@doschicos The ones I have reviewed are silent. That doesn’t mean they cant ask, but it does mean they would have a hard time imposing discipline for declining to submit to a test they don’t have the authority to ask for. If you are sober and have nothing on you and no illegal or impermissible conduct was alleged to have happened on campus, then what is their authority to ask for it? Weed is especially problematic, as it will show up in your urine for 30 days - Is the school going to kick you out because you smoked weed or had a beer while on Christmas break 17 states away?
It’s interesting. I was just reading through Hotchkiss’ policies out of curiosity as a one strike, no-chance school. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. The way I read it is:
- no second chances. Caught drinking or doing drugs on campus, you're gone.
- no stated policy for off campus behavior but if you return to campus under the influence, you are gone. As long as you do all your partying and recovering from such off campus, looks like you are all good.
To me this would raise a concern that student partying is being pushed off campus. Very harsh penalties on campus, little to no penalties on campus. Much as I don’t like colleges with overbearing on-campus policies because I feel it drives such activity off campus, I think the Hotchkiss policy could potentially have the same effect. Off campus sojourns can lead to things like DUI, greater risks of sexual assault, greater risks of substance related injuries, etc.
" Is the school going to kick you out because you smoked weed or had a beer while on Christmas break 17 states away?"
Unless it’s a zero strike school, no, they wouldn’t kick you out but you’d be on some kind of probation if caught having weed in your system. For alcohol, it would be out of your bloodstream upon your return to campus.
@psparent If its not spelled out in the parent/student manual then where is it spelled out? This is like the cop pressuring a kid to search a car when they know they don’t have any right in the world to do it without consent, so they scare them into consenting even though there’s a bale of weed in the trunk.
Our public schools breathalyze before dances.
@doschicos All good points, but Hotchkiss probably isnt the best example to illustrate your point. Hotchkiss is in Lakeville, CT and kids aren’t allowed to have cars there, period. It is pretty difficult to get off campus there. At more suburban/urban schools, I agree, it could drive the conduct underground, which has the potential to be more dangerous.
I wonder how many take weekends away of campus, though. Is that a thing? Going into NYC or some lenient parent’s house for the weekend? I could imagine that happening for sure. I know the school has Saturday classes so it would make it less doable but still doable.
There is a difference between conditioning admission to a dance on blowing through a tube to confirm your present sobriety v. being ordered to pee in a cup to determine if you have smoked weed in the last 30 days based on an unsubstantiated allegation. Well, it was unsubstantiated until he admitted to the conduct because he knew the test he was being ordered (asked? we will never know, now) to take would be positive.
A parent’s involvement could clarify whether the kid is being asked to submit or ordered to submit, and if ordered, on what basis. I’m sure the school would be a lot less likely to trample on a kid’s rights with the parents and their lawyer on the line.
I’m sure it is doable - and that type of conduct cant be policed. Which may be why Hotchkiss doesn’t seem to try.
@Korab1 Yes, I think the question of whether the kid is high at the time is the key. Was the kid in the OP high right then? OP says no. After a search of the room (invasive but pretty routine) finds nothing, if the kid was not high, what reason did the school have to threaten a drug test to make the kid confess besides the threat and making the kid confess? Since we don’t have that school’s rules in front of us, the drug test might have been an empty threat. And a pretty nasty thing to do.
This whole discussion has me reading the EBook. They can drug test as they please for “suspicion”. Refusing the test is considered an admittance of guilt. End of story.
When did they search OP room and test OP student? Right after arriving back from off-campus, or the next day or ??
"OP’s DS tested positive and was suspended for breaking a school rule. Some may think the punishment was harsh but he was attending a school where he agreed to abide by these rules. Regardless of how the school found out, the kid broke the rules. "
Agree that that he broke the rules and should lose his RA job and be in trouble. I totally disagree that if the bad behavior was OFF campus (on an approved off campus trip - following the rules) and it was a first offense, it should not have been reported to colleges.
Totally agree about the red-shirting issues with boys. At my kids school there are ALOT of repeat freshman boys that are beefing up to be big and fast their junior and senior years… That means they will be 19/20 their senior year. Grown adults… very difficult with all those rules and repercussions at that age.
FWIW. Previous postings indicate that OP’s child attended Loomis. From the Loomis Parent and Student Handbooks:
From the student handbook:
If Loomis is, philosophically, a two-chance school, either this was not the student’s first offense, or the school did not give him a reasonable second chance. Based on the OP’s story, her son clears the conditions listed under Clarifications and seems to have been mistreated based on the handbook rules IMO.
My heart goes out to you and your son. Kids make mistakes. period. It’s a shame that it had to influence college admissions. Every kid deserves a second chance. I knew that these things happen, so I told my 2 students on more than one occasion, to avoid doing anything that would embarrass them or their parents, and or get them dismissed or an honors violation. I told my 2 that Dad and I work hard to send them to school. We’re not rich and this opportunity comes with a lot of sacrifices and to let this be their guide for behavior. It’s definitely something that every student needs to hear from parents who are working hard to make opportunities available that they never had. These are private schools, and they do what they want.
See below. Nothing that happened was contrary to their policies. It just sucked.
The drug use had occurred the previous day (a Saturday).
============
From the Handbook:
Room search policy: The school reserves the right to search for such items when the
school has reasonable suspicion that they exist in such locations.
Clarifications:
- A student may be tested for drug or alcohol use when his or her behavior arouses the reasonable
suspicion of a faculty member or administrator when credible and specific information gives
reasonable suspicion that drug or alcohol use or possession has occurred. If a student has been
identified as having exhibiting such reasonable suspicions and refuses to be tested, the student
will be assumed to be under the influence and will be sanctioned accordingly. - When an athlete violates training rules by using tobacco, or violates the drugs or alcohol rule, he/she
will serve a minimum of a one-game suspension. - The deans or designated faculty members are authorized to test with a Breathalyzer all students
who attend school dances; Breathalzyers may be used at other times, as deemed necessary by the
dean or director of the Health Center.
Jurisdiction:
Boarding students live under the school’s jurisdiction from the time they arrive on campus at the beginning of
a term until the close of the term — except when they are off campus with their parents or legal guardians.
Students on day or evening permissions remain under the school’s jurisdiction even while off-campus. Day
students live under the school’s jurisdiction each day when they arrive on campus until they are at home for
the night. All students are under the school’s jurisdiction when attending a school function; e.g.,
class trip, sporting event, dorm activity.
Any students who assist others under the school’s jurisdiction to violate school rules are themselves liable to
disciplinary action. This includes sponsoring or attending unchaperoned social gatherings for which school
and parental permission have not been obtained. This may apply to situations in which students are not
actually under school jurisdiction, and it applies to both boarding and day students.
Unusual circumstances may arise in which the school might need to extend its authority beyond its usual
jurisdiction.
Levels and the college reporting process
We encourage and expect students to answer questions from colleges about their disciplinary history
honestly. Depending on an individual college’s stipulations, students may be required to notify colleges to
which they apply (or have applied to) of Level II or III disciplinary infractions.
In situations where the college asks about a disciplinary action or disciplinary violation, students who
have received a Level II or III violation must respond “yes.” Similarly, when asked about having violated
school rules in a certain area of conduct (i.e., plagiarism or violence toward others) or having a grade
reduced as a result of academic dishonesty or plagiarism, the student must answer “yes” if he or she has
had a Level II or III violation for that specific reason.
The College Office will also answer questions from colleges honestly and will discuss a student’s
disciplinary history based on these specifications. In all cases, students should consult with their college
counselor about the reporting of discipline to colleges.
@psparent I don’t know legality of what happened. But as another parent I feel so sorry and angry for such disproportionally harsh punishment.
Let’s give @psparent’s son some credit here for his acceptance of responsibility in dealing with the Dean.
We should remember the legal posture here. The “accused” is not in police custody, and is not being charged with anything. The school is acting in loco parentis in this situation. So talking about his “rights” and involving lawyers is akin to saying that when an actual parent confronts his or her own actual child with a suspicion of drug use based on something the parent heard from another teenager, the child should respond to his parent “Hey, Mom and Dad, I don’t have to answer you until I talk to my lawyer.”
As for the issue of notifying the colleges, this is not any different than any other situation in which an employer or anyone else makes a recommendation. If the recommending party discovers that their recommendation is not fully accurate or needs to be qualified, most people would agree that it is only fair to allow them to issue a qualified recommendation or modify what they previously said about the person.
“Let’s give @psparent’s son some credit here for his acceptance of responsibility in dealing with the Dean.”
Yes, his honesty is commendable plus his not ratting on others.
I’m copying and pasting this thread and sending it to DD as should everyone reading this. We had this talk several times last summer and DD fully understands that rules MAY be different for different students.
@EarlyMTNester I would strongly advise actual parents to not trust the school to act in the best interest of their actual children at all times in every case no matter what or when, whether in loco parentis or simply loco, especially when having to do with something as necessarily arbitrary as non-academic discipline. Boarding schools are at their hearts conservative, elite (and elitist) institutions and should always be understood as such.
@psparent and @ChoatieMom seem to have cited different sections of the rule book and so much depends on the meaning of what constitutes reasonable exhibitions of suspicion.
Regardless, rules always favor one side. If it was a first time for the cliched good kid, what happened was an atrocity. And since apparently the kid did keep his mouth shut afterwards–as was proper–maybe he learned a lesson the school clowns didn’t realize they were teaching.