SK> RM>  -> Eve Bruneau, a student who filed suit against South
SK> RM>  -> Kortright Central School District for allegedly allowing male
SK> RM>  -> students to harass her and other girls, lost her case (news
SK> RM>  -> services/WASH POST, 11/22).  A federal jury yesterday 
SK> rejected
SK> RM>  -> her claim, saying that "it was unreasonable to look at 
SK> adolescent
SK> RM>  -> name-calling with adult expectations," writes the paper.
SK> 
SK> RM>  SK>Does anyone else think this was a step backward?
SK> 
SK> I agree that one can't have the same expectations for student
SK> behavior as one would have of adults in a workplace-type setting.
SK> However, I had the impression that in this particular case (I had,
SK> over the course of a few weeks, posted more than one article on
SK> this same case) the school had been made aware 
    "Aware" does not, in itself, equate to the _ability_ to control 
third-party behavior.
    That's why sexual-harassment law, established mainly in court decisions 
involving _workplaces_ where the boss has the _ability_ to control 
third-party (employee) behavior by firing them or threatening to, just is not 
suited to situations involving students mistreating other students in a 
school.  (After all, lots of students, particularly at some grade levels, 
would just love to get "fired".)  School administrators and teachers just 
don't have the kind of _ability_ to control student teasing that a company 
boss has to control a foreman propositioning a subordinate.
SK> I worry about this ruling, because I am afraid that it will cause
SK> other schools to find that they do not need to protect students
SK> from harrassment by other students, and IMO every student has a
SK> right to a harrassment-free school environment, 
    A "right" to a harassment-free school environment?  I just doubt that a 
school can ever guarantee that, and to hold that such a legal duty exists 
would place schools and teachers in an impossible role.
--- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS])
---------------