Told I wasn’t allowed to run on a track today

School is school first wrote:

weird losers here different device wrote:

In Ben Shapiro style, I'll ask... why are the security concerns not the same for a public library as they are for a school?

No really, why aren't they?

Libraries often have after school programs for kids. I can go in and do whatever I want there. It wouldn't be weird if I was in their general proximity.

The answer is simple. The school district doesn't monitor the library. Libraries are city and/or county and therefore public. A public school means that any child in the public can attend... it's not public to all people.

weird losers here different device wrote:

School is school first wrote:

The answer is simple. The school district doesn't monitor the library. Libraries are city and/or county and therefore public. A public school means that any child in the public can attend... it's not public to all people.

You're soooo close to getting it. The library is public, mostly. I can't go into the back rooms. I can walk into parts of the courthouse, but not all. There's varying degrees of "public". The entire argument is that it's not unreasonable to want access when the risk is low and the benefit is high.

You have placed a massive amount of concern on security. I don't think you and I can ever bridge that gap.

I can attend school events that occur during school hours as a community member. I can show up and watch a football game — they're not all after school. Some of these events are even free. So the school is fine with the community coming in relatively large numbers to see a football game, but a lone runner is a cause for concern?

A counterargument to this is: "The school is expecting people at this time and will allocate security resources to effectively monitor the situation." It's not unreasonable to want them to allocate some security resources that are appropriate to this task, such as security cameras or routine patrolling. Instead the SROs around here are usually sitting in their car by the front of the school.

Children should be afforded the sheer naiveté of a shelter from the "regular world." Kids talk and kids formulate ideas. Even one wayward jogger on their track makes their school a less safe place in their mind. And if the one person was not on their track, then they feel safer. Even more on this, if people are on their track, you'll never know which one is good and which is evil so how about just no?

No, this is the entirely wrong. Coddling kids to an extreme is bad. I don't think we need to show kids beheading videos, but there's a balance, and pretending everyone is super dangerous crosses that line to me. I genuinely feel bad for how "scary" the world must be to you.

School is school first wrote:

VIT wrote:

setting aside the obvious -- public fitness -- there are other positive values to having runners practicing on the track. role models. this guy went here then went to college and was successful, if you stick with it you can make something of yourself. most colleges actively cultivate their alumni relationships. it's an asset and not a security risk.

oh, but here, the anti-lockdown people think the answer is lockdown. because we aren't gonna deal with the gun problem. do you know how often this school stuff happens in other countries? do you think 99% of other countries have to deny access to the campus for fear of school shootings? ab-surd.

Do you seriously think your average middle school student is going to see the sweaty, disheveled man and see a role model whereas there is no context? Some may see him as creepy just because he's there. Some may start an urban myth. Some kids might get distracted and heckle the person. It's really something a school needs so someone can get a workout where they want it.

School is school first wrote:

weird losers here different device wrote:

You're soooo close to getting it. The library is public, mostly. I can't go into the back rooms. I can walk into parts of the courthouse, but not all. There's varying degrees of "public". The entire argument is that it's not unreasonable to want access when the risk is low and the benefit is high.

You have placed a massive amount of concern on security. I don't think you and I can ever bridge that gap.

I can attend school events that occur during school hours as a community member. I can show up and watch a football game — they're not all after school. Some of these events are even free. So the school is fine with the community coming in relatively large numbers to see a football game, but a lone runner is a cause for concern?

A counterargument to this is: "The school is expecting people at this time and will allocate security resources to effectively monitor the situation." It's not unreasonable to want them to allocate some security resources that are appropriate to this task, such as security cameras or routine patrolling. Instead the SROs around here are usually sitting in their car by the front of the school.

No, this is the entirely wrong. Coddling kids to an extreme is bad. I don't think we need to show kids beheading videos, but there's a balance, and pretending everyone is super dangerous crosses that line to me. I genuinely feel bad for how "scary" the world must be to you.

If you are from a rural area, then you don't have the mere people traffic that suburban schools have or especially urban schools. In a middle school of 1,200 or a big school of 3600, you always need to be aware of who is around the campus. It's because a lot of rural schools don't believe that they need that level of protection that something surprising happens at a school or around its perimeter.

You bring up football games. People attend football games of their own volition whereas children must attend school.

There is no reason to shift any safety monitoring to account for potentially unwanted people on campus if you just don't allow people who aren't properly vetted on campus.

Schools need to be safe to optimize learning.

School is school first wrote:

VIT wrote:

setting aside the obvious -- public fitness -- there are other positive values to having runners practicing on the track. role models. this guy went here then went to college and was successful, if you stick with it you can make something of yourself. most colleges actively cultivate their alumni relationships. it's an asset and not a security risk.

oh, but here, the anti-lockdown people think the answer is lockdown. because we aren't gonna deal with the gun problem. do you know how often this school stuff happens in other countries? do you think 99% of other countries have to deny access to the campus for fear of school shootings? ab-surd.

Do you seriously think your average middle school student is going to see the sweaty, disheveled man and see a role model whereas there is no context? Some may see him as creepy just because he's there. Some may start an urban myth. Some kids might get distracted and heckle the person. It's really something a school needs so someone can get a workout where they want it.

School is school first wrote:

VIT wrote:

my point is on the scandals it was either an assistant coach or the school doctor who was the real molestation risk -- the ones with every right to be there, and routine, longterm access to students. just like it's usually the scoutmaster or the priest. and the ones who had some idea about it -- they belonged there too. and yet you're saying the jogger is the molester risk. the odds of it actually being the jogger there same time as the PE class is laughable. there is adult supervision ie the coach, right there.

if we're gonna "but the children" can we watch the real suspects?

I would hope nobody was scandalous, but one less person, especially a stranger, is one more mitigating step. Seriously? All of you...all of THIS to run on a school track when you WANT?

weird losers here different device wrote:

School is school first wrote:

I would hope nobody was scandalous, but one less person, especially a stranger, is one more mitigating step. Seriously? All of you...all of THIS to run on a school track when you WANT?

All of this to allow reasonable public usage of a facility that often sits empty with very little extra cost incurred and very little reasonable risk to safety, yes.

I can't tell if you're intentionally misconstruing every argument here, but most people are vouching for the good of the community, not strictly in their personal interests.

Clouds and birds don't potentially have orders not to be around a school.

Some runners (and some other people) do.

A hard no takes that risk away.

So if we consider community members attending an event that occurs during school hours mutually beneficial, why don't we extend the same to track and field facility usage. The two arguments are safety and cost. They can be addressed in the exact same manner. Except the cost and concern for someone using a track is likely much lower than a large crowd literally entering the building and being near students. A hard no takes that risk away, therefore we should not host games that occur during school. Your argument holds no water.