“America’s future will be determined by the home and the school. The child becomes largely what he is taught; hence we must watch what we teach, and how we live.”
Jane Addams
The teenage years offer new fears to parents about what children might be putting not only into their bodies, but into their minds. It is also a time when parents begin to notice the independent thoughts and actions of these still dependent young adults. The situation created by the proposed rules covering out of school conduct is a synergy of both concerns. Parents are worried about substance abuse, but also about the values that may get trampled in effort to confront those fears.
The regional board of education might blame voter apathy for the recent defeat of the high school budget, but there is no apathy with regards to the debate raging on the right of the school board to suspend students from extracurricular activities based on the following: “If a Ramapo Indian Hills High School student is charged by the police while away from school grounds for use, possession or consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs or violation of the Criminal Justice Code, Title 2C, and/or applicable municipal codes or ordinance, the investigatory and disciplinary processes shall be initiated”.
The concerns of parents ranged from the perceived unfairness of students punished for being charged with a crime, in comparison to a conviction, to the usurption of parental rights and authority. Parental concern that their child is not being treated fairly has existed probably since schools were first established, but the proposed conduct policy raises concerns of fairness that strike a constitutional nerve with parents. Parents last night questioned why students who are involved in extracurricular activities are being targeted for punishment. Studies conducted over the past decades indicate that students involved in extracurricular activities are least likely to be involved in substance abuse or criminal behavior.
The Board indicated that all students would be impacted by the disciplinary code to the extant that students under suspension from extracurricular activities would also not be able to attend events such as dances, games, or other school sponsored events. That might be true, but The Board failed to clarify the actual reason which is the New Jersey Constitution. “The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years. “, is the line which gives students a fundamental right to education. This makes it very difficult to discipline a student without due process, and it has led to the trend amongst school boards to use the suspension of extracurricular activities as a disciplinary tool. This is because these activities are defined as privileges, not rights,and they can be denied without due process.
The spartan nature of the statute has required court intervention to decide numerous cases involving student suspension from school and from extracurricular activities. These cases continue to be heard in courts in American cities and suburbs, and many of them make their way to the The Supreme Court. Court cases focused on the constitutional rights of students first got national attention back in the late 1960s when students were exercising free speech that some found disruptive to the learning process. More recently with regard to substance abuse, the Sureme Court upheld the right for school drug testing in 1995 in Vernonia School District v. Acton. The Court then described the situation as, “The administration was at its wits end and . . . a large segment of the student body, particularly those involved in interscholastic athletics, was in a state of rebellion…students using drugs or glamorizing drug and alcohol use led the administration to the inescapable conclusion that the rebellion was being fueled by alcohol and drug abuse as well as the student’s misperceptions about the drug culture.”
The local Board did not describe any actual rebellions here. They stated that the need of the new policy was inspired by a recent survey of the students. The survey, which itself was inspired by anecdotal evidence of drug and alcohol abuse, “scared the death out of” school administrators. The Board did not provide statistics, but said that the national survey used allowed them to cross reference with other geographic areas to assure that their numbers were correct. Research by The Journal was unable to find any national survey that would indicate an increase in drug or alcohol use by teenagers. Recent studies indicate that drug and alcohol use has shown a steady decline, while abuse of prescription drug use has shown an increase.
Parents at the meeting seemed unaware that the Supreme Court has heard cases that specifically address issues involving extracurricular activities. The 2002 Board of Education v. Earls case solidified the legality of mandatory drug testing for any student involved in extracurricular activities in a 5-4 decision. The Supreme Court has also granted school boards greater latitude with regards to controlling student’s speech outside of school. In the infamous, Morse v. Frederick case in Alaska, Justice Thomas declared that students do not have any right to free speech in school. Justice John Paul Stevens, in a dissent joined by Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg, argued that “the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding—indeed, lauding—a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.” It should be noted that Justice Thomas also believed that this issue, which involved an off-campus incident, should have been resolved through the political process where elected representatives of school boards and legislatures would answer to voters concerns. In May of 2008, a Connecticut high school student lost her appeal concerning disciplinary measures that were taken against her based on derogatory comments made about school officials on her personal blog/website. The mother of the defendant believed that in this situation punishment should have been left to the parent. She is quoted as having told her daughter, “You’re grounded, and we’re going to federal court to file a civil suit.”
Any resolution that infringes on parental authority is going to be met with strong resistance, protest and lawsuits. Most parents perceive themselves as something greater than the extension of their bank account, and believe themselves to be the primary influence in the formation of their children. The meeting held in The Indian Hills auditorium seemed to echo those beliefs as parents, from all three towns, rose up to emphatically state that they believe the school board policy infringes on their “God given responsibility” to exercise “their duty as a parent to discipline”. The Latin term “in loco parentis” was invoked more than once as residents accepted the school’s obligation to discipline in a parent’s absence, but felt the proposed code stepped over those bounds and was imposing punishment when a student is not under the school’s authority.
Concerns over the board usurping parental authority was matched with equal emotion on the issue of fairness. More than one parent expressed concern that the proposed code was in conflict with the morals and values they teach to their children. The American tradition of the presumption of innocence received heartfelt expression as opponents of the code argued against its implementation. Others high lighted that the criminal justice system in America has more checks and balances to assure that justice is fair, and that what was routinely described as a school tribunal does not. Parents with first hand experience dealing with minors facing criminal accusations related stories of false accusations and the emotional and financial toll it has on families; and, it was believed that re-creating an inferior process to that of the existing justice system would only add to the trauma of families dealing with a legal situation.
The Board invited a representative from the police to again explain the process of “station house adjustment”. This process, previously outlined in The Journal, is an effort by the State of New Jersey to help prevent minor criminal behavior from being processed as formal charges. It has proven to be a great success in it’s rehabilitative goals, and in relieving the courts from having to devote limited resources to minor infractions. The Board is hoping that parents will consider that a minor who is finally charged may have already been arrested several times with no formal complaint, and that the harsher penalties in the school code may therefore be appropriate. Although the program is an excellent effort by the state to address juvenile delinquency without leaving a criminal record or using up limited tax dollars on court costs, it is an arbitrary process with no judicial oversight.
The Board did receive support from one parent who declared that parents must “trust the board”, and work in partnership with them. The resident applauded the board for their efforts and hoped that the proposal would not be a hollow effort but would be put into practice. This specific supporter also expressed concern that alcohol and drugs were everywhere, and that “nerds” see that they can become “cool” by involving themselves with these substances. An educator in the audience also supported acceptance of the resolution. This argument was that students needed additional ammunition in order to resist peer pressure, and fear of losing the privilege of extracurricular activities might bolster their moral courage. The sentiments of this supporter was echoed by the Board which also stated that students must be armed with more support. The first speaker during the public session, a mother active in various school organizations, seemed to anticipate this argument stating in the beginning of the meeting that her children, “Don’t need a policy to hide behind”, with regards to saying no to drugs and alcohol.