Note that the Capital removed the comments below. Under the Capital’s editor from the mid-2000s to early 2010s, the Capital was intolerant of comments that critiqued its owners, its editors’ financial incentives, and its editors’ friends and allies. These restrictions were not disclosed in its published comments policy. Since editor Steve Gunn’s era, the Capital has been more tolerant of criticism; there has been more of a live and let live attitude. Perhaps it is because so few people read the electronic comments as opposed to the print comments. Readers can make their own judgment why the following comments were removed. Removed or not, the AACPS student grievance system is no model of justice, and the difference between it and the teacher grievance system is shocking. To the extent that the Capital has monopoly power over the local news market, editing comments critical of Capital news practices would be a First Amendment concern. To the extent the market is competitive, the concern goes away.
Capital News Article
Weathers, Ben, Chesapeake High student appeals suspension from fight, Capital, December 15, 2015.
Snider Comment [Note that the Capital removed this comment with no explanation]
I know nothing about this particular incident. But I do know that the handling of student grievances within AACPS is a travesty of procedural justice. The underlying problem is that the school board administers the system of justice (and is the judge of last resort within AACPS) but has minimal incentive to “micromanage” the justice administered by AACPS staff. Justice for adults is administered in public to keep the court system somewhat accountable. There are good reasons for secrecy in the administration of justice to minors, but the system of secrecy as it as evolved within AACPS also has a great downside.
I imagine that justice will be well served in this case precisely because the incident is public and the school board will have to be careful for PR reasons in what it does. The student is also very lucky that there was a video. Other students lacking lawyers and with parents who either have unjustified trust in the system or haven’t accumulated the necessary political chits with local administrators in their child’s school are less likely to get a fair hearing.
In short, there is a “justice gap” within AACPS, and I hope the Capital, as a self-proclaimed guardian of the public’s interest, will try to cover it more frequently.
Snider Comment [After the Capital removed the above comment, I submitted the following one, which it also removed with no explanation.]
This article provides a good case study of the student grievance process. But I don’t think it’s necessarily representative. There are fundamental structural problems with the handling of student grievances within AACPS. The underlying problem is that the school board administers the system of justice (and is the judge of last resort within AACPS) but has minimal incentive to “micromanage” the justice administered by AACPS staff. Justice for adults is administered in public to keep the court system somewhat accountable. There are good reasons for secrecy in the administration of justice to minors, but the system of secrecy as it as evolved within AACPS also has a great downside.
I imagine that justice will be well served in this case precisely because the incident is public and the school board will have to be careful for PR reasons in what it does. The student is also very lucky that there was a video. Other students lacking lawyers and with parents who either have unjustified trust in the system or haven’t accumulated the necessary political chits with local administrators in their child’s school are less likely to get a fair hearing.
