Right. The parents and the law govern kids outside of school time.
Drunk at school or school event? School issue.
Drunk at your own house? Parental issue.
Drunk elsewhere? Police issue (or maybe just parental depending on the situation)
Not drunk, but helping a drunk friend get home safely? Not an issue
Please, please tell me that some student took advantage of this to pass out papers in class, because “The teacher might have soaked the paper in LSD!” or something like that.
The outrage is over the fact she HADN’T been drinking. She was doing the responsible thing of driving her drunk friend home, instead of letting her drive. In the process she allowed herself (shockingly) to be around drunk people!
The school being dickwads over it is one thing, but no organization that claims to be against drunk driving can disagree with what she did. She could have stayed home, not got suspended, and her friend could have plowed head-on into a young family. This, according to MADD, would have been the right thing to do.
Holy crap, Bricka, the mods banned you for mouthing off at me!? Sorry, dude, I dint report ya.
when did this happen? 
[Moderating]
I’ve merged the two threads on this subject into one.
[/Moderating]
My belief is that the guiding principle of MADD and similar organizations is that they figure if they punish all the other kids hard enough they’ll eliminate any chance that their own Precious Angel will ever get drunk or use drugs or have premarital sex. Of course, if Precious Angel slips up and does get caught breaking the rules, Momma Bear will do a 180 and insist that there’s no reason the police need to get involved and what Precious Angel needs is compassion, a second chance, and an expunged record.
(bolding mine) ISTM that judge may have been trying to impress kayaker to the effect of: “I hope when you go home today you tell your kid to next time rat out everyone, and make it easy on herself.”
In this case, apparently it’s that the rule for participating in extracurriculars includes some sort of general “never allow even the slightest reason for the words ‘NAHS Team Member Cited’ to be printed anywhere” clause.
There seems to be a sort of combination of two practices at work here. One: that apparently the rule in this jurisdiction for this kind of situation is that EVERYONE inside the property limits gets on the spot a *citation *for underage drinking, and let the court sort them out later when the police who were actually on the scene present their evidence and testimony. And two: that the school’s ZT policy apparently says zero tolerance for any sort of known connection between you and underage drinking, and once there’s such a citation, that is enough and dismissal of proceedings, even based on actual police testimony that you were not involved, is no excuse.
Lemonade stand?
(On the MADD turning neo-prohibitionist issue)
After the succesful campaign to establish regular carding, the 21 y/o drinking age in all the states and DC, and make BAC > .08 a per se offense, they feel there has to be e still something more to do, as they feel they are not yet even close to the point of diminishing returns (and even then many would embrace the “if it even saves just one life” attitude). But in reality almost since the start their position when you bother to dig in has been that there is really no such thing as a “safe” BAC (and young people are notoriously bad at staying on the safe side of thresholds anyway), but that they’d settle for intermediate steps as the political climate allows.
And there’s the moralistic side that a small amount of a Bad Thing is still a Bad Thing, people do not have the right to do a Bad Thing…
… ergo it should be eventually made impossible for people to do Bad Things.
Probably not banned due to that. Poster has only been around for a week, no obvious meltdown anywhere.
Ah, yes. Homeopathic morality.
Being suspended from the volleyball team and losing her captaincy is a big thing for an honor roll student. It hurts her chances for getting into a good school. The difference between Harvard and State U. can change the course of her life. Not saying that she was necessarily going that route. But it would be good reason not to just take her lumps because the school has abdicated judgement to blind policy.
Her life was damaged? Really? By not playing five volleyball games?
How was she publicly humiliated? There were a bunch of kids at the party. Where they all publicly humiliated, however you are defining it?
She did do something wrong.
She’s under 21 and was at a party where alcohol was being served.
Yeah. People look at this kind of thing when you’re going for major schools.
How would the schools know about it? Because of the suspension from the team somehow being on her record? Or from the court summons?
Were they all.
hangs head in shame
Hey, it’s early.
Depends on your definition of wrong. I don’t think she did anything wrong, she was doing something right. Very right. Extremely right.
The only wrong thing she could have done is tell her friend he was on his own.
In terms of damaging her future, the publicity around this is likely to be a positive, she at least has an explanation for the suspension that makes her appear to be a responsible person, and not some lout. The risk is that she doesn’t get to the explanation stage.
Agreed. That would have been more wrong.
But why couldn’t she just have picked her friend up at the curb? There’s an excluded middle here. The choice isn’t between what she did and nothing. She could have helped her friend without being inside the party.
Agreed. The publicity around this will be a positive for her.
As to the other kids at the party, I’d be very surprised if this impacts their future at all.