"Child molesters who child molest outside of school grounds still aren't allowed anywhere near schools. Because of the students, duh." talk about false equivalencies.

Did I ever say there was a constitutional right to play football? Nice straw man you have set up and heroically slain. I'm talking a matter of principle such that the actual facts of the case don't matter. Everyone should be treated the same when accused of a crime. That is what principles are, not "well I don't like…

"It seems to work really well for you." Yet again a demonstration of how you are incapable of having an adult conversation.

"He would miss one single semester." that is pretty big assumption.

Probably with pay because they would otherwise be sued for damages if the charges end up being unfounded. They probably still will end up paying a large severance because they will feel the corporation had poisoned the well. The point being, sure the company can decide the potential liability if they are wrong is less…

apples and oranges comparison. If you break a school rule at school you are likely to have some disciplinary hearing available to present arguments as to the punishment before suspension. Here they have no due process and couldn't conduct a hearing anyway because the people and events were not under there control.

Really, schools just suspend arbitrarily without any due process? You must have missed the story yesterday about the girl with the knife in Detroit.

"meaning that the DA and the police department believe they have enough evidence to convict." There is the old line that you could indict a ham sandwich.

That a school is not bound by constitutional provisions doesn't mean the principles behind them are not sound outside of the court process. Or do your principles end at the courthouse steps?

I don't think you have been reading the comments then.

I think you would have to demonstrate risk to peers by being in school, which they can't because they have not fact finding ability.

You continue to assume guilt. Lets' say this was someone suspended from school after being arrested for a DUI. Let's say this student was a football player whose performance in the season would be the determining factor in a college scholarship. Now let's say he wasn't actually guilty of a DUI but missed that whole…

nice ad homiem and false statement to boot. Glad you are here to be constructive.

Being condescending doesn't make you a good teacher, it just illustrates the weakness of your argument.

Using that theory, there should be no bail granted to anyone charged with a violent crime.

The school is not in a position to evaluate the merits of the case. If he was such a threat to even being in a school he wouldn't have been granted bail. "suspension not expulsion" is mere semantics.

and when the person is not guilty? Say oops?

Yes students are suspending all the time, typically for breaking rules at school and following some form of due process proceeding. I don't think schools should be involved in doling out punishment for alleged crimes occurring offsite before they have been adjudicated.

suspension is not a zero consequence event.

I want to see rapists punished to the fullest extend possible. However, am I the only one that is troubled by the idea of punishing people before they have had their day in court? I know they aren't bound by "innocent until proven guilty" but the principle is still valid. Punishing people who may ultimately be…