Bavarian culture experience gets students in trouble
Beer outing in Germany ends in suit
Updated 17 December 2004: Parents and students await results of appeal.
Updated 03 March 2005: Court finds for the students, orders reversal of disciplinary action.
Updated 08 March 2005: Links to articles on court decision posted. School Board likely to appeal.
Updated 16 March 2005: Mariemont issues statement that they will appeal judge’s verdict. Details at bottom of post.
19 students from Mariemont High School were taking a trip to Bavaria. The school left it up to their parents whether or not the students would be permitted to drink beer with their hosts. Some of the students went overboard and the school reacted by punishing all students who had been drinking on the trip.
Seventeen of the students, when they returned home, were suspended for drinking in violation of school rules, setting off a battle between parents and school officials that will head to federal court next week.
…
The suit states that one of the chaperon teachers became alarmed and tried to discourage the drinking, telling the students they were in “big trouble.” The nature of the trouble became clear when the students arrived home and were greeted at the airport by school officials.
Although the school later reduced the suspension to detention and public service the parents are still angry at the duplicity as well as worried over black marks on their kids’ records.
The lawsuit says the teacher in charge of the foreign-exchange program told parents that the drinking issue was a “personal, family decision.”
The parents were told the students would visit beer gardens while in Germany and would have the opportunity to legally drink beer there if the parents consented, the lawsuit states.
[Parent and lawyer Richard] Ward said all of the parents gave permission.
I’m curious how the German students will react when they arrive in a few weeks.
Contact information: Dr Gerald Harris, Superintendent of Schools
(Tip credit to BlueJAMC)
UPDATE 17 December 2005
The legal battle between the Mariemont school district and the students they originally suspended has finished and both parties now await the decision of the courts. After reading the appeal itself and other documents filed with the court (including those filed by the district itself), this looks about as open and shut a case as you could contemplate. In brief:
- The trip planner told students that they would decide if their children would drink beer while in Germany.
- The expectation of the parents, students, coordinator, chaperon and their German counterparts was that the students would drink beer.
- The chaperon set the tone by leading off the beer drinking.
- One student got drunk.
- The chaperon contacted the school.
- The chaperon informed the students that they were all in trouble when they returned.
- A German teacher cautioned the students to drink in moderation.
- When the students returned, 17 of 19 were suspended for violating a school policy against drinking.
- This policy was not in writing, nor related to any of the people involved with the trip.
The fact that the school is still fighting against an obvious common sense resolution is telling. Perhaps they are a bit light headed from being so high up in their ivory towers.
UPDATE 3 March 2005
Judge Mark Schweikert of the Hamilton County Court has passed judgment against the Mariemont Board of Education. He found that the school had not adequately conveyed rules for alcohol consumption and that they did not have authority over the students during the time of the incident.
It is axiomatic that any system of regulation include some notice to those governed of the conduct to be regulated and the possible penalty that might be imposed. Any regulation that is so vague as to fail to give those governed such notice is considered unconstitutional.
…In order to accept the Appellees’ argument [that the students were under school authority at the time of the incident] one would have to conclude that the exchange trip was a “school related activity” 24 hours per day, every day during the trip, without regard to circumstances surrounding the activity, nature of supervision and control, and that the students could reasonably be expected to understand this.
Schweikert also noted that German teacher Mark Nabodny had said quite the opposite during a trip planning seminar. Nabodny told parents and students that in Germany they would be exposed to a beer drinking culture and alcoholic consumption by the exchange students was up to their parents.
For the above reasons the Appellants [students] first two assignments of error [complaints] are well taken. The School board erred in its application of the Code of Conduct to the acts of the appellants and in its determination that the Code of Conduct was violated. The decision of the Appellee [school board] must be reversed and its disciplinary action vacated.
PDF file of the judge’s ruling.
(Special thanks to Matt for the update and copy of the ruling.)
UPDATE 8 March 2005
Beer-drinking students vindicated
I’d like to say that the following quote is unbelievable but it is unfortunately all too believable. School administrations will never admit they were wrong, even when found as such in court. Once they are set on the “path of righteousness” there is simply no correcting them.
Ward, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of junior Stephanie Brosch and senior Erik Debbink, was pleased by this week’s ruling.
“It means what we knew all along, which was the kids didn’t do anything their parents hadn’t authorized them to do, and the school was wrong in punishing them,” said Ward.
But Gary Winters, who represented the Mariemont School Board in the lawsuit, said, “We think it’s incorrect and we’re likely to appeal it.”
The judge’s decision is not incorrect from any legal or logical standpoint. Just what does Winters think is incorrect about it? How much more time, effort and money is the school board willing to waste just to delay the moment when they officially wear egg on their faces? And why don’t they realize that despite all their posturing the rest of us have seen their egg masks since this debacle first became public?
(Tip credit to Matt)
UPDATE 16 March 2005
District Appeals Decision of Judge Schweikert
The school board has announced that they intend to appeal Judge Schweikert’s decision. Their excuse for doing so is just as predicted; the fear of losing control.
As there are serious issues involved with the district�s ability to control student behavior on field trips in general and overnight trip [sic] in particular, the board is compelled to go ahead with the appeal so as to protect students while under the school�s authority.
They don’t challenge the decision itself, or Schweikert’s reasoning. They really can’t as he did an excellent job of laying it out logically and completely. They are appealing because they have to in order to “control student behavior”. Legality be damned, they want justification for their actions from a higher court because they want carte blanche powers over their students.
This bit is telling:
It is important to note that the costs of these legal proceedings do not come from the district�s budget or funds. Costs are born by the district�s liability insurance carrier.
That is very misleading. It implies that this court action will not cost the district any money. Although their legal fees are covered there is no recompense for the lost manhours of administrators and witnesses during preparation and trial. They also don’t clarify that the previous court action has already increased their insurance premiums and further court action will increase them further. Those costs are appropriated from the district’s budget.
As America slides further down the toilet. This country is getting more ridiculous by the hour.
Yes, we are participating in a different, upcoming trip in this District. The school district staff member, who coordinates these trips, in the parents’ meeting, held at the school, told us parents that “we should work things out with our host familis” concerning alcohol use abroad and here in our homes when we are hosts. Amazing how the “zero tolerance” policy emerged at the airport when these kids returned, and how the school official has no memory of giving these instructions to parents, despite sworn testimony from every one. Kids were punished for doing precisely what the school and their parents said was OK. As a recurring theme on this website, why is it that school boards and school administrators rarely can simply apologize when they make mistakes?
Matthew - An apology would indicate that they did something wrong. The hubris and ivory tower menatality present in so many scholastic administrations does not allow this. I’m not being sarcastic, this is a sad fact. Education authorities have a horribly habit of thinking they are more intelligent than the people around them.
There is also a misguided sentiment that they will lose control if they admit that they make mistakes. There is a palpable fear culture in many schools where the staff believes they are always on the edge of chaos. Anything that compromises security and control is forbidden.
The third reason is culpability. When you admit to making a mistake there is a larger chance that you will be held culpable for your future mistakes.
Certainly looks like that one kid had *ZERO TOLERANCE!* ha!
–adam
The unwillingness to admit error by those who believe in “punishment” is a combination of fear and hypocrisy.
First is the fear of punishment. in response to mistakes many believe in Punishment for its own sake(that is the infliction of some harm or loss as an end itself). For these believers learning and admitting errors is not enough. Pain/harm/loss must be inflicted.
This is sadistic (by definition)and wrong and counter productive and unneccessary.
Then comes hypocrisy(laced with irony).
Whenever a believer of sadistic punishment is
faced with their own errors, suddenly the wrong and unneccessary nature of it becomes clear and, at least for them, they are against it. Often then these believers go thru mental gymnastics to avoid admitting error because they believe mistakes “should” be punished yet they dont believe they themselves should be.
rather than queation the principle of punishment
they attack the truths or messengers of the truth which threatens them which their own punishment principle.
furthermore, those who believe in punishment
for punishments sake also believe the “evildoer”
should be treated with scorn and should feel and act ashamed. This also is something they cannot see themselves doing, thus they “make no mistakes” and admit no errors.
To stop believing in sadistic punishment requires a journey of logic (with many connectings issues) which is quite scary and to
believers.
It’s amazing that the school accepted verbal assurances of parental permission. I would expect there to be a form the parents would sign.
Absent that, there’s a simple way to turn the tables on the school - contact adult members of the host families who were present, get them to provide affidavits attesting to the chaperone
starting off the drinking, and then, just one parent has to deny giving verbal permission and that parent can charge the chaperone with contributing to the delinquency of a minor and a host of other charges. Tuen it back on the school, since there is ample evidence that they LET it happen, when they were responsible for these kids. In fact, given how many people spend a trip with a camcorder grafted to the side of their head, I’d wager there’s video evidence of the chaperone inciting the drinking.
At that point, the only defense the school/chaperone has is to acknowledge the parental permission policy, back off, and pray like there’s no tomorrow that parents aren’t bitter enough to use the lack of WRITTEN permission to nail their hides to the courtroom wall.
Even in the case several teens somdomized a younger boy on a school trip, only the kids were held responsible… they were suppose to be peer leaders and the teacher wasn’t in the building. Parents are being arrested now in Westchester county for allowing alcohol to be served even if they have permission from other parents (these teens were over 18 but under 21).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/nyregion/thecity/20WE.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Sobriety test may become a part of school days and school events.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/nyregion/03breath.html
If the publicity is clear it’s a good thing. But would a slip up mean automatic expulsion?
My applause goes out to Judge Schweikert.
As I’ve observed time and time again, the courts are remaining the sane ones in this nation; for the most part, the Constitution and legal sense (and common sense) remain alive and well. But not in public schools! It’s sad we have to take every abuse of “zero tolerance” to the courts just to see justice prevail — talk about losing respect for the school disciplinary process.
One of my cherished memories of my high school trip to Europe was visiting the beer gardens in Munich. I had my first taste of beer as a 14 year old! It’s legal over there, kids are used to it, and very few — much fewer than the U.S. — grow up to be binge drinkers in college. Makes me think they have perhaps a more sane approach to prohibition than we do.
Hey…I am Nick Wards step son and he was my laywer as well as one of my peers lawyers for the germangate scandel as we have come to call it. Im glad to see others talking about it. And agreeing with what is going on. It truly is unfortunate that it came to this level but Im very happy we didnt sit around and let the school pull the cloth over everyones eyes. I am very happy with what has happend so far…
Jim, you’ve hit it dead on. Educrats (politicians) can never, under any circumstances, admit that they did something wrong.
I believe this to be one area where Europe is still far ahead of America in terms of both real, practical freedom and moral understanding of it. Whereas countless parents outside of the United States think nothing of even quite young children drinking beer and wine with meals and under adult supervision, in stark contrast, agents of American government forcibly drug children into silence and compliance; then when they reach the age of majority and this becomes legally problematic, those same agents imprison or kill anyone who ingests a substance that friends of the government do not profit from.
“Monstrous” does not begin to describe this state of affairs.
Also, Americans expect children to somehow magically be mature and responsible in their alcohol consumption when they reach an arbitrarily determined age, regardless of their lack of experience with it.
America’s problem is that we now treat adults like children, and children like babies.
Maybe it’s up to the school district’s taxpayers to try to convince the board to just forget the whole thing.
Costs are born by the district�s liability insurance carrier.
I wish I understood this relationship better. I believe this is what motivates unions, administrators, school boards and legal eagles to ponder such stupidity.
Maybe the insurance carrier will drop the school district. Then the school would really be up the creek.
“Maybe the insurance carrier will drop the school district. Then the school would really be up a creek.”
Nah, the state will just pass a law capping lawsuits against school districts. Or the next year or two they’ll get another bond passed. Been there, seen that.
If you look at the schools website this issue is the top headline, stating their need for more control. Ending school trips completely would reduce liability and allow more funds for activities that would promote careers. You won’t find a lot about child or family welfare in the picture. You won’t see children playing or creative arts promoted.
While the average income of most of the communities served by ODE is in the low 20K’s, the average salaries of teachers is in the 40k’s. If high-pay for technology dominated the 90’s, high pay for using technology to control the public will dominate the new millinnean. ODE focuses it’s employees on election results, legislations, motivational grants, data collection systems and involving parents as unpaid employees of the system. Like the parent academy
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/families/gettinginvolved/parentacademy/
or Principal Renner’s job duties.
http://www.mariemontschools.org/renner/index.html
They aren’t interested in financing school trips because that won’t win a baldridge award. It isn’t what the Ohio department of education, Cisco systems or the Concord Consortium. It reads a little like the babble of a 60’s cult.
I like to look at finance because corruption always follows the buck, like the relationship with privatized education.
Transportation to private schools is only one of their underfunded program:
http://www.mariemontschools.org/finance/concepts.html
On a recent trip to England, I was startled to see people strolling from the hotel bar over to the convention’s functions, pint in hand. It just isn’t DONE in America. Why are we all so terrified of alcohol? I doubt we end up with any fewer alcoholics.
It was good draft beer, too.
Trilobite - There’s a good number of people in US who think that the problems with alcohol are caused by the rules about alcohol.
People who grow up drinking wine and beer know what their limit is and what it does to them. People don’t get alcohol poisoning when they turn 21 (or go to college) when they know what it’s like to drink and know HOW to drink.
Germany actually has much much more restrictive (and punitive) laws regarding drunk driving. None of the slap-on-the-wrist crap that the U.S. likes to do.
[Edited version of my Dec 17 2004 comment]
Sadistic Punishment. The intentional inflicting of pain and harm just for ones own satisfaction, is the exact definition of “Sadistic”.
Those who believe in such punishment tend to have an unwillingness to admit their own errors because of, ironically, their own disagreement with, and fear of, punishment. But this is only when the principle is applied to them. Whenever justice threatens them with punishment they attack the facts or messenger. When the situation involves them suddenly they don’t assume the defendant is “Evil†or should be treated with scorn and filled with shame. Suddenly, and usually temporarily, they see the light and believe that admitting errors and learning from them is enough — That it is The Whole Point. But for others they hypocritically believe in sadistic punishment.
For those who care to learn, there are better ways known for problem solving and emotional management. Therefore sadistic punishment is counter productive, unnecessary, and morally wrong.
I was actually one of the students from the exchange, i found this link off the internet and found it interesting some of the comments posted on the subject. I was more specifically one of the students that went overboard, having an ambulance called on me. Contrary to many of my exhange comrades, i did not join the lawsuit train. What was an act of teen binge drinking, has turned into what the students and parents have made into a quest for justice. However, i did not have alchohol poisoning, one of the teachers on the german side was at the bar we were at and saw i had my head on the table so he called the ambulance, however i walked on took a blood test and walked off. I promptly returned home and served my 3 day suspension, because i deserved my suspension. Other students were given a voice from their worried parents that they were in the right, we were not in the right by drinking alchohol on a school outing, and we were prompted not to do so. The fact that there are internet forums on the subject is scary, and depressing for me me being one of the bad apples and all. i must say this incident happened 2 years ago, and since i served my suspension, i learned many valuable life lessons, for i have been a posterchild for what has turned into a big F$#$#$ deal. if i could make a bottomline it is, i got what i deserved, and ive grown from it, and my exchange comrades are just following their rich, white, conservative parents because they have been brainwashed into thinking the school made their choices for them, at the end of the day they have missed out on a valuable life lesson.
http://www.courtclerk.org/EKASH/rad5FCAA0224004215.pdf
The school board continues to waste taxpayer money on appeals for a slam dunk case. What a travesty.
Still no apology from the School District, after the Courts have reviewed the testimony over and over, and it’s crystal clear that the school representative advised parents it would be OK for their kids to drink on the trip. Amazing.
For Jon Machles and Erik Ward…
(By the way, Jon, I would think that drinking enough to make yourself sick, and the ensuing hangover, would be enough of a “life lesson” about overindulging, but I digress…)
My questions for Jon and Erik:
Did the chaperone take you to the beer gardens and actually initiate the drinking?
Did school officials and the German teacher (Mark Nabodny) advise parents prior to the trip that children are allowed to drink beer in Germany, and that (with parental permission) students would be allowed to drink on the trip?
Did the school obtain parental permission prior to the trip?
Was permission obtained in writing or was it verbally granted (which would still be legal)?
Was there a drink limit agreed to by the students?
Did all 17 disciplined students violate a drinking limit that was agreed upon beforehand?
Did all 17 students “overindulge,” or was it just a few students?
If parental permission was obtained (and granted) prior to the trip, I don’t understand why Jon feels that “…they (the school board) were in the right….†If clearly defined rules were broken, then, yes, the school would be allowed to discipline the kids. However, if students were given permission to drink beer (and only a couple abused the privilege), why should all 17 students be punished and have their permanent records marred, possibly jeopardizing their futures (e.g., Colleges may reject them because of underage drinking on their record).
Jon, if a few students, like yourself, overindulged, why should all 17 students have to be disciplined? Or were all 17 drinking to excess? Or were you too drunk to notice? (Maybe, the chaperone was sober enough to remember, and s/he could tell us.
Seriously though, if students were allowed to drink in moderation, and you and some other students drank to excess, the whole group should not be punished. And if there were no guidelines set by the school, then the school should have no jurisdiction in the matter. The PARENTS should discipline the “misbehaving” students, and the PARENTS should be teaching the “life-lessons,” NOT the school board administrators.
Jon, you should not find Internet forums that discuss this issue, “scary.” We need to stand up for our rights as parents, and fight the tyranny of public school demigods (i.e., school administrators) who are trying to not only undermine the authority of parents, but legally “control” students’ lives on ALL levels. If there is any “brainwashing” going on, you can bet the school is behind it. We (parents) are frightened at the over-reaching authority that the public schools and the teachers’ union have already attained. They are “teaching” (some would say brainwashing) our children with mandatory “values” that we abhor, and not teaching the basic skills that children actually need to excel in college and succeed in careers.
Illiteracy is at an all-time high, but the ACLU’s agenda is prioritized over everything else. As you may have noticed while talking with German students during your Bavaria trip, Jon and Erik, America’s public schools are the laughing stock of the world (if you don’t understand the reason for their derision, simply review the examples of your writing above. I’m appalled that high school graduates would make such glaring spelling and grammatical errors!). Yet the NEA (teachers’ union) is more concerned with removing Christianity from the classrooms, advancing the agenda of the GLBT, and preventing the testing and accountability of teachers.
I am not excusing any wrongdoing by the students — far from it. But if the news articles accurately reflect what really happened, the school made mistakes from the beginning, and should “teach by example” by taking responsibility for their inappropriate actions. Students who took advantage of the situation should have a long talk with their parents and be appropriately disciplined by their parents.
The bottom line in this case: School officials should own up to their mistakes, drop the appeals, and let common sense prevail!!