PUNISHMENT FOR DRINKING INCONSISTENT

Punishment for Drinking Inconsistent For Area Schools, a Question of Degree
When a Student-Athlete Is Disciplined

Joey Gallagher returned to the Woodbridge High School lacrosse team on May
11 to play in the few remaining games of his senior season. According to
Gallagher's parents, Gallagher, the team captain, had been suspended from
his team for 30 days and had missed eight of Woodbridge's 11 regular season
games after two Woodbridge students said they saw him drinking a beer at a
D.C. United soccer game at RFK Stadium on April 11.

Gallagher, 17, denied that he drank any beer, according to his mother, and
his parents said he has witnesses who support him.

According to Woodbridge policy, if school officials believe an athlete drank
alcohol during the season, whether or not it is during a school activity,
the athlete is immediately suspended from his team for 30 days. School
policy also mandates that the accusers remain anonymous and that the
suspension can take effect before the school begins an investigation and
before the accused has an opportunity to respond.

Gallagher's suspension is one example of the ways Washington-area high
schools try to discourage their student-athletes from drinking. But some say
that in their push to keep students from the dangers of alcohol -- and to
make examples of those who are "caught" -- schools have overstepped their
authority. The schools, they add, have targeted athletes, both because of
their high profiles and because school systems can regulate their behavior
in ways they couldn't with other students.

"Any parent who has a child in the school system should know that their
child can be accused of something, and that accuser doesn't have to prove
anything in order for their child to be penalized," said Paula Gallagher,
Joey's mother. "Joey was punished based on the fact that two anonymous
accusers out of the 25 [students] who were [at the soccer game] named my son
as having been drinking. . . . And now he's lost his senior season, and it's
not something he can ever get back."

Joey Gallagher declined, through his parents, to be interviewed for this
article.

After going through an appeals process with school officials, the Gallaghers
filed an injunction against Prince William County Schools on May 1 in an
attempt to have their son reinstated on the lacrosse team, arguing that the
suspension would cause irreparable harm to his college career, his lacrosse
future, scholarship possibilities and his reputation. But Judge Herman
Whisenant of Prince William County Circuit Court upheld the suspension,
ruling that the Gallaghers couldn't prove Joey would suffer irreparable harm
by serving the remainder of his suspension.

"It scares the bejeebers out of me -- and it should scare everyone in this
community -- that the school system has a right to police [Joey Gallagher]
when he's in an out-of-school environment taking part in a non-school
activity," said Bob Cooper, an attorney representing the Gallaghers. "Joey
was never given a chance to present his evidence, his witnesses, or provide
his side of the story after having consulted with an attorney."

Joe Dyer, counsel for the Prince William County School Board, said Gallagher
and his parents had multiple meetings with school officials and were allowed
to appeal his suspension.

"One of the problems in this area is that people think school investigations
should be like a court case," said Dyer, "that witnesses should come forward
and then be cross-examined by the opposite side. The law doesn't require and
jurisprudence doesn't require that when it comes to our schools."

Prince William County Schools officials would not comment on the specifics
of Gallagher's case. However, they defended their procedures, saying that
all cases are investigated thoroughly.

And they defended their right to regulate students' behavior, even when the
students are not in school.

"Students who are leaders in activities -- and this is to include athletes
- -- by the nature of their participation must be held to a higher standard,"
Woodbridge Principal Pam White said. "They represent Woodbridge High School
to the community, and they are role models not only to their peers but to
younger students as well."

Athletes at Woodbridge, including Gallagher, and many other area schools,
are required to sign a pledge saying they will not drink, smoke or do drugs
during the season. Still, students wonder just how much of their privacy
they should have to surrender in order to play sports.

"From the time you walk out of your door in the morning to when you walk
back in your door in the afternoon, you're on school time," said Woodbridge
senior Dawn Cleary, one of Northern Virginia's top distance runners. "But
after that, what you do should be your business. . . . I don't think people
should drink. But, in a way, I don't think the school should have gotten
involved [in what happened at the D.C. United game]. The parents should have
been told and then allowed to deal with it. It wasn't during school time."

Some school officials say it is unclear how far their own authority should
extend.

"You get into areas that are gray," Prince William Associate Superintendent
Kris Pederson said. "If a [student-athlete] drives 35 in a 30- or 25-mph
zone, that's not something we're going to do anything about. If a kid goes
out and assaults someone at Potomac Mills Mall on a Saturday, you can't say
that doesn't affect the school. . . . When it comes to alcohol, we as a
school division have to do everything possible to communicate the dangers
and consequences of alcohol and substance abuse to our children."

The procedures area schools use to investigate alcohol violations vary
widely. While some schools suspend suspected alcohol violators immediately,
as Woodbridge did with Gallagher, others allow them to play until they have
conclusive evidence. School principals say they do not have set steps to
follow, since each situation -- from where it occurred to how the school
learned about it -- can be so dissimilar.

"There are a lot of different things that go into looking at these cases,"
said Wayne Eline, principal of Osbourn Park High School in Manassas. "No
matter what guidelines [for investigating] we would lay down, the next
situation we would have to deal with wouldn't fit the guidelines."

Schools also have different standards for considering evidence. At La Plata
High School in Charles County for example, a student cannot be punished for
drinking alcohol unless a coach or teacher witnessed the student doing it.
At Centreville High School in Fairfax County, Principal Pamela Latt said she
rarely relies on students' testimony.

"Truthfully, different issues come into play with kids," Latt said. "Someone
may not want someone to play so someone else can start for a team. Someone
may have stolen someone's boyfriend or girlfriend. There are a lot of
reasons kids may want to see something differently than the way things
actually happened. . . . If you've got a one-on-one, 'He said, she said,'
that's a complete zero."

The bottom line is that schools have a great deal of latitude in
investigations. The Supreme Court has ruled that students have a right only
to minimal due process, which means they are allowed to present their side
of the story and nothing more.

Once an investigation finds a student has violated school alcohol policies,
there is little consensus among local school jurisdictions -- or even within
jurisdictions -- as to the appropriate disciplinary response. If Gallagher
were a student at nearby Potomac or Osbourn Park high schools, where
violations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, he could receive as
little as a one-game suspension or as much as a one-year suspension. If he
were a student at Osbourn High in the City of Manassas, he could expect to
sit out 18 weeks -- but, as is the case at Woodbridge, only if he were
caught with alcohol during the season. Out-of-season athletes or nonathletes
can expect no penalty from their schools.

Prince William activities directors are currently working on a handbook that
will standardize penalties.

Regardless of the length of the suspension, some critics question whether
removing athletes from their team is right to begin with.

"What is happening in schools is that instead of dealing with the issues,
we're coming up with more ways to punish kids in ways that do little to
address the original problem," said Lucia Hodgson, director of the
California-based Donnelly Children and Youth Studies Center. "By kicking
them off a team, how does that help them?"

Some educators, however, say that subjecting first-time offenders to
substance-abuse awareness classes -- or having them meet with a counselor --
would be a nice addition to a penalty, but it should not be used in lieu of
a penalty.

"This is not an error of a lack of education," Prince William School Board
member Steve Keen said. "We've been giving these kids education on the
dangers of doing drugs and alcohol since they were in elementary school.
Eventually, there comes a time when we have to say, 'If you decide to
violate a rule, then you should be punished.' "

Some school officials say drinking is one issue where they would rather err
on the side of being too tough.

"Can we go too far? Sometimes I think perhaps schools might get there," said
Wayne Mallard, the principal at Hylton High School in Woodbridge. "But if we
do, it's only for the right reasons."

The Gallaghers aren't as sure.

"The school said their standard was 'a reasonable doubt,' " said Joey
Gallagher's father, Jim. "I came to learn that they meant if there was a
reasonable doubt of his innocence, not a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
You're guilty until proven innocent. That's the standard they're applying."

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett