High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
The Rutherford Institute says that it has obtained a TRO protecting a student who refused to wear a badge with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip that would allow the school to determine her location at all times on school grounds. See https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_to_stop_texas_school_from. The application for a TRO is here: https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-21-2012_TRO-Petition_Hernandez.pdf. Apparently the student considers the wearing of the badge to be a kind of idolatry or act of submission to a false god. She was offered the option of wearing a badge with the chip removed, but she refused, because wearing it would signal her approval of or participation in the program, which raises both free exercise and compelled speech issues. There are other issues, as well, including a claim that the school prohibited her from passing out flyers on school grounds opposing the RFID program. The Rutherford Institute describes the RFID program as a preparation of students for a society in which everyone is constantly under surveillance, but they also note that the school district hopes to get more funding by improving attendance. I thought this was going to be about the "mark of the beast" from the Book of Revelation. The story and the application for a TRO don't seem to be that specific on the source of her religious objection. I think she also claims that the program violates her right to privacy and that the requirement that she wear a badge (even without the chip) to indicate support for the program is a form of compelled speech. I haven't anything on this story in the mainstream press. Perhaps someone on the list knows more or can provide links to news stories. Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
The complaint alleges that all students were required to wear the badge -- not just those in disciplinary trouble or with a history of truancy. Nothing individualized about this. On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:47:56 -0800 "Scarberry, Mark" wrote: >The Rutherford Institute says that it has obtained a TRO protecting a student >who refused to wear a badge with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip >that would allow the school to determine her location at all times on school >grounds. See >https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_to_stop_texas_school_from. > The application for a TRO is here: >https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-21-2012_TRO-Petition_Hernandez.pdf. > >Apparently the student considers the wearing of the badge to be a kind of >idolatry or act of submission to a false god. She was offered the option of >wearing a badge with the chip removed, but she refused, because wearing it >would signal her approval of or participation in the program, which raises >both free exercise and compelled speech issues. There are other issues, as >well, including a claim that the school prohibited her from passing out flyers >on school grounds opposing the RFID program. > >The Rutherford Institute describes the RFID program as a preparation of >students for a society in which everyone is constantly under surveillance, but >they also note that the school district hopes to get more funding by improving >attendance. > >I thought this was going to be about the "mark of the beast" from the Book of >Revelation. The story and the application for a TRO don't seem to be that >specific on the source of her religious objection. I think she also claims >that the program violates her right to privacy and that the requirement that >she wear a badge (even without the chip) to indicate support for the program >is a form of compelled speech. > >I haven't anything on this story in the mainstream press. Perhaps someone on >the list knows more or can provide links to news stories. > >Mark S. Scarberry >Professor of Law >Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise. The school's website says that it has a high rate of absences. I gather the school thinks that if it monitors all students it will somehow be able to claim a higher attendance rate and get more state funds (which I suppose are based on daily attendance, as they are in California). The school was willing to accommodate her by removing the chip from her badge, but apparently that would not affect the appearance of the badge. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on the list! Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:30 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Scarberry, Mark Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program The complaint alleges that all students were required to wear the badge -- not just those in disciplinary trouble or with a history of truancy. Nothing individualized about this. On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:47:56 -0800 "Scarberry, Mark" wrote: >The Rutherford Institute says that it has obtained a TRO protecting a student >who refused to wear a badge with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip >that would allow the school to determine her location at all times on school >grounds. See >https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_to_stop_texas_school_from. > The application for a TRO is here: >https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-21-2012_TRO-Petition_Hernandez.pdf. > >Apparently the student considers the wearing of the badge to be a kind of >idolatry or act of submission to a false god. She was offered the option of >wearing a badge with the chip removed, but she refused, because wearing it >would signal her approval of or participation in the program, which raises >both free exercise and compelled speech issues. There are other issues, as >well, including a claim that the school prohibited her from passing out flyers >on school grounds opposing the RFID program. > >The Rutherford Institute describes the RFID program as a preparation of >students for a society in which everyone is constantly under surveillance, but >they also note that the school district hopes to get more funding by improving >attendance. > >I thought this was going to be about the "mark of the beast" from the Book of >Revelation. The story and the application for a TRO don't seem to be that >specific on the source of her religious objection. I think she also claims >that the program violates her right to privacy and that the requirement that >she wear a badge (even without the chip) to indicate support for the program >is a form of compelled speech. > >I haven't anything on this story in the mainstream press. Perhaps someone on >the list knows more or can provide links to news stories. > >Mark S. Scarberry >Professor of Law >Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
I must say that this seems to be an easy case for any civil libertarian to support even (or perhaps especially) in the absence of a free exercise claim. The RI is absolutely correct that this is socializing students to be docile citizens within a "surveillance society." Sandy - Original Message - From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thu Nov 22 11:41:41 2012 Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise. The school's website says that it has a high rate of absences. I gather the school thinks that if it monitors all students it will somehow be able to claim a higher attendance rate and get more state funds (which I suppose are based on daily attendance, as they are in California). The school was willing to accommodate her by removing the chip from her badge, but apparently that would not affect the appearance of the badge. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on the list! Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:30 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Scarberry, Mark Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program The complaint alleges that all students were required to wear the badge -- not just those in disciplinary trouble or with a history of truancy. Nothing individualized about this. On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:47:56 -0800 "Scarberry, Mark" wrote: >The Rutherford Institute says that it has obtained a TRO protecting a student >who refused to wear a badge with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip >that would allow the school to determine her location at all times on school >grounds. See >https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_to_stop_texas_school_from. > The application for a TRO is here: >https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-21-2012_TRO-Petition_Hernandez.pdf. > >Apparently the student considers the wearing of the badge to be a kind of >idolatry or act of submission to a false god. She was offered the option of >wearing a badge with the chip removed, but she refused, because wearing it >would signal her approval of or participation in the program, which raises >both free exercise and compelled speech issues. There are other issues, as >well, including a claim that the school prohibited her from passing out flyers >on school grounds opposing the RFID program. > >The Rutherford Institute describes the RFID program as a preparation of >students for a society in which everyone is constantly under surveillance, but >they also note that the school district hopes to get more funding by improving >attendance. > >I thought this was going to be about the "mark of the beast" from the Book of >Revelation. The story and the application for a TRO don't seem to be that >specific on the source of her religious objection. I think she also claims >that the program violates her right to privacy and that the requirement that >she wear a badge (even without the chip) to indicate support for the program >is a form of compelled speech. > >I haven't anything on this story in the mainstream press. Perhaps someone on >the list knows more or can provide links to news stories. > >Mark S. Scarberry >Professor of Law >Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
I appreciate Sandy's point, but I wonder whether the matter might be more complex than that. We don't want "docile" citizens, but we do want citizens who comply with legally enacted rules; and we certainly want minor students who so comply. We expect citizens to display their lack of docility by acting to change the law, not by disregarding the law. Moreover, we insist as a matter of law -- including tort law -- that schools protect the minors who are left in their care. Truancy isn't just bad for school funding; it's also bad for the students' education, it poses risks for children who are unsupervised when they are truant, and it might also in some neighborhoods increase street crime by some of the truants. Some degree of surveillance, it seems to me, is reasonable under the circumstances. Finally, this raises an insight that I owe to Sandy himself, though I forget the exact context in which he raised it. Adapting it to this context, let me ask this: Parents who can afford private schooling can send their children to schools that closely monitor their children's whereabouts, and make sure that the children don't cut class. I would think that many -- perhaps most, or even nearly all -- parents who had this choice would indeed prefer (all else being equal) a private school that engages in such monitoring. If I'm right, then why shouldn't parents who send their children to government-run schools also be able to take advantage of this feature (though realizing that there has to be a one-size fits-all solution at the level of the school or even the school district)? One answer, of course, is that the Bill of Rights applies to government-run schools but not private schools. But that doesn't really settle the question when it's not clear that there's any Bill ! of Rights violation. Eugene > -Original Message- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:00 AM > To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > Badge for Student Locator Program > > I must say that this seems to be an easy case for any civil libertarian to > support > even (or perhaps especially) in the absence of a free exercise claim. The RI > is > absolutely correct that this is socializing students to be docile citizens > within a > "surveillance society." > > Sandy > > > > - Original Message - > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Sent: Thu Nov 22 11:41:41 2012 > Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > Badge for Student Locator Program > > Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise. The school's website says that it has > a > high rate of absences. I gather the school thinks that if it monitors all > students it > will somehow be able to claim a higher attendance rate and get more state > funds (which I suppose are based on daily attendance, as they are in > California). > The school was willing to accommodate her by removing the chip from her > badge, but apparently that would not affect the appearance of the badge. > > Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on the list! > > Mark > > Mark S. Scarberry > Professor of Law > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > -Original Message----- > From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:30 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Scarberry, Mark > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > Badge for Student Locator Program > > The complaint alleges that all students were required to wear the badge -- not > just those in disciplinary trouble or with a history of truancy. Nothing > individualized about this. > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:47:56 -0800 > "Scarberry, Mark" wrote: > >The Rutherford Institute says that it has obtained a TRO protecting a student > who refused to wear a badge with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip > that would allow the school to determine her location at all times on school > grounds. See > https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory > _court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_to_stop_texas_school_from. The > application for a TRO is here: > https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-21-2012_TRO- > Petition_Hernandez.pdf. > > > >Apparently the student considers the wearing of the badge to be a kind of > i
Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
Why is this not the pedestrian version of the warrantless GPS? Marc - Original Message - From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 01:16 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program I appreciate Sandy's point, but I wonder whether the matter might be more complex than that. We don't want "docile" citizens, but we do want citizens who comply with legally enacted rules; and we certainly want minor students who so comply. We expect citizens to display their lack of docility by acting to change the law, not by disregarding the law. Moreover, we insist as a matter of law -- including tort law -- that schools protect the minors who are left in their care. Truancy isn't just bad for school funding; it's also bad for the students' education, it poses risks for children who are unsupervised when they are truant, and it might also in some neighborhoods increase street crime by some of the truants. Some degree of surveillance, it seems to me, is reasonable under the circumstances. Finally, this raises an insight that I owe to Sandy himself, though I forget the exact context in which he raised it. Adapting it to this context, let me ask this: Parents who can afford private schooling can send their children to schools that closely monitor their children's whereabouts, and make sure that the children don't cut class. I would think that many -- perhaps most, or even nearly all -- parents who had this choice would indeed prefer (all else being equal) a private school that engages in such monitoring. If I'm right, then why shouldn't parents who send their children to government-run schools also be able to take advantage of this feature (though realizing that there has to be a one-size fits-all solution at the level of the school or even the school district)? One answer, of course, is that the Bill of Rights applies to government-run schools but not private schools. But that doesn't really settle the question when it's not clear that there's any Bill ! of Rights violation. Eugene > -Original Message- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:00 AM > To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > Badge for Student Locator Program > > I must say that this seems to be an easy case for any civil libertarian to > support > even (or perhaps especially) in the absence of a free exercise claim. The RI > is > absolutely correct that this is socializing students to be docile citizens > within a > "surveillance society." > > Sandy > > > > - Original Message ----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Sent: Thu Nov 22 11:41:41 2012 > Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > Badge for Student Locator Program > > Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise. The school's website says that it has > a > high rate of absences. I gather the school thinks that if it monitors all > students it > will somehow be able to claim a higher attendance rate and get more state > funds (which I suppose are based on daily attendance, as they are in > California). > The school was willing to accommodate her by removing the chip from her > badge, but apparently that would not affect the appearance of the badge. > > Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on the list! > > Mark > > Mark S. Scarberry > Professor of Law > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > -----Original Message- > From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:30 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Scarberry, Mark > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > Badge for Student Locator Program > > The complaint alleges that all students were required to wear the badge -- not > just those in disciplinary trouble or with a history of truancy. Nothing > individualized about this. > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:47:56 -0800 > "Scarberry, Mark" wrote: > >The Rutherford Institute says that it has obtained a TRO protecting a student > who refused to wear a badge with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip > that would allow the school to determine her location at all times on school > grounds. See > https://www.rutherford.org
RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
Eugene raises a very interesting point, and he's correct that I do believe, at least as an initial proposition, that genuine goods that can be purchased by well-off folks can (even if not "must") be provided by the state to less-well-off persons. I do think the key, though, is some assessment of the good in question as a "genuine good," e.g., the ability to engage in genuine reproductive choice for state-provided contraception and abortion, the ability to perpetuate one's religion in the case of state-subsidized ability to attend religious schools. (Actually, of course, this argument was made most eloquently by Michael McConnell in his Harvard Law Review article edited by one Barack Obama.) Obviously, many people would deny that reproductive choice or socializing helpless youngsters into a religious perspective is a "good" at all, but, for the argument to work, most of the society does have to believe that these are goods. So perhaps it really does boil down to taking a ! poll and discovering a) whether most parents really do want to be able to locate their children at all times and b) whether at least older children (starting around 12?) do have some protected moral right to at least limited privacy, even against their hovering parents, and whether, at least with regard to public schools, this ought to be recognized as a protected legal right. Also, I'm not sure we want to create citizens who believe their dty is to "comply with [all] legally enacted rules," nor do I "certainly want minor students who so comply." Perhaps I'm influenced by the terrific book written by my wife Cynthia (on four "best of 2012 lists so far," re non-fiction books for children), We've Got a Job: The 1963 Children's March in Birmingham, which details the remarkable decision by minor students to take on Bull Connor's cops and, as a result, to revive a wavering Civil Rights Movement by encouraging John Kennedy finally to commit himself on civil rights. No "unruly children," no Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's not quite that simple, but the assumption of agency by the children, who were not really encouraged to march by their parents or by Dr. King, was literally an historic act. A Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. sandy -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 1:17 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program I appreciate Sandy's point, but I wonder whether the matter might be more complex than that. We don't want "docile" citizens, but we do want citizens who comply with legally enacted rules; and we certainly want minor students who so comply. We expect citizens to display their lack of docility by acting to change the law, not by disregarding the law. Moreover, we insist as a matter of law -- including tort law -- that schools protect the minors who are left in their care. Truancy isn't just bad for school funding; it's also bad for the students' education, it poses risks for children who are unsupervised when they are truant, and it might also in some neighborhoods increase street crime by some of the truants. Some degree of surveillance, it seems to me, is reasonable under the circumstances. Finally, this raises an insight that I owe to Sandy himself, though I forget the exact context in which he raised it. Adapting it to this context, let me ask this: Parents who can afford private schooling can send their children to schools that closely monitor their children's whereabouts, and make sure that the children don't cut class. I would think that many -- perhaps most, or even nearly all -- parents who had this choice would indeed prefer (all else being equal) a private school that engages in such monitoring. If I'm right, then why shouldn't parents who send their children to government-run schools also be able to take advantage of this feature (though realizing that there has to be a one-size fits-all solution at the level of the school or even the school district)? One answer, of course, is that the Bill of Rights applies to government-run schools but not private schools. But that doesn't really settle the question when it's not clear that there's any Bill ! of Rights violation. Eugene > -Original Message- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:00 AM > To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Ob
Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
NY Times reports that the ACLU in Oklahoma is challenging this. Standing issues? Just interviewed said he "thought" he could do this. Perhaps is an argument for a required first amendment course in all law schools. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com From: Sanford Levinson To: "'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu'" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:59 PM Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program I must say that this seems to be an easy case for any civil libertarian to support even (or perhaps especially) in the absence of a free exercise claim. The RI is absolutely correct that this is socializing students to be docile citizens within a "surveillance society." Sandy - Original Message - From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thu Nov 22 11:41:41 2012 Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise. The school's website says that it has a high rate of absences. I gather the school thinks that if it monitors all students it will somehow be able to claim a higher attendance rate and get more state funds (which I suppose are based on daily attendance, as they are in California). The school was willing to accommodate her by removing the chip from her badge, but apparently that would not affect the appearance of the badge. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on the list! Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:30 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Scarberry, Mark Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program The complaint alleges that all students were required to wear the badge -- not just those in disciplinary trouble or with a history of truancy. Nothing individualized about this. On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:47:56 -0800 "Scarberry, Mark" wrote: >The Rutherford Institute says that it has obtained a TRO protecting a student >who refused to wear a badge with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip >that would allow the school to determine her location at all times on school >grounds. See >https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_to_stop_texas_school_from. > The application for a TRO is here: >https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-21-2012_TRO-Petition_Hernandez.pdf. > >Apparently the student considers the wearing of the badge to be a kind of >idolatry or act of submission to a false god. She was offered the option of >wearing a badge with the chip removed, but she refused, because wearing it >would signal her approval of or participation in the program, which raises >both free exercise and compelled speech issues. There are other issues, as >well, including a claim that the school prohibited her from passing out flyers >on school grounds opposing the RFID program. > >The Rutherford Institute describes the RFID program as a preparation of >students for a society in which everyone is constantly under surveillance, but >they also note that the school district hopes to get more funding by improving >attendance. > >I thought this was going to be about the "mark of the beast" from the Book of >Revelation. The story and the application for a TRO don't seem to be that >specific on the source of her religious objection. I think she also claims >that the program violates her right to privacy and that the requirement that >she wear a badge (even without the chip) to indicate support for the program >is a form of compelled speech. > >I haven't anything on this story in the mainstream press. Perhaps someone on >the list knows more or can provide links to news stories. > >Mark S. Scarberry >Professor of Law >Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list c
Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
I just realized that Doug posted this story already. I should have scrolled down further. Happy T-Day to all Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com From: Paul Finkelman To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 1:55 PM Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program NY Times reports that the ACLU in Oklahoma is challenging this. Standing issues? Just interviewed said he "thought" he could do this. Perhaps is an argument for a required first amendment course in all law schools. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com From: Sanford Levinson To: "'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu'" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:59 PM Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program I must say that this seems to be an easy case for any civil libertarian to support even (or perhaps especially) in the absence of a free exercise claim. The RI is absolutely correct that this is socializing students to be docile citizens within a "surveillance society." Sandy - Original Message - From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thu Nov 22 11:41:41 2012 Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise. The school's website says that it has a high rate of absences. I gather the school thinks that if it monitors all students it will somehow be able to claim a higher attendance rate and get more state funds (which I suppose are based on daily attendance, as they are in California). The school was willing to accommodate her by removing the chip from her badge, but apparently that would not affect the appearance of the badge. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on the list! Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:30 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Scarberry, Mark Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program The complaint alleges that all students were required to wear the badge -- not just those in disciplinary trouble or with a history of truancy. Nothing individualized about this. On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:47:56 -0800 "Scarberry, Mark" wrote: >The Rutherford Institute says that it has obtained a TRO protecting a student >who refused to wear a badge with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip >that would allow the school to determine her location at all times on school >grounds. See >https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_to_stop_texas_school_from. > The application for a TRO is here: >https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-21-2012_TRO-Petition_Hernandez.pdf. > >Apparently the student considers the wearing of the badge to be a kind of >idolatry or act of submission to a false god. She was offered the option of >wearing a badge with the chip removed, but she refused, because wearing it >would signal her approval of or participation in the program, which raises >both free exercise and compelled speech issues. There are other issues, as >well, including a claim that the school prohibited her from passing out flyers >on school grounds opposing the RFID program. > >The Rutherford Institute describes the RFID program as a preparation of students for a society in which everyone is constantly under surveillance, but they also note that the school district hopes to get more funding by improving attendance. > >I thought this was going to be about the "mark of the beast" from the Book of >Revelation. The story and the application for a TRO don't seem to be that >specific on the source of her religious objection. I think she also claims >that the program violates her right to privacy and that the requirement that >she wear a badge (even without the chip) to indicate support for the program >is a form of compelled speech. > >I haven't anything on this story in the mainstream press. Perhaps someone on >the list knows more or
RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
Though I agree with much that Sandy says (and especially join in his Happy Thanksgiving wishes), I wonder whether the item below involves the tailing wagging the dog a bit. Many virtues that we inculcate in schools are only presumptive virtues, that sometimes must be set aside in favor of other virtues. That's true of honesty. (You might have to lie to the Nazi who comes to ask whether you're hiding Jews in your home.) It's true of solving problems in non-violent ways. (You might need to use deadly force in self-defense, or fight in a war to protect your country.) That's also true of following the law, and using law-abiding means to try to change laws you disapprove of. Yet it seems to me that it's good to teach such virtues, and have disciplinary or monitoring measures that help reinforce the virtues, even though we recognize that in rare circumstances such virtues need to yield to other concerns. Eugene Sandy Levinson writes: > Also, I'm not sure we want to create citizens who believe their dty is to > "comply > with [all] legally enacted rules," nor do I "certainly want minor students > who so > comply." Perhaps I'm influenced by the terrific book written by my wife > Cynthia (on four "best of 2012 lists so far," re non-fiction books for > children), > We've Got a Job: The 1963 Children's March in Birmingham, which details the > remarkable decision by minor students to take on Bull Connor's cops and, as a > result, to revive a wavering Civil Rights Movement by encouraging John > Kennedy finally to commit himself on civil rights. No "unruly children," no > Civil > Rights Act of 1964. It's not quite that simple, but the assumption of agency > by > the children, who were not really encouraged to march by their parents or by > Dr. King, was literally an historic act. > > A Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
I agree with Eugene's statement, but it's important to inculcate in children from a young age that they are entitled to an explanation from government for the laws it imposes on individuals (especially if, like children, they are without voting power), and that a failure to persuade might, depending on circumstances, legitimize disobedience. sandy -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 2:25 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program Though I agree with much that Sandy says (and especially join in his Happy Thanksgiving wishes), I wonder whether the item below involves the tailing wagging the dog a bit. Many virtues that we inculcate in schools are only presumptive virtues, that sometimes must be set aside in favor of other virtues. That's true of honesty. (You might have to lie to the Nazi who comes to ask whether you're hiding Jews in your home.) It's true of solving problems in non-violent ways. (You might need to use deadly force in self-defense, or fight in a war to protect your country.) That's also true of following the law, and using law-abiding means to try to change laws you disapprove of. Yet it seems to me that it's good to teach such virtues, and have disciplinary or monitoring measures that help reinforce the virtues, even though we recognize that in rare circumstances such virtues need to yield to other concerns. Eugene Sandy Levinson writes: > Also, I'm not sure we want to create citizens who believe their dty is > to "comply with [all] legally enacted rules," nor do I "certainly want > minor students who so comply." Perhaps I'm influenced by the terrific > book written by my wife Cynthia (on four "best of 2012 lists so far," > re non-fiction books for children), We've Got a Job: The 1963 > Children's March in Birmingham, which details the remarkable decision > by minor students to take on Bull Connor's cops and, as a result, to > revive a wavering Civil Rights Movement by encouraging John Kennedy > finally to commit himself on civil rights. No "unruly children," no > Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's not quite that simple, but the > assumption of agency by the children, who were not really encouraged to march > by their parents or by Dr. King, was literally an historic act. > > A Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
It seems to me that Eugene is talking about ends, and that this is a dispute about means. Of course we want students to attend school, we generally want them to comply with the rules, and we generally want adults and students alike to comply with the law. But we do not in this country use continuous surveillance as a means to those ends. Continuous surveillance, typically implemented with ankle bracelets, is reserved for people already convicted, or at least indicted, for serious crime -- for people who could be confined to jail or prison, and who are getting a break by being released subject to continuous surveillance. The rights of children are not always equal to the rights of adults. But I would want to see much stronger justification before creating a student exception to something so fundamental. As Marc Stern said, this is like the GPS device planted on a car -- except without even a claim of reasonable suspicion. On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:25:09 -0800 "Volokh, Eugene" wrote: > Though I agree with much that Sandy says (and especially join in his > Happy Thanksgiving wishes), I wonder whether the item below involves the > tailing wagging the dog a bit. Many virtues that we inculcate in schools are > only presumptive virtues, that sometimes must be set aside in favor of other > virtues. That's true of honesty. (You might have to lie to the Nazi who > comes to ask whether you're hiding Jews in your home.) It's true of solving > problems in non-violent ways. (You might need to use deadly force in > self-defense, or fight in a war to protect your country.) That's also true > of following the law, and using law-abiding means to try to change laws you > disapprove of. Yet it seems to me that it's good to teach such virtues, and > have disciplinary or monitoring measures that help reinforce the virtues, > even though we recognize that in rare circumstances such virtues need to > yield to other concerns. > > Eugene > Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
I appreciate Doug's point, but I wonder whether the difference between children and adults might actually be especially significant here. After all, when it comes to adults, we don't order them to go to school, or allow the police to pick them up in order to bring them home to their parents, or give their parents the right to withhold their property if they come home late or fail to keep the parent posted about where they are. As courts have pointed out, a child -- unlike an adult -- is always in someone's custody, in the sense that someone (whether parent, school official, or what have you) is entitled to control the child's actions in ways that are not tolerated as to adults. Children aren't in the custody of the prisons or the pretrial release system; but they are in the custody of someone. The question is whether the propriety of these restrictions on liberty of movement (applicable to children and to others) also supports restrictions on liberty from surveillance of one's movements. I'm inclined to say that it does, though I might be mistaken. Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:02 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > Badge for Student Locator Program > > It seems to me that Eugene is talking about ends, and that this is a dispute > about means. > > Of course we want students to attend school, we generally want them to > comply with the rules, and we generally want adults and students alike to > comply with the law. But we do not in this country use continuous surveillance > as a means to those ends. Continuous surveillance, typically implemented with > ankle bracelets, is reserved for people already convicted, or at least > indicted, > for serious crime -- for people who could be confined to jail or prison, and > who > are getting a break by being released subject to continuous surveillance. > > The rights of children are not always equal to the rights of adults. But I > would > want to see much stronger justification before creating a student exception to > something so fundamental. > > As Marc Stern said, this is like the GPS device planted on a car -- except > without > even a claim of reasonable suspicion. > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:25:09 -0800 > "Volokh, Eugene" wrote: > > Though I agree with much that Sandy says (and especially join in his > Happy Thanksgiving wishes), I wonder whether the item below involves the > tailing wagging the dog a bit. Many virtues that we inculcate in schools are > only presumptive virtues, that sometimes must be set aside in favor of other > virtues. That's true of honesty. (You might have to lie to the Nazi who > comes > to ask whether you're hiding Jews in your home.) It's true of solving > problems > in non-violent ways. (You might need to use deadly force in self-defense, or > fight in a war to protect your country.) That's also true of following the > law, > and using law-abiding means to try to change laws you disapprove of. Yet it > seems to me that it's good to teach such virtues, and have disciplinary or > monitoring measures that help reinforce the virtues, even though we recognize > that in rare circumstances such virtues need to yield to other concerns. > > > > Eugene > > > > Douglas Laycock > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law > School > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
For what it is worth, at a Thanksgiving table discussion of the issue, which included my daughter Meira, who has taught in the public schools in Atlanta and Boston and who now teaches at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (and who has written a terrific book of her own on civic education, No Citizen Left Behind), there was agreement that 50 years from now newborns will probably receive a chip that will be activated throughout their lives for a variety of purposes (including, no doubt, surveillance), and it will be accepted as a given. That being said, though both of my daughters could see a rationale for the school system's policy--Meira pointed out that teachers are personally liable if a student under their charge is missing--, they probably wouldn't consent to the policy for their own children (assuming consent is an option. I think what this demonstrates is that this is a closer case than I initially thought, though I'm still perturbed by the lesson it teaches vu! lnerable children about their lack of rights. Surely it violates the First Amendment to punish the child for passing out leaflets objecting to the policy. sandy -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:08 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program I appreciate Doug's point, but I wonder whether the difference between children and adults might actually be especially significant here. After all, when it comes to adults, we don't order them to go to school, or allow the police to pick them up in order to bring them home to their parents, or give their parents the right to withhold their property if they come home late or fail to keep the parent posted about where they are. As courts have pointed out, a child -- unlike an adult -- is always in someone's custody, in the sense that someone (whether parent, school official, or what have you) is entitled to control the child's actions in ways that are not tolerated as to adults. Children aren't in the custody of the prisons or the pretrial release system; but they are in the custody of someone. The question is whether the propriety of these restrictions on liberty of movement (applicable to children and to others) also supports restrictions on liberty from surveillance of one's movements. I'm inclined to say that it does, though I might be mistaken. Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:02 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID > Chip Badge for Student Locator Program > > It seems to me that Eugene is talking about ends, and that this is a > dispute about means. > > Of course we want students to attend school, we generally want them to > comply with the rules, and we generally want adults and students alike > to comply with the law. But we do not in this country use continuous > surveillance as a means to those ends. Continuous surveillance, > typically implemented with ankle bracelets, is reserved for people > already convicted, or at least indicted, for serious crime -- for > people who could be confined to jail or prison, and who are getting a break > by being released subject to continuous surveillance. > > The rights of children are not always equal to the rights of adults. > But I would want to see much stronger justification before creating a > student exception to something so fundamental. > > As Marc Stern said, this is like the GPS device planted on a car -- > except without even a claim of reasonable suspicion. > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:25:09 -0800 > "Volokh, Eugene" wrote: > > Though I agree with much that Sandy says (and especially join in his > Happy Thanksgiving wishes), I wonder whether the item below involves > the tailing wagging the dog a bit. Many virtues that we inculcate in > schools are only presumptive virtues, that sometimes must be set aside > in favor of other virtues. That's true of honesty. (You might have > to lie to the Nazi who comes to ask whether you're hiding Jews in your > home.) It's true of solving problems in non-violent ways. (You might > need to use deadly force in self-defense, or fight in a war to protect > your country.) That's also true of following the law, and using > law-abiding means to try to change laws you disapprove of. Yet it > seems to me that it's good to teach such virtue
RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
Perhaps the student's right to privacy can be found in the "penumbra" as was contraception and abortion. And as a separate right from the student's parents. Students don't leave their rights at the schoolhouse gate (except when the Supreme Court looks the other way as it did in Morse v. Frederick (2007)). Bob Ritter Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty A Project of the Law Office of Robert V. Ritter Falls Church, VA 703-533-0236 On November 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM "Volokh, Eugene" wrote: > I appreciate Sandy's point, but I wonder whether the matter might be more > complex than that. We don't want "docile" citizens, but we do want citizens > who comply with legally enacted rules; and we certainly want minor students > who so comply. We expect citizens to display their lack of docility by acting > to change the law, not by disregarding the law. > > Moreover, we insist as a matter of law -- including tort law -- that schools > protect the minors who are left in their care. Truancy isn't just bad for > school funding; it's also bad for the students' education, it poses risks for > children who are unsupervised when they are truant, and it might also in some > neighborhoods increase street crime by some of the truants. Some degree of > surveillance, it seems to me, is reasonable under the circumstances. > > Finally, this raises an insight that I owe to Sandy himself, though I forget > the exact context in which he raised it. Adapting it to this context, let me > ask this: Parents who can afford private schooling can send their children to > schools that closely monitor their children's whereabouts, and make sure that > the children don't cut class. I would think that many -- perhaps most, or even > nearly all -- parents who had this choice would indeed prefer (all else being > equal) a private school that engages in such monitoring. If I'm right, then > why shouldn't parents who send their children to government-run schools also > be able to take advantage of this feature (though realizing that there has to > be a one-size fits-all solution at the level of the school or even the school > district)? One answer, of course, is that the Bill of Rights applies to > government-run schools but not private schools. But that doesn't really settle > the question when it's not clear that there's any Bill ! > of Rights violation. > > Eugene > > > -Original Message- > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:00 AM > > To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' > > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > > Badge for Student Locator Program > > > > I must say that this seems to be an easy case for any civil libertarian to > > support > > even (or perhaps especially) in the absence of a free exercise claim. The RI > > is > > absolutely correct that this is socializing students to be docile citizens > > within a > > "surveillance society." > > > > Sandy > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Sent: Thu Nov 22 11:41:41 2012 > > Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > > Badge for Student Locator Program > > > > Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise. The school's website says that it > > has a > > high rate of absences. I gather the school thinks that if it monitors all > > students it > > will somehow be able to claim a higher attendance rate and get more state > > funds (which I suppose are based on daily attendance, as they are in > > California). > > The school was willing to accommodate her by removing the chip from her > > badge, but apparently that would not affect the appearance of the badge. > > > > Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on the list! > > > > Mark > > > > Mark S. Scarberry > > Professor of Law > > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:30 AM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Scarberry, Mark > > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip > > Badge for Student Locator Program > > > > The complaint alleges that all students were requi
RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program
How would we know that we don't already all have RFIDs installed? I understand they are rather unobtrusive. More seriously, presumably government access to voluntarily-installed RFIDs would have to be subject to reasonable expectations of privacy, and at least at this point most people don't expect that their kids will be tracked all day by their school system as a form of inventory management. Seems a bit like the thermal imaging situation, though I am far from knowledgeable about the relevant Fourth Amendment law. On the other hand, we are already tracked all the time, by cookies, accounts, internet providers, etc., something we willingly allow in order to gain access to certain benefits. Perhaps that creates a glidepath towards involuntary government RFID access. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson [slevin...@law.utexas.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:29 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program For what it is worth, at a Thanksgiving table discussion of the issue, which included my daughter Meira, who has taught in the public schools in Atlanta and Boston and who now teaches at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (and who has written a terrific book of her own on civic education, No Citizen Left Behind), there was agreement that 50 years from now newborns will probably receive a chip that will be activated throughout their lives for a variety of purposes (including, no doubt, surveillance), and it will be accepted as a given. That being said, though both of my daughters could see a rationale for the school system's policy--Meira pointed out that teachers are personally liable if a student under their charge is missing--, they probably wouldn't consent to the policy for their own children (assuming consent is an option. I think what this demonstrates is that this is a closer case than I initially thought, though I'm still perturbed by the lesson it teaches vu! lnerable children about their lack of rights. Surely it violates the First Amendment to punish the child for passing out leaflets objecting to the policy. sandy -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:08 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program I appreciate Doug's point, but I wonder whether the difference between children and adults might actually be especially significant here. After all, when it comes to adults, we don't order them to go to school, or allow the police to pick them up in order to bring them home to their parents, or give their parents the right to withhold their property if they come home late or fail to keep the parent posted about where they are. As courts have pointed out, a child -- unlike an adult -- is always in someone's custody, in the sense that someone (whether parent, school official, or what have you) is entitled to control the child's actions in ways that are not tolerated as to adults. Children aren't in the custody of the prisons or the pretrial release system; but they are in the custody of someone. The question is whether the propriety of these restrictions on liberty of movement (applicable to children and to others) also supports restrictions on liberty from surveillance of one's movements. I'm inclined to say that it does, though I might be mistaken. Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:02 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID > Chip Badge for Student Locator Program > > It seems to me that Eugene is talking about ends, and that this is a > dispute about means. > > Of course we want students to attend school, we generally want them to > comply with the rules, and we generally want adults and students alike > to comply with the law. But we do not in this country use continuous > surveillance as a means to those ends. Continuous surveillance, > typically implemented with ankle bracelets, is reserved for people > already convicted, or at least indicted, for serious crime -- for > people who could be confined to jail or prison, and who are getting a break > by being released subject to continuous surveillance. > > The rights of children are not always equal to the rights of adults. > But I would w
