http://www.wral.com/news/9171592/detail.html

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. -- A high school student caught having sex with his girlfriend at her house has sued the Wake County Board of Education, saying that the school system has no authority over students' off-campus behavior and should not have suspended him. Ryan Biggar, 16, was suspended for 10 days from Middle Creek High School in Apex after he and his 17-year-old girlfriend were caught having sex at her house during school hours on April 19. Biggar and his mother Patricia Biggar filed suit last week in Wake Superior Court. Biggar and his girlfriend were in a program in which high school students teach physical education at elementary schools. The students they taught were on a field trip that day, leaving them with 90 free minutes, the suit says. The pair left campus and went to the girl's house where they were discovered by her mother who returned home unexpectedly, according to the suit. The mother then called her husband, who came home and called police. Police drove Biggar back to school and handed him over to school officials, who suspended him for 10 days. The suspension notice says Biggar violated a school policy prohibiting "behavior which is indecent, overly affectionate, or of a sexual nature in the school setting." According to the lawsuit, Biggar has a permit that allows him to leave school at lunch. "Students leave school and essentially take the rules with them," said school board lawyer Ann Majestic. "The parents and the student had signed a form indicating the conditions under which a student could be off campus during the lunch hour, and it made it clear that school rules applied while the student was off campus." Biggar's mother and his lawyer declined to comment on the lawsuit, which also names Middle Creek principal John Williams and Superintendent Bill McNeal. Biggar's suspension ended Wednesday, but he remained out of school Friday pending a disciplinary hearing May 15. School officials have recommended his suspension be extended until the school year ends June 9. Biggar and his mother have filed court papers asking the suspension be lifted until the lawsuit is resolved. School officials are prohibited from saying whether Biggar's girlfriend was punished."

5/7/2006 4:04:52 PM

that's some bullshit.

5/7/2006 4:10:28 PM

who cares

Jesus says it's a sin, anyway

5/7/2006 4:12:02 PM

you can argue with it as much as you want, but considering the following, the school is in the right:

Quote :

"The suspension notice says Biggar violated a school policy prohibiting "behavior which is indecent, overly affectionate, or of a sexual nature in the school setting." "The parents and the student had signed a form indicating the conditions under which a student could be off campus during the lunch hour, and it made it clear that school rules applied while the student was off campus.""

5/7/2006 4:18:06 PM

its not consitutional, it doesnt matter if you sign some form saying you cannt do XYZ

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 4:22 PM. Reason : 3]

5/7/2006 4:22:04 PM

wtf are you bringing in the Constitution in this for.

5/7/2006 4:25:51 PM

ever heard of the bill of rights?

5/7/2006 4:27:55 PM

^ You don't have rights in public school, my friend.

5/7/2006 4:32:45 PM

so are you saying workplaces and schools can't make their own rules?

i am curious.

are you saying a student who starts eating in the middle of class can't be stopped because it would violate his rights to eat whenever he pleases? when you enroll in school, you agree that you won't eat in class. is that an unconstitutional condition?

i am not being sarcastic. please explain.

5/7/2006 4:33:40 PM

Here's the problem:

Suspension and expulsion are tools for the school to use to remove students that disrupt the school, preventing other students from getting their education. Unless the student is disruptive, the school has a duty to provide them the best education they can. While I don't think the student's actions were perfectly OK, denying him his education is criminal. He probably should be punished, but it shouldn't interfere with his education (or future).

5/7/2006 4:35:54 PM

"School officials are prohibited from saying whether Biggar's girlfriend was punished"

that seems fair

5/7/2006 4:36:18 PM

Quote :

"are you saying a student who starts eating in the middle of class can't be stopped because it would violate his rights to eat whenever he pleases?"

The real comparison here is would you throw a kid out of school for trying to eat in class? The punishment needs to fit the action and it needs to be consistent with the schools mission, to educate.

5/7/2006 4:38:03 PM

Quote :

"The mother then called her husband, who came home and called police."

Why the hell would you call the police? His beef is with his daughter. Why you would call the police is beyond me.

5/7/2006 4:40:27 PM

Quote :

""behavior which is indecent, overly affectionate, or of a sexual nature in the school setting.""

It seems clear to me that this would exclude a private residence.

I'm also shocked because when I was in school, punishment wasn't that harsh for people who had sex at school, nor for fights.

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ?]

5/7/2006 4:43:30 PM

Quote :

"^ You don't have rights in public school, my friend. "

They werent in public school, my friend.
(but actually, you do still have certain rights in public schools)

Quote :

"Why the hell would you call the police? "

Clearly, these are bad parents, and they fucking insane. Those kinds put the most pressure on schools.



[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 4:48 PM. Reason : 8787]

5/7/2006 4:43:36 PM

Quote :

"You don't have rights in public school"

There is a Supreme Court decision that ruled that the Constitution does NOT end at the school house door.

5/7/2006 4:47:49 PM

Quote :

"Clearly, these are bad parents, and they fucking insane. Those kinds put the most pressure on schools."

No wonder their daughter is a sl00t.

5/7/2006 4:48:24 PM

Quote :

"Biggar and his girlfriend were in a program in which high school students teach physical education at elementary schools. The students they taught were on a field trip that day, leaving them with 90 free minutes, the suit says."

CLASSIC! MY friend and her boyfriend joined that program specifically for the free sex time. There was always someone home at her place, so I gave her the key to my crib for the afternoon delight. Good times.

5/7/2006 4:49:13 PM

The problem is that techinically he was "on the clock" and as such, was still bound by the terms of his agreement.

5/7/2006 5:24:56 PM

Some contract doesnt trump basic rights afforded by the constitution, ie, to fuck in your own house.

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 5:33 PM. Reason : 99534]

5/7/2006 5:33:38 PM

reminds me alot of the police "referring you back to the university."

take for example a friend who got a ticket for open container on hillsborough street on hike night. cops referred him to the university and all. I could understand if the incident were "on campus" and such, but a. Hillsborough street is not "owned" by the university.
b. He's of age.

i know the law is the law, but still. Give him the ticket, and let him take it up with the district courts. no need to have the university involved, giving him a slap on the wrist later.

same thing here. so what if the kids were having sex. its not like the school system is gonna single-handedly prevent these kids from doing what they wanna do. if not during school, after school. let the parents worry about how they wanna approach the situation, and quit wasting the tax-payers dollars on it.

5/7/2006 5:35:37 PM

it should have ended with the dad coming home with a shotgun
no need to get anyone involved

5/7/2006 5:36:34 PM

why stop at letting a school punnish you for fucking?

how about lets have the school suspend all people that dont go to church on sundays?

5/7/2006 5:37:02 PM

why didnt the girl get suspended too?

5/7/2006 5:37:31 PM

cause anytime two people have sex its always because the guy somehow coerced or tricked the girl into it

5/7/2006 5:42:04 PM

I just love the fact that they called the cops on a guy over the age of consent for having sex with a girl who was older than he was.

5/7/2006 5:47:08 PM

Quote :

"Some contract doesnt trump basic rights afforded by the constitution, ie, to fuck in your own house."

He had certain expectations for helping the kids out and he left to go have sex. You can't do whatever you please when you're working for someone.

5/7/2006 5:49:52 PM

Quote :

"caught having sex at her house during school hours on April 19"

truancy sounds like grounds for expulsion to me...

Quote :

"Some contract doesnt trump basic rights afforded by the constitution"

Right, and the constitution doesn't trump the basic rights of the school to decide who can and cannot attend.

You have no constitutional right to attend a public school. As long as they expel anyone of any race/creed/religion that gets caught having sex then there are no 14th Amendment grounds upon which to appeal this local decision.

5/7/2006 5:52:14 PM

^^ & ^

didnt read the article.

they were allowed to leave campus, THATS NOT THE ISSUE, he couldnt be truant, they had a permit, it was a lunch hour, they didnt have to do that program that day (90 mins).

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 5:56 PM. Reason : 4222]

5/7/2006 5:55:04 PM

Quote :

"its not consitutional, it doesnt matter if you sign some form saying you cannt do XYZ"

Ok, so then I have the right to bear arms in an airport or a public school?

Basically the problem here is that the school let these off campus, if they weren't going over to that elementary school, they shouldn't have left the high school.

5/7/2006 5:55:44 PM

Quote :

"He had certain expectations for helping the kids out and he left to go have sex. You can't do whatever you please when you're working for someone."

kids were on a field trip

5/7/2006 5:55:53 PM

^^

I don know, do you have an airport inside your home?

Quote :

"students' off-campus behavior........The suspension notice says Biggar violated a school policy prohibiting "behavior which is indecent, overly affectionate, or of a sexual nature in the school setting." "

you are wrong about the idea that this over them leaving campus. again...people need to read.



[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 6:05 PM. Reason : 54w2]

5/7/2006 5:57:00 PM

Quote :

"truancy sounds like grounds for expulsion to me..."

And I suppose the death penalty is the answer to suicide?

5/7/2006 6:19:39 PM

Quote :

"I don know, do you have an airport inside your home?"

No, but that doesn't really matter, you've implied that the consititution applies everywhere, which is not true.

5/7/2006 6:44:46 PM

i never said anything like that.

you have certain rights at home, and in school.

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 7:03 PM. Reason : 878]

5/7/2006 6:59:45 PM

^

Quote :

"The suspension notice says Biggar violated a school policy prohibiting "behavior which is indecent, overly affectionate, or of a sexual nature in the school setting.""

Kris is right. While in the school setting they are expected to either be at the elementary school or at the high school.

5/7/2006 7:09:40 PM

^he wasnt suspended for not being at school. read the article first, and try again.

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 7:14 PM. Reason : 3]

5/7/2006 7:13:45 PM

he was suspended for "behavior of sexual nature in a school setting."

I consider sex to be a behavior of sexual nature.

If they did this on their time after school, no problem. At least, with the school being concerned.

5/7/2006 7:26:01 PM

What this school did is completely outrageous, and it's just a symptom of the larger problems, that adults erase the rights of children in school, and parents/society think they own the lives and morals of children.

5/7/2006 7:30:53 PM

The school had a right to do what they did.

It's not a constitutional issue, because the school doesn't even have to give the kid a permit to leave campus during lunch. That's a privilege they extend to him, on grounds that he follow the rules (which basically say that while he's on lunch, he's still "in" school). He violated the contract, and the school is acting on it, which is important, because it sets the precedence that kids can't do whatever with their free lunch period (such as drugs, and other more illicit activities) because the school is legally responsible for them at that time. If the kid gets in an accident or something, the school has to pay, or can get sued. Plus, it's not the kids' house, it's the dad's house, and if he doesn't want his daughter bringing home middle-school kids during their official school lunch period and screwing them, he legally has a right to blame the school for the kid trespassing on his property.

It's kind of a suck situation for the kids, but if you imagine yourself as an administrator or parent in the situation, ESPECIALLY considering this involves a middle school student, you would have to do the same thing (punish the kid in some way).

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 7:54 PM. Reason : ]

5/7/2006 7:51:51 PM

^ Bingo. The kids were given permission to leave school grounds on certain conditions. Those conditions were not met, so the kids are suspended.

5/7/2006 7:59:08 PM

^^MIDDLE SCHOOL KID?!?! MIDDLE CREEK HIGH SCHOOL. LEARN TO READ. And the school can claim leaving campus during lunch is a privilege, but we all know they need kids to leave campus for lunch because the fucking cafeterias are too small. And it's not clear that this was during lunch anyway:

From the article...

Quote :

"Students leave school and essentially take the rules with them," said school board lawyer Ann Majestic. "The parents and the student had signed a form indicating the conditions under which a student could be off campus during the lunch hour, and it made it clear that school rules applied while the student was off campus."

Right. But were they having sex during lunch or during PEPI? It appears that he signed a form with regards to his lunch period, not his PEPI class.

Three questions:

1. Was he having sex during PEPI or lunch?
2. Did he sign a form regarding his behavior during PEPI time?
3. Was he supposed to use that time to plan activities for the kids who were on a field trip, or was this time genuine "free" time?

If he was having sex during PEPI, and there was no form for his behavior during PEPI, but he was supposed to be planning, then the worse that should happen is he should have his grade docked or fail the PEPI class. I'm not even sure if they give grades for PEPI. I guess they could suspend him for "skipping class" if he was supposed to be planning, but that's a stretch.

He should get at the cops for taking him back to school. He's 16. He can choose to not go to school if he wants to, right?

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 8:17 PM. Reason : sss]

5/7/2006 8:07:57 PM

Men can’t be raped only sexually assaulted whether its just a case of being drunk & unable to make good decisions or being sodomized horrifically, only men have to sign up for the draft, and I think when underage sex is involved it’s the males fault usually from a legal standpoint. The guy was taken by the police & its his punishment that several people here are saying is justified but since the "school officials are prohibited from saying whether Biggar's girlfriend was punished" it may be the case that they are leaving it up to the parents b/c shes a female, but punishing him b/c he’s male which I would think of as unfair.

Punishing someone for having sex on a break is ridiculous. I’m sure somehow it was technically against the rules, but there are all kinds of technical rules that aren’t enforced at high schools & this one seems to be pushed only b/c of how conservative the judicial agents involved are.

5/7/2006 8:21:09 PM

Quote :

"and if he doesn't want his daughter bringing home middle-school kids during their official school lunch period and screwing them, he legally has a right to blame the school for the kid trespassing on his property."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

5/7/2006 8:23:49 PM

as far as lunch periods go...i remember a few students who would drink during their lunch period and we had off campus lunch. one day these kids got caught, off campus, drinking during lunch. the definitely got suspended.

i'm pretty sure anyone can get in trouble at school, for something they did off campus, even after the last school bell rings due to after school activities that allow the campus to remaind open and students to be on campus (ie, even though XYZ practice is going on campus and billy wasn't on XYZ team, but he got in trouble off campus for ABC misdeamenor/felony he can be suspended b/c school is still "in session.")

5/7/2006 8:29:14 PM

Quote :

"but he got in trouble off campus for ABC misdeamenor/felony"

fucking is legal

5/7/2006 8:32:36 PM

this may be a little off topic, and im not sure if any other schools do this but the high school i graduated from was a little crazy with some of their rules - a guy i knew robbed a store one saturday and was put in jail for it and all, came back to school on monday and was suspended 10 days because he did a criminal act outside of school

i remember a speech the principal gave the school at the beginning of my 10th grade year -"if you shoplift from wal-mart, theres no need for you the be in school, you will be punished here if we find out about it"

so even though this doesnt involve students during their school hours - i dont see how schools can punish students outside of school

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 8:37 PM. Reason : ]

5/7/2006 8:34:48 PM

Dangerous criminal behavior perhaps might warrant keeping them away... maybe even if you are worried about theft of your own stuff. But suspending people for something legal like having sex not on company grounds during a break is just a little to over the top conservative. And also only punishing the male for it would be a bad thing too.

5/7/2006 8:58:24 PM

Quote :

"And the school can claim leaving campus during lunch is a privilege, but we all know they need kids to leave campus for lunch because the fucking cafeterias are too small."

Bullshit. Pack a lunch and eat it outside.

Quote :

"Right. But were they having sex during lunch or during PEPI? It appears that he signed a form with regards to his lunch period, not his PEPI class."

The article says that the lawsuit claims that he has the lunch pass, without seeing the suit but going off the wording of the article (a shakey assumption I know) that would to me imply that the parents are suing on the grounds that he had such a pass and permission to be off grounds. If that's the case, then the school has every right to then counter that point with the fact that the permit has certain restrictions.

Beyond that if it was during his PEPI time and not during lunch, I guarantee that there is some documentation as part of the whole program that indicates that students leaving campus for PEPI are doing so soely for the purpose of PEPI. As someone said above, from the time you enter the school bus until the time you walk in your door, courts have found the schools to be liable for the welfare of their students, that puts them under the charge of the school regardless of where the student is physicaly located.

Quote :

"He should get at the cops for taking him back to school. He's 16. He can choose to not go to school if he wants to, right?"

I'm pretty sure even if that is the case, it doesn't allow for choosing which days and what times you attend.

Edit
------

Just caught this:

Quote :

"Some contract doesnt trump basic rights afforded by the constitution, ie, to fuck in your own house."

Yes, actualy, a contract can indeed trump such a right to a degree. If you don't believe me, try this: the next time you're supposed to go to work, don't. Instead stay home and fuck. See how quickly you get fired for not showing up to work and see how far you get in the court system claiming you were wrongfuly terminated.

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 10:10 PM. Reason : adsfadf]

5/7/2006 10:06:13 PM

Biggar please

5/7/2006 10:11:19 PM