions on individual rights that touch the most basic human rights are subject to a standard called “strict scrutiny.”
Strict Scrutiny requires:
1) Narrow tailoring to avoid imposing excessively on people’s rights, and;
2) Least restrictive, using as little prohibition as possible, and;
3) A compelling state interest, the burden is on the state to prove it.
The whiz quiz fails the narrow tailoring test (it applies to ALL teachers, a very large class, regardless of any reasonable suspicion or lack of it.)
It also fails the compelling state interest test, according to the judge. (the analysis here is too complex to make you sit through.)
It is certainly not the least restrictive alternative available, that would be to concentrate on those teachers who had shown some sign of impairment.
Hope this helps.
December 31, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’m not intentionally misinterpreting anything. I’m saying that all of the high-flying rhetoric about police states and totalitarianism is overblown, and that if teachers were required to submit to a random drug test it would not be the end of the world just as it wasn’t the end of the world or a police state or totalitarianism when they decided to have bus drivers piss in a cup.
Got that!?!?
But mostly I believe that this is more about people with college degrees thinking they are held by separate and more liberal rules.
And I DO have a problem with the teachers unions because they are bad unions and bad unions make it harder on good unions and workers who are trying to organize.
December 31, 2008 at 11:09 am
Ack, folks! There’s a lot of allcaps and bold-faced type in the comments on an issue that, as best as I can tell, is pretty unsettled. SCOTUS says testing of some school personnel is okay if there’s a “special need” (great phrase, I know, but it’s the court’s). The circuits are split (and the Fifth is actually split internally between panels) on whether a school board can perform tests without suspicion. That’s where the courts stand.
If I had to pick a winner here, though, here in the Fourth, I’d put money on the b of e.
December 31, 2008 at 11:13 am
Not being a lawyer myself, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the discussion here, minus the personal attacks and insults.
December 31, 2008 at 11:18 am
Agreed, Montani.
I really should stop giggling about the board only testing “special needs” teachers.
December 31, 2008 at 11:28 am
Yeah, I “got that.” And you’re still wrong.
“But mostly I believe that this is more about people with college degrees thinking they are held by separate and more liberal rules.”
Ah. I’m sorry. I mistook you for someone who was trying, albeit weakly, to get at an argument.
Now I see you clearly. You’re just an envious little cynic, lamenting your own life path, sneering at the better educated. As has been said, envy is the most demeaning of vices.
/END CASTING PEARLS
December 31, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Just got an email form AFT-WV:
As a result of a lawsuit brought by AFT-WV, Chief U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin issued a temporary injunction against the Kanawha County Board of Education on Monday, December 29th. The injunction prohibits the county from implementing a new drug testing policy on the ground that the it would force teachers to submit to an unconstitutional and unjustified search. The policy, approved by the Board in October, was to have been implemented on January 1, 2009.
Judge Joseph R. Goodwin said lawyers for the Kanawha school board did not provide any evidence to show the county school system has a pervasive drug problem or give a strong reason why he should override school employees’ civil liberties.
He said that “suspicionless, random drug testing in this case violates the Fourth Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution, which protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Employees who are randomly subjected to urine tests face “invasive, degrading, humiliating” searches that should only be required if there is a compelling reason, Goodwin said.
AFT-WV President Judy Hale called the ruling a victory for students, educators and the taxpayers of Kanawha County. “The Judge’s ruling affirms the constitutional rights of education employees and will prevent the Board from implementing a degrading and demeaning policy that not only was unconstitutional, but not in the public’s interest.”
The temporary injunction blocks the program from taking effect on January 1, 2009 but the case will continue in federal court. AFT-WV will continue to its efforts to ensure that our students to have a safe learning environment and that our teachers constitutional rights are protected
December 31, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Cyberpaw: Jay is someone who suffers from chronic depression and is on disability. Maybe that will explain things.
December 31, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Um, wow, Anon 12:03. Out of bounds.
At any rate, if “chronic depression” is all Jay’s dealing with, he’s way ahead of most of the rest of us in terms of mental health.
December 31, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Actually, I’ve been on a pretty even keel lately. I had a great dog show up at my doorstep a few months ago and decided to keep him. I cannot overstate the therapeutic effect of a wagging tail.
Cyberpaw, the only people I’ve ever been envious of are the ones who’ve always known what they wanted to do in life and were able to do it, raise a family, and function in a calm and respectful manner, be they Barack Obama or the red-hat miner down the street.
My only prejudices are cops and trust-funders. Hate ‘em until they prove I shouldn’t feel otherwise, with cops having by far the greatest hurdle. I’m sure they lay awake at night worrying about it, but there it is.
The statement about people with college degrees was about the police state rhetoric, not the testing itself. Maybe I’m wrong, but to me it helps explain the ridiculous leap from it’s OK to test bus drivers, but testing teachers constitutes totalitarianism, as your new-found hero Joe Bob seems to think.
December 31, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Jay, if you still do not understand the distinction between testing bus drivers and teachers, it’s your fault. It has been explained to you lucidly, carefully, and repeatedly. But you refuse to understand.
Once again, you sound like a guy in traffic court who’s telling the judge that he shouldn’t have been given a speeding ticket because he was just moving with the flow of traffic. Then the judge laughs at him, and he doesn’t understand why.
December 31, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Actually, HK, in Washington that’s a perfectly valid defense to charges in traffic court, thanks to Mayor Barry.
Another point: I think what Jay’s trying to say — and I could be wrong here — is that randomly drug testing teachers is less disconcerting than living in a country in which the sitting president made jokes — jokes! — about not finding weapons of mass destruction in a situation that led to a war that killed thousands upon thousands of people.
I’ll wager that there will be folks 50 years from now who ask many of the same questions, though obviously on a lesser scale, of early-21st century Americans that we ask of early-20th century Germans now. That’s the real issue, not whether Jim Bob pisses positive for pot.
(And, of course, constitutional issues aside, I think it’s an absurd waste of money to chase some pot smokers or pill poppers.)
December 31, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I don’t think, Lawbot, that that was what Jay is trying to say. In fact, in the beginning of this discussion when Jay insists on knowing “how the parents of Pratt Elementary students were supposed to explain to their kids about their principal being on TV admitting that he had cocaine on him.” I pointed out that it was a far lesser thing to have to explain to children than why their president led a country to war based on lies. Jay doesn’t connect those dots. Not if he’s worried about how to explain to a kid that their principal used drugs illegally and is still in his job because he obviously has some good connections. That’s how to explain it. And it leads to a good discussion on how that child needs to educate themselves about what goes on in this world so they can fight against the corruption. And against those who would take their civil liberties away from them, and keep their piss to themselves. But with further discussion he seems less interested in protecting the innocent ears of children than in bashing the teachers and the unions. Failure to really see the argument as it has been explained over and over, just means that he is not approaching it with an open mind because it pushes his buttons- whatever they may be.
December 31, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Parry Petropolus just resigned from the BOG. Someone here (or at MIR) mentioned one would step down before the first of the year. I guess he’s a procrastiator.
December 31, 2008 at 5:09 pm
That would be procrasitNator.
December 31, 2008 at 5:17 pm
RANDOM DRUG TESTING A TEACHER DOES NOT MAKE OUR SOCIETY A TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE AND IT SHOULDN’T EVEN PROMPT THAT LINE OF THINKING.
I think I’ve explained that enough times now.
Yes, there is a distinction, but it is a minor one. If we use the “reasonable person” standard, it is just quite possible that a teacher is responsible enough for a child’s welfare that random drug testing is acceptable in the public’s and court’s eyes whether you agree with it or not. (And if they do, move to fucking Peshawar and let us know how bad we look from there.)
Even if that’s not the case, it is close enough that the overblown rhetoric here, including Joe Bob’s, is open for criticism.
I just don’t see where this needs clarification or a condescending “…if you still do not understand the distinction between testing bus drivers and teachers, it’s your fault. It has been explained to you lucidly, carefully, and repeatedly. But you refuse to understand”.
One of the main reasons there are such grand hysterics on this is that it affects YOU. We would not be having this debate if the school board started testing custodians only.
December 31, 2008 at 5:18 pm
No, I think you want ‘procrastinator’, unless I’m missing some kind of pun.
December 31, 2008 at 5:20 pm
That’s good news re: Mr. Petroplus. Now if a Goodwin and Clark would leave, it would be even better.
December 31, 2008 at 5:25 pm
You’re the one who’s hysterical Jay. And what you say isn’t true. People are concerned with the fact that it’s unconstitutional. And if they were drug testing custodians or students, it would still be unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy. We’re concerned about the fact that our Constitution has been trashed these last 8 years. And this is just another attempt at a removal of yet another civil liberty.
December 31, 2008 at 5:25 pm
(And, of course, constitutional issues aside, I think it’s an absurd waste of money to chase some pot smokers or pill poppers.)
All of this started because, as I’ve said, an elementary school principle got busted in cracktown with cocaine on him, a teacher got busted with a fair amount of cocaine packaged for distribution, a teacher has a meth lab blow up in basement, and there may be more, but, Jesus, whether you agree with random testing teachers or not, you kind of have to understand the school board at least trying to look as if they are addressing some very high profile problems.
December 31, 2008 at 5:28 pm
And if they were drug testing custodians or students…
They test Cabell County students. Where was the outrage? Where were the jackbooted thug charges?
I don’t remember any cries of totalitarianism here when they started that policy.
December 31, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I just logged on to say Happy New Year to all of you. Let’s hope 2009 is not as bad as everyone says it’s going to be.
BUT I have to throw in my 2 cents on a couple things (or I wouldn’t be WVN2). Jay, last night I said you weren’t the biggest asshole but your comment about college degrees gives me pause. You can no more stereotype college grads than you can cops or plumbers.
The arrest of teachers and principals give us teaching moments for our children. See here’s what can happen. I have a school teacher friend (in another state) who was busted for growing pot for personal use. He lost his job and they also arrested his college-student daughter who admitted smoking it too. A heartbreaking lesson for his students and those who care about him. I wish it weren’t a firable offense but I can see the position the board was in.
We should keep fighting against invasions of our privacy or the erosion of our constitutional rights knowing that sometimes we have to give in a little (i.e. school bus drivers, shouting fire in a crowded theater). BUT we must question it every single time it is proposed and we must force the government to defend it.
So now it’s time to drink the “good stuff” and say good-bye to 2008. Cheers!!
December 31, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Jay keeps referring to Cabell County, and when I found this. I had not see this before. This seems to support all the constitutional arguments even more, Jay. Are any parents fighting this? It looks pretty screwy to me.
http://boe.cabe.k12.wv.us/documents/StudentDrugTestingOneSheet.pdf
I enjoy learning about the law – thanks for the comments. And Cheers to all.
December 31, 2008 at 8:24 pm
OK, well shit.
Lets drug test everyone, every day.
Someone show me where to piss, please.
December 31, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Shut the fuck up Donnie.
You’re out of your element.
December 31, 2008 at 8:35 pm
http://wvgazette.com/News/200812310323
December 31, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The Ayatollah Adhominemani sez STFU!
January 1, 2009 at 1:26 am
A prosperous, adventurous, and ultimately successful and safe 2009 to one and all.
Hope to see you all here again, same time next year.
I’ll be off the blog for about a month due to a medical issue. I’ll be back in late January, God willing.
Happy New Year.
C
January 1, 2009 at 2:02 am
In Cyberpaw we trust.
Here’s to 2009: THE YEAR OF THE CYBERPAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(raises glass)
January 1, 2009 at 4:47 am
I am bothered by all the constant teacher bashing, probably because at one time, I was pretty good at it myself. Without first hand knowledge of the actual work that teachers perform, I criticized the long summer vacation and other holiday breaks. Their work days appeared short to me. I envied their “free time.”
Then, several years ago, I took a job in the school system as a non-teaching professional. Since that time, I have had the opportunity to observe the work of teachers up-close.
Teachers are the only professionals who have absolutely no control of their time. When doctors, lawyers, accountants or dentists want to meet a friend for lunch or play a round of golf, they just have their secretaries rearrange their schedules. Teachers never have that luxury. Although they are supposed to have a thirty minute duty free lunch period, by the time they walk their charges to the cafeteria, get their own lunch, and retrieve their students, their lunch break is more like 20 minutes. Oh, and during that time, they also better go to the rest room, because it is likely the only chance they will have all day to do so.
How many other professionals clean their own offices? Teachers do. After a long day’s work, teachers dust, disinfect, pick up trash and place chairs on desks to prepare for the custodian who may sweep the floor and empty the trash.
Yes, you may see their cars in the driveway of their homes at 4:00 p.m., but what you don’t see are the hours spent grading papers, taking graduate classes, writing grants for funding of projects to enhance their students’ education, calling parents about behavior problems ot other concerns, raising money, and chaperoning field trips on their own time.
You don’t hear the threats and verbal abuse from parents that the teacher must endure when she confronts a parent with his child’s misbehavior. In the public’s eyes, the teacher is always at fault–not the child who “never behaves like that at home!”
Then, there is the act of teaching itself. Although most teachers know what works for them, they are told what methods to employ, observed to make sure they are doing it properly by central office administrative types who haven’t been in the classroom for years, and are forced to spend more time documenting what they have done than they actually spent doing it. While they are attempting to do all this, they have to meet the needs of the autistic child who is twirling around the room, the three ADHD kids who are interrupting every sentence she is trying to complete, the suicidal third grader who was just returned from an out-of-state treatment facililty, and a school phobic girl who is crying to go home.
While I have gone on much too long, I haven’t covered a fifth of what a teacher does on a daily basis. I challenge any of you to substitute teach for just one day. Bet you doctors, lawyers, and politicians out there couldn’t hack it for a day! I know I couldn’t.
January 1, 2009 at 7:52 am
Good luck, Cyberpaw.
January 1, 2009 at 8:23 am
Steph, the Cabell Cty school policy involves drug testing for students who wish to exercise a special ‘privilege’ — driving on school property, participating in sports, stuff like that. It’s not a blanket policy applicable to everyone, as i understand it. I’m pretty sure this is the key difference with the Kanawha BOE policy, which appears to be across the board.
The Cabell Cty policy is still wacko, i say. i’d have been kicked out of Cabell Cty schools within a week. But, hey, back then the drinking age was 18.
January 1, 2009 at 8:46 am
I hope that’s not directed at me, No Longer, because you won’t find any examples of teacher bashing from me. You will, however, find plenty of disgust with the teachers unions and some teachers who relentlessly wage a shrill, shameless, and dishonest campaign for pay raises.
And I think this:
is a fine example of dishonesty. No teacher has to tolerate the scenario you’ve painted – with coal dust and crocodile tears – in that paragraph. I would also point out that your statement of:
is incredibly stilted, as well.
I have no idea of the percentage of teachers who quietly go about practicing the honorable profession of teaching vs. the whiny mob who continuously issues empty threats of leaving the state if they don’t get their way, but in the public’s perception, the latter far outnumber the former, and that’s very unfortunate.
Now add to that diminishment in respect for WV teachers – unfair as it is – the arrogant way the teachers unions have handled the drug testing issue. When I saw Freddie Albert on TV acting as if the notion of drug testing teachers was the most ridiculous, insulting idea he’s ever heard, I immediately thought that I seriously doubt the vast majority of Kanawha County parents agree and just might be offended that this rep from the teachers union just called them ridiculous and insulting. HK is wrong when he says “most parents don’t give a fuck who teaches their kids”.
It looks like every drug testing program in the nation, regardless of safety sensitive status, will have to prove a “pervasive” drug problem if they want to continue to test for drug use.
Either that or Joe Bob is the one who’s about to get bitch slapped into last month.
January 1, 2009 at 8:57 am
Best of luck Cyberpaw!
NLC: I clean my own office and rarely take lunch. The thought of “having control over my time” is quite funny. Let’s not stereotype, okay?
Today, however, I won’t be going into the office. Instead, I’m going to wrangle some friends for brunch and bloodies at Bluegrass. Happy new year to all!
January 1, 2009 at 9:13 am
offroute:
I agree – it’s wacko, too.
Special priveleges? It’s just another caste system. I did not know that such a policy has already been upheld by the US Supreme Court. So a kid who needs to drive because the family is poor and he/she has to go to work, or is participating in other forms of training and education after hours – and might experiment with marijuana – second class citizen? Rich kid with car buys parking permit and stays clean, but is a total bully and jerk in society – Too many subjective and judgmental things going on.
January 1, 2009 at 9:28 am
Uh, another thing. If it wasn’t for the teacher’s unions bitching about pay rasies, where do you think their pay would be? You think the wv legislature would pay them anything close to what they make now? Hell, they’d be the lowest paid teachers in the whole country BY FAR. Look at how awful state employees are paid. I mean, a three+ year freeze on merit raises? If you can’t get a raise for doing a good job, why the fuck would you do a good job? If the teachers didn’t have a union (with enough juice to seriously threaten a strike, or enough members to scare the clowns when it comes re-election time), you think the legislature would even THINK about dealing with them? Hell no.
You can say what you want about them being whiny (which, sounds an awful lot like YOU are whining), but they learned how the game was played in 1990 (or whenever that walkout occurred under Caperton). They have decided from that point on, if they are gonna be subjected to the whims of the jackasses (many of whom, themselves, are barely educated) in the legislature, they are at least gonna play the game and pay for a seat at the table. No different than countless other industries and groups who pay lobbyists to look out for their interests at the capitol.
January 1, 2009 at 9:37 am
Oh, and drug testing….
Schools can drug test students at random if doing extra-curricular activities. Schools have been held to be holding “in loco parentis,” ie., in place of the parents, if my latin is not completely all gone. They have a duty to protect the students. So, you kind of have to make sure little Sally isn’t stoned when she climbs to the top of the cheerleading pyramid, or little Johnny grabs an aluminum stick and starts waving it at a litle white ball. Also, students do NOT have a full complement of privacy rights in school, by nature of the school’s stauts in loco parentis. Just the same as a kid at home doesn’t have a full complement of rights when dealing with his parents.
Lastly, if you want to randomly drug test teachers because they spend 8 hours a day, for 180 days a year with students, then you MUST, by any definition of logic, be willing to shell out way more public $$ to randomly drug test EVERY parent in the state, every person who owns a gun, or even drives a car. If you aren’t willing to commit to that, then you need to clam up and get over your hard-on for teachers and their ability to ogranize and stand up for themselves and not get constantly shit on by the legislature.
January 1, 2009 at 9:39 am
Excuse the spelling errors. It’s early, I was up late, and I think I’m still a little drunk.
January 1, 2009 at 9:48 am
Off topic, what can be said about Parry Petropolus and his time on the BOG? Anyone have a feel for what this guy was like?
January 1, 2009 at 11:13 am
See, that’s what I mean by dishonest: any teacher pay comparison to other states has to include the both the teacher pay AND median household income. And we know that “household income” often includes two wage earners.
If we make that comparison as we should, we see that WV teacher pay for 2007 was 45th in the nation while the median household income for WV was 50th (Wikipedia entry for “median income by state”. 2 links gets the spam treatment).
We also see that teacher pay disparity between the highest ranked of our 6 border states, MD, and WV is about $16,000, but the median household income disparity between MD and WV is $31,000.
Like it or not those stats are very relevant and must be included in the discussion. But they never are because the teachers unions and the teachers who support it’s tactics and goals are dishonest and a lot of people are fucking fed up with it.
Remember, the leaders of both unions had to admit in 2006 that they got the best deal they could get – a 2.4% increase – because the public was not supporting their efforts.
And that, bing, is a non-whiny, fact filled analysis of the situation.
January 1, 2009 at 12:23 pm
And what was their pay rank in 1990? When they really got organized?
Hmmmmmmm?
Also, the “average” is skewed upward, because there are a ZILLION teachers in WV, who are approaching retirement age. You’ll see in the next few years (it’s actually already started) with massive retirements.
Next. Keep ‘em coming, punk.
January 1, 2009 at 1:29 pm
By 1990, WV had just gone through one of the worst economic upheavals in our history. Thousands of jobs were lost in the 1980s and dozens of legislators and one governor went to prison. The state wasn’t paying its bills. You have to remember the context of 1990–teachers weren’t the only ones fed up. Organizing made sense. But that’s history. What I hear is Jay is sick of teachers asking for more when he thinks they’re relatively well-compensated compared to other income categories in the state. It’s an interesting question but don’t expect teachers or anyone else for that matter say they don’t deserve more money. Even college football coaches aren’t happy with a millon dollars a year and don’t they just “work” half the year?
January 1, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Mmm … I’m against the drug testing thing, but can’t argue with the fact that they’re paid just fine for West Virginia. At least those not living in the eastern panhandle.
January 1, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Twig v Hercules? Isn’t that one of Sarah Palin’s children?
January 1, 2009 at 2:53 pm
No, silly, they’re Bristol’s babies.
January 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm
But…But…But..we weren’t making good money in 1990.
That’s all you have and you’ve got the balls to break out “Next”?!?!
I left out that the AFT page I linked to had new teachers pay in WV at 36th in the country at about $30,000.
That means that a 22-23 year old teacher can marry another 22-23 year old teacher and SHAZAM!! they’re just $8k short of the highest median household income in the country, MD, but living in the state with the lowest median household income. AND have summers off!! WTF are you bitching about?!?1?
That is not insignificant, bing, and you need to be grateful for what you have now and the job security and good benefits you will STILL have when the coming economic shit storm hits the coal industry.
January 1, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I’m not the one bitching.
I think everything they’ve done to this point, is fine. They are playing the game.
However, you seem to equate their salary with the drug testing issue. Which, are two, entirely different issues. Would you be here bitching if the ACLU and Joe Teacher brought the suit and Joe Bob bitch slapped the BOE? Probably. But the fact remains, whether the ACLU, AFT, or the WVEA brought suit, it only takes one teacher and a lawyer (and there are plenty who would take the case), to get the drug testing policy to this point. And I guarantee you, one would have done it.
You just have a hard on for the teachers and what they’ve been able to accomplish. Methinks you were probably a bad student, and have just had it out for them ever since. I see a lot of that in WV.
If the UAW, and the coal industry, and every other interest group can go down to charleston, pay $$ schmooze legislators and the governor, and get what they want (usually at some cost to the public), why can’t teachers?
Oh, and my job is recession proof. Bigtime.
January 1, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I connected the drug testing issue with the pay issue only in that I’m sure most Kan. Co. parents are in favor of drug testing teachers, but were not really behind teachers’ efforts to get a pay raise in ‘06, and the arrogant manner in which the teachers unions have handled the drug testing issue will only further hurt teachers’ efforts in the future.
I know you’re happy with everything the teachers’ unions have done thus far, but it seems that you and some other teachers, including the unions, cannot understand that it is not just the legislature that teachers as a group answer to. That’s why the leadership admitted publicly that they had to settle for the paltry (in your eyes only) amount of 2.4%.
Now, I’ll say this for the 10,000th time: I don’t give a rats ass if teachers are tested or not, but I do have a problem with rhetoric that goes from ‘It’s OK to test bus drivers’ to ‘OMFG!!! TESTING TEACHERS IS A TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE!!!!’.
Whether or not Joe Bob’s ruling is overturned, the appellate court will at minimum have to throw out his “prevalence” rational, and they need to throw the “totalitarian” crap with it.
When you, HK, and Cyberpaw run out of logic, you 3 resort to ad hominem attacks which means you automatically lose. I provided facts, statistics, and links, but you can only respond by questioning my abilities as a student.
Hope nobody that you work with knows who you are and reading what you’ve got going on here, because you’re being embarrassed by someone with only a high school education. And a piss poor one at that.
January 1, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Jay, this is getting circular. I am worried that you are having a meltdown.
January 1, 2009 at 7:56 pm
You think I’m a teacher?
LMAO. I don’t have the patience to be a teacher.
January 1, 2009 at 7:59 pm
and 30K is a piss-poor wage for for anyone with a college degree in today’s economy
January 1, 2009 at 8:05 pm
And again, where does it say, that teacher pay has to be tied to median income, or any other statistic you have provided? That is an assumption YOU are operating under. I don’t see that written down anywhere as law. If they are number 5 in the country, I’d expect them to argue to be number 4, 3, 2 or 1. As it is, they are firmly ensconced in the lower half of the stats you provide. I have no problem (and neither should you) with them wanting more. You call it arrogance, I call it effective lobbying.
We could talk about any number of jobs in wv (coal, for one – a job that a- takes basically no education, b-destroys the environment, and c-ships the vast majority of the wealth from the industry to out of state interests) that pay more than the median income, yet they are always clamoring for more. Where’s your outrage at them?
And I never said it was a totalitarian state. I said it was unconstitutional, and educated people (not mouthbreathers like Pete Thaw (a former race track judge? give me a fucking break, this clown is now in charge of the largest school system in wv)) told the board so before, and when they passed it. Joe Bob told them AGAIN, and STILL the mouthbreathers are demanding to throw good $$ after bad. I think, if the board loses, the board members THEMSELVES, PERSONALLY should reimburse the board for the legal costs.
Like I said, next.
January 1, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“you’re being embarrassed by someone with only a high school education. And a piss poor one at that.”
Must be the fault of those drugged teachers you had.
January 1, 2009 at 9:47 pm
1) Agree with it or not, I think my argument is lucid, well thought out, and reasonably researched, but thanks for the concern.
2) $30, 000 a year is pretty close to what an entry-level nurse makes and they don’t get three months a year off.
3) When teachers are maimed and killed at the rate coal miners are, I’ll be the first in line to support big pay raises for teachers.
4) Comparing teacher salary to median household income is how we determine the net effect of teachers’ pay in standard of living, and that’s the goal of a pay raise isn’t it – increasing their standard of living? $30k in NYC or Los Angeles is crap, but not in WV. Well, at least the non-Jefferson/Berkeley part. That’s why median household income is relevant.
5) Not to defend Pete Thaw (every time I see him I think Jabba The Nut), but he’s been a longtime politico and was part of Rockefeller’s campaign staff in at least one election. He’s a complete asshole, but he didn’t come from nowhere.
6) Joe Bob is not the final stop in this and it cannot be seriously denied that his “prevalent drug problem” metric will trashed by the appellate court.
7) My education was crap because few people cared. In these here parts, it’s often said that if there was a 24 hour news cycle back then and the media got wind of what was going on, there would be a forest of live-feed vans in the parking lot. Otherwise, it wasn’t so much about teachers getting high as it was about the drunk and/or incompetent teachers who were given nothing but study halls all day and a system that would allow that sort of thing.
January 1, 2009 at 10:01 pm
And another thing: it would be nice to hear teachers using their great and powerful lobby to work for better classroom conditions and actual student issues instead of “Trickle Down Education” in which classroom quality is directly tied to teacher pay.
January 1, 2009 at 10:10 pm
“pervasive drug problem” is what I should’ve written there.
Words starting with ‘P’ have been an issue for me today because ‘Prick’ keeps coming to the fore.
January 2, 2009 at 12:04 am
Jay,
It’s hilarious that you criticize teachers for trying to get a raise when all you do is sit on your ass, pop pills and collect a disability check. But like they say, it’s nice work if you can get it.
January 2, 2009 at 8:54 am
Apparently some bloggers should be drug tested…
January 2, 2009 at 9:15 am
You cannot support an entire family on 30K. 30K is crap in WV too, Jay. Oh but I forgot, the days of one person supporting a family ended sometime in the late 60’s so that’s life I guess.
And until someone has either been a teacher or knows a teacher well, they know how much harder they work than the bullshit argument that they get summer’s off and home by 4. Teachers get the shit end of the deal in pay, by the students, by the parents, and by the likes of the Pete Thaw’s.
January 2, 2009 at 10:27 am
If you are a new teacher with an entire family to support your standard of living automatically went up when you went to work for the school system or as a nurse.
$30,000 straight out of college is TEH AWESOME!! by any metric. If your opinion is otherwise, you should’ve picked another profession – nothing changed between the time you picked a major and the time you went to work.
And that includes the various shit ends you’ve listed. Teachers knew what it was when they got into it (remember the student teaching phase?) but did it anyway.
Quit pinning classroom quality on teacher salary – Trickle Down Education – and be grateful for what you have because it’s pretty damn good, comparatively speaking.
January 2, 2009 at 10:30 am
Not to be taunting you, Jay, but it seems to me that you’re getting beat up on this issue.
I’m guessing most people are offended by the philosophical premise of a drug test, that being that the person being tested has to prove himself innocent.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was subjected to these tests.
While randomness was a condition of the testing, I began to question that “randomness” when the relationship between me and my supervisor deteriorated into a poisonous, mean-spirited, finger-pointing affair.
Three tests in one week followed and that very “randomness” was duplicated many other times with my fellow employees as the workplace degenerated into labor/management war.
I can proudly say that I refused a half-assed invitation of a retirement party when I walked out the door for the last time.
My point, I guess, is that testing can be abused as well as be morally, ethically, and legally reprehensible.
Ultimately though, concern for abuse of the process, while legitimate, should still take a backseat to the overall intrusive philosophy of drug testing.
Good debate, though.
January 2, 2009 at 10:34 am
The debate would mean more if it was about abuse of constitutional rights. Even overpaid deficient teachers have constitutional rights, right? Their salary or job conditions have nothing to do with it.
January 2, 2009 at 10:43 am
Well the topic has veered in that direction and back again. It is a constitutional issue. And the fact remains: There is no substantial evidence of massive teacher drug use that warrants a drug test in the first place.
I’m convinced the whole thing is a rouse and designed to bust the unions and ultimately privatize the school system. Without the teachers unions’ strength, wages would be lowered and lowered until they could no longer compete with “private” schools. Drug testing is just a way to make public schools begin to “act like” private institutions.
January 2, 2009 at 10:52 am
I seem to be getting beat up because no one will address the issue of drug testing from a position opposite of mine. They have to re-form what I’ve said in order attack it.
“My point, I guess, is that testing can be abused as well as be morally, ethically, and legally reprehensible.”
Absolutely 100% correct. I’ve even seen samples switched to get rid of someone management didn’t like and keep someone who was hot, but weel liked. Totally fucked up.
And here’s where where things go astray in regard to my argument on this thread: If it is “morally, ethically, and legally reprehensible” to random drug test teachers, it is also thus for bus drivers, and even if it regrettable but necessary to test bus drivers, then the leap to testing teachers is not any more “morally, ethically, and legally reprehensible”.
See how easy that is?
January 2, 2009 at 10:56 am
I’m convinced the whole thing is a rouse and designed to bust the unions and ultimately privatize the school system.
That’s another way this thread has ignored the obvious: the school board has said time and time again that the move to test teachers was brought on by several high profile incidents.
Conspiracy theories do not help.
January 2, 2009 at 11:02 am
Several? A few teachers in a few different schools over an entire school year is not “several.” Several would be 5 teachers from the same school. Again, it’s fake outrage and I would suspect there’s an underlying motivation for the testing rather than “protecting the childrens.”
January 2, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Jesus, Crystal Dawn, that’s even dumber than basing one’s opinion of doctor’s and lawyer’s workdays from watching Caddyshack as someone did yesterday.
January 2, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Jay,
I’m opposed to testing, before the fact, for ANYBODY.
I didn’t make that clear from the start. Sorry.
School teachers just happened to be the subject du jour.
January 2, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Cool. You’re among the minority here in that regard it seems.
January 2, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“You cannot support an entire family on 30K. 30K is crap in WV too”
Up until last year, that was a pretty damn good living for me and my family. Perhaps someone is living beyond their means?
Once again, Bus drivers get tested because the Federal government says so. The school board had nothing to with that.
I understand perfectly what Jay has been saying all along, I’ve been subjected to ‘random” testing since the early 90’s in my industry. Where was the ACLU when we all cried foul? The Union’s damn sure didn’t stop it. As a matter of fact, they embraced it, and used it as a tool against non-union companies.
My opinion has always been that NOBODY should be tested “randomly”.
As a matter of fact, it’s been my experience that when an employer finds that you CAN pass a legitimate drug test, you’re their guy from then on.
I’m all for protecting our rights as citizens, and I don’t like .gov meddling in shit unless invited, but it’s really hard for me to have sympathy for a group when so many of us have been dealing with it for a long, long time.
So yes, as a parent, taxpayer, and voter of Kanawha county, I am just a tad bitter about all the fuss, especially when it was lost long ago.
I do however wish the teachers all the best in their efforts, and hope that it is soundly defeated in the higher courts, but I am not very optimistic about it.
January 2, 2009 at 2:26 pm
30K w/ degree is piss poor in today’s economy? Clearly someone hasn’t been job hunting here after graduation any time in the last 5 years. I’m pretty grateful for my 30K in WV. Of course, I could up and get the hell out like everyone else my age and instantly get a 15K raise.
January 2, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Jay, if you think Montani is in the minority here, you can’t count. Do we all have to comment as many times as you to make a simple point? If others resent that they were drug tested, they could also fight it. Going to court does not require a union, although it sure is lonely to do it on your own. You do what you have to do.
I’m not a member of any union, yet my current salaries result from union efforts and presence in the profession. Unions have their problems and their ambitious egos, so do political parties. What alternative do you suggest?
I completely agree with Judge Goodwin and hope his ruling is upheld.
January 2, 2009 at 4:35 pm
If others resent that they were drug tested, they could also fight it.
Who are they going to take the fight to? The SCOTUS has already ruled that “safety sensitive” positions can be randomly tested, and I doubt the current line-up would overturn that.
Googling around, I found this, which is pretty funny.
It doesn’t say whether or not the teachers were from the same school, but it seems that this case narrowly fits C.D.’s definition of “several”.
January 2, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Steph,
I was active in a labor union for 25+ years.
We constantly retrenched in the face of company assaults, court decisions, and loss-inspired apathy. We went along to get along.
Our attempts at accomodation were seen as weakness so more confrontations and more retrenchments followed.
In our last 2 agreements, we agreed to “revenue neutral” economic conditions, in other words, whatever raises or benefit increases we got were offset by give backs. This was a company and industry that was ridiculously profitable.
Amongst our “go-along-to-get along” accomodations was the drug testing policy.
Once we agreed, the company, ever in a public relations mode against us, promoted it as a victory against a drug and alcohol addled workforce.
Without going into a huge extrapolation of the loss of rights, I fear a constant erosion, a sand grain at a time if you will, of basic human and constitutional rights.
I hope I’m wrong.
January 2, 2009 at 5:57 pm
So, Jay must want want collective barganing rights for teachers (as in Hawaii) and state employees, where their contracts are negotiated.
Kind of odd, for someone who’s always whining about the “arrogant” teachers’ unions.
January 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Montani:
It sounds like the Hawaii teachers did exactly what you describe. Lessons learned – no give backs that compromise constitutional rights. I’ve also given back, and in the end it was to my huge detriment. No union and no contract makes it all even harder for some of us. There is simply a lot of medieval barbarism still alive. Give an inch, they think they are God. It cuts across every industry and discipline. Bush has got people thinking they have to give up everything to be safe.
I also hope you are wrong and that the tide can shift. The SCOTUS can also change its decisions, too, for those who are willing to persevere for years.
January 2, 2009 at 6:32 pm
This thread is getting monotonous. About the only thing I agree with Jay on is that he must have had a piss poor education because his reasoning is faulty and he keeps going around in circles. And nothing sinks in. Sorry to get personal. But everything’s been pointed out a million times, including the BIG difference between driving a school bus on drugs as opposed to writing on a blackboard while on drugs.
January 2, 2009 at 6:55 pm
It’s your opinion that being responsible for student safety goes from the potential to drive a bus off a bridge to none. I disagree. I’m entitled to my opinion and I’m pretty fuckin’ sure that I’m in the majority in my opinion on this issue.
You act as if there are no medical emergencies in schools. No 6th graders with diabetes that need to be kept an eye on a little more. No kids with allergies that cause anaphylactic shock which could result in death in just a few minutes.
No fire drills or bomb threats. No field trips or fist fights or psycho redneck moms and daughters at Riverside trying to fight students, teachers, principles, and deputies. No potential for assholes busting through the door spraying lead.
All of these things require good judgment and are very much a part of student safety.
January 2, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Actually, I’d say that the mom/daughter tag-team’s principles require them to fight the principal.
January 2, 2009 at 7:08 pm
And I’ll wait for bing to make this circular yet again by claiming that the majority opinion doesn’t matter, the Constitution protects the minority from the majority, blah – fuckin’ – blah, and I’ll have to explain yet again that public opinion is why teachers didn’t get as big a raise in ‘06 as they wanted.
January 2, 2009 at 7:23 pm
It’s not circular. Their pay raise issue wasn’t a constitutional one, dumbfuck. Big difference. The legislators, who are subject to the whims of the electorate (and unfortunately, in WV, many of those are about as bright as Jay) felt the pressure, and did what they did.
Federal Judges aren’t subject to the whims of the uneducated voters (ie, Jay). Thank god.
January 2, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Jay, what did you name that dog that showed up on your doorstep?
January 2, 2009 at 7:44 pm
If you think 30K/yr for a teacher who has to have a master’s degree in order to meet certification requirements in WV and is probably coming out of school with 5 figure college debt is a good salary, then let me share a couple of things with you:
1. My daughter’s HS Spanish teacher (master’s degree with 20 yrs experience) has to work at Kroger’s on weekends and during the summer to make enough money to live on with her teacher’s salary and a mortgage — and take care of her own child who is in college on a Promise scholarship which only covers tuition (not room & board and books). Another one of my daughter’s HS teachers runs his own disc jockey business on the side in order to pay his mortgage. Nice. That’s just what we want in our public school classrooms — teachers who are exhausted from working 2 jobs in order to make ends meet.
2. Loudoun County VA, which is right next door to Jefferson Co WV, comes in and recruits WVU’s MA graduates in education by the bucketload each year. Loudoun’s starting salary for them is $46,000/yr. WVU has not produced a single HS chemistry teacher who stayed in WV for at least 6 years.
3. Public school teachers have to pay a lot of money and spend a lot of energy on continuing education so that they stay certified. And that has to come out of their luxurious $30K/yr salaries.
January 2, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Natty Bumppo The Diggity Dog. Why do you ask?
No, federal judges aren’t subject to the whims of the uneducated electorate, but if you think the Roberts Court is going to find in favor of the teachers unions (why the fuck are there 2 of them) you’re kidding yourself.
A good union with smart leadership would be able to get better concessions. I would be very much for collective bargaining for teachers and state workers as long as the rank and file got to vote on the contracts.
January 2, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Well, if the Spanish teacher’s kid has the Promise Scholorship and mom is busting ass to make up the rest, where did the “5 figure debt” come from?
January 2, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Oh, I don’t know. I thought maybe I could change the subject.
January 2, 2009 at 8:43 pm
You think Roberts and company are going to take this case?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
It will be ruled in favor of the unions and if the KCBOE is DUMB enough to appeal it to the USSC, it will die there, denied cert. The USSC has about 10000000000 million more important cases to think about taking than this dog of a case.
January 2, 2009 at 8:54 pm
“The showdown over teacher drug testing arose from the highly publicized arrests of six state Education Department employees in unrelated drug cases over a six-month period.”
Six employers (doesn’t even say they were teachers) and there are 11,101 teachers according to
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/state_statistics/stateid/HI
I would say that is hardly grounds for random testing. A huge over reaction. Jay named 3 or 4 cases in WV and we have 19,962 teachers according to a similar source. Huge over reaction. More of the “mushroom cloud” fear (in this case it might be “funny mushrooms”).
Hooray for Judge Goodwin.
January 2, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I don’t know, there are a few boards of education trying to do this, and as Lawbot pointed out, the various circuits would issue different rulings, and it seems to me that it’s exactly the kind of thing the Roberts Court would take.
And you don’t have to have a masters degree to get a teaching certificate in WV.
January 2, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Hawaii has only one school district. WV has 55 and only one of them is trying for random drug testing. How many teachers are there in Kan. Co.? 200-250-300?
So 3 or 4 incidents (Thaw said 8, I believe, but I only remember the 3 I’ve mentioned. Of course he’s probably adding things like the art teacher who was sketching up bank heists, but I don’t think that was drug related) out of 200-250-300 is FAR worse than 6 out of 11,000.
Look at him doin’ math!!
Maybe Crystal Dawn can quantify “pervasive” for us.
January 2, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I tried the link thing, but it got zapped into your spam folder, I bet.
Anyway. 300 teachers? Dumbass.
http://schools.nationalrelocation.com/district/5400600/
January 3, 2009 at 6:58 am
So what, Jay – let them deal with thos individuals for what they actually did. Leave the rest of them alone.
January 3, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Not every WV college student has a Promise scholarship — and, again, Promise only covers tuition, at least for now. Books, room & board and lab fees add up.
Maybe not the HS Spanish teacher’s kid, but plenty of people come out with 5 figure debt.
January 3, 2009 at 3:20 pm
This just in on Drudge Report, ” Louisana school teacher who had THC in her bloodstream was responsible for harming an entire classroom full of children when her impaired chalk board skills caused her to loudly screech the chalk while writing. Parents are demanding her immediate tar and feathering….”
January 3, 2009 at 3:59 pm
You missed my point, thou assumer of Nixon’s nomenclature of divisiveness.
Everybody has a story of hardship. Everybody. And if you’re in Berkeley or Jefferson County, you have valid complaints. Otherwise, if you think I believe that the average WV teacher HAS to work an extra job to pay their mortgage, you’re the idiot, not me.
My junior high gym teacher worked the hoot owl in the mines because he had a shitload of kids. He didn’t complain and demand more money because the sassafras tea wasn’t working. He knew that his difficulties were his own and had no right to DEMAND that the government increase people’s property taxes so his many kids could have more.
Everybody has a story, SilentMajority, but yours are overwrought, dishonest, and not representative of the norm.
January 3, 2009 at 5:27 pm
OHMIGOD, this is getting boring. Make it stop!
BTW, the cost of living is higher in Mon County than in Berkeley & Jefferson. It always has been. Until recently you could get very nice homes in Berkeley County for low 100,000s. Eastern Panhandle had a housing boom from 2003-2007. Prices escalted quickly and then hit Mon County levels. Now they’re having a bust. The homes that went to mid-200s are now under 200,000. Jefferson realtors said a year ago the market had gone cold. Their teacher wage pressures are due to competiton in the border states. So it’s more of a labor market issue than cost of living. Due to the university, Mon County has no problem filling teacher vacancies. If fact, many education students hang around for a couple years subbing and hoping for a job.
Student housing also skews some of the stats on Mon real estate. Yes, you can buy a house for $100,000 in Morgantown but you probably wouldn’t want to live there but students will. The Charleston market used to be a little pricey for WV but I think it’s gone downhill the last few years. Does anyone know? I no longer follow real estate there. North Central and Eastern Panhandle are where the action’s been for the last decade.
But feel free to debate this point so we’re not sharing anecdotal poor teacher stories anymore.
January 3, 2009 at 6:15 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-452820/Christian-lion-lived-London-living-room.html
Or you could read the most inspiring story I’ve read all day. The story of Christian the Lion.
January 3, 2009 at 6:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adYbFQFXG0U
and the wonderful video that goes with it
January 3, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Thanks, LL! Incredible story.
January 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Looks like you’re wrong, Anon. City-Data has Mon 2008 cost of living index at 86 and Jefferson at 109.2 – U.S. average being 100.
January 3, 2009 at 7:46 pm
WTF?
January 3, 2009 at 7:47 pm
That primary real estate data comes from Q2 2007 before the real estate bust in EP. Mon County real estate data is skewed because of crappy student housing and low-cost student rentals. But if you did similar comparisons of neighborhoods in all three counties you would find Mon County prices much higher. Part of it is due to strong demand (no layoffs at WVU, Mylan or hospitals) and higher costs to develop land (it’s a lot flatter in EP). Realtors in EP say the costs have dropped as much as 18%. There has been talk that the new student housing in Morgantown has to slow down.
January 3, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Trulia.com has maps and average home prices by zip code in each county, and it shows that what you’re saying is just not true, anon. Pull up 2 windows and do a side-by-side comparison and you’ll see that Jefferson is far more expensive.
I’ve tried to link to it several times, but it won’t post. Stupid internet.
January 3, 2009 at 8:43 pm
The feds have Jefferson & Berkeley Counties in a significantly higher locality pay status than the “rest of” WV. http://www.opm.gov
January 4, 2009 at 6:55 pm
i discovered today i can suck my own dick. i thank this discussion for the inspiration
January 4, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Good, westworld, then you’ll be too busy and distracted to add comments to HK. Have fun!
January 4, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Jay, you’re wrong. My examples are not overwrought. My parents were both public school teachers in Raleigh County and my dad had to work a second job off and on — and this was in the 1960s-1970s. Teachers salaries in WV are shameful, esp given the educational requirements.
January 4, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I don’t give a fuck about 1960, 1970, 1980, or 1990. The discussion is about the present and if the average non Berkeley/Jefferson teacher can’t pay their mortgage on $40,000+ a year for 9 months work, then there are extenuating circumstances that is not the taxpayers’ problem.
January 4, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Again, average salaries are skewed, due to the large number of salaries that are located on the upper end of the pay scale, due to large numbers of close-to-retirement age teachers.
Again, next. You gotta do more than just quote internet statistics and claim they support your position. Just like there’s no requirement teacher pay must somehow be tied to average salary of the state, when you claim there is.
January 4, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I have no doubt that the teachers unions hold sepia toned anecdotes and Blanche DuBois sob stories more dear than “internet statistics” from the AFT’s own website.
January 5, 2009 at 12:27 am
I have no doubt that internet idiots look up questionable statistics and quote them ad nauseum, even when they don’t accurately apply to the issue at hand.
January 5, 2009 at 2:08 am
I went to a high school outside WV where many teachers were known to use or promote the use of illegal drugs. I got a very good education, and was taught how to write by a teacher whose husband was busted a few years later for trying to smuggle marijuana into the US. She was an excellent, dedicated teacher. After going through her class, I knew how to write college papers. The good parents of Kanawha county should be worrying about how well their kids are taught rather than about what the teachers are doing in their off hours (and face it, dealing with teenagers most of the day is stressful). Three cheers for HK and Judge Joe Bob. Jay, why do you hate teachers so much? They really don’t make that much money — it only seems that way in WV’s depressed third-world economy.
January 5, 2009 at 5:49 am
I don’t hate teachers.
“They really don’t make that much money — it only seems that way in WV’s depressed third-world economy.”
That’s like saying “the dollar isn’t worth as much as the euro, it just seems that way in Mexico”. Regardless of bing’s argument, the purchasing power in a given area IS relevant.
I’ve said several times that bong hits after a hard day is A-OK in my book. But if it’s a constitutional travesty for teachers to be drug tested, it is also for bus drivers.
The idea that the only negative ramification of a stoned teacher is “dizzy at the blackboard” is ridiculous, but it’s necessary in order to justify the selective infringement of constitutional rights. Just like it’s necessary to dishonestly expand my arguments concerning teacher’s pay and drug testing to the extreme in order to marginalize them AND me.
And it’s exactly those tactics that frustrate me and a lot of other WVians, which unfortunately reflects poorly on WV teachers as a whole and makes it harder for teachers to get a pay raise.
January 5, 2009 at 11:51 am
this is almost as popular as the HSC thread….keep going and you’ll catch up
January 5, 2009 at 10:44 pm
off topic, but the AP just posted the following…
Ex-justices say Benjamin should have left Massey case
By The Associated Press
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — More than two dozen of his ex-colleagues from across the country believe West Virginia’s new chief justice was wrong to hear a case involving Massey Energy.
A group of 27 former justices from 19 state Supreme Courts say Brent Benjamin created an appearance of impropriety. Retired West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Richard Neely is among them.
The jurists and several other groups have filed briefs supporting an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Benjamin helped overturn a $50 million verdict that had been won by Harman Mining and its president. Their pending appeal argues Benjamin should have recused himself because Massey chief executive Don Blankenship spent more than $3 million to help get him elected.
January 5, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Two points. First point — shouldn’t the initial debate be about “Why, pray tell, is marijuana illegal?” If it were legal, ask yourself, “Who would really care about testing? Crack heads? Meth heads?” Certainly not Jay. Indeed, if it were legal, would there be meth heads and crack heads? If so, in the numbers we see today? That’s the real debate. All you’re doing now is pissing in the wind while others smile. And that ain’t an Illegal Smile, I assure you. That’s a “we run the show” smile. So — Who’s running the Show? You? I invoke Bingmanch’s “Bwahahhaahhaahh” or something like that.
Second point — West Virginia is about to confirm its place as the poster child re the American Justice System. The Benjamin thing is so bad, even Wal-Mart is saying he should’ve stepped down. Read ‘em and weep — I mean, cry — for West Virginia.
January 6, 2009 at 10:03 am
Brent Benjamin step down?
No way!
He had a benefactor to repay.
Honor and integrity are words that are meaningless and signs of weakness to these new(or old) robber barons.
Money is power and power is money to these economic fascists.
Walking into an airport restroom, I almost bumped into Ollie North who was leaving the john. Brent and threel others, none of whom I recognized, were holding a rather animated, but quiet confab, in there.
At the time it was meaningless to me because the election hadn’t played out and Ollie’s celebrity was what I was most interested in.
Mighta been a coincidence.
January 6, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Anon 7 has obviously never been in a car driven by someone that is high. I’ll take a 2 hour car ride with a raging drunken alcoholic over one 5 minute stoner ride anyday. Your mileage may vary.
January 7, 2009 at 5:11 am
My mileage definitely varies because driving 45 in a 65 zone saves more gas than 75 in a 65 zone, and the extra 1.3 miles accumulated during a 20 mile trip with all of the weaving doesn’t help either.
Of course, there is also the fact that I know of no deaths – NOT ONE SINGLE DEATH IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND – attributed to marijuana.
Other than those 2 points, demo, you’re all over it.
January 7, 2009 at 9:25 am
It’s like that old Robin Williams skit at the Met… back when he was still funny. He goes through an entire story of getting high, getting in a car, getting caught by the cops, etc. etc… only to wake up and realize he never left the couch.
January 7, 2009 at 10:21 am
This isn’t 1935 when the only people who did drugs were Jazz musicians.
The 60s brought us Hippies and drug use on a widespread basis. These Hippies grew-up to be teachers and accountants. They see nothing wrong with recreational drugs. To say then that we don’t have a problem is just outright stupidity. Of course we do, in ALL aspects of our workforce. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have started this drug testing in the first place.
I had a friend who was a train engineer from Parkerburg to Ravenswood. He crashed the train three times. (no one seriously injured) All three times he tested positive for drugs. The government and the Union placed him in rehab and back behind the throttle each time.
This is not unusual in any way today as many people do drugs. So the question is: Are teachers better than anyone else?
January 7, 2009 at 10:38 am
Yeah, Billy Bob Thornton summed it up for me in a Playboy Interview that I cannot find online, when he said something like “I just got tired of finding myself in my backyard thinking ‘If I can just get over the fence and start my neighbor’s lawnmower, everything will be alright’”.
I still laugh every time I think about that because I have definitely been in that situation a time or twelve.
January 7, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Well, I am a teacher, and yes, getting darn tired of the teacher bashing.
You can read and write because of a teacher.
You have a job because of a teacher.
If you assholes do not have enough sense to understand that, then either go to school, or fucking Afghanistan.
Now go.
January 7, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Alright, WV Teacher, give me your qualifications and salary requirements.
What are you worth? How much money will make you happy?
We’ve been through all of the rhetoric but I haven’t heard any numbers.
Let’s have it.
January 7, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Gee whiz, Teach, methinks thou doth protest too much. I too opposed the drug testing policy until you posted. Now, maybe ‘ol Thaw has a point.
Anecdotally, I can read and write because of my mother, who taught both before I started school, and I have a job because of my “old boy” connections. I did have some outstanding teachers, though, and most of them were capable of articulating an argument without resorting to such low brow language or argumentum ad hominem. Your post certainly explains the language my teenager brings home from public school.
In parting, Teacher, as a fine screenwriter once said, “Now go get your shinebox.”
January 7, 2009 at 3:21 pm
“Motherfucking… He bought his fucking button! That fake old tough guy! You bought your fucking button!”
January 7, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Well, at least Jay gets it.
I suppose that’s a start . . .
January 7, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I’m not a teacher and I am tired of the teacher bashing as well. I’m also tired of hearing that everyone does drugs. Maybe you and everyone you know does drugs. I and everyone I know do not do drugs. Your world is not the big world. your world is your own little world.
January 7, 2009 at 7:23 pm
C’mon, Looselips. We can argue over the standard of living of WV teachers and we can argue whether teachers meet a certain threshold of student safety responsibility that would make it acceptable to implement random drug testing.
But we cannot argue over whether or not there are teachers that are stoned and/or drunk in the classroom. Surely you are not that naive.
Besides, I haven’t “bashed” teachers, just the whiny, selfish, dishonest tactics of SOME of them and the unions.
Still don’t know why there needs to be two unions.
January 7, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I guess I’m surprised about the substance abuse in the classroom. With several kids who have graduated from public schools, I never heard about that issue.
January 7, 2009 at 8:44 pm
As stated so well above, Jay seems to have a problem.
After reading all his rhetoric, I think he suffers from 3 problems:
1-profound constipation
2-chronic schizophrenia
3-micropenis complex.
January 8, 2009 at 9:11 am
I would agree with testing in the case of a teacher that is impaired in the classroom, but then such testing would fall under the Twigg “reasonable suspicion” standard, which is not what we’re talking about here. The problem with random testing is that it casts too wide of a net, which is where it falls short of the 4th Amendment.
January 8, 2009 at 12:15 pm
TT – surely thats sarcasm? When I was in WV high school teachers bought drugs from the kids.
Random testing is unecessary and probably unconstitutional too, but it is an issue that should be addressed, along with many many others in WV’s public school system. I thank god every day my kids go to a school where their teachers are (for the most part) caring and intelligent. (overbrook) I am glad they don’t have to go to the same schools I went to in southern WV.
January 8, 2009 at 1:43 pm
HK is MIA. Maybe he’s hoping we’ll all go away.
This thread is on life support. Someone pull the plug :-0
January 8, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Nah, Anon, if you click on Harrison Ford’s nose, it’ll take you to a VIP room called “The Teacher’s Lounge” where they’re smoking crank out of an El Producto cigar tube puffer.
Lawbot’s wearing a Scalia mask and he and Raging Red have been arguing Lilly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Rubber for three days while HK counts and recounts his profits from the Fifth Column store which he’s converted to Iraqi Dinars to make it look better.
January 8, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Bresch:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09007/940012-85.stm
January 8, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I went to high school in WV, too. And I have to say that I never saw it and didn’t hear kids talking about their teachers.
If I had to be in a classroom, I’d be looking for some relief myself.
January 8, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I keep hearing the “Leave It To Beaver” theme in my head when I read TT’s comments lately.
January 8, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Gee,Wally. That’s a good song. Eddie likes it too.
January 9, 2009 at 6:06 am
Looks like Joe Bob is walking it back away from the “pervasive” ruling:
March 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm
so im confused noone complains about law enforcement testing all federal jobs being tested and now even the students at school being tested their property being searched on a whim and being prosecuted because its paid for by tax payers money but we suggest that the very people that test unlawfully search our children in school are above the very rules they enforce? as a soldier i can be prosecuted with a felony for pissing hot on a drug test but its againts their privacy? if they dont want to be tested tell them to find a job that my tax dollars dont pay for