What are you talking about? It seems that in this case the cops and the school are entirely inconsistent.
If you’re going to argue that the rules aren’t the rules but everyone knows the “rules” then I guess you win, because you can pretend the “rules” are whatever you want.
It doesn’t matter if it’s the end of the world. Let’s say my employer fines me one fifth of my week’s pay for stealing pens. It’s not “the end of the world” but I think I’d rightly be pretty fucking pissed if I hadn’t actually stolen a pen.
Oh, I misunderstood. I guess you’re defending the school policy.
I don’t think it’s the worst thing in the world for good kids to feel the sting of injustice now and then. I imagine it would change their perspective quite a bit. Toughen them up and make them a little bitter. (of course, I ended up bitter without such a good excuse)
Schools have a tough job, and I admire many hardworking professionals in the educational system. On the other hand, there are too many examples of stupid power plays. I agree with whoever stated up-thread that off-school behavior is not, or at least should not be, a concern for school officials. The school is not charged with raising these kids, and does not need rules for behavior off of its property.
Thanks.
No. I don’t think someone should be punished if they leave the party right away. But I can sympathize with cops who are rounding up a bunch of kids running from a party and one of them gets caught up in that who did leave right away. How are they supposed to tell that she didn’t do anything wrong?
You can’t go to parties with alcohol. Simple. Consistent. What part don’t you get?
I have made no such argument.
I hear ya. The problem with this is that things might get worse.
I’d rather have a bunch of kids having a house party get suspended from sports for five games then deal with criminal charges or other punishment that the courts might hand out. So in that sense, I think it’s good for the school to be involved.
Plus, I would guess that most parents want the school cracking down on drinking.
Are you going to answer my question from post #114?
Analogy fails.
It would be more like this: You’re employer has a policy that you will be fined if you have one of the pens. Even if you don’t write with it, you still get in trouble. Everyone knows this rule. You borrow a pen for just a few minutes because you are helping out a coworker. The boss comes over and catches you with the pen.
Sorry, but you’d then owe the fine.
The part about not going to parties with alcohol. Teenagers can quite properly go to parties with alcohol.
I’ve parented a few teenagers, and I disagree with the idea that most parents want the school involved in the unrelated activities of their children. Personally, I’d raise Hell about it. My kids had their share of “teenage moments” but it is my job to deal with it, not the school’s.
Now I’m confused again, I thought you agreed with me that this girl committed no crime. Thus, the courts aren’t going to be handing out any punishment.
The cops have no such rule.
The school athletic department has a policy that it’s unwise to go to parties with alcohol.
Nobody has a rule that says thou shalt not attend parties with alcohol.
I think most parents would disagree.
I was speaking more generally about kids and drinking with that thought. Not just about the girl in question.
Then why did fifteen non-drinking kids get a court summons from the cops?
You are being overly literal in your reading of the rule.
Yes. They do.
You’re missing my point. There is a distinction between a party at my house on a Sunday afternoon with 20 adults (drinking) and their teenage children (not drinking) and a party at my house while I’m on vacation with 25 teenagers (both drinking and non drinking). I would agree with you that most parents don’t want teenagers drinking at a party. How would you write a rule that prohibits the latter but not the former?
And, to the bigger point. What business is it of the public school system in either case? My child, my responsibility.
This one?
The answer, of course, is “a reasonable amount of time”. I don’t think 10 minutes is an unreasonable amount of time for this girl to have spent finding her drunk friend. Do you?
Is this a real problem?
Is there a single example anywhere of the cops not being able to tell the difference? If so I’ll probably agree with you. But that wasn’t the case here. I don’t think it’s a problem.
Fair enough, but that’s a different debate.
I think she should have called her friend and had her waiting out front.
We don’t know how long she was in the party. It isn’t in the stories that I saw, and even if it was it would be just the girl’s word for it. What we do know is that she was there when the cops came. Tough luck.
Let’s say we wanted to change the rule to be that kids can be at a party with alcohol for a reasonable amount of time, whatever that may be. How do the cops enforce this? Instead of busting up the party they need to wait x minutes so they know everyone has been there a while?
I think the rules are fine the way they are now.
As I noted in the OP, the purpose and effect of “zero tolerance” policies is to allow officials to pass themselves of as “professionals” without ever having to exercise professional judgment or bear professional responsibility.
It appears the summonses were for minor in possession. Since she wasn’t convicted, I’m guessing the legal bar is a bit higher than “being at a party with alcohol.”
So I ask again, if she was at a party with alcohol and did not get in any legal trouble, how can you say the cops and the school are on the same page?
I agree that’s what she should have done, but it’s pretty easy to criticize any action with the benefit of hindsight. She may not have had a cell, or her friend may not, etc.
The important thing here is that the cops bought her story and the officer on scene apparently spoke for her at the school’s disciplinary hearing. What more do you want?
Got a cite for this? I don’t recall seeing what the summonses were for.
Both the cops and the school and the girl and her family all appear to be on the same page. She was at a party where minors were drinking alcohol.
What’s the confusion, exactly?