published13. May 2022, 16:34
Because the students couldn’t reach the urinal or because toilet paper was pasted on the walls, the sports school in Kriens removed the toilet door without further ado. The students are outraged, the school justifies itself.
“The missing door is extremely uncomfortable for the students at the sports school,” says one of the students. (icon picture)
Getty Images
The open entrance gives the students a clear view of the urinals. In addition, the shoes are visible below the cabin door – so you can see who is sitting on the toilet.
Private
-
In the sports school in Kriens (LU) the front door to the boys’ toilet has been missing since the beginning of the week.
-
According to local students, this was a decision made by the school management.
-
However, the sports students had received neither an announcement nor an official justification.
-
The school administration confirms the removal of the toilet door and justifies its decision with the “vandalism” of the students.
-
According to a lawyer, this procedure is not prohibited, but must be proportionate.
Since Monday, the door in the entrance to the men’s toilet has been missing in the cantonal sports school in Kriens (LU). This was dismantled on Friday after school – without official justification or information, says a group of students who attend the sports school. Only when asked did the teachers explain that the door had been dismantled due to repeated “incidents”.
For example, people would urinate next to the urinal instead of into it, toilet paper would stick to the walls, or the students would stand on the toilet ring and do their business that way. “But that’s not true: the students only stand on the toilet to see over the edge of the booth,” says one of the students.
Pupils accept breaking the rules in order to use the public toilet
The sports student explains that there are two classrooms across from the toilet. “If you sit in the first row in the classroom, you can see directly into the toilet facility.” The situation is very uncomfortable for many: “Hardly anyone goes to the toilet here anymore,” says the student, who wishes to remain anonymous. “Friends of mine tell me that they wait and only go to the toilet on the way home, for example on the train.”
“I feel extremely restricted,” says the sports student. Since he drinks a lot of water, he normally always goes to the toilet during short breaks. “Now I always wait until lunchtime to go to the toilet in the canteen.” There is no alternative for the students. There is a public individual toilet at a nearby football field – since the students are not allowed to leave the school area, a visit to this toilet is considered a violation of the rules.
“There is no question that the door will be reassembled”
The Kriens sports school confirms the removal of the outer door of the men’s toilet. “We’ve been fighting vandalism in the boys’ toilet for some time,” says headmaster Timo Zemp. For example, wet toilet paper was scattered over a large area on the floor and urinated next to the toilet. “This unhygienic behavior is unacceptable,” says Zemp. Several attempts to sensitize the students have failed. We learned from other schools that they had had good experiences with the removal of the toilet door.
“There is no question that the door will be reassembled,” says the headmaster. The concern of the students increased significantly with the measure: “That was exactly our goal,” says Zemp. For students who feel that their privacy has been violated, the headmaster refers to the toilet facilities at the lunch table and a wheelchair-accessible toilet.
The question of whether the removal of toilet doors is legally permitted cannot be answered in general terms, says lawyer P. Burri. “The fact that the boys feel uncomfortable about the measure will be because they feel their privacy has been violated.” The right to privacy is enshrined as a fundamental right in the Swiss Federal Constitution. “In this case, a violation of the secret or intimate sphere of the young people, which represents an area of life with a special need for protection, is particularly likely,” says Burri. “The main question is whether the measure taken by the school is proportionate.” There would probably be milder measures than removing doors.