But there was no rule against it

“Let’s say a 13-year-old girl admits she performed oral sex on a 13-year-old boy, while returning from a field trip on the school bus. In front of classmates who she was trying to impress. What do you do, Mom? Naturally, you go to court to claim suspension is unjust for the lovebirds because the school […]

“Let’s say a 13-year-old girl admits she performed oral sex on a 13-year-old boy, while returning from a field trip on the school bus. In front of classmates who she was trying to impress. What do you do, Mom? Naturally, you go to court to claim suspension is unjust for the lovebirds because the school is ‘not clear in its written policies that oral sex on a bus was unacceptable behavior.’ Where does it say: ‘No oral sex on the bus,” huh?” (Joanne Jacobs, Sept. 16) A Pennsylvania judge dismissed the mother’s lawsuit (Bob Bauder, “Pupil’s expulsion appeal denied”, Beaver County (Pa.) Times, Sept. 3). Kimberly Swygert comments: “Um, mom? Fighting your child’s expulsion on these grounds is not what you should be concentrating on right now.” (Sept. 16)

3 Comments

  • “But There Was No Rule Against It”

    “Let’s say a 13-year-old girl admits she performed oral sex on a 13-year-old boy, while returning from a field trip on the school bus. In front of classmates who she was trying to impress. What do you do, Mom?…

  • “But There Was No Rule Against It”

    “Let’s say a 13-year-old girl admits she performed oral sex on a 13-year-old boy, while returning from a field trip on the school bus. In front of classmates who she was trying to impress. What do you do, Mom?…

  • Briefly Noted

    –ABA corporate governance task force releases final report (link via Broc) –Corp Law Blog’s long post recalling the Microsoft IPO –CalPundit pans California’s new anti-spam law –Overlawyered posts: “Seattle’s “5 Spot” restaurant offers a new $5.75 …