Well, to be fair to the school, Jolly Ranchers are a form of assault candy. /MUCHO SARCASMO

You helped someone with a legal contract????? I'm pretty sure that is illegal in some jurisdictions unless you are a licensed practitioner of law.

To answer the question at the headline, sneaking across the Mexican border, in contravention of established immigration laws, is not a crime. And calling for a rebellion in support of such actions is not a crime. Also, legislators who vote in ways that violate their oath to uphold the constitution are not committing a crime.

Just off the top of my head.

Unbelievable. Ridiculous. Choose your adjective. The school has to "enforce" this because if they don't they'll "lose federal funding"? Absurd! One stinking piece of candy, and it wasn't even hers to begin with! What about the kid who gave it to her? What happened to him/her? Let me guess - nothing! What a buncha whackjobs.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

Nick quoted the Old Lady before I could.

Welcome to the Nanny State. The rule went from "Say No To Drugs" to "Say No to Candy".

I'm just trying to identify the thought process behind all this:

- Teacher spots child with piece of candy (how did teacher know candy didn't belong to the child?).

- Teacher confiscates candy.

Okay, petty rules are petty rules. And it was only a piece of candy, anyway. But now it gets strange.

- Little girl subjected to harsh discipline. That means somebody with the power to make the decision actually wrote up a detention notice for the little girl. It wasn't automatic. It wasn't machine-generated. Somebody had to decide.

- According to the write-up at the linked web site, the superintendent "said school officials had decided a stricter punishment was necessary after lesser penalties failed to serve as a deterrent." Had they already tried lesser penalties on her?

I can't help but wonder if any sociologists have studied the process by which petty despots come to rule their petty despotates. I propose a revolt: All the parents should send their kids to school with candy -- bags and bags of it. More than they could eat. More than Halloween. Trade it back and forth. Then we'll see how many detentions the school can impose!

They can call themselves the candybaggers. Who would ever think we'd need a revolution like this?

You helped someone with a legal contract????? I'm pretty sure that is illegal in some jurisdictions unless you are a licensed practitioner of law.

I read her book contract and gave her my opinion. I'm good at reading contracts and spotting sticking points in them. I didn't charge her and she doesn't think I'm a lawyer, especially since we know each other through science conferences.

P.S. I'm also not a Ph.D., although they called me Dr. Alkon when I stayed at a hotel in Vegas for the Evolutionary Psychology Preconference. (Had I known it would be that easy to get my doctorate, I would've done it years ago...no messy dissertations or anything!)

@lovelysoul: "They can call themselves the candybaggers."

Hey, I dig that! :-)

Jesus H. Christ in a cellophane wrapper, as Rachel Lucas would say. Do we need to line up all of our educators and shoot them? Is our education system now populated with Douglas Adams' telephone sanitizers?

At least this wasn't actually a law, just some petty administrator with poor reading comprehension skills.

This stuff teaches kids the wrong lesson: that rules are meaningless and stupid, and there to trip you up.

And people want bigger government???

Is our education system now populated with Douglas Adams' telephone sanitizers?

Worse, actually. They don't even perform a valuable but unseen service.

In other words, if we put them into a ship and shoot them into the Sun, we won't all die.

That should be the test - ask "Do you have an unquenchable desire to control other people's lives?". If they answer in the affirmative, shoot them dead.

Dwatney has a point Amy. If the authorities ever come after you on this one, just tell them that you were checking the grammar. LOL (I hope, and am sure, that you were helpful to your friend - it was a very caring/friendly effort on your part).

Re: the annoying level of government interference in this case, it hits on so may levels. As to the horrible treatment that this little girl received: a week's detention for her first offense? - I'm curious as to the measures the school took in the first place in order to warn students of the draconian consequences that would result if they were caught with even one piece of candy? I also think that the school's interpretation that they could lose federal funding if a student brings in a cupcake in her own lunch is sure idiocy (I'd be worried if my kid went to this school - it's being run by morons).

While I certainly respect the school's/government's concern over the amount of junk food that kids are consuming, they really overstepped here. What is within their jurisdiction is not permitting vending machines selling junk in the school - and making sure the cafeteria doesn't serve crap. Make the study of nutrition part of the school curriculum. Hell, the federal government could even stop subsidizing the corn industry (as I suspect, the high level of high fructose corn syrup that sweetens our beloved junk food partially stems from its low cost that results from these subsidies). And, while I too have issues with parents letting their children eat too much junk food, the decision of what these kids put in their mouths ultimately rests with the parents.

I'm curious as to whether momof4 can provide some additional insight into this case since I know that she has kids and lives in Texas (where this case is coming from).

Dwatney has a point Amy. If the authorities ever come after you on this one, just tell them that you were checking the grammar. LOL (I hope, and am sure, that you were helpful to your friend - it was a very caring/friendly effort on your part).

These comments seem to be a side effect -- law-anoia, you could call it -- of too many laws. It's not a crime to read a friend's contract -- or Gregg's contract, as I did a while ago -- and give suggestions, based on my opinion as a thinking person alone.

PS In Gregg's case, he negotiated a contract with some doc filmmakers based on my suggestions, and they complained that I was tougher than any Hollywood lawyer they'd dealt with.

It’s pretty sad when the bullies at school are the teachers/staff.

It seems like there are a lot of better punishments, if they must punish to comply with state law...

* The traditional writing of "I will not have candy at school" on the board
* Staying in during recess.
* Staying after school
* Not getting some other treat
* Writing a paragraph about why candy is bad for you
* Just plain being sent to the principal's office.

To be fair, when I was teaching I didn't have the option of making them stay after school. It was either Saturday all-day detention... or nothing.

Just be glad they didn't catch her drawing a picture of a military firearm!

This mentality is the reason the US has the highest percentage of its citizens behind bars of any nation in the world, even places like Iran and Cuba.

All problems are supposed to be solved by tossing anyone who has done anything at all disgusting, in prison for years. Enough already.

Just be glad they didn't catch her drawing a picture of a military firearm!

My friend's son is not allowed to draw monsters in class, because monsters are violent. I was like, "What about Cookie Monster? He's only violent against cookies." Which, now that I think about, would probably get the kid in trouble if he brought them to class without permission. Sigh.

Amy, I LOVE THE TERM LAW-ANOIA!! I think we need to get into the modern-day lexicon and make sure that you receive proper credit for coining it. It is so much richer than terms like "over-regulation" or "government interference" in that it actually incorporates our fear of being over-regulated (and, perhaps, our fear of not being capable of actually keeping track of and obeying the extraordinarily massive number of laws and regulations that govern us) and our fear of the disproportionate consequences that we may suffer when some petty bureaucrat comes to enforce it (such a a school official giving a week's worth of detention to a little girl for attempting to eat a piece of candy at school).

It brought to mind the fear and anxiety I felt when I got the "American Community Survey" from the Census Bureau, which threatened severe penalties for not answering the survey and for not answering the survey truthfully.

Doesn't it seem like this is a recent invention by attorneys? I had never heard anyone say you couldn't give advice regarding a contract or legal document until posters (obviously attorneys) starting saying that here. Are attorneys so hungry for work they're scanning blogs in order to tell people this?

Offtopic—

Google earth headline:

Playboy raises the bar with 3-D centerfold
Reuters - 49 minutes ago - all 575 articles »

irlandes says: "All problems are supposed to be solved by tossing anyone who has done anything at all disgusting, in prison for years."

Naaah, can't be. Look how many televangelists and other "moral authorities" are still running around loose.

That is crazy! I wouldn't be surprised if the school has candy vending machines on their facility also. At least the government schools around here do. Further reasons why I think home schooling is best.

Hi LS: yes, is it that apparent that I'm an attorney? LOL I can only speak for me - but I was trying to be sarcastic and (perhaps, non-effectively) pointing out the irony about "breaking the rules" that this thread touched upon. Yes, there are certainly laws in most jurisdictions that state that the practice of law without a license is illegal - just as there are for doctors or plumbers or electricians - and, all it takes is for one obnoxious, power-hungry prosecutor trying to make a point (just like the school officials in this candy case) to take that law so literally and....BINGO. (Honestly, the chances of it happening in Amy's case are just about zilch, but I very often read of cases of prosecutors going after people for violating the letter of law over the most idiotic, simple things).

And this LAW-ANOIA (thanks again, Amy), whether rational or not, can really have consequences on our behavior. I, for one, think it's great (on many different levels) that Amy's friend felt comfortable enough to ask for her advice - why shouldn't she - Amy's extremely intelligent AND has experience with book contracts AND is someone who was kind and generous enough to actually do her the favor. Amy's actions should be encouraged and lauded; and it truly would be sad if law-anoia effected us so drastically that we would we be afraid to behave likewise.

Okay. So let me see if I understand the chain of events here.

1) Texas decides that Junk Food is Bad for Our Kids, and declares it a rogue outlaw, to be smited and punished wherever it be found.

2) Suzie brings Jolly Ranchers to school. Mrs. Blank, the teacher, sees this, but can't say anything since you can't reprimand a student for what their parents provide for them in their lunch.

3) Suzie gives a piece of her candy to Leighann.

4) Mrs. Blank swoops in like a SWAT team because she knows that Leighann's mommy didn't pack any candy for Leighann - that is Suzie's candy and she can enforce the hell out of the No Junk Food policy.

5) Mrs. Blank, instead of a quick verbal reprimand to child or a "no candy" lecture to the class, decides to send Leighann to the office.

6) Some moron in the office says, "Well, notes home weren't stopping the blight of students trading candy on our nation's soil, so we now give out detention" and signs the papers accordingly.

7) School Officials are defending this madness. Because Junk Food is Bad for Our Kids.

Well, not only did that Dealer Suzie get off the hook with ease, but I think we need to have more laws regarding what parents give their kids in their lunchboxes. Geez...

Holy Frijole! This is quite possibly the STUPIDEST thing I've read all week. Bar none.

Too many laws mean any of us can be tripped up and arrested for a crime at any time.

There's a worse thing than that. It instills a lack of respect for the law. And down that path lies madness.

Private people make contracts all the time. If you've ever purchased/rented/leased a car/house/apartment, you've made a contract.

Last Spring I had my house painted. I made a contract with the painter. I know I'm not a lawyer, and I'm pretty sure my painter wasn't a lawyer either.

If you need a lawyer to make a contract, you won't be able to buy your own groceries or clothes. Or even toilet paper, and then where would we be?

Ick.

You hit the nail on the head I R A.

Please Amy, don't tell me that another person may have been breaking the law too - NOOOOOO!! :) (Seriously, in my own work, I will often suggest to a client to seek some outside advice -- in some cases, it's the only ethical thing to do. I had a client who had created some intellectual property that another party wanted to use in a rather unorthodox way. I could not begin to help her with the basic meat of the contract (i.e., how much she should think about charging the other party) - and told her I couldn't and told her to consider asking other people in her field for advice and their opinions about it.)

Factsarefacts, I wasn't only referring to you. There have been several comments by other posters, presumably attorneys. I'm sure those laws are meant for people who would deceptively represent themselves as attorneys, not the average person just giving advice. At least I hope not. I'm not an attorney, but I deal with contracts, and have, on occassion, given advice to friends who were being sued, etc. Yet, they know I'm not an attorney. It would be awful if we become afraid to do that...but, of course, good for the legal business.

Hi LS, yeah, we'd like to think that they're meant to stop people from posing from attorneys. That is true on the one hand - but on the other hand (as you pointed out), it is also about legal profession looking out for its own interests. There have been ongoing discussions for years at my state bar association about whether or not those "Do your own will" kits should be challenged because the manufacturers are not licensed attorneys.

Lawyers are self-licking ice cream cones.

I have the overwhelming urge to mail Jolly Ranchers to the school . . . That's not illegal, is it?

Nanc, use a fake return address, as they'd likely consider Jolly Ranchers an act of terrorism.

Ashland, Virginia?

Speaking as the friend she helped by reading the contract, :-) she pointed out things I might have missed/nost asked for.
And Amy, I got what you asked me to ask for. :-)

Thanks!

Catherine

Skipper, you are right - and while I'm licking myself clean, could you give me your name and address so I know to whom to send my bill. :)

Catherine. That's fantastic. As I wrote above: "I, for one, think it's great (on many different levels) that Amy's friend felt comfortable enough to ask for her advice - why shouldn't she - Amy's extremely intelligent AND has experience with book contracts AND is someone who was kind and generous enough to actually do her the favor."

Do you mind if I ask what your book is about, title, when it expects to come out? You must be on cloud nine having a book being published. Congratulations!

Doesn't look like a "law" problem, as if you look through the links to the actual "policy" in question, it covers only what the school may provide/sell.

The link itself says directly the State says that students can bring any food they want, and eat it.

This sounds more like administrators being stupid and not even knowing what the real "policy" is - and flailing around making themselves look stupider as it goes on.

(Now, sure, they might have made a real local "policy" of "no candy, and no sharing candy", but that's definitely not a matter of the Law.

And likewise, Flynn - while Ellis said it might endanger Federal funding, that doesn't seem to actually be true.

Unsurprisingly, administrators are often incompetent and don't know what they're talking about... assuming they're not just deliberately lying.)

*** 7) School Officials are defending this madness. Because Junk Food is Bad for Our Kids.

Wrong. Because junk food causes us to lose funding. We couldn't care less what the little buggars eat as long as it doesn't interfere with our funding.

'I have the overwhelming urge to mail Jolly Ranchers to the school . . . '

Love it! I'd love to see a mountain of them delivered. Too bad I can't get them here.

Hmm... unauthorized practice of law ... Amy, as long as you, the party of the first part, were providing advice on BUSINESS issues to the party of the second part, you should be able to get away clean. The moment you start providing advice on the legal import of any contract langauge, you start taking bread from my mouth ... ; ) (OMIGOD! TEFLON IS ONE OF THEM!) [A 'self-licking ice cream cone?' My life ain't THAT much fun!]

Teflon, it's good to know that not only do I share your profession, but your sense of humor. [Wait. I don't know if I have a sense of humor - or if I'm allowed one by the bar. They don't provide me a certificate stating I have one when I pay my dues or my statement verifying that I've met my CLE requirements. I'll have to do more research on this issue and get back to you all.]

It would be nice if parents had a choice of government schools to choose from for their kids. It would then be easier to remove their kids from lousy schools- as this one appears to be.

Sadly, I saw another effort at school vouchers ended in failure today. This time in Illinois.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/11/school-vouchers-die-again/

ay 11, 2010 04:07 PM UTC by John Stossel
School Vouchers Die Again

“One Republican legislator, a former public school teacher, was in tears on the House floor, begging for this bill.”
That’s from Bill McGurn’s column today.
He writes about the recent defeat of a school voucher bill in the Illinois assembly, singling out a Republican politician who is also a school superintendent, Roger Eddy.
“Mr. Eddy became the face of the Republican failure to get a voucher bill through the Illinois assembly. The bill had passed the Senate. Yet despite being pushed by a remarkable coalition involving fellow Republicans, a free-market state think tank, and a prominent African-American leader, only 25 Republicans in the House voted yes. That was 12 votes short. Mr. Eddy was one of 23 Republicans who killed it by voting no.”
What happened? I thought today’s Republicans believed in competition and choice!
“In fairness, Democrats voted against the bill in larger numbers, which is to be expected of a party in thrall to the public employee unions. Still, the GOP failure is striking. Republicans typically complain about not getting black support for reforms that would benefit primarily black families. In this case, however, they had that support, in the form of the Rev. James Meeks, a African-American state senator leader whom Barack Obama has called a spiritual adviser. Mr. Eddy says it's not fair to characterize him as a teachers union yes-man. In a long phone conversation, he says he supports some things that don't make the unions happy.”
So he says. But he sure got lots of teachers’ union money: more than $70,000 since 2002. It’s also odd that he took money even from Chicago’s Union, since Eddy’s district is downstate, many miles away from Chicago.
Maybe Arne Duncan’s pro-charter overtures show that on the national level, politicians are not totally owned by the unions. On the state level, however, the unions have a stranglehold. That’s terrible for the kids.

Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/11/school-vouchers-die-again/#ixzz0nfEr3Nic

As a retired middle school teacher, I think I can read between the lines here. Here’s what I see. This kid has been an obnoxious brat since school started last August. She has been written up numerous times and her parents have been called in numerous times to no good effect. This was the final straw. ISD means in-school detention, meaning she is not in her regular classes and her regular teachers don’t have to deal with her. At the end of the school year, a principal can suspend or give ISD to a habitual bad actor for the rest of the school year. That gives all of her teachers and probably many other students a few days of relief towards the end of school. Hallelujah, that one's gone until next year

Ken, the clip says she never gets in trouble of any kind at school. She didn't seem at all like a troublemaker.

The Candybaggers could be the Junior Wing of the People's Front of Judea, I mean the Tea Party movement. They could be the poster (um) children for smaller government as it relates to the education system. Which would be funny, endearing, and take the final piss out of those Liberaltards who keep calling the tea partiers "teabaggers."

I'm sorry, but what the mother says at the end of that interview seems a bit whacked to me.

Mom says: I told her, "Leanne, there are somethings in life that aren't fair, unfortunately you're learning very young that life's not fair and you're just going to have to suck it up and deal with it."

Instead how about, "Some things in life aren't fair and you'll need to suck it up once in a while, but this is not one of those cases where you'll have to suck it up. We're going to go talk to the principal and show them that they are very wrong about what they're doing, and we are going to keep going up the chain until we get the proper resolution and get any idiots, who want to stand in are way, fired."

Because us little folks just "sucking it up" isn't the proper response. Whenever some dumbass official, who lacks the benefits of having working gray matter, blindly applies policies which are completely unjust and asinine, they need to be called on it.

"Sucking it up" when dumb rules made by government bureaucrats is why we end up with so much asinine government bureaucracy! They get away with it because we let them get away with it.