Answer:  A school administrator. 

When the story of Savannah Redding’s abuse at the hands of the grocery clerks put in charge of the Safford Middle School in Tucson, Arizona first went public, the conduct of the very people into whose hands we entrust our children brought about widespread outrage.  The combination of such utterly outrageous conduct, stripsearching a 13 year old girl, with its purported justification in the school’s “zero tolerance” policy in search of dreaded ibuprofen, was too much to bear.

The 9th Circuit en banc held that Redding’s case against the district could proceed, which was more than “educators” could bear.  After all, the rule of thumb in the school yard is that “educators”, and only “educators”, know what to do about children, and courts should keep their nose out of schoolyard decisions.  The circuit felt otherwise.

Via Popehat and SCOTUSblog, however, comes the bad news, that the Supreme Court has granted the school district’s petition for cert, joined by those protectors of children, the National School Board’s Association as amicus curiae, who argue:

Deference to educators’ judgments recognizes that the role of the courts in school administration should necessarily be limited to avoid placing unwise constraints on the ability of those educators to preserve the learning environment and protect the safety of students.

Apparently, our most brilliant educators consider it an “unwise constraint” to prevent vice principals from strip searching 13 year olds in the war on aspirin. 

That this the district chose to pursue this matter, given the depth of outrage, is shocking.

This is incredibly stupid, and even more-so sick.  Mind you, under any circumstances that didn’t involve the federal courts’ overwhelming deference to public schools authority, somebody would go to prison over this conduct.  How then can it be fine when done by a trusted educator?

Patrick at Popehat (who by the way wears a few other hats aside from the Mitre, including Social Service for Feral Children and guest-blogger at Overlawyered), posted essentially the same thing:

I stand by what I wrote earlier: If this had happened anywhere but school, they’d all be in jail.

All of this makes the Supreme Court’s grant of cert all the more alarming.  Other than to extend the deference given school officials over children, and smack the 9th Circuit for doing its job in protecting children from these educators who think nothing of sexually abusing a 13 year old in their mindless zeal for cute-named policies like “zero tolerance,”

Rather than paying deference to the judgments of educators here, the Ninth Circuit majority trivialized the dangers posed by the nonmedicinal use of prescription and over-the-counter (“OTC”) drugs by students. See Redding v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. #1,531 F.3d 1071, 1085 (9th Cir. 2008)  suggesting that prescription grade ibuprofen does not pose “an imminent danger to” anyone). Recent reports, however, highlight a much more alarming trend with respect to prescription and OTC drug abuse. By accepting review, the Court would have the opportunity to address the legal issues presented here in the context of a growing problem of prescription and OTC drug abuse among young people.

Lacking in this argument, which naturally raises the ugly specter of the “growing problem” of drug abuse among young people, is any recognition that there must be a check on the unfettered discretion, and the incredible harm cause, by the goofball grocery clerks who run schools and are charged with the care of our children.  The 9th Circuit didn’t trivialize the dangers, but ridiculed the outrageous justification for this conduct.  Merely invoking the words “drug abuse” doesn’t provide carte blanche to every boneheaded vice principal to do engage in any abusive conduct that pops into his head.

Federal courts are already far too deferential to school officials in their abusive conduct and irresponsible handling children.  Will the Supreme Court now approve of the school officials engaging in conduct that would make anyone else a sex offender for life, at the expense of a child?  Stay tuned.  This indulgence in family values has huge potential to be a nightmare for every parent in America.