High School and College Code of Conduct

20dad - yes that's what was said.

CPLZ - I'll accept the adult vs child argument. I can enter into agreements that a child cannot. But I was not comparing employment to school - I was comparing it to voluntary participation on a sports team. As I said earlier, (most) code violations won't get you kicked out of school... you have a right to be there, which only gets revoked if you do something really egregious. But that's different from the PRIVILEGE of participating in an extracurricular. So I think it's a good analogy from that perspective.

As for the contract - the school, in exchange for your agreement to abide by the rules, provides the team and all the necessary accoutrements. That's the exchange.

And how about the military? Don't they have their own system of justice outside of that afforded to all other citizens? I wouldn't call it by nature "constitutionally abusive" but it is definitely autonomous isn't it? I know a lot about this subject from watching "A Few Good Men" over and over again!

.

All of this from our local high school.



CODE OF CONDUCT


Category "A" Type Violation

* Being present at an occasion where illegal possession, consumption, purchase or sale of alcohol, steroids, drugs, look-a-like drugs, or drug paraphernalia occurs.

* Hazing

First Offense:

* Verbal warning to athlete and parents.

Second Offense:

* One tenth of a sports season suspension.
* Parent notification.
* Ten hours of school or community service.

Third Offense:

* One half of a sports season suspension or 1/4 of the season with counseling (can carry over to the next sports season).
* Mandatory parent meeting.
* Six months probation.

Category "B" Type Violation

*Illegal possession, consumption of tobacco, alcohol, steroids, drugs, look-a-like drugs, or drug paraphernalia.

First Offense:

* One tenth of season suspension.
* Parent notification.
* Ten hours of school or community service.
* Six months probation.

Second Offense:

* One half of a sports season suspension or 1/4 of the season with counseling (can carry over to the next sports season).
* Mandatory parent meeting.

Third Offense:

* One year suspension from all contests.
* Mandatory parent meeting.
* Student must appear in front of the Athletic Director to develop a plan for reinstatement to athletic program.

Category "C" Type Violation

*Permitting the use of alcohol or other illegal or inappropriate chemical substances in one’s residence.

* Purchasing or supplying alcohol or drugs.


First Offense:

* One half of a sports season suspension or 1/4 of the season with counseling (can carry over to the next sports season).
* Mandatory parent meeting.
* Ten hours of school or community service.
* Six months probation.

Second Offense:

* One year suspension from all contests.
* Mandatory parent meeting.
* Student must appear in front of the Athletic Director to develop a plan for reinstatement to athletic program.

Third Offense:

* Suspension for remainder of the athlete’s high school career.

NOTE:

Any violation after the third offense in category "A" will result in one year suspension from all contests.

Any violation after the third offense in category "B" will result in suspension from contests for the remaining high school career of the athlete.

When a student violates different categories, the administration reserves the right to impose a penalty as deemed appropriate to the student's overall record of previous violations. Penalties will be imposed on a cumulative basis within each of the three categories.

Punishment per season WILL carry to the next season if the punishment is not able to be completed during the current season.

The carry-over will occur from the spring to fall season of the following year. Training rules are enforced year-round.

In addition to the above categories, student-athletes will be held responsible to the school code and IHSA rules. Violation of those rules will result in disciplinary action at the discretion of the Administration.

quote:

Originally posted by mythreesons:
And how about the military? Don't they have their own system of justice outside of that afforded to all other citizens? I wouldn't call it by nature "constitutionally abusive" but it is definitely autonomous isn't it? I know a lot about this subject from watching "A Few Good Men" over and over again!

It's called the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and although military personnel are subject to it, and relinquish constitutionally granted rights under it, it is not autonomous. There is oversight by congress and remedy for appeal.

The need for it is because combatants cannot be restrained by civilian law in the execution of their duties. Therefore a separate system of justice oversees the military.

quote:

Originally posted by mythreesons:
But that's different from the PRIVILEGE of participating in an extracurricular.

Twice now I have given the dictionary definition of PRIVILEGE. I have yet to see a definition of that word that is applicable to the right granted extracurricular activities. You do not earn your way in to an activity, you simply possess the requisite skills necessary to participate.

I want to take a minute and say that although many of the comments and dialog here are adversarial, I have great respect for all the well thought out responses and positions.... no matter how wrong they are (just kidding on that last part )

Oversight by Congress! Gaaahhhh!

J/k... thanks for the explanation.

There is no Constitutional right to play baseball in high school. The legal rights you talk about only apply to criminal matters in courts of law. There are many different kinds of hearing, disiplinary boards etc. in the public sector that have their own rules. There are plenty of situations where the 5th Amendment doesn't apply. Remember, "you don't have to self incriminate" is for a legal proceding where your liberty is at stake. It does not apply to a high school investigation.

You are not being extorted to sign a COC. You can sign it or not. There is NO Constitutional right to play high school baseball, so your argument is not persuasive. No one who signs the COC is "giving up Constitutioanlly guaranteed right". Also, people can waive their Constitutionally granted rights if they want to ie. right to a jury trial or right against self incrimination. So even if you were right, a person could voluntarily waive the right because it is so important to them to play high school baseball. Their choice.

If people fight and die for Constituionally guaranteed rights, they can certainly give up high school baseball to perserve those rights. So either way, I disagree with you CPLZ.

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
There is no Constitutional right to play baseball in high school.

By law, if you have a school sponsored extracurricular activity, it has to be available to everybody. This has been constitutionally tested and upheld, thereby making it a constitutional right.

Yes, the legal rights I talk about apply to a court of law, where legal proceedings, including the punishment phase, belong in regards to non school events, not in the hands of school administrators.

I have often wondered if the people that steal those rights from others, have ever sat in a fox hole, or behind a tree, watching brave men fall in service to their country? Have they ever, in spite of bone chilling fear, continued to fight on and risk it all? Have they ever looked their buddy in they eye and said, "let's go, let's get the job done", and then moved out, advancing under fire? I wonder that if they understood the dear prices paid for those rights, whether they would be so quick to sneak those rights away like thieves in the night, by writing them into policies quietly and hoping no one notices.

I wonder if they understand how precious the rights we are granted by our constitution really are?

I wonder how many here even understand that and are willing to stand up for them?

CPLZ and even in war there are rules and consequences to those who fail to obide by them. Even in the most chilling/hair raising/spine tingling of events warriors are expected to keep their heads and make sound decisions. Why? simple because they represent something bigger than themselves. If you choose to wear the uniform you are choosing to consent of the rules that accompany it. It is not as though these rules were not in existence prior to the offense. Don't lose sight of that. I can not and will not pretend to know what the events you describe are all about. However, that does not stop me from distinguishing a right from a priveledge.

No COC has been found to be unconstitutional.

The activities have to be "available to all equally". That doesn't mean they all have a right to play. You can cut a player for not being good enough, or for not having grades, and yes for breaking community standards.

Let me muddy the waters even further - here's a definition of "privilege" for you direct from dictionary.com:

any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

So there you go!

And now this - it's not Illinois, but Massachusetts:

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court said that participation in school athletics is not a constitutional right for anyone. Writing for the court, Justice Judith M. Cowin also ruled that the MIAA’s grievance procedure does not violate the state’s civil rights law.

“The right to a public education, even one with a mandatory physical education component, is not synonymous with the right to participate in extracurricular activities, such as interscholastic athletics,’’ Cowin wrote. She added, “we do not expand the contours of a student's property interest in public education to include within it every extracurricular activity that might enrich the educational experience, however meaningful those activities might be to individual students.’’

This is a decision made in January of this year regarding a transfer student who wanted to swim on the school's swim team even though she was a fifth year senior.

Google is my friend!

If people are giving up rights by creating rules like these, it still might be a good idea if the benefit far outweighs what is given up. This rule goes directly to what many parents consider the heart of the matter with teenage drinking - peer pressure. No one is being asked to give up going to parties, they are being told not to go to parties where alcohol is consumed. I believe the rule should apply to any school activity including the band and the drama club for example.

The questiuonable part in the case at hand imho is they took the word of a kid who was caught red-handed and went after another kid who was home in bed. I think they applied the rule too broadly in this case, and for that, some constitutional rights may have been violated.

Our school does apply the COC to every extracurricular across the board - band, choir, color guard, drama, etc. We've also revoked parking privileges for any student who is in violation.

I'm still not agreeing that anyone is giving up any rights - what "right" is my child forfeiting by signing? We're talking about breaking the law here.

(Again, I'd stay away from discussing the current case as nobody really knows for sure what happened, other than those who are directly involved. Best to keep this generic, I think.)

i have argued about this for some time. i'm a guy who thinks a little bit different.

wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if ALL students signed this agreement? i think it's a standard every community should want.

but i'm a guy who wonders why handicaped people get better parking. why should i be penalized because i can walk? j/k

Nice work mythreesons on legal research. Methinks you have too much time on your hands

The downside is that Massachusetts is right up their in the top of the list of wacky states - trailing only Cali and NY and in close proximity to Wash State and Oregon.

There is another case brewing at Bartlett HS. No pun intended.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=283071

Used to Hit... in this case, you'd be absolutely right. But I am enjoying the civil discourse. It's nice to know there are still people who can disagree with manners and class.

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
No COC has been found to be unconstitutional.

The activities have to be "available to all equally". That doesn't mean they all have a right to play. You can cut a player for not being good enough, or for not having grades, and yes for breaking community standards.

No one ever said COC's were unconstitutional. As a free people we have the right to waive our constitutional rights, which is what COC's require.


The only reason a player can be withheld from extracurricular activities by a school for breaking community standards is that the people waived those rights and handed them over to the school. The school is only empowered in these matters by such forfeiture. My stance is that I believe this forfeiture to be overreaching by the schools and beyond their charter, which is to educate.

Schools have no business being the adolescent judicial arm of the community.

What rights are they giving up? The right to break the law?!?!

CPLZ...I'm a bit confused by your "right" v. "privilege" argument. As I see it, my sophomore son has no legal "right" to play varsity baseball not to mention become the starting shortstop. To claim otherwise would be to imply protection under the law. The only "right" he had was the opportunity to try out for the team. Anything beyond that becomes a "privilege" for which he is expected to conduct himself in accordance with a specific code of conduct which is clearly spelled out. That was his choice in furtherance of the "privilege" he's been afforded and is in complete acceptance of the terms and conditions set forth...as am I. It's pretty darn simple...keep your nose clean and all of this rhetoric becomes a moot point.

So if you agree that we have the right to voluntarily "forfeit" our rights, then I guess it comes down to whether the majority believes that it's a good idea to do so. Have we done it blindly and without forethought? Judging by this conversation, I don't think so. It seems many, if not most, are in agreement with the concept and purpose of a COC. "Schools have no business being the adolescent judicial arm of the community"... unless of course the community decides that they do?

That then takes us back to the specifics of a COC and how that is applied in each individual case. And that's where the subject gets really hard to discuss because, in all real cases, there are two sides to the story. Or even three - player said, school said, parent said. And those are frequently very different stories.

I agree with Bravescoach - keep your nose clean and you won't find yourself at the mercy of the administration... who I would concede may not always act fairly (fairly defined as "applying the rules the same way to every individual" in this case). As I said rather early in this discussion, we have seen the COC applied to varying degrees of apparent fairness in our district and surrounding districts. But I guess that's another life lesson. The courts don't always make decisions that we all agree with either - does that mean the system is unfair at it's core? No, just that it's run by human beings who don't always get it right.

mythreesons,
Your thoughts take us further down the road to truth, and the heart and essence of our freedoms.

quote:

Originally posted by mythreesons:
...then I guess it comes down to whether the majority believes that it's a good idea to do so.

Actually, by the way our country was formed, it's not supposed to. Our country was formed as a republic, ruled by law, not a democracy, ruled by majority. If our country was a true democracy, there would still be racial hangings in the south as that's what the majority there believed was right. Instead, we are ruled by laws that govern our actions and limit our negative impact on others and society. Democracy, is the transition period between a republic and an oligarchy.

Our lawmakers have failed us, because they are supposed to protect us from those that covet our rights for themselves. They themselves, are guilty of treading in areas where previously they would have been thwarted by public uprising against the erosion of rights.

quote:

Originally posted by mythreesons:
"Schools have no business being the adolescent judicial arm of the community"... unless of course the community decides that they do?

The problem with ruling by democracy, is that the definitions of rights and freedoms becomes a moving target, subject to the whim and fancy of whatever topic society deems relevant that day. Rights of the republic however, mark the time and are the standard by which we measure our law and test them for validity against that standard (our constitution) in our justice system.

And there lies the problem. Giving the schools authority over community issues usurps a system of justice that is put in place to protect the individual at the same time it protects society from detrimental forces. The schools have perverted the justice to give them authority and power in the community. It violates the basic tenets of our republic.

There have always been expedient solutions to the "problems de jour" by means of relinquishment of rights. In the past, we have done a great job of quashing those initiatives, realizing the insidious precedent they would form. These days, we are much more self centered, with an ostrich with its head in the sand methodology, "it's moot if you don't violate the rule where we handed our rights over to others",

or my personal favorite...

quote:

Originally posted by mythreesons:
"keep your nose clean and you won't find yourself at the mercy of the administration."

You know where they say that a lot? Places like the former USSR, China, North Korea, the Swat Valley in Pakistan where the Taliban rule.

And we welcome the oligarchy with open arms. Toe the line buckaroo's or the hammer (and sickle) will fall.

I'm afraid we are too far down the democracy path to understand how precious those rights were.

quote:

Originally posted by Bravescoach:
As I see it, my sophomore son has no legal "right" to play varsity baseball not to mention become the starting shortstop.

Two distinctly separate issues.

Does he have the legal right to play? Yes, just the same as be on the debate team, have a role in the school play, run for class president.

Does he have the ability to play or participate? Not a legal issue.

You have a legal right to be President of The US. That right doesn't guarantee the position.

CPLZ...now I'm really confused. You are obviously well-versed in political science and make for a fascinating read. However, I'm still not following your logic. By your own admission, the right to play a varsity sport is dependent upon ability and the requisite skill set. Thus, I would contend that the "right" only pertains to the opportunity to try out making the right to play conditional by definition...can we agree on that? In the alternative, could you cite to the legal authority (statute, case law, etc...) which supports your position with respect to the right you speak of?

CPLZ: We are a representitive government. It was elected school boards and officials who made these rules. The was no "democratic vote of the people" that gave rights to the schools that they shouldn't have. And most are confused about what rights the school took. All they are doing is enforcing a COC that was properly instituted by our representitives. Then these COC's are voluntary agreed to by the athletes.

As we know from another thread, you don't have to play high school baseball to be one of the top 100 players in the State. No extortion, as you have implied, ever existed.

You keep talking about all these rights that have been taken away, and politicians that aren't protecting our rights. Since we have litigated the issue of playing baseball not being a right but a priviledge, what rights were lost and given to the schools that you are so upset about? The power in the community to stop kids from playing baseball? That is going to lead to the loss of our Constitutional values?

I hope you were out in front protesting warrentless wiretaps, and suspension of habeous corpus, torure, listening to domestic conversations without probable cause and then giving phone companies immunity etc. Those seem to outweigh the loss of the right to violate school policy off campus.

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
Since we have litigated the issue of playing baseball not being a right but a priviledge

That never happened, it was the opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
The was no "democratic vote of the people" that gave rights to the schools that they shouldn't have.

Exactly my point, schools implemented policies that took those rights. Rights that are inherent in our true justice system, "due process", "representation", "against self incrimination", etc.

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
I hope you were out in front protesting warrentless wiretaps, and suspension of habeous corpus, torure, listening to domestic conversations without probable cause and then giving phone companies immunity etc. Those seem to outweigh the loss of the right to violate school policy off campus.

It would seem your only point here is to try and trivialize this open discussion on erosion of rights. I don't see how this is helpful or relevant other than an attempt to demean someone for their position.

If you read the post , the judge said extracirricular activities are a priviledge not a right.

You then took a quote out of contest. I did say there was not democratic vote of the people. That was in response to you saying if we were a democracy there would be lynchings in the south. I went on to say that while there was no vote of the people, there was by their representitves. You were the one worried about losing our representitve government.

You conveniently never answered my question. What rights were eroded by the code of conduct? But, I do think there were serious erosion of our rihgts in the name of security in the last administration. Bejamin Franklin said. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Also, you again talk about Constitutional rights that are inherent in the justice system. The couts and criminal law is different from many different systems of enforcing rules. Private companies have rules different from the courts as does the civil justice system. Remember OJ didn't have to testify at his criminal trial and he was found not guilty. In his civil trial, he had to testify, and he was found liable.

Compelling & consequence = coercion. Its not a permanent way to affect change. It has failed thru the history of mankind in the areas of discipline, ideology and religion. I applaud that the schools are willing to not put athletics at the top of the totem pole, but IMO their really doing it to protect the schools image first and foremost. Fine. But if they truly feel that their pedagogical role in our society needs to reach out and help me parent my kid because they think I can't, well that would truly torque me off. Three code of conducts in their book and they think that your kid needs professional counseling. And BTW the code of conducts don't need to be possession or consumption. The way I read it going to a party and not drinking, going to a concert and not drinking, and taking a sip of wine while receiving the body of Christ at church are good enough.

Tuzi

The wonderful thing about parenting is that we can go in other directions with our kids' education and baseball careers should we choose to do so. At least we still have that much control over our kids when it comes to education.

No one knows what's best for their kids more than their parents so it's up to us to make sure they are in the right place and believe me if it got to that point with me, my kids would be somewhere else.

Going to a concert and not drinking...nope. Unless the people you attended the concert with ARE drinking.

Taking communion... nope. The law allows for religious exemption, as does the COC.

Compelling + Consequence = Real Life. It's the basis of our whole civilized society. We compel people to follow the law and if they don't, we impose consequences. Does it work? Sometimes. But what else do we do? Allow anarchy to reign? Every man for himself? If parents were raising their kids in their homes with the concept that there are consequences for bad behavior, perhaps it would work better in society in general.

I think if my kid broke the athletic code THREE TIMES I would decide on my own that he needed counseling... he's obviously either not very smart or in big trouble with his behavior. Either way, he needs some help. Or perhaps he really doesn't want to play ball at all, and doesn't know how else to tell me.

I am still trying to sort out in my brain... what rights are kids giving up by signing the COC? In my mind they are simply agreeing to a set of established rules. They aren't giving up the right to drink or use drugs, steal, commit battery or assault, because those are already illegal. CPLZ and others who see this the same way - would you have an issue with the COC if it did not extend beyond the school/extracurricular day? Is that really where the dividing point is? Impose the punishment if the violation occurs during the school day, but what happens outside of that is really no one's business.

quote:

Originally posted by mythreesons:
CPLZ and others who see this the same way - would you have an issue with the COC if it did not extend beyond the school/extracurricular day? Is that really where the dividing point is? Impose the punishment if the violation occurs during the school day, but what happens outside of that is really no one's business.

BINGO!
and give that man a cupie doll!

What happens outside of school is the communities business, and the community has the resources and authority to deal with it.

"Knowingly remain in the immediate
presence of any person who is illegally
using, possessing, distributing or selling
drugs, any substance represented to be
a drug, controlled substance, cannabis,
drug paraphernalia, or alcohol, unless
the student could not leave the person’s
presence without endangering himself/
herself"


When was the last time anybody went to a concert? Lots of illegal stuff going on and by the COC, the kid is guilty by association, just like at a party. Maybe not at a Christian concert, but the others, oh yea. What if a kid is at a party, out in the yard and some kids are smoking pot upstairs? Kids talk about it at school and get busted and they squeal out everyone who was at the party. Your kid is gone.

I am against signing anything that takes away my rights or my kids rights. I will raise them. The school can educate them. I feel that it is a BIG line to cross. Maybe it will just be travel and showcases for my son.

quote:

Originally posted by mythreesons:
Going to a concert and not drinking...nope. Unless the people you attended the concert with ARE drinking.

nope

CPLZ, do I get a HSBBW COC for that?

Tuzi,

Phew!

Attached below is the link to the Student Handbook of a school of interest. The COC section can be found on pages 11 and 12. You'll need Acrobat to view it.

I think none of us want our kids drinking or chewing tobacco. Interestingly, this School obviously doesn't view them as equal risks to the kids. For drinking offenses, three strikes and their out, for chewing tobacco, four strikes and their out. Am I reading that correctly?

Hmm!

Handbook

Donutman, I went to an outdoor Tom Petty concert with my son and his buddy a couple of years ago, while he was in HS. Almost reminded me of the late 60's. The air was so thick with a certain fragrance that I started feeling young again. Point is, my son was with his Father, and I could care less if everyone around us was getting high. We weren't and Tom Petty still rocks!

What does the COC say about this? If his school or coach or anyone said that he shouldn't have gone, I'd have told them to get where the sun don't shine. As has been said here,you raise your son and I'll raise mine.

Doughnutman

Why attend showcases if you don't want your son in a situation where people other than yourself will impose rules and guidelines that he must follow. Please inform us of the college that will not hold him to a determined level of accountability. I would be really interested to know what colleges don't have rules with regards to player conduct.

Ballfan,
I don't know what the COC is like for colleges. Is it the same? Can you be suspended for attending a party? Can he be suspended because someone says he was at the wrong place? The big difference is that he will be an adult at that time. He can make his own decision. He can pick a school of his choice and a COC of his choice. In HS he doesn't have a choice. Sign or sit out. Period. Also, he is a minor. There is a reason that the law looks at minors different from adults.

Let me give you a few worst case scenarios.

Son is at a party. His friend drove. Couple of hours later he finds his friend drunk or stoned in the back yard or he comes back from somewhere else and is wasted. Do you want your son to protect his eligibility and let him drive home as you leave with someone else or does he take his keys and give his friend a ride home, risking his status on the team to keep a drunk off of the road?

He is at a party, some drunks show up and start a fight with his best friend and are beating the tar out of his friend or some girl that he has never met. Leave and protect yourself for BB and a stupid COC or help your friend/stranger?

He is at a party and some girl is slipped a date rape drug. Does he bail because of the drug use or does he try to get her out of there and to a hospital?

Not so dramatic, does he squeal on a teammate who dips in the summer during work? Should he squeal if it will make him a starter? Is it in the best interest of my son to be be known as a squealer because he signed a COC? Should he quit his summer job at the local burger joint because one of the kids dips or smokes on break even if he needs the job?


Absolutes do not work. I want my son to make the right decision and not be penalized for it. And I want him to have a social life in HS and not have to worry about some idiot ruining his BB career merely because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time while he did nothing wrong.

Worst case scenario, what does he choose? What's right as a human being or what's in his best interest as a ball player because of a stupid COC?

quote:

Son is at a party. His friend drove. Couple of hours later he finds his friend drunk or stoned in the back yard or he comes back from somewhere else and is wasted. Do you want your son to protect his eligibility and let him drive home as you leave with someone else or does he take his keys and give his friend a ride home, risking his status on the team to keep a drunk off of the road?

He is at a party, some drunks show up and start a fight with his best friend and are beating the tar out of his friend or some girl that he has never met. Leave and protect yourself for BB and a stupid COC or help your friend/stranger?

He is at a party and some girl is slipped a date rape drug. Does he bail because of the drug use or does he try to get her out of there and to a hospital?

While these are three real scenarios, your son will have his opportunity to explain his case. He will have that right. He will do that in your company and the company of administrators. Less you forget, you also have the right not to play for your school. It is a viable choice.

You say you are against signing anything that takes away your kid's rights. He doesn't have the right to break the law. Therefore he is not signing rights away.

Your scenarios start with, kid at a party. My son says he knows and all the kids kids know which parties have alcohol and drugs. He stays away from those parties.

If the kids friend is in a bad way, call his parents. You have his home number.

Please site the case of a kid being suspended for going to a concert with his dad.

These are spurios arguments at best.