JUDGMENT CALLS

Sometimes taking a hard line is really taking a soft option, writes The
Southland Times in an editorial.

It can open up inconsistencies and double standards that could be avoided
by less dramatically pleasing measures.

Those who think James Hargest High School simply made a clear stand against
drug abuse when it excluded Scott Irvine are kidding themselves. The
school's actions were more emphatic than careful.

The 14-year-old broke the law. He used cannabis.

He did not do it while he was at the school, or under the school's duty of
care. He was expelled anyway.

The school sees no reason to explain itself. Some points can be made on its
behalf even so, not the least of which is the alarming extent to which drug
abuse occurs among young New Zealanders.

But then, drink-driving is no less a problem.

Should students who have done so be cast from Hargest? Should any who have
committed a burglary still be permitted to study there? What about an
indecent assault?

Disconcertingly, the answer to that last question is far less clear-cut
than the Irvine case appears to have been. A parent has come forward to
tell how her daughter, a Hargest pupil, was indecently assaulted by four
pupils a month earlier than the Irvine case. Two held the girl down, one
raised her skirt and the third placed his hand under her pants.

It happened at the school. The offenders were stood down for four days. The
mother says the school told her that this was the most severe penalty it
had available. This and the Irvine case provide worrying contrasts.

Schools, like students, have rights as well as responsibilities. Nowhere is
it written how all schools should behave in all circumstances. In fact, it
is the clear intention of lawmakers that schools have a significant degree
of freedom to establish their own character.

Within reason, it is entirely acceptable for some schools to be more
hard-nosed than others about what they find intolerable behaviour. Provided
all this is made clear to the pupils and their families when they choose
schools, it is not a problem.

But the degree of internal inconsistency that appears to have arisen at
Hargest is troubling. So is the fact that when he was interviewed about
this serious matter, three days afterwards, Scott Irvine had no adult
support person with him even though his mother had asked to be there.

When he later appeared before the school's disciplinary hearings committee
he did have his uncle, Detective Senior Sergeant Brian Hewett, with him. Mr
Hewett later said that the process afforded his nephew fewer rights than a
police investigation, yet it produced a more severe penalty.

It will be an easy step for some to conclude that all this means is the
school got right what the law gets wrong. Hardliners would add that the
best way to achieve consistency is to use the Irvine case as a model and
bring other penalties to this level. They would probably call it zero
tolerance, which sounds so much better than intolerance. They would
envisage legions of teenagers straightening up and flying right.

The reality would be schools readily and easily exporting their problem
kids, rather than all that namby-pamby messing about trying to help them.