Suspended for saying "no" to drugs

Posted Friday, March 5, 2010, at 10:12 AM
View 15 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • "zero tolerance" policies are for those without the courage (or the brains) to make decisions. looking at this report, it would seem the missing ingredient in this case was brains.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 10:27 AM
  • I agree. The poor children are in a no-win situation. If they says no to drugs, then they get punished. If they take the drugs, then they get punished. So what are they suppose to do?

    -- Posted by PrpleHze on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 10:31 AM
  • Yeah, this is a case of stupidity running amuck. The girl should have been applauded for saying no but due to the stupidity and lack of common sense of the school administration; she is being sent mixed signals and punished for an absurd interpretation of the rules.

    -- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 10:54 AM
  • I believe the girl should have been suspended because she knew about the the other girl having drugs and she choose to say nothing. The Say No To Drugs program teaches you to say something to someone. Children need to learn that just because they dont do anything doesnt make them innocent if they are a witness to it.

    -- Posted by doe-c-doe on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 11:11 AM
  • If you read the entire story, doe-c-doe, it says:

    "We wanted to know what would have happened if Rachael had told a teacher right away. Bell said the punishment would not have been any different. District officials say if they're not strict about drug policies no one will take them seriously."

    It would seem that logic behind the Say No To Drugs program teaching you to say something to someone is now fatally flawed because doing so would get you busted regardless of your actions.

    -- Posted by Brian Mosely on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 11:21 AM
  • Another example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    -- Posted by gottago on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 12:06 PM
  • Another example of people lacking common sense carrying things to extremes.

    -- Posted by David Melson on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 1:17 PM
  • The situation is ridiculous, but maybe the lawmakers who wrote the law are ridiculous as well.

    If the educator was in fact following the law, would they not have been suspended from their job for not following through?

    Are these laws not reviewed by lawyers and do they not have any common sense? What about the supervisors or politicians who approved it? Did they read it before it was approved? What a concept!

    Zero tolerance should not mean zero brains, but maybe the real fault is in the minds of the originators, writers and those who approved the law, not the educators who are left to enforce it.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 2:40 PM
  • it is not a law, it is a policy. the entire onus should be on the one enforcing it.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 4:36 PM
  • I did read the entire story Brian Mosely. And my comment had nothing to do with her getting suspended over touching the drugs. I said she should have been suspended for not reporting it. While I do agree that she should not have been punished for touching the pill, she should have been punished for not saying anything about it.

    Way to go for saying no. Shame on you for saying nothing.

    -- Posted by doe-c-doe on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 5:22 PM
  • Stupid stupid stupid. This makes me very mad that they did such a stupid thing. Maybe something should be done to them for being so stupid towards these students.

    -- Posted by rebelrosecountrymom on Fri, Mar 5, 2010, at 8:10 PM
  • The Indiana State Superintendent of Public Instruction as of 2008 is an elected official. This person is responsible for "policies" developed and enforced.

    My point is that the persons who have to enforce this policy often have no choice unless they want to endanger their job. Those in management above them, in this case elected officials, developed this policy and made it zero tolerance. Indiana State has also developed zero tolerance for DUI also and the school policies are probably an extension of that.

    It sounds like a decent policy to say they will not tolerate certain behavior, but as usual, the devil is in the details.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sat, Mar 6, 2010, at 3:23 PM
  • What kind of crap is that for a girl to have a pill open- handed, say "no" and give it back to the one who gave it to her. Reminds me of John chapter 8 with Jesus and the woman waiting to get stoned for committing adultery. what is NOT told is how the "religious leaders" knew that she was in the very act of adultery. In this case, nothing is said about who all was present when the event took place.

    Now somewhere else in the Bible it says that laws are not made for the law abiding but for the lawless... Because of so much lawlessness in the public school systems the "Zero Tolerance Policy" went into effect. The problem is it got so extreme that common sense went out the window and was replaced with mindless bureaucracy. Unfortunately this is what is put into kids' minds every day which makes them blind leaders of tomorrow. Scary, isn't it? No WONDER home schooling is on the rise!!!

    -- Posted by 1ukolsir on Mon, Mar 8, 2010, at 11:51 PM
  • Let me re- phrase a bit. It says the pill swapping event happened during gym class. No mention of the PE teacher so maybe they did or did not see it happen. Or another student saw it and reported. Or the one she said "no" to ratted her out for possession. Why the last statement? because there's nothing in the article that says any disciplinary action was given to the girl who handed out the pill. What's wrong with this picture?

    -- Posted by 1ukolsir on Tue, Mar 9, 2010, at 12:00 AM
  • Where was the intelligence on the part of the "so called" educators? What about simple discretion in the enforcement of policy? No policy or law requires strict interpretation on the part of the enforcer. None of us, including police officers, are absolutely required by law to enforce any law. We all have personal discretion to act, not act, or interpret our own level of responsibility in each instance we witness such an event. The persons responsible for this debacle should be terminated period. They have demonstratively proven to all of us that they are not capable of teaching anything positive to our youth.

    -- Posted by Ponyboy on Fri, Apr 9, 2010, at 10:06 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: