Plan B Forum

High school senior Erin Cox punished for being designated driver

Social media backlash erupts over U.S. Boston-area high school student who has been suspended from volleyball team for being designated driver.

A social media backlash has erupted over the case of a U.S. high school honours student who has been punished for being a designated driver.

Two weeks ago, Erin Cox, a senior at North Andover High School in a Boston suburb, left work to pick up a friend who was too drunk to drive home from a party where there was underage drinking.

Police busted several kids for underage possession of alcohol, but the police cleared Cox, finding that the 17-year-old had not been drinking.

However, her high school, about 45 kilometres north of Boston, has punished her because of a zero-tolerance policy against alcohol and drug use.

Cox has been suspended for five games and was demoted as captain of the volleyball team, throwing into doubt her future as an aspiring college volleyball player.

Her mother, Eleanor, told CBS her daughter is heartbroken for having to pay such a price to help a friend in need.

“She’s very fragile and I’m worried about her. Very worried about her. She didn’t do anything wrong,” Eleanor Cox told WBZ-TV in Boston Sunday.

The school’s actions have sparked a strong reaction on social media, with readers condemning the school’s action, noting that Cox did the right thing by being a designated driver.

The Cox family has hired a lawyer to seek legal action.

Boston-area attorney Wendy Murphy filed a lawsuit on behalf of the family on Friday in District Court, but the court said it did not have jurisdiction on the matter.

Murphy is believed to be considering other legal options.

The Star has asked Murphy for an interview, but she has not yet responded.

The Star also reached out to the school authorities for comment, but they have not responded either.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/ ... river.html

Idiocy indeed.

I would LOVE to see what they are reading into the words of the policy to allege that she violated it, because if merely being in the presence of kids who are drinking underage, without possessing or drinking alcohol oneself, is a breach of the policy, then anyone one could get caught up in it completely unawares. What if some jackass in the stands at a volleyball game decides to open up a beer? Does the entire team get suspended merely because they are there? Makes as much sense as this.

Whoever made this decision is damn lucky there isn't a Zero Tolerance policy for stupidity in place...





Note to Sue: Since Scooter isn't coming to the defense of the school administrators on this one, that means you're up. Grab your bat....

Zero tolerance and stupidity are more or less synonymous

Lord Jim wrote: Note to Sue: Since Scooter isn't coming to the defense of the school administrators on this one, that means you're up. Grab your bat....

I certainly won't defend the school on this one -- the girl should be commended, not punished. She did exactly the right thing in going to the aid of a friend who could not safely get herself home. The school administration should be ashamed of itself.

Wow...

This must be really indefensible, when even the folks who usually defend the indefensible won't defend it...

Well Dgs hasn't chimed in yet.

Well Dgs hasn't chimed in yet.

A valid point...

She was stupid. She forgot the FIRST lesson every human being needs to learn: No good deed goes unpunished!

This particular "zero tolerance" policy is intended to both discourage kids from drinking at parties, and ENCOURAGE them to leave when they become aware of drinking at a party. If they knowingly stick around (even if not drinking), then the policy is directed at them, and the policy is that they are subject to sanctions.

But the bottom line is "zero tolerance" policies are a manifestation of school administrators' hatred of having to justify their decisions to parents and other student advocates. School boards that are thinking clearly do not permit Zero Tolerance policies, but rather require the administrators to make appropriate decisions and defend them when necessary. Even if it makes them uncomfortable.

This is the academic counterpart to the soldier who commits an atrocity because he is "just following orders."

dgs49 wrote:This is the academic counterpart to the soldier who commits an atrocity because he is "just following orders."

BINGO!



I hate having to agree with you, but when you're right, you're right...

dgs49 wrote: But the bottom line is "zero tolerance" policies are a manifestation of school administrators' hatred of having to justify their decisions to parents and other student advocates. "

And they should be paid ministerial wages if they do not want the responsibility that goes with having to exercise their judgment.

It's my understanding that part of the "reasoning" behind the zero tolerance concept is that it is supposed to reduce exposure to lawsuits. (That doesn't seem to have worked real well in this case...)

The idea is that if no judgement is involved in enforcement of the policy, then no administrator can be accused of enforcing it with preference or prejudice....

I don't know how that has worked out in the aggregate, but the premise seems fallacious to me. There's no way to get completely out of the human judgement box; even with a zero tolerance policy, somebody has to make the decision that the policy applies in individual cases. If a school has a zero tolerance policy on bringing "weapons" to school requiring mandatory expulsion, for example, somebody still has to decide that a six year old bringing a water pistol to school would fall under that policy.

Zero tolerance policies encourage school administrators to always err (frequently absurdly so, as in this case) on the side of punishment, but they do not completely eliminate the process of human judgement.

dgs49 wrote:This particular "zero tolerance" policy is intended to both discourage kids from drinking at parties, and ENCOURAGE them to leave when they become aware of drinking at a party. If they knowingly stick around (even if not drinking), then the policy is directed at them, and the policy is that they are subject to sanctions.

The girl went to the party to pick up her drunk friend. She wasn't, there to 'stick around.'