Chemical Use Policy and Consequences for Students

There is some controversy about Swampscott School Department’s Chemical Use Policy, which has been revised slightly but maintains most of the controversial elements of the version begun this year in the high school. Although the School Committee has promulgated this policy and that a committee presented the proposal, the new high school principal is the guiding light behind this new policy. 

The policy is developed along the guidelines of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, MIAA, which provides for such consequences as loss of the ability to compete in one’s sport for some percentage of the season for infractions of behavioral norms based on among other things, the use of illegal substances by the athletes. 

One of the specific changes in the Swampscott version of its Chemical Use Policy is to expand these consequences to all school sponsored activities, especially what we all know as extra-curricular clubs and organizations. This is undoubtably more fair than requiring on standard for athletes and a different one for other activities.

However, the policy in Swampscott has extended the reach of the school department into activities not sponsored by the school department. This too is one of the more controversial elements of the policy. It covers times when school is not in session. It extends the potential for loss of the ability to be involved in school activity even if the misbehavior occurs outside of school activities and during summer vacation.

Controversial also, it also places the same consequences on students who are at an activity but are not participating in the illicit behavior. Say one is at a party not sponsored by the school department and someone has spiked the punch. Even if students at the event are unaware of or do not partake of the alcoholic beverage, because of their presence at the event they are deemed equally as culpable. 

In Friday’s Boston Globe there is a report of interest to this discussion from the Melrose  School Department. (Full details http://www.boston.com/sports/schools/articles/2011/05/08/substance_abuse_photos_cost_11_melrose_high_athletes/)

In this case 11 athletes whose pictures were found on facebook were at a party where alcoholic beverages were imbibed. The photos have been removed or so obscured to protect the identity of minors that there’s none worth showing here. This party was not held on school grounds nor sponsored by the school department.

However, they are all being punished as if it were. They will be precluded from playing their sport for from 40 percent to 60 percent of the season next year. In addition, they must report to the school’s “resource officer.” This person is a law enforcement official, who will interview them with their parents but no other legal counsel. This isn’t to say how much if any criminal charges would come from this situation, only to identify the type of discussions that might be had. 

The punishments follow the MIAA  guidelines, which are the same for Swampscott athletes. According to the principal of Melrose high school, as quoted in the Boston Globe: “We’re serious when we say that being an athlete is a privilege, not a right.” Further in the article Mayor Dunn of Melrose states that: “You can’t say you’re a student leader and not follow the rules.”

How does the actions of a student outside the school or school sponsored activity relate to their leadership in the activities they engage in at school? Do student athletes, either football, basketball or lacrosse, qualify as student leaders just because they are skilled in a sport and play it outside the classroom? 

One of the concerns raised by the Mayor of Melrose deals with the fact that some of those at the party were wearing newly purchased athletic clothing. Would they be in any less trouble if they hadn’t been wearing the school colors as it were? Do they set themselves up as student leaders by wearing them, thus their actions carry heavier weight?

Some of those commenting on the article bring up the issue of hypocrisy, implying that the school department staff pursued these high school “hyjinks” back in the day. Ought not the pictures have been sent to the children’s parents or directly to law enforcement and have the parents deal with the problem with their child? 

My opinion on this lies with those who feel that school officials are extending their reach past the school and the teaching of students to take the role of police or parents. There’s no argument that rules formulated by the school department ought to be in effect throughout the school year and at all and any school sponsored activity. In the matter of wearing the school sporting clothing at these events, I can see a problem there in that the school name and insignia are brought into a event not sponsored by the school. Students should not wear them at such events. 

Am I condoning this behavior in students? Far from the truth. I am placing the context of how the matter is dealt with in a proper venue. Parents are and ought to be held responsible for dealing with their children’s misbehavior of any type. Law enforcement ought to fulfill its duties separate from the school system in cases when the event is not school sponsored. Obviously it is for the good of the student and the school that there be cooperation with law enforcement in matters where the law is being violated on school grounds or at a school sponsored activity. Otherwise, focus the school department energies on improved education for all those who attend the schools.