“Students possess fundamental rights which the State must respect”
Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas
Less than six weeks ago, area residents were dismayed to discover visits to local Dunkin’ Donut shops were not only being recorded by video cameras, but patron’s conversations were being taped as well. Moreover, it appears such practices were not new, having been used for more than five years and may be widespread throughout other types of retail establishments.
When confronted with public revelation of these tactics, local Dunkin’ Donut shop owners were quick to defend these policies as a reasonable means to protect their businesses from worker theft and potential robberies. They insist their workers have been made aware of these recordings and (small) notices are posted on shop entrances to inform the public of these practices.
Civil libertarians were quick to denounce these tactics as an intrusive invasion of the privacy of Dunkin’ Donut’s customers … particularly the taping of conversations. These concerns were supported in the editorial columns of several area newspapers.
Yet, there was a deafening silence from the public at large. Many saw the issue as much-ado-about-nothing, viewing it as not significantly different than the pervasive video cameras which monitor the every move of bank customers. Most were quick to parrot the argument people simply must be willing to give up a “few minor” rights from time to time.
Lost on them is Madison’s prophetic observation, “there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.“
In order to stem this tide which threatens to erode additional liberties, it’s necessary to identify the origins of ideas encouraging individuals in a free society to so willingly cede not only their rights, but those of their fellow citizens.
The most obvious source are the legions of statists who reject the democratic ideal government is merely a servant of the governed, “deriving (its) powers from the consent of the governed”. Rather, they subscribe to the belief, government can best order the lives of the nations citizenry, with the preservation of individual liberties being an periodic but acceptable casualty.
Yet, a more insidious wellspring of such notions is the public education system. Undemocratic by nature, many of teachers and administrators lack a thorough understanding and appreciation of or commitment to the fundamental precepts which guided the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, school systems have, and continue to act in ways which reinforce the message, relinquishing one’s constitutional rights may be unavoidable to achieve “their” goals.
A recent case in point, the Amherst/Souhegan school district has been debating installation of video cameras on school buses beginning this fall. Their aim, “to reduce vandalism and bad behavior”. However, lest one be concerned their school buses are being trashed, the district’s transportation coordinator has admitted, “This is not a reaction to problems on buses, but a preventative measure.”
Sounds a lot like the folks at Dunkin’ Donut!
However, there are significant differences. Perhaps the most important being, unlike patrons of a donut shop, students boarding school buses are effectively a captive population, required to by state law to attend school until they’re sixteen. As such, video cameras may infringe on the constitutional rights to privacy of the students … particularly in the admitted absence of any significant vandalism of disruptive behavior.
Twenty-five years ago, in the Supreme Court ruled (Tinker v. Des Moines), students do not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate. In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism.”
In the absence of any compelling evidence indicating video taping students on school buses solves a demonstrable problem, the proposed installation of these cameras is not only an expensive waste of money … it delivers an absolutely inappropriate message to the community’s impressionable youth.
If we permit educational establishments to inoculate today’s young people with the belief constitutionally protected rights are simply on loan from their government or subject to popular opinion, we endorse a prescription for the demise of our way of life.
As Ben Franklin noted, “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither.”
