your kid screwed up... deal with it

Thats my main concern. A school shouldn't have any say in what a student does off school grounds. The problem is that the school has control over the student when he is on school grounds, and can legitimately investigate and discipline reports of misconduct on school grounds.

When it comes to events that occur off school grounds and off school time, the school doesn't have any mechanism to investigage or discipline. If the school is disciplining based off criminal charges being brought (and not a conviction) this is problematic because in criminal court, as we all know, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

If the school is disciplining based on something less than criminal charges, then what is the standard for that? Are they investigating all their student athletes, or only the ones that are brought to their attention?

Its a very problematic policy, IMO.

Schools should stick to school time and school property and let the police and the parents worry about the rest.

suprf1y wrote: I've heard about that. Don't you find it ironic that, in a country whose people are obsessed with individual freedom, that is allowed to happen? I do. It wouldn't fly up here.

They are not required to work at those companies, so they still have the individual freedom not to apply for the job. If you are an atheist, would you apply to work at a church?

Regarding the football players (in that area football likely does = life), yes they need to deal with it. They do of course have a point about being guilty until proven innocent though. There is a possibility (slim as it is) that one or some of the players might get college scholarships, so the judgment could have long term effect. Yes, they should consider that in their actions, but there is also the possibility that they are wrongly accused and that accusation could greatly affect their lives. (may not be the case for these guys, sounds like money may not be an issue)

suprf1y wrote: I've heard about that. Don't you find it ironic that, in a country whose people are obsessed with individual freedom, that is allowed to happen? I do. It wouldn't fly up here.

Yes. Canada is looking better every day.

carguy123 wrote: Parents must have been Democrats!

Snowdoggie it was a joke. Didn't you notice the smiley icon.

ANDRAVE I'm going to have to disagree with you on the what happens after school doesn't matter rule you appear to favor. The kids represent the school at all times. They know going in that kind of behavior isn't acceptable.

What they are learning is that right and wrong don't matter. Lawyers and loud voices matter so why bother to be good? By extension laws don't matter either.

They haven't learned anything until a final judgment is reached.

Right now they're learning that you can complain if you don't like the consequences for breaking the rules you agreed to, but until the school decides to reinstate them or tells them and their parents to go pound sand, they haven't found out if it works or not.

Of course, we don't know if the kids were hit with criminal charges. They were benched for the season opener while this is still under investigation. We also don't know if the kids were actually drinking at the party. If they were, then the parents should shut up - the kids agreed to a contract and broke it. If they weren't, the school should apologize. Difficult thing to prove either way though.

OK, so how do you prove they participated in that behavior?

As I said, the school is in CONTROL of the student and can legitimately supervise, investigate, and report on the students behavior while the student is on school grounds.

The school cannot control, supervise, or investigate alleged conduct that occured off school campus.

My point is that under this rule, there is no standard. A student who does not violate the policy could piss off someone and be reported, wrongfully, to the school, and suspended. A student who drinks 10 beers and shoots a nun in the face with no witnesses goes on to catch the championship winning pass. Its a silly policy. The school doesn't have teachers at every party. There is no expectation that the school can legitimately supervise (and therefore control) the student's behavior off campus. With no school faculty present, there is no way the school can investigate allegations of misconduct.
The school is in the akward position of being able to suspend anyone for violation of the policy with NO proof, and then having to proove that it was right when those students protest.

Its a policy that CANNOT be uniformly enforced.

Its a bad policy.

carguy123 wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Parents must have been Democrats!

Snowdoggie it was a joke. Didn't you notice the smiley icon. ANDRAVE I'm going to have to disagree with you on the what happens after school doesn't matter rule you appear to favor. The kids represent the school at all times. They know going in that kind of behavior isn't acceptable.

So if I get accused of doing something off school grounds, I lose my privileges? Because that's the general case problem with basing school punishments on off-school incidents before the entire off school grounds incident is fully resolved.

Not in this particular case necessarily, but if an authority (the school in this case) has a power that can be abused, you bet your ass it will be abused.

What they are learning is that right and wrong don't matter. Lawyers and loud voices matter so why bother to be good? By extension laws don't matter either.

And what a friend of mine learned was that being harassed by the cops was enough to get him kicked off the basketball team. The only cause they had for coming after him was a tip. Turns out, the "tip" that got him in trouble was from a backup. The cops only had the word of a "witness" to a (non-existent) incident and no other evidence. Eventually they profusely apologized, but by then the season was over.

Andrave didn't say what happens after school shouldn't matter.He only made such a blanket statement if you only read part of his post. Reading further you see:

SNIP: removed the part where I backup what andrave said, pointing out that it's not what it was claimed he said. As he did it better while I was typing.

carguy123 wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Parents must have been Democrats!

Snowdoggie it was a joke. Didn't you notice the smiley icon. ANDRAVE I'm going to have to disagree with you on the what happens after school doesn't matter rule you appear to favor. The kids represent the school at all times. They know going in that kind of behavior isn't acceptable. What they are learning is that right and wrong don't matter. Lawyers and loud voices matter so why bother to be good? By extension laws don't matter either.

Yep. And a lot of people thought it was funny that the rich kids from HP were just as bad as the ghetto kids.

carguy123 wrote: ANDRAVE I'm going to have to disagree with you on the what happens after school doesn't matter rule you appear to favor. The kids represent the school at all times. They know going in that kind of behavior isn't acceptable.

Kind of fascist don't you think?

Mirriam-Webster said: fascism - a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

If you're off work should your employer be able to dictate your behaviour? I'm a libertarian so I'd say...um...No. As long as you're a good employee your employer shouldn't be able to fire you for behaviour while you're not on the job. Since schools create citizens I'd have to say that the same rule should apply to schools.

This argument doesn't take into account how these students are being assumed guilty before trial. This goes against many American views on justice.

What they are learning is that right and wrong don't matter. Lawyers and loud voices matter so why bother to be good? By extension laws don't matter either.

Yeah, Scooter Libby taught'em that one.

Whoa! Looks like the board doesn't like nested quotes that much...

I guess I shouldn't have divided by zero while posting...

My regards from the black hole... hole...

hole........

suprf1y wrote: Teenagers drinking alcohol? I can't believe it's true. Where will it end? Kids go to a party outside school, on their own time, and are suspended from the team. One has nothing to do with the other. The school is on a power trip.

oh, you mean like when I smoke a joint, on my own time away from work, (ya it's against the law... but so is underage drinking) the plant should mind their own business.... regardless whether the FAA will close the facility down or not..???

What you do on your own time is not the business of your employer, with the possible exception of something safety related.

Yeah no company or anything should have any interest in what their employees do it home.

Who cares if that pilot flying your family home for the holidays snorted a few lines of coke, or popped some pills or smoked a bowl before coming to work for the day right?

And why should schools give a rats ass about the negative press they would get when people find out their sports stars are drunks and druggies right? Oh nor should they care about their students breaking the law. Because you know teenagers aren't impressionable or anything right? I mean some little freshman would never look at what some "cool kid" on the football team was doing and want to copy that making them cool right?

There is a difference between caring about an employee's or student's behavior while off-site and off-hours and meddling in their affairs.

There is a reason that there are managers, teachers, administrators along with school and workplace policies. They are there to provide the necessary checks and balances to their co-workers/students. If they see or hear something that concern them they can take steps to correct any issues that might occur.

If there is a safety concern, one would think that there would be people double or triple checking other people's work along the way.

Lots of folks are glossing over one huge glaring point about all this: THE KIDS WERE ALL UNDERAGE. Why does that matter?

In an allegedly civilized society like we have here, there are curbs on the behavior of minors. Why? Because we as a society have decided to try to 'protect' the little monsters until they make it to age 18 and by then maybe they have learned enough to go on and become productive members of society. (Yeah, I've heard all the 'brainwashing' crap before.) So we tend to try to protect them through laws setting minimum ages for all kinds of activities.

These kids chose to hang around a party where they KNEW there would be activity which could get them booted from the football team. They got caught. They need to recieve the punishment they were aware of, same as Michael Vick lost his NFL contracts (at least temporarily) due to his off field behavior. Or Plaxico Burris who is going to do two years in the big house for carrying a concealed weapon in a nightclub, even though he too is an NFL player. That's what real life is like.

If someone plays an adult game, they should expect adult punishment. The parents need to understand and accept that. But of course they won't, they'll hire some high powered lawyer who will get the kids reinstated and another little piece of the concept of personal responsibility and shame for doing wrong will die a horrible death.

happened when I played football in highschool...half the team was suspended. I got to play in a "real game" because I was the nerd that wasn't invited to the party....

I agree wholeheartedly with Jensenman

All of these "rights" advocates in here are forgetting, They signed a contract, they knew the rules and then broke them, the contract gave the school the right to be involved, if they didn't want them to have this right they shouldn't have signed the contract.

There is no way the school overstepped their rights they have a signed document allowing them to act on a breach of contract.

Besides how many off duty police, politicians etc are drawn over the coals for off duty actions, it is nothing new to have to answer at your job for your idiotic behavior when on your own time.

Seriously they berkeleyed up, they got caught, they agreed to the provisions, now its time to pay the penalty.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

MInor quibble: "Contract" and "juvenile" do not go together. Tell the kids the policy, fine. Have them sign that they read it, fine. Don't call it a contract. Juveniles can't sign contracts.

well, this seems easy. Innocent until proven guilty right? Well, let them practice and workout with the team.. but suspend them from playing in any games until after the trial. This keeps them in shape AND on the team until the gavel comes down on the verdict.

As for off duty affecting work. If I get arrested (not convicted) I CAN be fired from the casinos I work at as I might become bad PR for them.

The difference between discipline when I was coming up and now is unreal. When I was in grammar school, getting sent to the principal's office almost always assured a switching. To add insult to injury, I'd have to go outside and pick the switch from a special bush. When daddy got home that evening, I would get a repeat performance, again, picking my own switch.

I thought when I got to Junior High, I'd seen the last of that, but it was even worse. It was a boy-only, ROTC mandatory school, and not only did most every teacher keep a paddle on their desk, but the ROTC Seargents wouldn't blink before slapping you upside the head.

Almost all of that would be considered child abuse today. Still, the majority of parents would back the teacher before they would back their kidsl If the teacher said you did something wrong, it was a fact. They never questioned it.

Of course, this was in the 60s.. ancient history by now.

slantvaliant wrote: MInor quibble: "Contract" and "juvenile" do not go together. Tell the kids the policy, fine. Have them sign that they read it, fine. Don't call it a contract. Juveniles can't sign contracts.

They sure can if their parents also sign and agree to it. Age is not an issue as much as an understanding of what it means

Per Law.com

contract 1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance, if the contract is "unilateral". A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date.) A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday.) Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all of another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law. 2) v. to enter into an agreement.

I stand by my statement. If you are off the clock your privacy should be respected. You are not being paid to be a "good guy" off the clock. If the company wants to own you 24/7 they should pay you for every hour. They only get to jerk you around while they are paying you. I know that's not how "it is" but that's how it "should be."

To those that want to talk about cops being drunk, pilots snorting coke, etc, etc, ad nauseum. If they're a bad employee they will get fired. A pilot is not a good pilot if he's tweaking. A cop isn't a good cop if he's drunk. It's a self-correcting problem without giving the company the right to dictate how you live. Where are the privacy advocates?

Now, for these kids. What bully tactics did the school use to have these so-called contracts signed? Let's forgo SlantValiants point that minors can't sign binding contracts. Did they tell these kids they couldn't play ball unless the signed some asinine contract dictating their behaviour off school grounds? When these kids are away from school they're responsibility is only to their parents.

..which brings to mind another point...

What's up with the so-called conservatives not wanting the school dictating behaviour (Obama speech comes to mind) unless it has to do with some B.S. contract about what is essentially a parenting issue? If parents can decide if their kids should see a speech by the President shouldn't they also be able to decide if their kids can have a beer? True, it's against the law but who hasn't had a beer below the age of 21 around their parents. Queue conversations about teaching the ability to drink responsibly. What right do schools have to dictate how parents raise their kids away from school?

EDIT - removed jerk statement made by me. Sorry guys. Must remember to be nice to my internet friends.

"playing an adult game and deserve an adult punishment."

only adults aren't punished for the game that they played. So that makes no sense.

smoking a joint during break and youre under the influence of an illegal substance while youre on the job and that would cause problems for your employer, therefore they would have a right to test for the presence of that substance in your body (and I guarantee you there is a written drug use policy at your business if that is the case, and almost certainly an appeals process if you wish to appeal the drug test).

The school did not have a clear, uniformly applicable written policy regarding these students conduct before hand. The school did not perform tests to see what substances the students had used. The students are not alleged to have been under the influence of any substance at school or at a school event. That is also a totally different situation and does not apply.

If more parents did a decent job at parenting the schools wouldn't have to do it for them.

As for your other ideas, man you better get out of that ivory tower and see what is actually happening in the real world.