Teen punished for helping drunk friend

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Horse crap.

The school made the rules, she agreed to them as part of her participation as an athlete (which most schools require now) and she broke them.

Most school rules aren't about things that are illegal.  That's what the law is for.  There are many, many school rules that have nothing to do with legality, such as public displays of affection, no cell phones in class, dress codes and some teachers even have rules about chewing gum in class.  Violating any of those rules has repercussions.

Using that logic, I suppose that my kids should be able to sue me when I punish them for not obeying my rules, since they aren't doing anything illegal?

The school is a public institution, not your parents. Perhaps your constitution doesn't state that all kids have a right to education or something. Therefore a school should not be a form of opression.

[68Mason]

Here is what has not been told or at least I have not come across yet....what was the age of her friend she picked up?  The article does not mention why the cops were there in the first place and if anyone else there was ticketed or arrested.  Most businesses in MA close at 9:00pm so it is conceivable that she just got off work.  True, it does seem like there is some missing info here. The fact that she was slapped with MIP is silly if she was not in possession.  The school has a zero tolerance policy, but according to the current story/facts she did not break that policy by giving someone a ride home.  This could affect her chances for college scholarship since she has been suspended 5 games.  I do not know where they are at in their volleyball season but just missing out 5 games could have a negative impact. 

[VonMessa]

The school is a public institution, not your parents. Perhaps your constitution doesn't state that all kids have a right to education or something. Therefore a school should not be a form of opression.

This situation has absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality or a child's right to education.

I haven't read anywhere where she was not allowed to get an education.  It does not appear that she is suspended from school.

I also do not see where the school is a form of oppression.  The citizens of that particular school district chose the folks they wanted to make the rules.

School rules or policies, beyond state regulated standards for education, are decided upon by the school board of that school's particular school district.

School board members are publicly elected officials, chosen by the persons residing in that school district.

As with any other elected official in this country, it is possible to prevent them from making silly rules by not voting them into the position of school board members.

In my experience, the folks with the loudest opinions about silly rules of any type, are the same folks that are conspicuously absent from the polls come election time.

EDIT:

Just to add something.  I feel that the zero-tolerance rules are ridiculous.  I do not feel that they are unconstitutional, however.  The rules were created, and voted upon, by elected school board members.  They can be changed to something a bit less final by board members that feel they are unfair.  If enough parents/residents of the school district put the screws to the school board, I have no doubt that they could be changed.  The best thing an elected official can do to keep their office is to listen to the opinions of their constituents, otherwise, they will be out of a job come next election time..

As said by others, more information should have been obtained before any decisions were made.

I DO think that her right to any form of due-process was trampled.  This is what I believe that people should be up in arms about, not the rules themselves.  Innocent until proven guilty.  Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies)  The innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence that proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I have stated before, the cops will arrest or at the very least, issue a summons to everyone present.  This is SOP, just about everywhere.  That is their job, to enforce the law, not interpret it.  Cox was issued a summons, a few others were arrested.  

Where the school has erred, in my opinion, is in her suspension and demotion as captain before any legal guilt or innocence was determined.  If she was found innocent of the MIP, nothing should happen.  If found guilty, then she should certainly be subjected to the penalties as agreed upon by her as an athlete at that school.

[Rich46yo]

This is poor implementation of Policy I believe.

Kids make mistakes. Even very good kids make mistakes. I have no tolerance for zero tolerance over piddling offenses. Its one thing to rob a grocery store and its another thing for a kid to make a stupid mistake where nobody is harmed.

You cant pound every good person into dust for every piddling thing just because you have the power to do so.

[Bizman]

<snip>
School rule was zero tolerance with regard to alcohol.
Girl willingly and knowingly entered the premises of a party where alcohol was present.
- - -
Even if she wasn't drinking, she was there.  That was against school policy.

Reminds me of the old story where a woman was accused for something she had not done just because she had the means to do it, and she counter-accused the judge for raping because he had all the equipment to do so.

Such zero tolerance to alcohol means that viewing a magazine containing a beer ad should be punished. Or passing by a liquor store. Or going to a supermarket where alcohol is being sold, even if just for buying candy. How about going to church on Sunday? I suppose the American version of Lord's Supper includes wine which is an alcoholic beverage...

[ebfd11]

Well here is an update...


School lawyer lied about 'arrest' of girl suspended for trying to help drunken pal, attorney says

It was bad enough when a Massachusetts school threw the book at an honor student who tried to help a drunken friend get home from a party, but the district's lawyer made things even worse when he lied to a judge and claimed would-be designated driver Erin Cox was arrested, Cox's attorney charged.

The allegation leveled by lawyer Wendy Murphy is the latest development in a case that has already generated widespread outrage. Cox, 17, was suspended from the North Andover High School volleyball team for five games and demoted as captain, all for simply responding to a texted plea last month from a pal who was too drunk to drive home from a party. Minutes after Cox showed up, Boxford police arrived and shut it down. Some students were arrested, but most — including Cox — were given summonses for underage possession of alcohol. Police later backed Cox's version of events.

Murphy said the school district compounded its own injustice toward a kid when its attorney, Geoffrey Bok, said in court that Cox was arrested at the party. She was not.

“That a school would then lie to a judge in a court of law is an outrage and shows the length some school officials will go to to retaliate against a family that dares to challenge an irrational zero tolerance policy,” Murphy said in a statement.

    “That a school would then lie to a judge in a court of law is an outrage and shows the length some school officials will go to to retaliate against a family that dares to challenge an irrational zero tolerance policy."

- Wendy Murphy, Cox family attorney

“In fact, as the police officer at the scene reported in a statement that was provided to the principal and the judge, Erin was not arrested and did nothing wrong,” Murphy added. “He added that she had not been drinking, had no intention of drinking, was there to help a friend and did not have even the ‘slightest’ odor of alcohol on her person.”

Bok's claim, according to Murphy, came last week as she sued the district on behalf of the Cox family. Although that state court ruled it had no jurisdiction, Murphy vowed to pursue cases against both North Andover High School Principal Carla Scuzzarella and Bok in federal court.

Bok had no comment on the case, or even on Murphy's charge that he lied in court. Scuzzarella referred inquiries to North Andover Public Schools Superintendent Kevin Hutchinson, who defended the punishment in a statement to FoxNews.com.

"While some may decry the Administration’s actions as unfair or inconsistent with the principles of due process, our Administration wholeheartedly disagrees," the statement read. "To be clear, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that participation in interscholastic athletics is a privilege. Rather than simply revoking the privilege, our Administration has consistently afforded its student-athletes a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a disciplinary decision is made."

Since the story made national headlines, Cox has been lauded in many quarters for coming to the aid of a friend, and for trying to keep a drunk driver off the road.

"The story of Erin Cox, the Boston high school student suspended for being called in as a designated driver is unconscionable," former Florida congressman Allen West wrote on his website. "Sadly, it is indicative of the statist drive permeating our culture to negate individual initiative, personal responsibility, accountability, and acts of honor."

Oddly, not everyone is taking Cox's side in the dispute. Mothers Against Drunk Driving President Jan Withers told FoxNews.com the school was right to come down on the teen.

“Underage drinking is so very dangerous, that’s why MADD appreciates this school’s effort,” said Withers, who praised Cox's intentions but said she should have called an adult. “I’m not there and I don’t know all of the details, but indeed, their efforts to prevent underage drinking through zero tolerance are admirable."

Cox’s mother, Eleanor, sued the school district, but a judge ruled last week that the court did not have jurisdiction. Federal court is expected to be the family's next move.

“We want this nightmare to go away,” Eleanor Cox told FoxNews.com. “We have nothing else to say.


* Taken from the Fox News Site
LawnDart

[MrRiplEy[H]]

This situation has absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality or a child's right to education.

I haven't read anywhere where she was not allowed to get an education.  It does not appear that she is suspended from school.

I also do not see where the school is a form of oppression.  The citizens of that particular school district chose the folks they wanted to make the rules.

School rules or policies, beyond state regulated standards for education, are decided upon by the school board of that school's particular school district.

School board members are publicly elected officials, chosen by the persons residing in that school district.

As with any other elected official in this country, it is possible to prevent them from making silly rules by not voting them into the position of school board members.

In my experience, the folks with the loudest opinions about silly rules of any type, are the same folks that are conspicuously absent from the polls come election time.

EDIT:

Just to add something.  I feel that the zero-tolerance rules are ridiculous.  I do not feel that they are unconstitutional, however.  The rules were created, and voted upon, by elected school board members.  They can be changed to something a bit less final by board members that feel they are unfair.  If enough parents/residents of the school district put the screws to the school board, I have no doubt that they could be changed.  The best thing an elected official can do to keep their office is to listen to the opinions of their constituents, otherwise, they will be out of a job come next election time..

As said by others, more information should have been obtained before any decisions were made.

I DO think that her right to any form of due-process was trampled.  This is what I believe that people should be up in arms about, not the rules themselves.  Innocent until proven guilty.  Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies)  The innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence that proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I have stated before, the cops will arrest or at the very least, issue a summons to everyone present.  This is SOP, just about everywhere.  That is their job, to enforce the law, not interpret it.  Cox was issued a summons, a few others were arrested.  

Where the school has erred, in my opinion, is in her suspension and demotion as captain before any legal guilt or innocence was determined.  If she was found innocent of the MIP, nothing should happen.  If found guilty, then she should certainly be subjected to the penalties as agreed upon by her as an athlete at that school.

When the school starts to shell out arbitrary rules concerning the private free time of the students, that's a form of opression. Especially if the student was doing nothing morally wrong - quite the contrary and is obliged by law to attend as they're down here. In my country the school can not say anything about any activities the students do on their free time - even on their trip to school.  Only activities that happen inside school grounds and during school time are controllable and punishable.

[EskimoJoe]

If one's purpose is to be a taxi-cab, there would have been no need to go inside, at all.


Her friend had other options such as:  don't drink, call a parent, call a cab , possible spend the night, call a different friend, etc.  This young lady could have called someone else, that didn't play volleyball, to pick her friend up.  There were other options available, I refuse to believe that there weren't.
We are also assuming that her friend actually drove to that party...

As others have said, there is more to the story than is told in that article.

You make some valid points, however;

1) Perhaps the friend was too drunk to find their way out, or passed out while the ride was en-route. I'd personally go in to drag the drunkard away.

2) Yes, the perhaps the drunkard had other options, but think from a different perspective. Do you really think that a teenager who is drinking at a party will be responsible enough to A) save the number of a cab company to their phone, B) will call their parents and face punishment? It wouldn't be possible to spend the night if the cops showed up, and probably would have spent a night in detainment to for under-age drinking. Also, how would calling a different friend have turned out any differently? Does that person even have any other responsible friends that can drive?

There will always be more to the story than any article will provide, but without even reading the article, it's easy to ascertain that the school 'leaders' made a decision that wasn't very well thought out.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

You make some valid points, however;

1) Perhaps the friend was too drunk to find their way out, or passed out while the ride was en-route. I'd personally go in to drag the drunkard away.

2) Yes, the perhaps the drunkard had other options, but think from a different perspective. Do you really think that a teenager who is drinking at a party will be responsible enough to A) save the number of a cab company to their phone, B) will call their parents and face punishment? It wouldn't be possible to spend the night if the cops showed up, and probably would have spent a night in detainment to for under-age drinking. Also, how would calling a different friend have turned out any differently? Does that person even have any other responsible friends that can drive?

There will always be more to the story than any article will provide, but without even reading the article, it's easy to ascertain that the school 'leaders' made a decision that wasn't very well thought out.

Remember the case of teachers spying students through their school laptop webcams and then punishing them for behaviour that happened in the privacy of their ROOMS? You guys live in an Orwellian society, scary as chuck.

[Rich46yo]

Naw in the last 30 years Ive seen an overall trend towards zero tolerance for everything in schools. And they "teachers" can be real softballs about it too. Bullying is one thing but if two boys of equal age and size throw a few punched its just silly to call the police and start screeching "we want them arrested", let alone suspended. It was better in my day when nobody would even notice two boys fighting, or if they did they might just give you a smack and threaten to call your Mom, who would threaten to tell the Old Man. Now educators just give me a headache with all their self righteousness.

A little common sense should be in order. I dont doubt this story probably happened exactly as it was reported.

I dont know whats happened to this world. I am constantly confused by it.

[guncrasher]

Remember the case of teachers spying students through their school laptop webcams and then punishing them for behaviour that happened in the privacy of their ROOMS? You guys live in an Orwellian society, scary as chuck.

naw that was wrong.  the school admited it was wrong. and somebody could have gone to jail for taking pics of underage students while undressing.

we have laws, just some people are too stupid to understand.


semp

[minke]

if two boys of equal age and size throw a few punched its just silly to call the police

Its the same today, especially round my way. If you try to break it up, even if it is kids, you get turned upon. Police wouldn't even bother either

[MrRiplEy[H]]

naw that was wrong.  the school admited it was wrong. and somebody could have gone to jail for taking pics of underage students while undressing.

we have laws, just some people are too stupid to understand.


semp

The whole idea that someone in the school saw it appropriate to monitor students while they were at home shows that the attitudes are just problematic. Spying a student through the web cam is an unbelievable invasion of privacy and it should have screamed BAD IDEA on so many different levels.

It's really amazing that the responsible person didn't get jail time for that as it violates every basic right the students and their families could have.

[Motherland]

I think the most important question is why anyone believes a single word about anything that's written about this.
School boards often are poorly run, often by parents or former parents of kids in the school district with no regard for anything but their kid (who may or may not be a little toejam, and often is), and really don't have any idea what they're doing and just want to protect their kids interests. They're often governed by ridiculously petty politics. All of these assumptions are fair.

BUT

On top of that, local news is usually pretty incompetent, full of incredibly unprofessional people wanting to make a name for themselves running ridiculous sensationalist stories. Reporters often have way too much stake in and are far too close to the issue they're writing about an make absolutely no effort to write without bias. Petty, stupid 'my child is an angel and would never lie about what happened' politics and influences dominate this world the same way they dominate the terrible incompetent school boards, if not to a much larger extent.

Speaking of personal experiences, local media outlets would often time run gross exaggerations or blatant lies about events that happened in our school. A little digging usually turned up that articles were written by parents of students, or their friends, with pretty clear biases and agendas. Now having talked with kids from around the country about the politics in their school districts and areas, I know that this is an extremely common theme in school district level politics. These articles are always vaguely written, with the protagonist child seemingly almost unrealistically pure, and the whole thing just doesn't 'seem' right. That's usually just because they're not.

Articles will contain ridiculous details, blah blah blah kid was captain of x team and got straight A's whatever. Applied and early accepted to a really great honors program in a good university.
The experience of me and my friends in various top, internationally ranked schools has shown that these are exactly the kids that, on top of not really being any more morally tight than their peers in high school, rather just a bit smarter about covering it up, often are the ones that can be found in hospitals getting their stomachs pumped during freshman orientation week.

What really happened in this situation? Certainly no one outside of the community knows, and most people there probably only know misrepresentative gossip.
What probably happened? The kid was at the party and maybe even had a couple of drinks and got arrested for it. Her parents knew someone who writes for the local paper and got that person to write a story blasting the school board, either because they really were naive enough to fall for their kid's manipulation, or with more sinister intent. The story blew up because people love sensationalism and lack sense.

[guncrasher]

The whole idea that someone in the school saw it appropriate to monitor students while they were at home shows that the attitudes are just problematic. Spying a student through the web cam is an unbelievable invasion of privacy and it should have screamed BAD IDEA on so many different levels.

It's really amazing that the responsible person didn't get jail time for that as it violates every basic right the students and their families could have.

no the idea was not to spy on kids while they were at home.  it was because too many kids were saying they "lost" they laptop.  so the idea was to take a picture of the location and report it.


semp