Student Conduct Code 1

The proposed rules for Conduct Away from School Grounds/ Discipline being discussed at a hearing on June 30th is a great opportunity for the community as a whole to influence how our local youth learn. Since character and conduct are traits intrinsic to the definition of a person and the impact they have on the community as a whole, I suggest that some additional revisions should be considered.

Board members rightfully rejected earlier versions that included a “pledge” to be signed by parents and students alike. The wording required parents and students to pledge that the students would not consume or possess alcohol or drugs at any time, any place. As it was obvious to many parents that this provided no real deterrent to drug or alcohol use; it intruded on the parent-child relationship; it would instill an acceptance of hypocrisy by having students sign an oath they did not believe in– the requirement has been removed from the revised code .

The Board also believed that the original penalties were too severe and implemented “educational intervention” and counseling activities to address potential substance abuse issues. As it appears the schools have educators and counselors on staff, this was a very appropriate decision. So, without a doubt, The Board has improved the original process to responsibly respond to concerns that a student might be falling into a pattern of behavior that will hinder his/her full potential. But there still remains some serious concerns whenever an entity looks to implement a judicial process, and especially when the focus is on youth.

Having been a youth, and also having worked as a court advocate for at-risk youth in New York City, I am fully conscious that exercising poor judgment is a rite of passage. As a parent, I understand the argument behind denying a child a pleasure in order to teach them a lesson. The goal of the regional high school though is to teach these students how to be adults, not children. And if I were to be in favor of a proposal that extends the schools’ authority beyond their appointed sphere, my only suggestion would be to allow student representatives to somehow partake of the judicial process as active members of the deciding body, or as advocates for the accused. The mere allowance of having your parents act as your advocates in a hearing just reaffirms to the student that they are a child rather than a young adult. Besides the fact, the value of a parent’s testimony must be taken with a grain of salt since advocating for their child is a lifetime job.

Incorporating student representatives into the judicial process provides an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills and offers some type of support so that the accused is not left alone facing a stacked board with his/her mommy and daddy. I have personally seen how powerful a learning mechanism this type of inclusion can be when it was employed for decades at The Boys Brotherhood Republic which, until recently, served disadvantaged youths in the NYC housing projects. The administrators there were working to build values and self-respect in an environment much less conducive to it than the environment we enjoy in Oakland. So, from personal experience, I would offer that suggestion if I were to be in favor of the proposal.

There are numerous studies that detail the benefits extracurricular activities have on at-risk youth. It is widely documented that students involved in extracurricular activities are less likely to be involved with drug or alcohol use in comparison to the general student population. By targeting the portion of the student body least likely to be involved in substance abuse, those students who are more at-risk are done a great disservice. Although lawyers argue the legalities in court, the fact is that police can arrest a minor for merely being at a party where alcohol is being consumed by others. The proposed codes will foster two distinct social cultures, denying those students who might be tempted to begin drinking from having any type of positive peer support by those with the character strong enough to say, no thanks. This is the population most at-risk, and this is the population that published studies prove need extracurricular activities; and, published studies prove the positive beneifts. For as common as this trend in introducing punishment due to activities outside of school has become, there is little–if any–documented research that proves it accomplishes anything positive at all.

I am against the school expanding its authority outside it’s traditional area of responsibility. When a student is at school, or at an off campus school activity, or representing the school in some capacity, there should be repercussions to violating school rules. Unfortunately, the new rules go well beyond that, and in an effort to promote good behavior are creating an environment for insidious abuse. The mere fact that a student is arrested will mean that a disciplinary hearing will be initiated against him/her. The code as written introduces a police arrest as a triggering factor, completely discounting the American tradition of the presumption of innocence. It is a system ripe for abuse by any student who may be seeking to settle a score with another student. If I know you are having a party, and I know there will be alcohol or drugs there, and I don’t like you, all I need do is make an anonymous call to the police who are obligated to respond. Is this the type of temptation we need to create for a disgruntled individual seeking revenge? This will eventually happen, and it will happen again and again.

My final argument against the proposed code as it now stands is based on the inevitable future lawsuit that it will bring and cost the community. Courts have already decided on numerous occasions that extracurricular activities are a privilege and not a right, but the lawsuits continue; and, Oakland is ripe to lose such a case. During the recent negotiations on the school budget for the regional district, the boards and the administration have publicly tied the value of residents’ homes to the existence of these extracurricular activities. The biggest emotional and financial investment a family can make, a home, has been inextricably tied to the “privileges” the code intends to deny an accused offender. This powerful argument, that extracurricular activities are a paramount reason families move to the area, was offered by officials in defense of the defeated school budget. It now opens the door to a plaintiff who claims that their property interest in education is inclusive of these extracurricular activities, and a student cannot be denied them through administrative procedures but must be afforded full due process under the law. And there will be a lawsuit, probably filed by a parent who is an attorney, and it will cost them nothing but time to challenge this assumption in court.

-Charles McCormick