Generally when I think of rights or freedoms, I invariably think of Miss Spears carefully pointing out the differences between rights and privileges. As Miss Spears would point out, rights are earned whereas privileges are granted. This is true in government (I'd hate to debate with Miss Spears), but when the questions is turned to one of "students' rights", these two terms are actually synonymous, or inseparable,
Actually students have no rights, but merely enjoy the liberties granted them by their school's administration. That last sentence sounded mean from a student's viewpoint, but it was actually meant as a praise to Mr. Derthick, who grants the students many privileges. Some of these Grady-rights consist of student government (which is a privilege, not a right), a liberal dress code, allowances for students to leave school grounds after their classes are over, no set length of hair for boys to conform to, and the ability for boys to appeal their cases against ROTC (most of them can get out of it that way), and generally a larger voice in the running of the school. Possibly there are more privileges but I can't think of any more obvious ones right now (I think I've already stretched it a little).
These forementioned "tights" are not the privileges that students in most of the other schools have. If you don't believe us, go talk to any Student Council member, who will proudly tell you what our Student Council has done for Grady during the many years of its existence.
When possible, it is my belief that the School System should grant students as many privileges as are feasible. When I say feasible, I mean privileges which would not interfere with the motion of the educational machinery, An example of a feasible privilege is the present dress code, where students can wear whatever they please during classes (the dress code has never offended anyone to my knowledge).
An example of an infeasible privilege would be the experimental hour-long lunch period of two years ago. This lunch period was idealistic, but not realistic; because students littered the grounds of the school tremendously during the experimental period. Obviously the planner had not, counted the human factor when he was planning this period. It was only natural that this privilege was revoked, in view of the students' abuse of the new privilege (I should mention that it's a pity that all students suffered the loss, not just the littering faction, but I won't).
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I think there should be a compromise in which the school administration would be satisfied with these rights and idealistically not abuse them. Things are not idealistic.
The other man's grass is always greener, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, social status, or political beliefs.
But these I think are secondary. The greatest right a student has is
the education itself. For some strange reason this freedom is often forgotten
and abused in the sh adow of these somewhat petty pleas. After all; which
one will benefit the student a mere
ten years from now?
Perhaps we should remember the idea set forth by Carnot:
"In a free state there is more clamor, with little suffering; in a despotic state there is little complaint with much grievance.".
When asked to define the rights of a student in a secondary school, I think first that I should arrive at an adequate classification of the word rights. Perhaps this word can best be associated with a somewhat nebulous term--freedom.
Freedom, ah, that multi-interpreted word that has baffled the greatest minds in every nation of the world. And, yet, no answer has satisfied the populace. I wonder why? Perhaps there is not true answer to the word? Perhaps the word is overused or misplaced.
But one idea is an absolute: Freedom, whatever your interpretation, is
a human right, not to be denied to anyone. But the only freedom which deserves
the name is that of pursuing our own goo a in our own way, go long as we
do not attempt to
deprive others of their rights or impede their efforts to obtain it.