Before I can really have an opinion I need to know more than what is written in that article, such as:
How many minutes with regard to "Minutes after Cox showed up at the party to give her friend a lift home, police showed up, according to the Cox family's attorney, Wendy Murphy." 5? 10? 30? 45?
If she was there for any longer than just to "pick up a drunk friend", she was attending the party. If one's purpose is to be a taxi-cab, there would have been no need to go inside, at all.
Also, the misleading vividness fallacy evident in statements such as: "By punishing Erin Cox, the North Andover School District sends a contrary and very dangerous message -- that young people are better off letting their friends drive drunk," Murphy said in a statement to ABC News." are completely ridiculous.
Some could also say that picking her friend up to give her a ride, when intoxicated, sends a message that it is OK to drink when underage, as long as you have a sober friend to call, which is a misleading vividness fallacy of equally ridiculous proportions
Perhaps the zero-tolerance rule is ridiculous. Apparently, the school does not want their athletes drinking underage or being near a situation where alcohol is being consumed by underage persons. Fair enough, it is their school, they can make the rules. The problem is that this young volleyball player agreed to the terms when deciding to play volleyball at this school.
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.
