ABSURDITY RULES AT MANCHESTER ESSEX

Can members of the Manchester-Essex Regional School Committee be
serious? If they are, it is time for voters to stop taking them seriously.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that alcohol and drug abuse is a
problem at the regional high school, with lives and futures of local
teens at stake, with a chance to establish consistent, logical
consequences for risky, illegal behavior, the committee's response
is: Let's not rush into anything. Let's not overreact.

Apparently they don't want to move too quickly to protect the next
generation, especially if it might result in kids thinking the adults
don't trust them.

Principal Peter Sack could be forgiven for wondering if he had
stumbled into a version of "Through the Looking Glass" Thursday
night, where logic is treated as absurdity.

Sack, to his credit, had done exactly what he promised to do. He had
been the target of a withering round of criticism, after a bust at
Gray's Beach June 3, just hours after graduation, where police cited
16 graduates for underage possession of alcohol.

He allowed three of those cited to participate in the boys tennis
team's state tourney match the next week, even though league rules
stipulate that those charged with underage possession of alcohol
should be banned for two weeks or the next two contests.

Sack said at the time that he was convinced that while the three were
at the party, they were not drinking. And he said the rule was hazy
enough that he didn't feel he should impose the ban.

But he promised to close what he said was a "loophole," at least as
it applies to the local district. He made good on that promise with a
proposed rule change that has the blessing of the School Council, a
body composed of school officials, parents and students that sets the
school's disciplinary policies.

The new rule, which would amend the student handbook, states that any
student found "in the presence of" alcohol or other controlled
substances would be considered in violation of the Massachusetts
Interscholastic Athletic Association's chemical health rule, and
therefore face suspension from a percentage of games or meets.

That eliminates the almost impossible task of proving beyond any
doubt who was holding, or drinking, alcohol. It is simple and direct:
If there is alcohol or illegal drugs around, get out of there.

Sack said there would be no confusion about the new rule, that it
would be sent to parents before the start of the coming academic
year, and that he would meet with all the teams to explain the change.

None of this was enough for certain committee members. John Kiley
called it an "overreaction." Karen Gaudiano worried that it would
tell kids that the school doesn't trust them. Ann Harrison said she
didn't want police policies intruding on the schools, because she is
"from a generation where the police have not always been friendly to students."

Local voters should keep these comments in mind in future elections.
Such denial and disrespect is breathtaking.

Is it an overreaction to impose mild consequences (a few athletic
contests) for illegal activity? We don't trust high-school students
to educate themselves on their own or to support themselves. What is
disrespectful about saying we don't trust them with intoxicating or
mind-altering substances?

And for a School Committee member to undermine respect for local
police because of past resentments from her own high-school years is
inexcusable.

Fortunately, the committee doesn't have the final say on this. The
School Council does, and has shown the good sense to support it.
After this display of irrationality, district residents should wonder
if the committee has the judgment to be responsible for much of anything.