[Why is it that when I’m traveling and stuck in airports where the supposedly free WiFi doesn’t work and on airplanes that can’t keep on schedule, some post that I assumed was fairly straightforward turns into the Battle of Antietam? I apologize to the various commenter’s whose work product languished waiting for moderation—I just didn’t have the chance. This odyssey ends tonight; I apologize for slowing things down. On the other hand, it’s good to know that my presence is not required for there to be lively and interesting discussions here…thanks, everyone. Good work.]
Don Bosco Prep High School, Class of 1917-1918
That is not to say that sending gross, obscene, or abusive tweets is exemplary conduct; obviously it is not. I have concluded, however, that the proper and ethical use of social media is something that people, including minors, have to learn for themselves by trial, error, research, observing the mistakes and experiences of others, making dumb mistakes and suffering because of them. Parents and schools, as well as the popular media, have roles to play by giving advice and calling attention to cautionary tales, but heavy-handed attempts to manage social media conduct attempted by authority figures who, as a general rule, neither use nor understand what they are attempting to regulate are both irresponsible and doomed to failure. Like it or not, social media is a primary, and growing, means of communication and interaction in American society, and students are wise….that’s right, wise...to learn how to use it. I was just speaking to a room full of lawyers, and asked them how many used Twitter. The answer: none. But their clients use Twitter, and their client’s adversaries use it, and certainly their children. Their bar associations are making rules about what these lawyers and judges should and shouldn’t be able to do on social media, and most of those bar committee members don’t use Twitter either.As a result, the various jurisdictions have inconsistent rules, based on a lack of knowledge, that are already archaic.
It is fine and responsible for any adult to try to warn a young person that comments on social media need to be considered carefully, that they have a reach far beyond any intended audience and are essentially broadcasts, and that messages or photos can reach people who they hurt or upset, or cause to have a poor opinion of the sender. Ultimately, however, the pioneers in this new frontier of personal expression and mass communication are going to have to learn their own lessons, and better that they learn them now than when they are members of Congress. All punishing students for their tweets teaches them is that people with authority abuse it, and that adults just don’t understand. Because, for the most part, they don’t.
Now the analogies and comparisons:
Public schools vs. Private schools: I gather that the theory here is that if a student voluntarily attends a private school, the student has voluntarily submitted to whatever the school regards as proper discipline, whereas public schools, since they are mandatory and creatures of the government, are constrained by the Constitution. I think I may have encouraged this by a careless reference to the ACLU, which was, of course, a mistake (and I have removed it.) This is ethics, not Constitutional law, and the values are autonomy, fairness, respect, privacy and abuse of power and authority, not Freedom of Speech. I have dealt with several private schools and one Catholic school, and none of them suggested in their printed materials or regulations that they reserved the right to punish my child for what he said, wrote, or communicated during non-school hours, or when he wasn’t physically on school grounds. Neither does Don Bosco, which states as its “philosophy”:
“Don Bosco Prep educates young men so that, through a process of self discovery, each student will come to recognize and acknowledge his talents and limitations, while pursuing academic, athletic, artistic and personal excellence.
“Mindful of both our role and responsibility as a Salesian college prep school, we respect each student as a unique individual. Through active presence in his life, we promote a joyful spirit, intellectual curiosity, self-esteem and emotional maturity. We encourage the development of character and personal responsibility, love for one’s fellow human beings, a concern for the environment and an active commitment to social justice, all of which serve as the cornerstone of each student’s spiritual growth.”
I take none of that, including references to being “an active presence” in a student’s life, “promoting” emotional maturity, and “encouraging” development of character to mean “we can punish your child for absolutely anything he does or says that we disapprove of, no matter where or when it occurs.” It, the school, does all of the things relating to its philosophy in the school, based on the student’s activities and interactions in the school. Any other reading is giving a group of strangers whose biases, background and motivations I can only guess at a blank check to manipulate a child’s life, thoughts and personal activities.
When one teacher from a private school called me to tell me that she felt it was cruel of my son to exclude a classmate whom he did not like from his birthday party, I told her that it was none of her business, and filed a complaint with the school.. Private school does not mean “we can meddle in your child’s private–as opposed to school—activities.
Catholic vs. Secular: All schools should teach character; it happens that Catholic schools do it with more fervor, but that gives them neither a greater obligation nor additional authority. Schools teach good conduct and civility by insisting on appropriate conduct and deportment in school. Are people really prepared to argue that a Catholic school can justify punishing its students for not doing household chores, not washing their hands after using the bathroom in their homes, being cruel to a younger sibling or being disrespectful to a parent? Not only is personal social networking use as unrelated to the school as any of these, it is also far less significant. How much of a blank check do we want school administrators to have? The right answer to that is that they shouldn’t have a blank check at all, and being a Catholic school changes nothing.
High schools vs. Military Academies: This is just a bad analogy. The student at a military academy has no personal life, and has no privacy. The academy is in loco parentis; the student lives there; authority is total. There is an honor code and a code of conduct, and it applies to everything a student does, including communications. That’s the military. That’s not high school.
High Schools vs. College: Several commenters have referenced the incident from last March when Brigham Young University suspended a star basketball player for having pre-marital sex. Brigham Young is famous for its strict and far-reaching conduct code, which bans drinking, pre-marital sex and many other activities that are virtually courses at other schools. If a student agrees to attend B.Y.U., the student has also agreed to certain conditions unique to the university. Should a more typical college be applauded for suspending a student who has sex with his high school girl friend over Christmas break, in his parents’ home? No; this is none of a college’s business, and attempting to extend its authority beyond the campus and even over state lines in such a fashion is intolerable. If Yuri Wright and his parents signed a document promising that Yuri would never send an offensive tweet during his years at the school, I withdraw my condemnation of Don Bosco’s punishment.
High schools vs. the Workplace: It is true that if an employee engages in conduct outside of work that embarrasses or reflects badly on an employer, ot that interferes with the employee’s ability to do his or her job, the employer is behaving ethically if it chooses to terminate the employee. It is not ethical for an employer to terminate an employee for any private conduct it happens to disapprove of, however. It can’t tell me that I can’t drink or smoke or have sex with men in my own home. It better not tell me that I can’t vote for Ron Paul or root for the Red Sox, either. The Naked Teacher Principle applies, of course: if I’m a Coca-Cola VP and a Facebook picture shows me chugging Pepsi, that image could undermine my effectiveness at work, and Coke can can me; it’s ethical. If I write an ethics columns for a newspaper and I am caught in an adulterous affair with Marianne Gingrich, the newspaper is only being responsible to fire its unethical, untrustworthy ethicist. None of this applies to Yuri’s tweets. They don’t reflect on the school, or shouldn’t, because the school shouldn’t have any control over his personal communications. They don’t interfere with his studies, or make him a worse football player.
Expression vs. Conduct: Tweets aren’t conduct. Even if I accept the proposition that a school may, in extreme situations, have some legitimate role in attempting to control student conduct outside of school (and I’m not sure I do), allowing a school to punish a student for the content of his words, uttered or written away from school, is a slippery slope with no braking. If sexually and racially objectionable tweets can get a student expelled, why not tweets critical of President Obama, or cheering on Newt Gingrich? Does Don Bosco’s commitment to “social justice” mean that Yuri can’t tweet that Occupy Wall Street is a crock?
Ethics Alarms 
I refrained from commenting in the original post but having given it some thought, I would argue that the decision WAS ethical, and here’s why.
As noted, the school is one that centers on spiritual values as well as formal preparatory education. The lad in question is a star athlete, and therefore followed by a vastly larger number of people than your average sophomore. He is (or was) a highly visible representative of the school’s student body.
If the school’s policies towards racial respect and proper decorum are expected to be followed by all, then the school certainly cannot make an exception for this kid simply because he’s a gifted athlete with Big 10 aspirations. Doing so would of itself be unethical.
If this kid is as good a player as is claimed, he’ll have no issues going forward. Colleges and the pros overlook a lot to put together winning teams.
If the school’s policies towards racial respect and proper decorum are expected to be followed by all, then the school certainly cannot make an exception for this kid
We don’t have knowledge of any policy that was violated. Jack did say if this was explicitly prohibited (and agreed to by the incoming student), then his criticism doesn’t apply.
Do you believe it is ethical to have a general, nondescriptive policy of decorum that must be followed outside of the school environment? Jack (and I) say absolutely not.
You seem to think the religious institution should be given more leeway than a nonreligious institution. I don’t see any reason for this.
I DO in fact think that a religious institution should be given more leeway, for the simple reason that they base their approach on a specific set of values, which are generally made clear to students and their families upon entry.
Any student who does not wish to work within those parameters has the option of public school (or an alternative private school, assuming funding is available. If they choose the religious school, then they accept the responsibilities that come with that choice.
Just in case you wonder, I’m an agnostic, and have no dog in this fight on spiritual grounds.
I DO in fact think that a religious institution should be given more leeway, for the simple reason that they base their approach on a specific set of values, which are generally made clear to students and their families upon entry.
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises. Do you think secular institutions are not based on values or don’t generally make those clear to students and their families?
Have you ever looked at private schools before?
Is a general value enough reason to punish specific conduct after the fact? I’d say not.
In symbols, your argument is:
* A => B
* X does A
* Therefore X can do B but Y can’t.
You forgot to show that Y doesn’t do A (possibly because both X and Y do A similarly) and you improperly assumed A=>B.
As a counterexample,
If I created a school, it would have general values of skepticism and rationality, but that wouldn’t make it ethical for me to punish someone for being irrational and following faith on their own time.
EDIT: That “possible because” needs to be “possibly because”
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I am not arguing that public schools don’t approach education from the standpoint of certain values (although they’re much watered down from when I was a kid). What I AM arguing is that a private or religious institution has it within its power to set very specific expectations, which may or may not be more stringent than those in a neighboring public school system. And if a student chooses to attend that school, they have an obligation to accept those expectations.
Your “Skepticism and Rationality” school is a straw man argument, for the simple reason that while one may favor rationality one typically does not deliberately CHOOSE to be irrational.
We are talking about behaviors of CHOICE in this case. Yuri CHOSE to write those tweets.
You just changed your position:
Me:You seem to think the religious institution should be given more leeway than a nonreligious institution.
Arthur:I DO in fact think that a religious institution should be given more leeway.
Me: [Your reasoning is bad]
Arthur:What I AM arguing is that a private or religious institution has it within its power to set very specific expectations, which may or may not be more stringent than those in a neighboring public school system.
Caught you. Moving on.
And if a student chooses to attend that school, they have an obligation to accept those expectations.
We went round on this topic. Is an after-the-fact determination that something violates the amorphous values an ethically valid reason to kick them out of school? We say it needs to be clear and descriptive (like BYU). Either you are ignoring the point, or you think that post-hoc rules are cool.
Your “Skepticism and Rationality” school is a straw man argument, for the simple reason that while one may favor rationality one typically does not deliberately CHOOSE to be irrational.
We are talking about behaviors of CHOICE in this case. Yuri CHOSE to write those tweets.
It wasn’t a strawman.
(1) They knew what they were getting into. Your argument: Any student who does not wish to work within those parameters has the option of public school
(2) Conduct is what matters in your example, not intent, so the same goes for mine. It’s not the faith itself, but the representation of it. I could ethically punish a student for spouting faith or improperly disparaging evidence in school, but not for doing the same outside of school.
Caught you. Moving on.
I am absolutely baffled here. There is nothing inconsistent in my statement.
And it IS a strawman, for the simple reason that perfect rationality, while a lovely ideal, has (to the best of my knowledge) never been accomplished (for that matter, the ideal in the Catholic school setting likely hasn’t either).
The issue is not whether Yuri’s THOUGHTS were inappropriate. It is a question of his actual behavior, and how that reflects on the school.
Caught you. Moving on.
I am absolutely baffled here. There is nothing inconsistent in my statement.
You said A gets treated differently than B. When I called that out, you said that A&B are treated differently than C. That’s rather plain.
And it IS a strawman, for the simple reason that perfect rationality, while a lovely ideal, has (to the best of my knowledge) never been accomplished (for that matter, the ideal in the Catholic school setting likely hasn’t either).
The issue is not whether Yuri’s THOUGHTS were inappropriate. It is a question of his actual behavior, and how that reflects on the school.
As I clarified, I wasn’t talking about internal thoughts. You’re the one who is mischaracterizing my argument. You’re also not using the word strawman properly. What you’re accusing me of is creating an example that doesn’t fit. To do this, you mischaracterize my argument. THAT is a strawman.
No, tgt, I’m afraid you’re the one who’s mischaracterizing arguments.
My point is simple. It doesn’t need diagrams, and it is NOT inconsistent. The student entered a school which sets specific moral expectations. He publicly violated those expectations, and the school took action it deemed appropriate.
It does not matter that other schools set expectations, be they the same ones or different. Consequences for violations of those expectations are the province of those schools, not Don Bosco.
Recognizing that this is an ethical discussion, not a legal one, it’s worth noting that students who are under the age of 18 do NOT enjoy the same free speech rights as others. That’s in public schools. And those not operated by the State can set additional limitations; the student DOES have less restrictive options if he or she so chooses.
I continue to maintain that your “Rationality” school hypothetical IS in fact a straw man, for the simple reason that irrational behavior is part of the human condition, particularly among the young, and that the idea of punishing a student for irrationality is completely ludicrous.
My point is simple. It doesn’t need diagrams, and it is NOT inconsistent. The student entered a school which sets specific moral expectations. He publicly violated those expectations, and the school took action it deemed appropriate.
You were inconsistent. You previously separated religious and nonreligious institutions based on a morals difference. When I pointed out there IS no morals difference, you tried to pretend we were talking about a difference between public and private institutions.
I agree that your argument shouldn’t need a diagram, but you’re misrepresentation of it is evidence to the contrary.
Getting back on track. I think this previous comment (that was ignored) covers our differences.
We don’t have knowledge of any policy that was violated. Jack did say if this was explicitly prohibited (and agreed to by the incoming student), then his criticism doesn’t apply.
Do you believe it is ethical to have a general, nondescriptive policy of decorum that must be followed outside of the school environment? Jack (and I) say absolutely not.
You use the terms “specific moral expectations” and “specific values” as if those are actual rules to follow. I don’t think they are sufficient. Especially since at least some of what the church considers moral expectations and values absolutely do not apply to the school. Unless it’s explictly laid out, how can a student know what they are or aren’t required to follow?
It does not matter that other schools set expectations, be they the same ones or different. Consequences for violations of those expectations are the province of those schools, not Don Bosco.
Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you are ethically right to do it. I have the right to call you a [pretend there’s a long string of profanities here], but it would be unethical of me to do so.
Recognizing that this is an ethical discussion, not a legal one, it’s worth noting that students who are under the age of 18 do NOT enjoy the same free speech rights as others. That’s in public schools. And those not operated by the State can set additional limitations; the student DOES have less restrictive options if he or she so chooses.
Considering that note was part of the post, I don’t see how it’s worth re-noting. It’s not like I’ve made a free speech argument here.
I continue to maintain that your “Rationality” school hypothetical IS in fact a straw man, for the simple reason that irrational behavior is part of the human condition, particularly among the young, and that the idea of punishing a student for irrationality is completely ludicrous.
You continue to misuse the term strawman. I did not misrepresent your position to tear it down. You continue to misrepresent my position. As I clarify for the third time, my example wouldn’t include punishment of thought or belief, simply pushing irrationality, backing faith, etc…
GOT IT! Fixed!
A in M,
His behavior or alleged tweets had nothing to do, whatsoever, with the school or preparatory education. It was a personal diary, albeit in shorthand, published for all to read. Perhaps, if he had attested to an unlawful act (rape, burglary, murder) this would be a matter for the legal authorities. But it sounds like the administration is trying to play moral authority 24/7. And for a religious institution that is a slippery slope.
As for the visibility issue–it’s a double edged sword. The school certainly welcomed the notoriety and attention that his athletic skills garnered on the field during the course of sanctioned activities. The extra attention probably benefited their own recruitment activities. I would expect that an alumnus or high-place donor delivered an ultimatum and the administration folded. Money talks.
And, yes, he will have issues going forward. He was wronged. This memory won’t fade overnight. It will craft his future character, as do all of our experiences, but hopefully without too much negativity.
Respectfully disagree, Gregory.
Yuri and the school were engaged in what was intended to be a mutually beneficial arrangement: if Yuri agreed to play football for the school, the school would help him develop his talent for the game (no athlete, regardless of how talented, doesn’t need coaching and guidance.
This compact does not merely work to the benefit of the school. It works to the benefit of the athlete as well – particularly talented ones who, at minimum, can leverage success at this level for admission, via scholarship, the post-secondary education.
Did Yuri have a greater obligation to the school, and representing it, than his classmates? I would argue that he did, because while his presence on the team was certainly an advantage for the school, it was of potentially greater advantage to him. That he should be expected to represent the school’s values in a reasonable way is not an unrealistic expectation. Imagine, for example, that if instead of tweeting his offending comments he had made them to a reporter from a local newspaper. Would the school have been correct in disciplining as a result? I have a hard time believing you’d think a sanction was inappropriate.
That he did not say these things to a reporter and instead chose to self-publish them are immaterial. Publish them he did, freely and of his own volition, and without concern for the organization which gave him the opportunity to gain that visibility.
IF, and it’s a big if, other students had made similar commentary and were treated with a slap on the wrist, I’d agree that the school’s response was unethical; one cannot have rules for one group of students that don’t apply to others. As it stands, it simply looks from here as though the school was enforcing its expectations of all of its students.
I agree with a drift in your last paragraph, that the Catholic school that expelled Yuri has either:
1) set a high bar for itself to effectively and consistently police its students’ use of Twitter at all times, by way of this precedent involving Yuri, or
2) subjected Yuri to a double standard.
If it’s 1), the school may have to reconsider where to set its bar, and consequently possibly re-admit Yuri (if he’ll come back).
If it’s 2), the school is obligated to offer to re-admit, and re-admit, Yuri (unless previous mal-tweeters were somehow subjected to punishment even more severe than Yuri’s, in which case those punished would have to be compensated somehow).
From what I have read, it seems to me that it was tweeted off school grounds. If the school has rules against the use of cell phones on it’s campus during school hours, then he broke a rule besides doing something unethical. But if he was doing it off the campus on his own time, then the school has no right to discipline him the way they did. They may talk to him and tell him it isn’t in his best interest and could affect his chances to continue his career with a good college. What he does off campus, if it isn’t breaking any laws is his business. I know if I was his parent he would be in trouble. More than likely he would be on my family cell plan and I would follow him on Twitter. (He would probably be the only one I follow on Twitter.) But that’s me, I am not going to tell others how to parent their kids.
TGT: Definition of Straw Man:
“A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition [emphasis added] (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
Thanks.
What I did was create a completely parallel situation to the situation in existence and state what I would do in that situation. I didn’t attack the situation I created or show that it was wrong in some way. I also didn’t misrepresent your position in any way.
Now, what you did is take my example, misrepresent it so that “X” meant “thinking X”, then attacked this made up position.
Now which of our behaviors is an example of the logical fallacy?
No, tgt, it was NOT a completely parallel situation. Not even close. Your exact text:
If I created a school, it would have general values of skepticism and rationality, but that wouldn’t make it ethical for me to punish someone for being irrational and following faith on their own time.
The person in your silly hypothetical is not promulgating activities in direct opposition to the values your school was set up to teach. He is not using the bully pulpit you gave him to PUBLICLY promote values in direct opposition to those of your school.
If your hypothetical had included that he was doing so, I’d have supported your right to boot his @$$ out of the school for undermining its mission. I would also support your right to mete out a lesser consequence, if you so chose, and I would find neither unethical. Your money, your program, your rules, and absolutely your decision.
If you wish to amend that statement to incorporate said activity, I’ll withdraw the straw man complaint. As your argument stands, it’s a perfect example of one.
My first statement was ambiguous. I can see how you took it the wrong way. Of course, I clarified it one post later:
(2) Conduct is what matters in your example, not intent, so the same goes for mine. It’s not the faith itself, but the representation of it. I could ethically punish a student for spouting faith or improperly disparaging evidence in school, but not for doing the same outside of school.
Thank you, tgt, for that acknowledgement. I would submit that you COULD ethically “punish” the student – specifically, expel him or her – under certain circumstances.
Your school offers an alternative to that offered by the public education system. In essence, you, as headmaster (and founder, and principal stakeholder) engage in a compact with each student you accept. That compact involves mutual expectations – the students expect to receive an education based on a specific set of guidelines; you, in turn, expect that they’ll uphold the values of your school and exhibit skepticism and rationality.
Unlike public schools, this relationship is completely at will. You agree to teach the student; the student (or his/her parents) agree to the framework of that teaching.
Teenagers, being a hormone-riddled irrational lot by nature, will almost certainly disappoint you on regular occasions (you shouldn’t be running the school if you didn’t expect it). However, If a given student actively, publicly and permanently – and that’s the key here – broadcasts, either directly or by implication, that your school and its values are completely out to lunch, you’ve got a problem. That student is undermining everything you stand for (and personally, I prefer the concept of a school that emphasizes skepticism and rationality over one that tries to convince you that you’d better toe the line or you’ll burn in Hell for all eternity).
At minimum, this student is not living up to their part of the compact. He or she is potentially undermining the value you bring to other students, current or prospective.
We can agree that there are different possible ways to handle this. But if you, as the school’s founder, determine that the fact that this student’s behavior is sufficiently disruptive to the overall mission of the school and the well-being of other students, based on what you set the school up to do, it would NOT, in my opinion, be unethical of you to back out of the compact. The student already did so.
The fact that that kid might be a star athlete is completely irrelevant (other than the fact that in Yuri’s case, it’s clear that the star athlete part is what give him the soapbox in the first place).
Arthur, this seems based on the most fanciful of assumptions, and, I think, a dangerous one.
A child’s out of school conduct reflects on himself and his family. For a school to take the position that a child’s conduct reflects on the school directly and significantly enough to warrant actual punishment is no more and no less than an excuse to abuse its power. Let’s see–who else could claim to be thus harmed? The community? The state? The nation? Why not just throw him in jail?
Show me one piece of evidence that the school has been harmed in any way. “We won’t send our child to Don Bosco—did you see those tweets that football player sent?” Really? Does anyone think like this? Do private school ratings include gross percentages of off campus obscenities? HOW does the content of the tweets (and tweeting is words, NOT conduct, any more than moving one’s lips and tongue to emit sounds are “conduct.”) sufficiently disruptive to the overall mission of the school and the well-being of other students to justify expulsion? It’s pretense without substance.
Saying the school “can” punish Yuri is pointless; we know it CAN..it DID. The issue is whether it should. I still have heard no justification. And the3 fact that the kid is an athlete with special prospects IS relevant, because it determines the harm done by the punishment, which in discretionary punishment, which this is, must always be considered. Always.
Maybe I’m the only one here who does not know what it was that this guy tweeted, but the contents might be relevant. I don’t need to get the randy stuff, but did the offending tweet include information that linked him to the school in question, or did he go so far as to claim he was speaking on behalf of the school. I chased the link in Jack’s original post and learned that the tweet had been removed (from wherever they show up; I’m not into this social media stuff). I also learned that there’s some kind of list of “greatest high school players” that he was on… Maybe he is famous in New Jersey. My point is that if no one knew where he went to school and he didn’t identify himself by school, or he wasn’t so famous that “everyone knew” all this… then did he really besmirch the school? This seems to make up some of the foundation upon which the expulsion is built. If the school is so dead set on their policy of good behavior, etc, it sounds like they are broadcasting their failure to reach this young man.
On the other hand, he is showing talent at an early age that will allow him to fit into many college, even NFL, locker rooms.
Tgt: Bravo, and thanks…holding down the fort on TWO posts at once against multiple adversaries. (Welcome to my world!) Just got home from seminars and travels, and what I found was a thriving discussion that didn’t need me a bit. Excellent work,and excellent points.
You’ve made my point when you state:
“Brigham Young is famous for its strict and far-reaching conduct code”.
“The student at a military academy has no personal life, and has no privacy. The academy is in loco parentis; the student lives there; authority is total. There is an honor code and a code of conduct, and it applies to everything a student does, including communications. “
The same applies to Catholic schools. While most Catholic schools are not boarding schools, the church is seen as another parent. Why do you think it’s called the Mother Church? That priest are addressed as Father and nuns as Sister or Mother Superior? I and every other Catholic school student passed and present knows that their behavior on and off school grounds was and is subject to disciplinary action by the school. I knew growing up that I better either tow the Catholic line on and off campus or risk the wrath of the church and my mother if one of the priest or nuns caught me being out of line.
If people don’t want to subject their children to this, then don’t enroll them in a Catholic school. If not then they accept the role the school and church plays in their children’s lives.
This has to be over-stated. In a non-boarding school, the biological parents are the parents with the first line of authority—how could it be otherwise? And since Catholic schools accept non-Catholics, they can’t possibly use the Church’s authority to justify this kind of incursion. I can’t find out if Yuri is Catholic, but what if he isn’t? Would your opinion be the same?
No becuase he chose to go there and when he did he accepted the discipline that goes with attending a Catholic school. I had jewish kids in my Catholic school who the priests rode hard when they say them breaking their jewish faith. By your argument a Non Mormon going to BYU is exempt from tjheir honor code.
No, because the student agrees to an honor code, which in the BYU case is very specific. Remember, I sent my kid to a Catholic school, and it told us that the education was secular, and the religious aspect was voluntary. There was no honor code. There was no suggestion that the school’s influence extended into my home, and I see nothing like that in Yuri’s School, either. Where was your Catholic school–the Vatican?
Well I went to Catholic school in the 60’s so Im sure it was different then. I was taught by Fracisicans at one school and by the Sisters Of Mary at another.
Jurisdiction and extraterritoriality. Issues about application of those concepts seem to pervade the discussion here. (Whether I’m correct or not, that is what I see by reading here.) So the discussion delights me in a perverse way since those terms, and issues concerning them (including ethical issues), are often powerfully relevant to my daily compensated labors. I appreciate all who have posted (and all that you have posted).