The Jitney was part of St. Johns Annual Float Parade. - Teachers were present. If they thought it to vulgar they could have stopped it.

The video is evidence enough that the administration can pick out the guilty few. Whatever they thought of that video and who was vulgar in it they can point it out.

I agree that the guilty students should be taught a lesson. But I do not think so a momentous occasion in the innocent student lives should be taken away because of the fear that our politicians and government leaders may not be able to provide valuable lessons.

My sentiments exactly.

It is a right if it is contractually binding.. Hence the ability to pursue legal counsel over the matter. The students signed contracts created by the administration that spoke to the ceremony.

Dishonest people will continue to be dishonest, regardless of what business is open or not. I am not saying that the Government should aid dishonesty but I think the shops should be regulated.

Persons who bring in gold for cash should be able to provide third party support indicating that they are the owners of such goods. For example - a receipt - proof of purchase - should have the third party contact information for the owner of the store to validate proof of purchase.

Most if not all goods have unique identifiable numbers where older purchases can be identified and the seller is able to identify who bought the good. For persons who find gold Jewelry or have very old Jewelry and cannot provide proof of purchase there should be a waiting period after they turn in the gold for cash to be returned. During that time, say 2 to 3 weeks the company can advertise the goods if no one comes forward in the time period they can remit cash to the person who brought the gold in, if only 70 to 80% of what they would have initially given.

I do not think taking jobs out of the economy will cause this type of criminal activity to go down. They can still rob persons for gold and ship them to Miami and get cash wired to an account. Criminals will find other means, entrepreneurs who provide jobs and make an honest living should not be punished because the government is being lazy.

Again the burden of proof should be put on us the audience, but rather the persons who are accusing these students and as such they should determine in an accurate and systematic manner how to punish the students.

Obviously the analytic approach was - there was no analysis done, just the decision made to punish all. A monkey could have made this decision.

If it was me, it was be served on the terms of the contract that the students sign, if I could prove that the infractions were in place - no graduation ceremony as the contract speaks too - if not then let the children walk.

Those children had individual responsibilities to honor their respective contracts not collective responsibility. The by the terms of their contracts were accountable for themselves.

This is absolute crap. The administration can hardly prove it was a majority of students - based on this article it is stating some. How would you people feel if the police knew a robber was in your community and arrested the whole community to sully your names? What the devil is this teaching anyone. In the real world if you don't do your job and don't adhere to the rules of the job or your binding contract, you get fired. If someone else gets fired unlawfully, if a union is in place they protest and where necessary if a lawyer or arbitrator needs to step in they do and a severance package is provided accordingly if the firm is at fault.

Banker - what are you saying?

This is absolute crap. The administration can hardly prove it was a majority of students - based on this article it is stating some. How would you people feel if the police knew a robber was in your community and arrested the whole community to sully your names? What the devil is this teaching anyone. In the real world if you don't do your job and don't adhere to the rules of the job or your binding contract, you get fired. If someone else gets fired unlawfully, if a union is in place they protest and where necessary if a lawyer or arbitrator needs to step in they do and a severance package is provided accordingly if the firm is at fault.

Banker -what are you saying?

Burden of proof should not be put on Tal.. It should be put on the people accusing these kids of being "bad". You can't taint and sully the good name of some students and there future reputations because of a few bad set. You claim the students are bad, show then who are bad.

I am sure all provisions in the contract covered what the children needed to do or not do to have walk in the graduation ceremony. If someone at your work does a wrong doing, should you be punished as well? Silence often means consent, not always. And how in the hell is the Bishop doing the public a favor by not allowing some deserving students to graduate? I do not care how you cut the cake, they are some students that went to that school that aided by the contract put in place and they have the right to fight for what they was promised by that contract.

The teachers are often aware of the pranks the seniors pull just as the students are, should they be fired? I have friends that went to SJC that told me that the ditch day is nothing new, and the Bishop stated that the phone was not a big deal to him, because his graduating class done it as well, I heard this out of his mouth. This is fact. Your ignorance in this matter and commenting is disrespectful. Where did you see these "videos?" The urgent meeting that I went to, the Board only provided 1 video and that is what they considered an infraction.

Additionally, the contract is binding and what ever provisions are in the contract the school as well as the students should adhere too, if there were provisions in there saying that if a student knows something and does not report then the ramifications should be not graduating by all means. But as an institution and an organization for you to write up a contract and then to say all suffers for few, is like a spit in the face of the students and parents who did what they was suppose to do and more importantly it is a breach of contract.

I hope you do not have a child that has the potential of graduating and just because a few students are disrespectful he or she doesn't. I am sure if you were a parent, or a brother or sister or one of these students you would not be signing the same tune.

If there was in fact a governing moral clause that you speak to I am certain this was communicated and again if this was in the contract then by all means do not allow they children to graduate. This school is taking around 40K collectively from all of these parents on the basis that some were behaving badly.

The children may never get to have the ceremony promised to them, what good this does for you, them, the ACEA, Boyd or future students, current students, the school? And the little good it may do will never be compensation for the deserving students. It may help them make wiser decisions in the future or it may teach them that regardless of the good we do in this world and in this life, whatever bad is done from someone else, by situation, circumstance or affiliation, that will be penalized and wipe away their motivation to even want to do right.