Supreme Court Ruling on School Strip Searches - And What It Means

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that schools cannot strip search students, with Clarence Thomas as the lone dissenter. In the case, a 13 year old was accused of having ibuprofen by an ex-friend. Though the school never searched her locker or desk, they strip searched the girl. For ibuprofen.

Redding says she was then asked to strip down to her underwear and stood there while the nurse and secretary inspected her clothes and shoes.

"Then, you know, I thought they were going to let me put my clothes back on, but instead they asked me to pull out my bra and shake it, and the crotch on my underwear, too," Redding says.

Redding says her whole body was visible to the school administrators. She kept her head down so the nurse and the secretary couldn't see her fighting back tears.

I've already discussed why I feel that this was assault, so I won't go into that again. The ruling, however, was interesting.

Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, asserting "that the majority’s finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline 'and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.'" What's troubling here is two points:

• He seems to feel that there's something inherently wrong with second-guessing educators' decisions. Why? Isn't a wise to have someone double checking to make sure that people are doing the right thing?
• He believes that a strip search helps "ensure the health and safety" of students, when quite the opposite is true. This strip search was extremely detrimental to the health and safety of the girl. She felt abused - which is exactly what she was. In the rare cases when a strip search is necessary, call trained professionals: the police.

The other interesting aspect of the ruling was that only two justices felt that the school administrators should not be shielded from liability. It is no shock at all that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman, was one of those two.

Justice Ginsburg singled out the assistant principal, noting that he had made Savana sit on a chair outside his office for more than two hours in what Justice Ginsburg called a “humiliating situation” when the case was argued.

“At no point did he attempt to call her parent,” Justice Ginsburg wrote on Thursday. “Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity.”

Indeed. You don't need to know the law to know that the following is completely inappropriate: searching a child's panties for painkillers - but never, say, searching her locker or her desk - and never calling her parents. And then making the child sit outside the office even though they never found anything!

Unfortunately, only two of the seven judges could understand that the school administrators abused this girl.

This is why we need more women on the Supreme Court. Women will not only be more likely to understand issues like this, but through sharing their experiences, they can help men understand.

Proposition 8: How Wording Made All the Difference

In an upsetting - but expected ruling - the CA Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 8, which reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Wording like this would have been torn to shreds by my high school debate team (which once, rather infamously, defined Huckleberry Finn, in the statement "Episcopal Academy should ban Huckleberry Finn," as the character himself.  The team then argued that to ban a character, but not the book itself, is absurd.  They nearly won.).  But I disgress...

Proposition 8 was awkwardly written, and intentionally so.  Consider some intepretations:

• Only (marriage between a man and a woman) is valid or recognized in California.  Nothing else - nothing at all - is valid.
  
• (Only marriage) between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  Of all legal or other agreements between a man and a woman, marriage is the only one that's valid.
• [No parenthetical equivalent] Pair "only" with "a man and a woman" to imply that no other marriages are valid.  This says nothing about other, non-marriage contracts.

Proposition 8 wants you, of course, to select the third option.  But should we?  Consider an analogy: "Only boys between the ages of 10 and 15 can apply."  

Common sense suggests that we parse the sentence as "Only (boys between the ages of 10 and 15) can apply."  Thus, no girls allowed.  Proposition 8, however, would have us pair "only" with "between the ages of 10 and 15" to imply that no other boys are able to apply.  This says nothing about other, non-boy applicants.  Girls are allowed, then?

Given the awkward, ambiguous wording, why didn't Proposition 8 say what it meant?  Why wasn't it written as "ban same-sex marriage" or "marriages between same-sex couples are not valid or recognized."?  Because wording matters.

Proposition 8 almost certainly would not have passed had it said what it meant: ban same-sex marriage.

From National Organization for Marriage's talking points:

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

52% of voters voted for Proposition 8; by NOM's own admission, only 42% would have voted for it had it been clearly written.  It should have been a resounding failure, not a narrow success.

So, please, do not let anyone tell you that "the people of California have spoken."  First, the voters spoke, not the people (voters do not accurately represent the people).  Second, the voters voted to support Prop 8, not to ban same-sex marriage.  There's a big difference - a 10 percentage point difference.

Wording matters.  It made all the difference in passing Proposition 8.

Think Less, Experiment More: 5 Lessons on Entrepreneurship

A guest blog post I wrote for Women Grow Business:

Working for Microsoft, Google and Apple, I not only became a better engineer - I became a better entrepreneur. Their successes and failures, encapsulated in these five lessons, provided me with invaluable instruction in how to build a company and effectively compete.

#1. Build a large network.
The “Biggies,” as I like to call them, have an unfair advantage: they have a network of literally thousands of experts. At Apple, I worked with some of the industry’s best designers. Microsoft has people who specialize in every conceivable role. At Google, I could walk down the hall and speak with the inventors of revolutionary technologies.

To compete with the biggies, you’ll need a network of your own. Get out to those start-up happy hours. Grab business cards. Set up coffee and lunch chats. And be open - you never know who might come in handy.

Keep reading here.

New! Affiliate Program for CareerCup

Good news bloggers and website owners!  CareerCup has just launched its new affiliate program.  CareerCup's affiliate programs allows website owners to post a link / ad for CareerCup's interview guide and, in return, collect some of the revenue from any sale.  Best of all, it's super-easy to use!

We offer two designs: Horizontal (example) and Vertical (example)

Preliminary tests have shown that it far outperforms Google Adsense ads.  Want in on the action?  Great!  Follow these instructions, or just tweak this code:

<SCRIPT type="text/javascript" src="http://www.careercup.com/js/affiliate.js"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT type="text/javascript">
var cc_width = 650;
var cc_font_size = 12;
var cc_header_font_size = 14;
var cc_background = '#FFFFFF';
var cc_header_color = '#009193';
var cc_guarantee_color = '#FF0000';
var cc_link_color = '#009193';
var cc_type = 'horizontal';
writeAffiliateCode('mydomain.com', '1');
</SCRIPT>

When you've got it up and running, email me your name, paypal account, and url.  You'll get a 20% cut of the revenue and will be paid each month.

Plan B for 17 year olds: Risky?

Mike Galanos wrote an opinion piece for the CNN asserting that Plan B is risky for 17 year olds. His argument, however, doesn't hold water. Let's take a look at it, bit by bit:

Think of a 17-year-old girl. Most of the time she's a high school senior, still living at home with Mom and Dad.

Ok, thinking, thinking... got it: A 17 year old girl, terrified to admit to her parents that she not only has sex (gasp!), but had unprotected sex. Will she take the chance at pregnancy to avoid telling her parents? Yeah, probably.

She still needs her parents in the tough times. But they will be cut out of a traumatic situation.

Wait, what's traumatic here? The sex? That's not traumatic. Unprotected sex? Not traumatic, as long as it doesn't result in pregnancy. So, actually, we're preventing a traumatic situation.

Now keep in mind birth control pills require a doctor's prescription, but a drug that is more powerful doesn't?

Ok - so maybe we should make birth control pills over the counter too? And, also, while Plan B is more powerful per pill, but birth control is a much more serious health concern because you're on it for weeks, months, years. The depression and other things that can result from birth control isn't really a risk with Plan B.

Some argue that a girl can get an abortion without parental notification in some states, so why not Plan B? But just because those states got it wrong by leaving parents out of the loop doesn't mean others should follow suit.

Let's make sure we can follow his argument here (where the ">" means "more serious than"): Abortion > Plan B > Birth control pills. States allow abortion without parental consent, but that doesn't imply allowing Plan B. But, earlier, he basically used the opposite logic: if states don't allow birth control, why would they allow a more serious drug? Inconsistent logic.

In most states, minors can't get a tattoo, body piercings or go to a tanning salon without a parent's permission, but we are going to leave them alone to take Plan B.

Well, yes, this makes sense because of the consequences of not providing access to Plan B: pregnancy. What's the consequence of not providing access to tattoos?

Timing is essential to the drug's effectiveness, Plan B supporters say, so getting parents and doctors involved would unnecessarily delay the teen's ability to pop the pill the "morning after." Does it really take that long to get a prescription?

First, it can take a while if it's on a weekend (and teens do have this tendency to have sex on weekends). Second, it would unnecessarily prevent the teen from telling her parents. Do you not know teenage girls? They don't really like getting grounded or barred from seeing their boyfriends.

The New York Times reports that since 18-year-olds were allowed to get Plan B without a prescription in 2006, there has been no evidence of it having an effect on the country's teen pregnancy or abortion rates.

True, but they also showed no increase in risky behaviors. So, 1 point for each side here.

We're enabling teenagers to act carelessly with an easy way out.

Yeah! Let's punish them with unplanned pregnancy! Brilliant!

"Teenagers are known for thinking they're untouchable and here we are saying that they can continue to do that and that there aren't any consequences."

Ah, so you admit that teens tend to think that nothing bad could happen to them? So, given that attitude, if they have unprotected sex, will they tell their parents so that they can get Plan B? I didn't think so.

The boyfriend will talk his girlfriend into unprotected sex with the promise of buying the "morning after pill" the next day.

Please, show me some data stating that this is a concern. Last I checked, boys were also scared of pregnancy - especially since, as you stated, Plan B is only 89% effective. (In fact, boys might be more scared of pregnancy, since they don't get any say in abortion.)

Yes, this could encourage unprotected sex and that means a greater risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

(A) Studies have shown that it doesn't increase promiscuity. (B) Isn't Plan B like $40 a pop? I don't think people are going to really rely on this as their sole method of birth control.

What about the 17-year-old girl who may get Plan B for her 15-year-old sophomore friend?

What about it? I'm ok with that, since it's certainly better than the 15 year old not taking it at all.

Yes, teens have sex and difficult situations will arise, but should we open the door for our girls to go through this alone? That is not what is best for our daughters.

See, here's the thing: Plan B supporters are trying to make sure your daughters don't have to go through "this" at all (where "this" is an unplanned pregnancy).

And, allow me to make a few additional points:

1. The average age in the US for people to lose their virginity is about 17. So to say that parents need to be informed that their 17 year old is having sex is a little extreme. If you have a 17 year old, they're probably having sex. This is not a crisis that needs to be averted. It's normal.
2. When a 17 year old girl has to chose between taking Plan B and informing her parents, and not taking it at all, she just wouldn't take Plan B. So, the parents won't be informed that their teen is having sex anyway.
3. It's not that I want parents to be uninformed. It's that I don't want unplanned pregnancies. Given that, I'll take uninformed parents and fewer unplanned pregnancies.
4. In an entire article about why 17 year olds should need a prescription to get Plan B, Galanos never even responds to the core reason why many people disagree. That's a rather glaring omission.