The district offered to let her wear a badge that didn't have an rfid tag but she still refused. This case had nothing to do with rfid tags. The district said she had to wear an id badge and she refused saying that the badge represented the mark of the beast. If anything this is a freedom of religion case not an rfid case.
“By declaring Andrea Hernandez’s objections to be a secular choice and not grounded in her religious beliefs, the district court is placing itself as an arbiter of what is and is not religious. This is simply not permissible under our constitutional scheme, and we plan to appeal this immediately,” the institute said in statement.
I guess then, assuming the appeal works, schools cannot force students to wear arbitrary things. Would that be so awful? On the contrary, a legal precedent like that would be ideal.
Since its inception? There is a massive amount of case law defining what is and is not protected based on religiosity (and numerous other classes). Determining what is and is not constitutionally protected is one of the primary purposes of the judicial system in America.
Relax, they don't. The well-worn litmus test in these cases is whether the law was written to target religious conduct in particular (e.g. Sikhs can't wear turbans in public) versus a law that applies indiscriminately (like the speed limit) that some people try to evade "on religious grounds."
Obviously, the entire edifice of the law would collapse if anyone could exempt themselves from any part of it on the authority of their own incontrovertible say-so.
This is what the institute said. It is not the logic the court used when tossing her case.
Religious liberty has limits. The government is merely required to make reasonable accomodations for religion; it is not required to bend over for religion. Importantly, the use of id badges/bracelets was wholly secular (i.e, no religious or antireligious purposes.)
The school offered, as a reasonable accomodation, for the girl to wear a normal id badge without any sort of rfid or other technology. There were no further accomodations the school could reasonably make without burdening everyone else: the teachers, administrators, her fellow students. Thus, requiring further accomodation for her religious beliefs was not reasonable. After all, the girl has the option of going to private school if she truly believes that a simple id badge is against her religion.
Yes, I realize that was what the institute said. My point was showing that the argument they (the girl and her supporters) were making was not about RFID but about freedom of religion.
Oh it's fun to write off religions that make religion look bad as "misunderstood". It's the perfect explanation for why ¬(my religion) should be ignored. It's also up the valley of "No True Scotsman", a favorite among the religious.
Did it ever occur to the girl that wearing an identification lanyard is perhaps a security measure by the school to ensure only people permitted to be on the grounds are on the school grounds? I think the RFID chip is a great idea. It prevents people wagging and as mentioned prevents just anyone from walking into the school pretending to be a student. They presented a compromise of removing the chip and it wasn't good enough, there's no religious belief trespassing here just stupidity and defiance for school policy.
Here in Australia the public school I attended required me to wear an ID card (no RFID though) on a lanyard for security purposes so they could identify people who weren't supposed to be there. I don't see the problem because a couple of places I've worked at have required the same thing and all Government jobs also require a lanyard with ID displayed at all times.
>Did it ever occur to the girl that wearing an identification lanyard is perhaps a security measure by the school to ensure only people permitted to be on the grounds are on the school grounds?
Three things:
1. It's not for that. It's a way for the school to get credit (and therefore funding) for the students present on any given day. Its purpose has nothing to do with security.
2. If it were intended for security, it would be an ineffective measure. Anyone who wanted to get around it could simply wear something around their neck and nobody would give them a second glance.
3. Schools don't need more security. Yes, there has been some violence in schools, and that's awful, but in terms of preventable death rates, it's not even a blip on the radar.
I am aware that schools with better attendance get more funding which is a primary motivator in this situation but it also does have a security benefit, whether or not that was the goal of RFID in the first place. The issue of ID is moot here, schools for years have always had ID cards (for getting school library books, accessing computers, printing, etc). One could argue any form of security is ineffective, most forms of security have pros and cons, the RFID and ID card scenario is no different. One could also argue that an FBI ID card or bank teller ID card could be faked as well, it's more of a deterrent thing though.
I think we can all agree religious beliefs being a reason the family of this girl is against the mandatory school ID is unjustified and insane. I've yet to see any valid argument against mandatory ID cards loaded with RFID chips, is there a con here I am not seeing?
Anyone who wanted to get around it could simply wear something around their neck and nobody would give them a second glance.
When I was at high school (late 80s), there was a guy who totally covered his yellow public transport year-pass with black gaffer tape. Every day at the train station he'd flash it to the attendant, and it wasn't until near the end of the year that he was pulled up for it (during a blitz).
I'm sort of with you. I've never really understood what the objection was to RFID badges in schools. My kids already wear ID badges in public schools. Why would I be upset by better ones? It's not like they're being tracked at all times. They're in school. They're not even allowed to go to the bathroom without asking.
In what ways does an RFID chip or ID badge on a lanyard restrict the freedom of kids whilst at school? As for privacy, I don't see how an RFID chip or ID card does that either. Passports have RFID chips in them as well as our photo and other identifying info we're forced to have when visiting another country, do passports infringe upon privacy as well? My drivers licence here in Australia has my photo on it as well as an in-built chip, is it infringing my privacy when I am asked to show it at the liquor store or anywhere requiring proof of identification?
So for the rest of us who may not love the need for passports and drivers licenses but are overall fine with it, it seems RFID school badges might be just fine.
Personally I grew up without RFID chips or video cameras tracking me at school. I never really understood the needs of parents for more control, when it is just security theater anyway.
Sure I did, but what's the problem? That's part of growing up dude.
Also, if you need RFID chips or other tracking methods, then something is seriously defective in the child-parent-teacher relationship, because when I grew up my parents were finding out from the teachers themselves if I was skipping classes and my parents also made sure I understood that school is important, so skipping a lecture was the exception, not the rule.
Also, if you still want to track your own child, search for an app to install on his phone or something. Why should all children get the same treatment because of a couple of paranoid parents?
Speaking of which, I remember a saying: if your child climbs a tree, he gets the thrills in case he reaches the top, but you don't feel this excitement, just the pain in case he falls down.
As parents, we should remember this and IMHO the smart thing to do would be to teach him how to climb a tree properly ;-)
There are zero (0) responsible parents that would be OK with a school that told them it "wasn't their problem" to know where students were from the point they get on the school bus at 8:30AM to the point they get off it a 3:30PM. If a 25 cent computer chip embedded in a badge helps the school do that more reliably, all arguing against the badge tells me is that you're not a parent --- or that you, like these crazy people, are terrified of all technology.
schools have a legal obligation concerning where parent's children during the period in which they're supposed to be in class. What do you think all those permission slips were for?
Perhaps talk to a teacher about the pros and cons of that kind of policy. We're talking about minors here, and 'I need to go to the toilet' is one of the classic fake excuses.
I went to a hippie-ish private school for elementary school and middle school. We were allowed to use the bathroom at any time without asking. It was never a problem, but if it had been, it would have been dealt with on an individual basis.
I really think this is a case of absurd over-extension of power over children that everyone is quick to justify, but few are willing to actually test.
Per the article, the school's motivation in adding an RFID tracker was to have more accurate reporting on daily attendance (leading to more federal funding). However, in an attempt to accommodate the student, the school district offered her the choice of wearing a non-RFID badge. I wonder how the school was going to detect her presence without the tag. If they were able to, then they shouldn't do RFID for _anyone_. If they are NOT able to(which I would think is likely), then why ask her to wear the plain badge without RFID? They should have just offered her an exception to make the the whole case go away!
The identification would be a security measure I am guessing. I went to a public school here in Australia that required you to wear an ID card on a lanyard, there wasn't an RFID chip in it and I didn't see a problem with it. Many jobs I've had have required me to wear an ID card around my neck as well, this girl and her family are just nuts.
So? If a student does not have their badge, the teacher just marks them present by hand. If a bandge does not have its student, the system marks that student present automaticly. Either way, the school gets payed.
No. That is undeniably the original intent behind the federal law.
The school, however, institutet that requirement because they want more money; they might care about student attendence, but that is only a secondary concern.
The point was that it was not reasonable for the school to go beyond letting her use an ID badge (which based on prior reports was the previous means of tracking students). The purpose of the RFID system was to improve their student tracking, which would improve the school's funding situation.
And why should they have offered her an exception? Giving in to silly demands like this girl's (refusing the badge, not the RFID tracker) would subject the school to infinitely more silly demands, all couched in "religious beliefs."
Get kids trained early. Next put them into all adult ID cards and make it illegal to walk around outside without one. Police can just drive through a neighborhood and see who everyone is and their drones can just tag you and watch you move through your day. Don't have a chip on? Then get a forced iris scan like the US military does in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The future freaking terrifies me, especially how people just roll over and accept it.
We're already willfully, gleefully carrying these ID cards - they're our smart phones. A couple policy decisions here and there and your nightmare scenario will be fully realized.
People tend to forget that courts exist. Just because kids have their school ID cards doesn't mean that the police can (or will ever be allowed to) ask for them and check for the validity (sounds like a warrantless search).
Your nightmare scenario is blocked by the fact that just because something is technologically possible, it doesn't mean the police are allowed to do it.
This adult ID card you speak of? What will be the rationale for it existing? haven't national ID cards been pretty much decided to be unconstitutional?
Not an expert but doesn't RFID have a really small range too? All RFID-ish cards I have seem to require being around 50cm to the reader, so if the police drove down my street, they won't be able to get my arcade card info, much less my subway pass (granted they could just get that from the transport company).
On this situation, these cards seemed to be for attendance only. If the cards were replaced by people doing attendance at every door in the school, we'd probably be complaining about the fact that high-tech solutions to this problem exist.
The future freaking terrifies me, especially how people just roll over and accept it
Every time I see one of these sorts of articles in the US, I wonder what the extremely vocal 2nd Amendment advocates are waiting for. There's never a call to action despite the bluster. It really highlights that they want guns to be unregulated because "I like guns and think they're fun", not because "government needs to fear the public".
Several things:
1) Mass scale surveillance becomes trivial and you'll end up in a database of suspects even if you've never broken the law
2) Your identity can be checked without your knowledge regardless of probable cause
3) The technology might not be safe, but this is much less of an issue than #1 and #2
Yes you are. If you are not carrying ID, they will detain you until your identification can be confirmed - if that means taking you to jail for a 24 hour hold, they have no problem being paid overtime to sit and do that paperwork.
All they have to do is pretend to terry-stop you for any reason and demand ID then. No judge will ever sanction them.
Courts have been plenty willing to overturn arrests in such circumstances. Moreover, while the cops are largely able to get away with that kind of behavior, it is still illegal for them to do so.
Also, I wasn't able to find any evidence of cops being able to detain you in jail for hours on a Terry stop. Can you give a reference?
Some states require you to identify yourself upon request. This does not, in any state I am aware of, require the use if ID. All that is required in those states is that you tell them your name.
Your response terrifies me even further. You don't see a problem with giving the police extreme powers?
How about the police pulling up outside a neighborhood and making everyone get in a line for TSA-like gropes and clone everyone's cellphone because there were some crimes in the area recently (this actually happens now, not entire neighborhoods but select individuals at their whim).
Tell me where you draw the line and how police won't immediately abuse any power they are given? Let me know how you feel after your first encounter with the police someday.
There is a trend in Germany right now, where police ask whole neighborhoods for voluntary DNA testing when they are looking for someone. The problem is that you'll get a visit and asked why you didn't volunteer if you don't go.
I think part of the problem is that the reasonings in these cases aren't out of this world. So people will think of the whole issue as much less problematic.
Article is wrong. The student didn't lose the lawsuit, she lost the motion for an injunction that would prohibit the school from expelling her for refusing to wear the badge. The lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
IANAL, but the decision still looks crazy to me: It centers around Employment Division v. Smith, which is no longer good law federally or in Texas as the Federal and Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Acts were passed specifically to overturn that decision.
They create a new statutory right that forbids the government from using the powers in Smith. The court interprets the new laws to not forbid anything that would be allowed by Smith, which IMHO is not a credible reading of the law and pretty disrespectful of the Texas State Legislature's right to control the Texas school system.
Why does she just microwave the badge? Destroys the RFID but she is still wearing the badge. Another option is to use RFID blocking materials like several layers of aluminum foil.
Technology for technology's sake. But at least I can easily create box-shadows now or know my geo-coordinates at all times! PS - This article is on the frontpage of msn.com
