[HPFGU-OTChatter] Teachers searching the students in NY schools for Shawn

[Shaun Hately]

A few comments here before I address Alla's post.

(1) As I just said on Main, you are talking about the situation in 
America, which is really pretty much irrelevant to the situation in 
Britain, and even more irrelevant to the situation in Wizarding Britain. 
I'm happy to discuss the issue, but I don't think its relevant to the 
points I was making on main.

(2) Let me be clear about something. I do not necessarily agree with the 
law that I am forced to follow on these issues as a teacher in a private 
school in Australia where the doctrine of in loco parentis is still the 
main law affecting my duties as a teacher. I am not really speaking up 
in support of that doctrine or in the way it has been interpreted here. 
I do not necessarily agree with it. There are aspects of it that 
actually make me decidedly uncomfortable. Nonetheless, it *is* the law, 
and I *must* obey the law. It places particular responsibilities on me 
whether I like them or not or agree with them or not. And unless 
somebody believes teachers should be laws unto themselves or be 
completely free to decide for themselves how they do their jobs, that's 
the way it has to be.

(3) One thing I've learned in years of discussing education online is 
that the United States has *very* different policies on educational 
issues depending on where you are in the country. That's just a general 
comment but it's just something I thought I'd mention seeing you are 
specifically getting information from somebody in New York and it's 
important to acknowledge that it may not be true everywhere in the US.

(4) I also want to be clear that I am talking about an historical idea 
of 'in loco parentis' as a guiding principle for education that doesn't 
even apply across the board in either the UK (where Harry Potter is set) 
or in Australia. In recent years (since about the 1970s) in both 
countries, in *government* schools especially but also to an extent in 
private schools, the doctrine of in loco parentis has been somewhat 
superseded in some cases. Now these are recent developments and it's for 
that reason I don't think there's any sensible reason to believe they 
apply at Hogwarts. Every piece of information we have about Hogwarts 
present it as an old fashioned school with old fashioned ideas on 
education and old fashioned policies. I very much doubt Muggle changes 
in education that began in the 1970s have filtered into Hogwarts by the 
1990s.

(5) One final point - Hogwarts is a boarding school, and boarding 
schools generally take the idea of in loco parentis more seriously than 
day schools. They have to, because the situation requires a more 
interventionist approach - you can't rely on parents handling as many 
matters. You can't pass things off as easily to parents.

On 5/01/2012 5:11 AM, dumbledore11214 wrote:
> This is the extension of conversation from main, which I could not
> connect with Potterverse. Shawn, I was interested to learn and frankly
> relieved to learn that it seems (according to my colleague, I have no
> personal knowledge of that yet - kid in my family is in first grade and
> nobody else attended american school yet in my family) that teachers in
> NY public schools at least have to have *really* reasonable suspicion
> before they would attempt to search especially a teenager, especially a
> high school student.

That's true here as well, and the level of suspicion required depends on 
the seriousness of what you suspect the student of. Not *all* searches 
are justified, just some searches are.

As I've said on main, to me legilemency is not described as being 
particularly invasive. Snape seems to simply be able to judge if he is 
being lied to, without much more detail than that. That to me, is very 
non-invasive. Most of the time *I* can tell if a student is lying to me.

If legilimency is the ability to completely read somebody's mind (which 
you seem to think it is) I would regard that as much more invasive and 
the only time I can see that as justified would be in cases like Harry's 
sneaking into Hogsmeade while a mass murderer with a specific desire to 
kill him (or so everybody believes) is on the lose - ie, where there is 
a genuine risk of serious harm. I wouldn't regard it as justified just 
because I thought a rule had been broken.

You mentioned on main a case that recently went to the US Supreme Court. 
A 13 year old girl (now she'd be about 21 - cases can take years to get 
all the way to the Supreme Court) was strip searched because teachers 
thought she might have been carrying a pain killing tablet. The Supreme 
Court ruled that search was not justified *because* the risk involved 
was not significant enough. Even if she was carrying the pain killer 
which was a violation of the schools rules, it was very unlikely anyone 
would be harmed by it, so the level of risk did not justify the search. 
But implicit in the ruling is the fact that *if* she had been carrying 
say, a weapon, and was suspected of planning something like Columbine, 
the search could have been justified (the court didn't say it would be - 
just that it could be).

The ruling also said that the less invasive search that preceded the 
strip search (a search of her backpack and clothes) was reasonable.

> They are entitled to certain protections according
> to my colleague, they are entitled to certain rights, of course the
> older they get, the more rights they get, but it certainly applies to
> teenagers according to him. When I posed a question about teacher being
> allowed to search the student, he told me that reasonable suspicion
> should be that of a reasonable person, not say "paranoid schizofrenic
> person" - his words, not mine.

No argument there. But if we want to talk about reasonable suspicion, 
every time Snape may have used legilemency on Harry I think there was 
reasonable suspicion - and in most of the cases, fully justified 
reasonable suspicion as Harry was, in fact, either guilty of something, 
or at least concealing information he had.

> And even when teacher thinks that kid has a bulge in his clothes when
> looks suspiciously like a gun or a knife, sure teacher better ask to
> show it to him, but if kid refuses, you know what happens? According to
> my colleague anyway, he still cannot *force* the kid (or teenager) to
> show it to him, he has to call guidance counsellor, dean ( one or both I
> am not sure) and ask again, and if teen refuses they would call his
> parents and of course can suspect him then.

Well, that may well be the case in New York - your friend should know. 
It's *not* the case here. Nor would it have been the case in any school 
in Britain until at least recently, even if it has changed there. Under 
the historical doctrines that still apply where I teach, if I believed a 
student had a weapon I *have* to get that weapon off him *unless* I 
believe I would be endangering myself or somebody else by doing so (I'm 
not expected to provoke the student into shooting me, for example). Now, 
if it is *practical* for me to get help from someone more senior than 
me, or even from the police I could do that (and frankly, if I thought a 
kid had a gun, I would call the police if it was possible) but I can 
only do that if its practical. Calling parents, again, could be an 
option, if its a practical solution.

But the bottom line is *I* am the one with the legal duty to act. I 
can't let that student leave my presence carrying a weapon. If I did, 
I've failed in my duty of care. The only excuse I have for that is if I 
believe it would be actually dangerous to do otherwise.

> It definitely does not sound as what Snape was doing to Harry to me.

To me, what Snape is doing if he is legilimising Harry is carrying out a 
non-invasive search of a student he reasonably expects to be breaking 
school rules, and in a couple of cases places himself in danger. That is 
the situation I see. To me, it's no more than when I ask a student to 
turn out his pockets so I can see if he's carrying cigarettes or a laser 
pointer. Something I probably did thirty times last year.

That's the equivalency I see.

*If* it was mindreading, I'd see it as close to a strip search. 
Something I've never had to do to a student and hope I never have to do 
to a student. But if I believed I had a student who was carrying 
something with which he could seriously injure himself or others and was 
likely to do so, then if I had to and there was no other practical way I 
could pass it on to somebody better qualified (like the police), I 
would. And if I didn't, I would be professionally and potentially 
criminally negligent.

Please note - this is a situation we do *everything* we can to avoid. 
But I don't have any students who are destined to kill a Dark Wizard and 
might therefore be in constant danger of being murdered. At least, as 
far as I know, I don't :)