Getting nasty at JA

[M R DAWGS]

I have no dog in this hunt, but JA was tired of getting their assets whipped by Hartfield and Prep and MRA. They have ALL recruited, but did so more discreetly.

JA says 17 it, goes balls to the wall, wins it all, 17 those other schools.

High powered parents get pissed. The MAIS has got to get a hold on this. It has gone off the rails.

“If any student (public or private) doesn’t move within 10 miles of a certain private school, after 8th grade, they have to sit out a year before they can play sports.

End of problem.

Of course, the money schools would be opposed and it would never pass.

In the private school realm, just follow the money, and that is where the championships are.

 

[Dawg Raid]

So, about your hell loop. Is there like a certain thing you fear most? Or do I have to wait until you join me down here to find out?

I won’t be joining.I don’t fear either. Just not raising kids to believe the lies sent forth from below

 

[dawgstudent]

I have no dog in this hunt, but JA was tired of getting their assets whipped by Hartfield and Prep and MRA. They have ALL recruited, but did so more discreetly.

JA says 17 it, goes balls to the wall, wins it all, 17 those other schools.

High powered parents get pissed. The MAIS has got to get a hold on this. It has gone off the rails.

“If a kid doesn’t move within 10 miles of a certain private school, after 8th grade, they have to sit out a year before they can play sports.”

End of problem.

Of course, the money schools would be opposed and it would never pass.

But in Jackson metro - they are moving.

 

[M R DAWGS]

But in Jackson metro - they are moving.

In this situation, if the public and private requirement was applied, those kids would have been ineligible. I highly doubt all of those families moved from Clinton to Jackson.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

I won’t be joining.I don’t fear either. Just not raising kids to believe the lies sent forth from below

Have to wait. Surprises are always fun. Thank you for that.

 

[patdog]

JA made a huge mistake based on an emotional response. Right or not, you don’t expel a kid with that pedigree because you are embarrassed that his dad pointed out the recruiting. You find a way to make it right.

The JA response has basically been “other schools are recruiting” which is true but reading through this lawsuit I see some merit.

The parents had a contract with the school. That contract was severed by a single person with no grounds to do so. JA has no argument here. The damages will be up to the court but I suspect they aren’t really looking for money here.

I would think this would be a parent you’d want to smooth things over with instead of expel his kid for no good reason.

 

[johnson86-1]

Tell me how the 14th and FAPE fit into your argument.

Show me where the 14th amendment says anything about education.

But FAPE is mandated by statutes that can be repealed tomorrow. It’s like social security benefits. You are legally entitled to them under current law. Those statutes can be repealed tomorrow.

 

[mstateglfr]

I won’t be joining.I don’t fear either. Just not raising kids to believe the lies sent forth from below

Kinda ironic that you are raising them to not believe lies, yet you have continued to incorrectly claim childhood education isn't a right, even after actual info to the contrary is provided.

 

[mstateglfr]

Show me where the 14th amendment says anything about education.

But FAPE is mandated by statutes that can be repealed tomorrow. It’s like social security benefits. You are legally entitled to them under current law. Those statutes can be repealed tomorrow.

Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment applies to education.

And if you say 'but it doesn't specifically say the word 'education' so that doesn't count!' then you are discussing in bad faith. Simple as that.

As for FAPE, I half believe you didnt even know that acronym existed before this conversation and you had to Google it. So part of me thinks responding is sort of pointless since you don't have a full understanding of what was asked.
But if you do have a known understanding of FAPE, you know that it is a Civil Right born out of the 14th amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection.

As for your claim that could be repealed tomorrow, I am not a lawyer, but I dont think that is accurate.
FAPE could certainly change, just like any rights that are derived from the Constitution. But that doesn't mean childhood education is a privilege and not a right.


What is your end game here? Like are you really going to take the position that childhood education isn't a right, despite clearly established law that says otherwise?
If you aren't going to take that position, what are we doing?

 

[johnson86-1]

Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment applies to education.

And if you say 'but it doesn't specifically say the word 'education' so that doesn't count!' then you are discussing in bad faith. Simple as that.

As for FAPE, I half believe you didnt even know that acronym existed before this conversation and you had to Google it. So part of me thinks responding is sort of pointless since you don't have a full understanding of what was asked.
But if you do have a known understanding of FAPE, you know that it is a Civil Right born out of the 14th amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection.

As for your claim that could be repealed tomorrow, I am not a lawyer, but I dont think that is accurate.
FAPE could certainly change, just like any rights that are derived from the Constitution. But that doesn't mean childhood education is a privilege and not a right.


What is your end game here? Like are you really going to take the position that childhood education isn't a right, despite clearly established law that says otherwise?
If you aren't going to take that position, what are we doing?

I am pointing out that you and the poster you were arguing with were using the term in two different contexts. There are rights that exist outside of the law that are negative rights. There are legal entitlements. Education is a legal entitlement. The supreme court has ruled that education isn’t a fundamental right. That equal protection applies doesnt make it a right. It just means that once it’s provided, it must be provided consistently in compliance with the equal protection clause. But if the constitution was amended tomorrow, that wouldn’t make it a right in the context the other poster was using it.

again, it’s usually semantics but people not understanding the difference is why they say idiotic things like healthcare is a right or a living wage is a right.

 

[ZombieKissinger]

While we’re at it

The Project Gutenberg eBook of What Is Art?, by Leo Tolstoy

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I am pointing out that you and the poster you were arguing with were using the term in two different contexts. There are rights that exist outside of the law that are negative rights. There are legal entitlements. Education is a legal entitlement. The supreme court has ruled that education isn’t a fundamental right. That equal protection applies doesnt make it a right. It just means that once it’s provided, it must be provided consistently in compliance with the equal protection clause. But if the constitution was amended tomorrow, that wouldn’t make it a right in the context the other poster was using it.

again, it’s usually semantics but people not understanding the difference is why they say idiotic things like healthcare is a right or a living wage is a right.

This is where arguments go off the rails. I mean states could completely defund public education but who would ever expect that. The “right” is to access.

But hey after some things I’ve seen over the past year…..you truly never know. These new Gen X politicians coming into power are some mean asss SOBs and just want to make life suck for everyone because by damn that’s how it’s sposed to be, 17 helping anyone, bootstraps n shlt, muh 1992

 

[MSUGUY]

Parents Accuse JA of Retaliation for Questioning Alleged Recruiting

kingfish1935.blogspot.com

Scool Choyce!

 

[mstateglfr]

I am pointing out that you and the poster you were arguing with were using the term in two different contexts. There are rights that exist outside of the law that are negative rights. There are legal entitlements. Education is a legal entitlement. The supreme court has ruled that education isn’t a fundamental right. That equal protection applies doesnt make it a right. It just means that once it’s provided, it must be provided consistently in compliance with the equal protection clause. But if the constitution was amended tomorrow, that wouldn’t make it a right in the context the other poster was using it.

again, it’s usually semantics but people not understanding the difference is why they say idiotic things like healthcare is a right or a living wage is a right.

Free Appropriate Public Education is a legal right. FAPE applies to children with disabilities/IEPs specifically, but I have used it as a reference point to show that Education is a right because it had to be created to specifically ensure Education access for the group that was being denied due to claims that...it wasnt a legal right.

The right to Education(public) is not at all the same as the argued but unsupported 'right to a living wage'. The fact that you are arguing so shows you dont have a basic grasp of what is being discussed.

Free Speech- right.
Vote- right.
Due Process- right.
Access to Public education- right.
Living wage- not a right.

Again, there is a difference, and it isnt semantics.

 

[johnson86-1]

Free Appropriate Public Education is a legal right. FAPE applies to children with disabilities/IEPs specifically, but I have used it as a reference point to show that Education is a right because it had to be created to specifically ensure Education access for the group that was being denied due to claims that...it wasnt a legal right.

The right to Education(public) is not at all the same as the argued but unsupported 'right to a living wage'. The fact that you are arguing so shows you dont have a basic grasp of what is being discussed.

Free Speech- right.
Vote- right.
Due Process- right.
Access to Public education- right.
Living wage- not a right.

Again, there is a difference, and it isnt semantics.

Well, your inability or unwillingness to understand is why I pointed it out even though it's usually semantics. But it's one of those things I can explain it to you but I can't understand to you. But hopefully other people understand it. But your statements are accurate in the context of using "right" as a legal entitlement. They are not all true using right in the sense that the other poster was using it.

 

[mstateglfr]

Well, your inability or unwillingness to understand is why I pointed it out to being with even though it's usually semantics. But it's one of those things I can explain it to you but I can't understand to you. But hopefully other people understand it. But your statements are accurate in the context of using "right" as a legal entitlement. They are not all true using right in the sense that the other poster was using it.

The poster said even public education is a privilege, which therefore means it is not a right, and that a school can expel a kid since school is a privilege.

That is simply incorrect because it is a right. It is not a privilege, it is a right.
You can claim the poster was correct to say view it as not a right in the sense they used the term, but there is simply no other useful way of viewing the claim- this is a thread about a legal issue and the poster was commenting from a legal perspective. So I responded from a legal perspective.

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

Between the 14th amendment, FAPE, and more- you are objectively incorrect.

14A says nothing about education. 14A is about due process and equal protection under the law: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

The JJ comments are very entertaining. Only SPS could turn a good juicy soap opera that pits a very wealthy family against the 3rd (?) most prestigious private school in the state into a “privilege vs. rights issue.”

 

[mstateglfr]

14A says nothing about education. 14A is about due process and equal protection under the law: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Is your position that rights are limited to what is literally stated in the few words of the Constitution, and nothing else is covered or limited?
If so, good luck consistently applying that viewpoint.

 

[Darryl Steight]

You really hate to see very loud, wealthy, Ole Miss people sue the wealthy private school that recruits young innocent POCs to play sports and who sends the highest percentage of their students to Ole Miss in the state - because their kids don't get the playing time they deserve.

You just hate that this is happening to all the poor defenseless people involved on both sides.

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

Is your position that rights are limited to what is literally stated in the few words of the Constitution, and nothing else is covered or limited?
If so, good luck consistently applying that viewpoint.

Actually, according to our founding documents, unalienable rights are endowed by our creator (that's why there are so few actual rights). The Constitution provides additional protections AGAINST government overreach. Things like Social Security, Public Education, Welfare, etc are codified by laws that have been enacted by our Government (and found to be Constitutional by the Judicial System). While they are worthwhile services provided by our Government, they are not rights.

FAPE was enacted to ensure that children with special needs were provided an equivalent public education that meets their needs at no additional charge. It basically says that IF the Government is already providing public education, they can't discriminate against special needs children. It certainly does not enshrine public education as a right.

 

[dorndawg]

You really hate to see very loud, wealthy, Ole Miss people sue the wealthy private school that recruits young innocent POCs to play sports and who sends the highest percentage of their students to Ole Miss in the state - because their kids don't get the playing time they deserve.

You just hate that this is happening to all the poor defenseless people involved on both sides.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

The only person who can save their image now…

You really hate to see very loud, wealthy, Ole Miss people sue the wealthy private school that recruits young innocent POCs to play sports and who sends the highest percentage of their students to Ole Miss in the state - because their kids don't get the playing time they deserve.

You just hate that this is happening to all the poor defenseless people involved on both sides.

 

[mstateglfr]

Actually, according to our founding documents, unalienable rights are endowed by our creator (that's why there are so few actual rights). The Constitution provides additional protections AGAINST government overreach. Things like Social Security, Public Education, Welfare, etc are codified by laws that have been enacted by our Government (and found to be Constitutional by the Judicial System). While they are worthwhile services provided by our Government, they are not rights.

FAPE was enacted to ensure that children with special needs were provided an equivalent public education that meets their needs at no additional charge. It basically says that IF the Government is already providing public education, they can't discriminate against special needs children. It certainly does not enshrine public education as a right.

Well said. You are correct that public education is not enshrined as a right at the federal level(but is in almost every state at the state level).
My comments about FAPE and other rulings which ensure a right to education, is based on the fact that education exists in the first place, so access is guaranteed(vs a privilege).


So sure- if education is provided, it must be provided to all otherwise it is a violation of a child's rights.

That works, and it still shows education is not simply a privilege.

 

[BruceDickinson.sixpack]

It’s a privilege. One that the government exploits to teach children to be their little pets

It’s a privilege. One that the government exploits to teach children to be their little pets

Is that you Rusty Shackleford? #pocketsand

 

[vhdawg]

Wow, looks like this went from JJ to Six Pack and now WLBT has picked it up. Wonder if they'll cover the 14th amendment angle there?

 

[johnson86-1]

The poster said even public education is a privilege, which therefore means it is not a right, and that a school can expel a kid since school is a privilege.

That is simply incorrect because it is a right. It is not a privilege, it is a right.
You can claim the poster was correct to say view it as not a right in the sense they used the term, but there is simply no other useful way of viewing the claim- this is a thread about a legal issue and the poster was commenting from a legal perspective. So I responded from a legal perspective.

So your position is that the only "useful" way of viewing the claim is the way that assumes he was making a moronic statement, and not to understand that many people are use the term "right" to refer to natural rights and not legal rights or entitlements. Makes sense.

 

[paindonthurt]

JA got their title, now its time to pay for it.

I think they already did

 

[seshomoru]

I'll plagiarize a comment from an earlier JJ article on the JA Arrows subject:

It's almost as if JA has forgotten what they were founded for in the first place.

 

[paindonthurt]

JA made a huge mistake based on an emotional response. Right or not, you don’t expel a kid with that pedigree because you are embarrassed that his dad pointed out the recruiting. You find a way to make it right.

The JA response has basically been “other schools are recruiting” which is true but reading through this lawsuit I see some merit.

The parents had a contract with the school. That contract was severed by a single person with no grounds to do so. JA has no argument here. The damages will be up to the court but I suspect they aren’t really looking for money here.

Actually you should probably just ignore it.

 

[mstateglfr]

So your position is that the only "useful" way of viewing the claim is the way that assumes he was making a moronic statement, and not to understand that many people are use the term "right" to refer to natural rights and not legal rights or entitlements. Makes sense.

The poster had multiple opportunities to clarify that he didn’t mean what I interpreted him to me, but he didn’t. If anything, he posted more in the affirmative of what I thought he was saying.

As for your defense of how he used the term “right”, he didn’t even use that term in this thread...at all...ever.
I was the one that first use that term. I used it because he claimed education is a privilege.
So with that considered, I reject your claim of how he was using the concept of a "right"...because he didn't even say the word.


This is an early front runner for the indefensible hill to die on argument of 2026. You are defending the insane claim that education is just a privilege by claiming a person who didn't even use the word "right" was referring to a different type of rights, which aren't legal in nature...in a discussion about a legal issue.

That recap was genuinely difficult to even type out.