Supreme Justice

"MODERN TIMES"

SUPREME JUSTICE

Lloyd Garver

Last year, when the Supreme Court decided who should be President, I assumed that they would never make a more important decision in their lives. I was wrong. Last week, the highest court in the land unanimously ruled that schoolteachers may continue to ask students to grade their fellow pupils' papers in class.

I'm not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of law shows on TV. So, I think that qualifies me to ask one big question: how did this thing ever get to the United States Supreme Court? White-collar crimes involving hundreds of millions of dollars have been turned away. Citizens who have been exonerated and want to clear their names are told to go elsewhere. Men on death row have been denied access to the Court. But this august body decided to hear the Elementary School Kids Grading Each Other's Papers case.

There are some legitimate concerns here. We are all familiar with teachers giving their classes tests, and then asking them to hand their tests to their "neighbors" to grade them. But what was especially upsetting to the parent who brought the complaint was that after the kids graded each other's papers, they were asked to call out the grades. So then everybody knew how everybody else did. Maybe some kids got teased. Maybe some kids bragged. Maybe some kids ran out the door and never returned to school and someday will be described by neighbors on the news as, "He was very quiet and never bothered anybody." Let's face it. Kids grading kids might not be the best thing, but is it something that the Supreme Court should decide?

In the decision, the Court said that even though the grades were announced out loud, this practice was not an invasion of privacy. It wasn't considered the same thing as publishing a child's academic record. The justices went on to say that if they outlawed "peer grading," then they would have to outlaw things that nobody would like to get rid of like a gold star or "a happy face."

This last item got my attention. I was shocked to learn that the Supreme Court was in favor of "happy faces." The highest court in the land now officially condones these annoying, cutesy things that people attach to messages and notes! Next, are the Justices going to weigh in on whether it's okay to sign a high school yearbook with, "Luv Ya?" Now that they have come out in favor of happy faces, we are bound to see a proliferation of those things. They are already everywhere. Sometimes people send them to you in emails by going like this :-) Don't be surprised if your next tax bill comes with a little yellow smiley face. Next you'll see them on the sides of police cars. Forget about foreign policy and the economy. In the next election, politicians will be debating the merits of the happy face.

Now that the Supreme Court has opened the schoolhouse door, there will be precedent for dealing with other school issues. Apples and other obvious bribes will be forbidden. Hopscotch and dodge ball rules will be codified. "Court TV" will bring us cases like, "Felonious Assault on the Donkey's Tail," "My Kid Deserves a B-," and "Ryan D Didn't Share." Parents and students will be suing teachers and school districts all over the place. The Supreme Court will be swamped with school cases. They'll be so busy dealing with these things that they won't have time to do anything else. Of course, when I think about it that way, it doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.