Jan. 20, 2012
Who's in the wrong?
A lot of students would prefer to be able to do whatever they want outside of school and not have to worry about facing the consequences from school authorities. However, many administrators are worried that letting students be able to do whatever they want outside of school will be similar to promoting dangerous and risky activities.
A couple of weeks ago, Walt Whitman High School Principal Alan Goodwin suspended about three dozen students from extracurricular activities for attending a house party in Bethesda where alcohol was served. The principal received no information about the party from the police, but instead gathered information from Facebook and chatter in the hallway. To clarify what he had heard, he interviewed a handful of students and was able to find out the names of students who had received citations at the party.
When something happens to students outside of school, the school system leaves it up to the principal to decide whether students should get punished. Goodwin decided to suspend the students because he feared that letting students get away with drinking alcohol would lead others to think that it is acceptable. Whitman has had many alcohol related tragedies in the past, some fatal. Goodwin suspended the students in order to let them know that they can't get away with everything and that their actions can have severe consequences.
While Goodwin's act is viewed noble by some, it is also considered an invasion of privacy by others. Why should the principal be listening to hallway gossip or even interrogating students about what they do over the weekend? If it didn't happen at school, then why are school administrators getting involved? While it is understandable that administrators are simply trying to help, perhaps they didn't consider that they are also harming students as well. A citation already comes with a required amount of volunteer hours and a visit to court, which is enough to teach students a lesson. Putting a suspension on top of that might be a bit unnecessary, considering the punishments the students already have to go through.
The principal at Whitman had nothing but good intentions when he decided to suspend the students, but whether it was the right decision is unclear. Students want to do whatever they want and not worry about getting punished, while the school wants to get involved to teach students that whatever they're doing is harmful and is unacceptable. The line between school administrators' intentions and invasion of privacy is extremely thin.
No matter what side you pick, there will always be a rebuttal and probably no definite answer. If students are doing what they are supposed to be doing, they wouldn't need to worry about getting punished. If administrators focus on school-related issues, they wouldn't need to worry about coming up with appropriate punishments. Either way, this seems to be a lose-lose situation, but the most important thing is that both students and administrators act responsibly and appropriately in every situation they encounter.
In the past, Walt Whitman HS has had many tragedies occur to students because of alcohol.
When something happens to students outside of school, the school system leaves it up to the principal to decide whether students should get punished. Goodwin decided to suspend the students because he feared that letting students get away with drinking alcohol would lead others to think that it is acceptable. Whitman has had many alcohol related tragedies in the past, some fatal. Goodwin suspended the students in order to let them know that they can't get away with everything and that their actions can have severe consequences.
While Goodwin's act is viewed noble by some, it is also considered an invasion of privacy by others. Why should the principal be listening to hallway gossip or even interrogating students about what they do over the weekend? If it didn't happen at school, then why are school administrators getting involved? While it is understandable that administrators are simply trying to help, perhaps they didn't consider that they are also harming students as well. A citation already comes with a required amount of volunteer hours and a visit to court, which is enough to teach students a lesson. Putting a suspension on top of that might be a bit unnecessary, considering the punishments the students already have to go through.
The principal at Whitman had nothing but good intentions when he decided to suspend the students, but whether it was the right decision is unclear. Students want to do whatever they want and not worry about getting punished, while the school wants to get involved to teach students that whatever they're doing is harmful and is unacceptable. The line between school administrators' intentions and invasion of privacy is extremely thin.
No matter what side you pick, there will always be a rebuttal and probably no definite answer. If students are doing what they are supposed to be doing, they wouldn't need to worry about getting punished. If administrators focus on school-related issues, they wouldn't need to worry about coming up with appropriate punishments. Either way, this seems to be a lose-lose situation, but the most important thing is that both students and administrators act responsibly and appropriately in every situation they encounter.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Silver Chips Online invites you to share your thoughts about this article. Please use this forum to further discussion of the story topic and refrain from personal attacks and offensive language. SCO reserves the right to deny any comment. No comments that include hyperlinks will be posted. If you have a question for us, please include your email address or use this form.
These 3 dozen students now have dark blemishes on their permanent record because a principal was being nosy. He is not the parents of the students and he is not a police officer. Those students could have been perfectly responsible students and there is no reason to have them suspended if their activity at school was appropriate.
Thanks for publishing the article. Good to be aware about this story. I agree with the last sentence of this article.
as someone who drank a few beers in HS and went on to play D-I athletics, I'm glad no overzealous administrator jeapordized my future to make a point. It's a shame those in charge at Whitman have decided to do so.
Principal Goodwin took action against lawbreakers-pure and simple.
While underage drinking is illegal by law, the principal didn't write that law and what happens to lawbreakers isn't up to him. Therefore, he shouldn't be the one punishing these kids for out of school activity.
Anyways, this isn't an actual editorial, it's just an article for her own thoughts. It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that she had "high horse indignation" when you're clearly annoyed by her writing and obviously think your beginning would have been better than hers.
I think its easy to forget that what these teens decided to do is illegal. I just wish that there was a more productive way to teach teens these lessons. Suspending the teens doesn't seem like it would help.