<p>I’m shocked at the “burn the witch” mentality from some posters. Do you folks not understand the importance of the right to a fair trial? Did you agree with the treatment of the Duke students? If you stood accused of a crime would you want the opportunity to have a fair trial? It is far better to let 25 guilty men go free vs. letting one innocent man suffer. If these boys are found guilty (as the linked articles suggest) they will be punished AFTER a fair examination of the evidence against them and a conviction is rendered.</p>
<p>I’m with you, collegemom16. The Duke lacrosse case and its devastating impact is just too fresh in my mind to contemplate such a rush to judgment.</p>
<p>remember they did confess- and confessions do have repercussions, or at least they should.
According to the police affidavit, the players also have returned the stolen items and cash.
Im wondering if that affects your opinion that only the court system should apply discipline to these young men?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sure do understand the value of a fair trial and don’t mean to “burn the witch.” Actually I grew up in an ACLU household, so you’re preaching to the choir on that one.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m wrongly informed, but: if a policeman is under report, during the time it’s investigated he’s often (not always) relieved of active duty and put onto desk work so he’s not out in the community during the investigation. When a principal was under investigation for a serious crime where I lived, he was sent home (paid) rather than stand in front of the faculty and students, until the trial. These are administrative decisions related to how effective they are as community representatives when under such a cloud.</p>
<p>After a policeman is found guilty by the internal investigation of his department, THEN he’s asked to turn in his badge. AFTER that principal was found guilty, he went to prison. </p>
<p>To me, to suspend students from playing on a football field after being arrested for robbery and assault IS comparable to the administrative action of a cop being demoted to “desk duty” or the principal sent to work from his home. And I’m not saying the students should be sent home from school, either; just not allowed to represent the school as football heroes this coming year. Probably they wouldn’t send someone to the Science Olympiad if he was facing trial for something that serious, either…but you tell me. I’m not in h.s. anymore, but I think other competitive EC leaders would also not be sent to conferences, regional competitions and so on during such a year. </p>
<p>If they are wrongly arrested, that’s a problem but they are still getting their education. The problem on a practical level is they could lose their possible scholarship or recruitment opportunity to colleges. Weighing that against a victim now in a hospital or at home recovering from injuries, I think it’s a fair year. It won’t kill them not to be playing football this coming year, and it doesn’t deprive them of their legal right to a high school education either.</p>
<p>“at the top of the social pyramid at the high school.”</p>
<p>Gee… I missed that part of the football experience. </p>
<p>“To me, to suspend students from playing on a football field after being arrested for robbery and assault IS comparable to the administrative action of a cop being demoted to “desk duty” or the principal sent to work from his home.”</p>
<p>Often times the cop is being investigated for ON DUTY actions. That makes sense to remove him from his normal patrol spot.</p>
<p>This is different. This is high school football and their crimes had nothing to do with their positions as a football player. And apparently them being arrested did not violate the Athletic Code of Conduct therefore the school has no grounds to do anything. </p>
<p>Once again it’s “attack the athlete” time here on College Confidential. Because an athlete isn’t good enough to get into Ivy Leage he must be scum.</p>
<p>I didn’t say these kids are scum. Ididn’t even say they should be kicked out of school or off the team.
But since they confessed- and were arrested and apparently had the stolen property in order to return it, I think there are a few clear indicators that they are guilty even without a judge deciding that.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is unusual for a school to have clear guidelines of expectations for students, and indeed most schools in the area and across the country expect and demand better behavior from teens in order to have the benefits of school related activities.</p>
<p>When I was in school, if there was proof that football players were seen at parties with alcohol, they were benched or even off the team. </p>
<p>I think the coach recognizes that students may not be getting the guidance at home that they need, and he can use the enticement of playing as a reward for higher behavior.
He requires a higher GPA for example, than some schools to join the football team & every player is required to take SATs.( and really at Garfield- football players are really not the elite of the school- its not the old style high school- cheerleaders are also just another group)</p>
<p>But I also agree with the principal, that Garfield should not have to apply standards that the district itself does not hold- unstated however, is the feeling that the district should hold itself and its students to higher expectations.
One of the things I learned as a new parent, was that logical consequences needed to be related to the incident. Last night was the last football game of the year. If football is what these boys care about, whatever happens next year is not going to seem related.
Im wondering if the incidents of bad behavior in professional sports had seeds in things like this .
I think in this case- the kids confessed, they returned the spoils and they expected to be punished. I used to ask my daughter what she thought her punishment should be for various transgressions because I think it is very important that we guide young people in a way that is meaningful to us and more importantly to them.</p>
<p>I don’t think it helps anyone to feel that they are getting away with something. They may eventually go to court and have to do community service or some such. But likely that won’t feel like it is connected to their actions. Its hard to learn from something without that.</p>
<p>These particular athletes are probably scum–but since they haven’t actually been convicted of any crime yet, I think the school’s position is the right one. It gives everyone an opportunity to remember why we have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.</p>
<p>I think the point people are trying to make is that participating in ECs is a privilege, not a right. That being said, I looked up our schools’ code of conduct, and it’s pretty specific about what actions constitute specific consequences. However, it’s kind of vague on whether off-campus behavior can be applied to these expectations. Again, I think ECs are a privilege - most coaches at our school see it that way and are very vocal about how their behavior outside the school reflects on the team. </p>
<p>The issue we have here, and I hate to admit it, is that by the time these kids will go to court and have their day, the season will be over. The parents know this, and are probably just using stall tactics so their kids can play the rest of the season. Unless the kids are involved in other sports during the year, or they’re not seniors, then there’s really nothing the school can do about it. </p>
<p>
I don’t necessarily agree with this, and I can say this because our high school has had about one winnning season as long as we’ve lived in this area. </p>
<p>However, there have been star athletes who have been recruited by D1 teams. Our valedictorian last year will be playing basketball at Yale this year, and we have had football players recruited by D1 teams.</p>
<p>I just so happened to read this weekend while I was home that a kid who was on the high school football team from my school had pled guilty to criminal damage to property recently in court.</p>
<p>In July he got charged with this crime and I believe in a separate incident was charged with underage drinking. Athletic Code of Conduct requires him to sit 23% of season’s contests. For football that is 2 games. At Homecoming he was intoxicated and the police searched his vehicle. Trunk open he supposedly had a 30 pack. CoC requires for 2nd offense that he sit a full calendar year.</p>
<p>My point here is he got in trouble at school for alcohol twice. Once was during the summer off school property. One was on school property during a school event. He did NOT get in trouble through the school for the criminal damage.</p>