Whose responsibility is it to keep kids safe? My last column noted that a church parish isn't responsible for sexual abuse of a parishioner's child by the pastor, unless there was reason to know of the Pastor's deviant behavior.

Last month the Supreme Court decided that Spaulding High School could not be held responsible for the murder of DeAndrea Florucci; even though school officials knew she had a history of truancy and drug abuse, and was aware that a non-student (Donald) might be looking for her in order to get her to leave school. In the event, DeAndrea did leave school with Donald, and was taken to the house of Dana Martin who sexually assaulted and murdered her.

The Court's decision says the school can only be liable for negligent supervision of a troubled child if the harm that occurred to her was "reasonably foreseeable", that is, that administrators should have predicted the harm. In general, the Court ruled, it is not foreseeable that a student would be the victim of a crime by some third party, absent some knowledge of Martin's homicidal propensity, and that DeAndrea was likely to see him. Therefore the school was not liable.

The Court gave another reason as well. What would the effect be on the school's educational mission if it was required to institute security measures that would keep track of every troubled student's whereabouts at all times? The school would have to operate like a correctional facility creating a climate that would undoubtedly adversely affect the total learning environment. Thus, the Court struck a balance between student safety and educational mission.

Educators who want schools filled with the excitement of learning will welcome the decision. Taxpayers will too. The case illustrates the Supreme Court's role to balance safety and freedom. Just as in criminal cases of search and seizure, homeland security, use of police force (taser guns?), Guantanamo detainees, and free speech, the fundamental issue is the same - how much state power is compatible with a free society? Conservatives and Liberals agitate themselves constantly over this tension, and the answers aren't always clear.

In this case, the question was what costs and changes must the educational system bear to protect children? Here, the Supreme Court appears to have struck a fair balance. Edson v. Barre Supervisory Union #61 2007 VT