Jamie Reidy comments on a Northern California man’s lawsuit against the punishment given his son for cheating.
I am all for parents taking an active role in their children’s academic careers. But the way Jack Berghouse has done so makes me want to keep him after class and pelt him with chalky erasers.
Sharon Noguchi and Bonnie Eslinger of the San Mateo County Times reported on the dad who admits his son copied another student’s homework assignment, yet is suing because the punishment is too harmful to the cheater’s collegiate future:
Berghouse’s son and three other students were removed from a sophomore honors English class at Sequoia in Redwood City for copying and sharing homework. In response, Berghouse filed a suit last week in San Mateo County Superior Court, claiming his son’s due process rights were violated.
Way to set an example, Dad! You are a fucking jackass, and exactly what is wrong with the world today.
Berghouse’s son, who is not being named because he is a minor, had signed an “Academic Honesty Pledge” at the beginning of the school year that declares cheating is grounds for immediate removal from the advanced-level program; his mother also had signed it.
But Jack Berghouse, a lawyer, still wants his day in court.
By drafting a confusing and poorly written honesty pledge, Berghouse said, Sequoia teachers have cheated far more.
Hey, Pops, how about you focus on raising a kid who doesn’t cheat? Would you sue CVS if your son got caught shoplifting, too?
This could have been a perfect time for a father to teach his boy that actions have consequences.
What do you think about this father’s decision to sue the school?
Photo by: griffithchris
About Jamie Reidy
As a teacher, I’m trying to be objective in my reaction to this story, but I’m finding it difficult.
Okay, maybe he has a case about due process because the agreement is poorly worded or legally flawed. Maybe there needs to be some sort of appeals process, in case the English teacher jumped to the wrong conclusion. Innocent of cheating until proven guilty, all that stuff.
The fact that he admits his son copied off other students seriously hurts his case, though. He’s not saying his son is falsely accused, he’s saying his son is being punished too severely. Sorry, I’m having trouble locating my sympathy.
The punishment is not hurting his academic future. His cheating is hurting his academic future.
“The punishment is not hurting his academic future. His cheating is hurting his academic future.”
So you would agree if we applied this to actual crime and punishment too, right? It’s not prison that’s a problem it’s crimes that are problems. Men aren’t disproportionately in jail because the system is skewed, but because men can’t stop committing crimes.
I think I sympathize with the point of your message, but I also see some giant unfounded leaps in the logic of it.
No, I don’t think that crime is the problem and prison isn’t. Why can’t both of them be problems? Is every single male prisoner in prison because the system is unfair?
If I were to connect this with prison sentences, I would compare this case to a case of an inmate who admitted guilt, who by his own admission is guilty of a crime. “The system” in that case is not responsible for forcing someone to go to jail. Assuming the sentence is in line with the pre-existing law, then the sentence is part of the social contract we all operate under. If I admit to committing murder, and everyone knows how severe the penalties are for murder, then the sentence is warranted in my case.
As for men being disproportionately represented in the prison population, I don’t see where I suggested that people are punished because they can’t stop themselves or that therefore I’m saying that men can’t stop themselves from committing crimes. I suspect that inmates are disproportionately male in part because women get away with crimes that men don’t. To me, that means that there should be MORE WOMEN in prison, not necessarily FEWER MEN. If some people are getting away with crimes, that doesn’t mean the people found guilty are any less guilty.
In fact, I agree that most men are not in prison because they can’t stop themselves. Most of them, if not all of them, can actually stop themselves from re-offending. That means that they’re responsible for their behavior.
Back to my other point below, if being transferred to a regular English class instead of an honors class is the equivalent of sending a man to prison, what does that say about the regular English class at that school?
Wellokaythen,
I understand where you are coming from, but I still think the point stands for three reasons.
First, the father is right, this is a direct attack on his son’s future. This is what made me think of prison, often it is not the actual time in prison that ruins your future, it is the way the employers will treat you after knowing that you’ve been incarcerated before.
Second, as you sad yourself “assuming the sentence is in-line with pre-existing law,” and here’s where I disagree. High school is a time to make mistakes, so that you do not repeat them later in life. A punishment that does not allow redemption (he is kicked out of the class and cannot get back in), does not allow children the room to make mistakes that they need. It’s simply bad policy to create a punishment which does not allow second chances and apply it to teenagers.
Third, sure, this kid is unsympathetic, but sparing a direct attack on his future shouldn’t require that he be sympathetic. There are any number of available punishments which could be administered with affecting the kid’s transcripts (which surely being kicked out of a class will involve). It is a failure on the part of the school not to use one of those remedies.
Mike L, that isn’t even close to being a reasonable parallel.
Why not? In both instances we’re talking about the immense negative impact on your future. Not getting into college definitely impacts you future, and going to prison definitely impacts your future.
It only seems unreasonable because the parallel logic makes the situation uncomfortable. The boy in this story is not very sympathetic, so it’s natural to want to him to get comeuppance, but the larger point, the question of is it really appropriate to attack someone’s future, stands.
But it’s okay to cheat? He can cheat and get away with it, because it’s not okay to punish him? What kind of message is that to send to a sophomore in high school? Don’t worry about the consequences you may face from your actions, they don’t matter. That’s not raising a good person, that’s raising an entitled asshole kid who thinks they can get away with anything.
Amen, okayhen! I mean, not that I’d say “amen” in a public school. “Agreed!”
So, the dad’s message to parents who have kids in regular English classes: your kid is in a substandard class where they send students who lack the integrity to get through an honors class. Your child is in an English class that will hurt his/her academic future. Putting a student into a non-honors class is a form of punishment, according to Berghouse. That’s a pretty elitist view of a public education institution.
As to whether or not his son “had a shot” at an Ivy League school is impossible to prove when he’s only a sophomore. The school is under no obligation to break its own rules to guarantee a shot at a particular school. For all we know, the son could choose not to go to college.
I say the school district should stick to its guns. Why not let all colleges and universities know that the San Mateo district doesn’t allow cheating? Or, would you rather let all colleges and universities know that your graduates can get away with cheating? I’d say go with the policy that makes your graduates seem more trustworthy.
“Berghouse’s son and three other students were removed from a sophomore honors English class at Sequoia in Redwood City for copying and sharing homework. In response, Berghouse filed a suit last week in San Mateo County Superior Court, claiming his son’s due process rights were violated.”
Right… so when we lowered the burden of proof for sexual assault accusations to a “prepoderance of evidence” and as soon as a boy is accused we allow people to plaster his name and face next to the word “rapist” all over newspapers far and wide, but THIS is where due process rights are being violated.
I think my skin just turned green.
I hope the CA courts bury him and make him pay all of the court fees!
Amen, Gordon!
Honors / accelerated academic programs serve a special needs population. High IQ students are classified as special needs due to their IQ not their integrity.
Should we bump regular kids down to remedial for cheating?
The kid shouldn’t have cheated but the “punishment” is innappropriate. Suspend the kid and formulate a workable honor system for academic integrity.
Cheating is not a “mistake”. Leaving your glasses on the counter is a mstake. Cheating is a planned action.
Rather than let the son take the punishment like a man, the father is crippling him for his future more than being degraded to regular English. Will Daddy bail him out in college when he flunks a class? Will he sue the son’s employer when he’s fired for stealing? The best lessons learned are those that hurt for awhile.
The irony of the whole situation is that daddyo’s lawsuit has put this all over the internet. When the last name is googled by a prospective college admissions officer, this case will pop right up. If Jack had cooperated with the school, no one would know about this. He’s done more harm than good.