OPINION & EDITORIAL
Breathalyzers at prom uncalled for
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Robert Phansalkar:
- Seat on high court should be based on merit (April 1, 2008)
- Put foot down on Florida, Michigan (March 11, 2008)
- Voting day switch misses needed fix (February 19, 2008)
- Don't snuff out state smoking ban (February 5, 2008)
- Privacy stopped at traffic lights (January 21, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Student apologizes for altercation (May 3, 2007)
- Decade looks to be Age of Paternalism (October 18, 2005)
- New alcohol policy good idea (February 22, 2007)
- Where should your rebate check go? (August 30, 2001)
- Check them out (November 9, 2006)
by Robert Phansalkar
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
When Whitnall High School officials in Greenfield decided to implement the use of breathalyzers at its senior prom, it sure sounded like a good idea. The idea of random checks of students who appear to be intoxicated should send shivers down even the most daring teen.
But, as with just about any policy move, there’s a problem. Policies just like this one miss one thing: Students are going to do it anyway. After all, that’s the reason school officials took this route in the first place.
Admittedly, school officials are in a tough position. The desire to curb underage drinking and all that comes with it is quite strong. No one can seriously argue that the effects of drinking — underage or otherwise — are universally accompanied by good results. And for administrators at high schools across the country, this is a legitimate issue of concern. Earlier this year, Whitnall proved to be no exception to such concern.
As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, Whitnall’s Valentine’s Day Dance hardly won over the hearts of school officials — as alcohol was the decisive factor behind several suspensions. It’s hard to find fault in the school’s interest in getting rid of alcohol at dances.
But breathalyzers? Seems like a harsh solution, but that’s precisely what officials wanted.
School Board member T.J. Anderson told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the measure was worth pursuing because of the portrayal of the high school’s latest dance throughout the community. Mr. Anderson and superintendent Karen Petric felt the disastrous Valentine’s Day dance required this kind of “proactive” approach.
But proactive usually does not mean “guilty until proven innocent” in our society’s parlance. It should be noted officials won’t be using the breathalyzers on everyone who walks through the doors, only using them “randomly.” And if you were looking for the definition of “randomly,” I suggest you look up the term “probable cause” instead.
But none of this gets at the real problem. What’s bad about this is that the purpose of this program isn’t actually to curb drinking — it’s to be proactive about the school’s image in the public eye. After all, if they actually wanted to curb drinking, they’d be doing something other than this.
As the age-old maxim from high school lore goes: Students who want to get into trouble will get into trouble. And there’s no evidence that this measure will actually do anything to stop these kids.
Stopping drinking at the prom is one thing, but stopping drinking and its occasionally disastrous effects is another thing altogether.
The problem is that while this measure may curb drinking at the high school prom, it might shift others, who see a high school prom as the trivial rite-de-passage that it is, to avoid the dance altogether. This problem is the embodiment of a replacement strategy, shifting the problems of Whitnall’s prom to Greenfield at large.
Better still, students who feel that drinking comes at too high a cost at this dance might turn to more dangerous and devious plans such as illegal drugs. Breathalyzers can’t tell what you’ve smoked or snorted, making them ineffective in a battle against other potential evils.
Shifting drinking elsewhere upon the community and giving students cause to find other, less easily detectable thrills is hardly the goal of this measure. But this is precisely the fault of a policy driven by our desire for PR gains and not an actual earnest attempt to help students.
Students who go elsewhere and operate at the peril of the protection of their selves are no better off with the school district’s plan. Students who plan on going to the dance but subvert the process by using more dangerous forms of fun are no better off by this plan either.
And while it’s hard to not be sympathetic to the school district’s good faith effort to fix a budding problem, Breathalyzers can’t be the answer. Apart from Whitnall’s past Valentine’s Day dance, their plan has worked well for years. And if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Robert Phansalkar (rphansalkar@badgerherald.com) is a first-year law student.
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 12:26am):
Where's the argument? All I see is "breathalyzers at school are bad because they sort of seem harsh and yeah well some people might not come to dances based on well absolutely nothing and maybe they'll do other drugs based on well yeah nothing again and oh by the way they're going to do all this stuff in other parts of the community too because I think they might, and so I think the school should no do this ok?"
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 4:46am):
How about shifting the problem of underage drinking back to it's origin, THAT OF THE PARENTS OF THESE STUDENTS. But naw that would mean like Frankenstein the parents would then have to be RESPONSIBLE for the little monsters they have "created". To bad this country of no taxation without representation has also shifted to "procreation with no responsibilities" aftewards towards the results.
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 7:37am):
Just because they can does not mean they should.
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 8:25am):
What happens to the kid who gets turned away because he went a little heavy on the mouthwash?
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 8:55am):
1) Breathalyzers aren't harsh. Last time I checked, there was no anal probe.
2) Puke on the dance floor is a major party foul.
3) Robert, aren't you a little old to be going to high school proms?
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 9:38am):
shifted to "procreation with no responsibilities"
Shifted? The government now prohibits any effective discipline of children at home or at school or anywhere else for that matter.
What do you expect?
PS. We should move toward 'no representation without taxation'.
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 9:44am):
"Robert, aren't you a little old to be going to high school proms?"
Burn of the week.
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 9:47am):
The schools don't have extra budget money. They're going to make sure people aren't getting drunk at dances because it's a liability and it's illegal. They're not going to start up a day-care program for kids who have nothing to do outside of school.
Most irrelevant and ill-conceived opinion article so far this year. Congratulations.
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 10:32am):
Did you intend to tell us what the "disastrous result" of the Valentine's Dance was? Or did the editors take that out because of space?
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 12:29pm):
the badger needs new writers.. you disappoint me once again. You're probably underage so you want to support the right of these students to not be tested randomly. Obviously the school is going to make sure they test those who have previously showed up to the dances drunk, so no it isn't an entirely random test. It isn't just about the school's image, it's about making sure that the right example is being set by students on school grounds. Younger kids always look up to the older students, what are they going to learn if the entire senior class shows up wasted? (not that freshmen aren't guilty of drinking, but u get the point). Besides, if the school didn't take drastic actions to curve underage drinking, they would be setting a bad example to their students by basically saying "it's ok, drink away, we don't care", and yes it is parents' responsibility to teach their kids not to drink at such young ages or to show up to school wasted, but if the education system in America is flawed, to me, that is a reflection of the flawed education at home as well. Kids have the rest of their lives to drink, high school should be about having the kind of fun you can't have once you grow up. Besides, they have their college years to spend partying.
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 1:50pm):
To to the above commentor who said Rob is underage, the following is located just under the last paragraph of his column:
"Robert Phansalkar (rphansalkar@badgerherald.com) is a first-year law student."
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 2:51pm):
12:29,
Wow that was not the best post I've ever seen:
Robert is a first-year law student; I am willing to bet he is not underage.
No one is trying to "curve" underage drinking, they are trying to "curb" underage drinking.
Just because the education system is flawed at home does not mean that the school should not try to educate in their own right. In fact I would say thats the proof right there: yes, our parents are not doing enough to stop this problem so the schools must.
Anonymous (April 22, 2008 @ 4:10pm):
SInce I feel compelled to respond...
To start off, I'm 23. The point of this opinion is NOT to make sure that students are allowed to drink. In fact, if you had taken the downright burdensome 2 minutes to actually read the entire column you'd find that I'm in support and in league with the school district on this one.
As for the point of this article, which should have been readily apparent, it's not that school officials should be doing more, it's that breathalyzers AREN'T the solution. That's the point. I'm shifting the burden of establishing whether this is acceptable or not to the school district, instead of just relying upon their good faith assurances.
Those good faith assurances should be taken with a grain of salt because they do involve an implicit fundamental legal issue, the 5th amendment, which would not necessarily be at issue if it were not a public school.
For those who claim it isn't a big deal, even the school district itself acknowledges that this is somewhat intrusive. They required students and parents to sign off on the agreement because it posed a legitimate and significant change to the student code of conduct (or whatever it is technically called).
Those legal issues aside, this is really about whether or not the goal can be accomplished through breathalyzers. For those who read the opinion, this should have been clear that the answer is no.
School administrators acknowledge that the problem is not just alcohol, it's also illicit drugs. In the interest of space and cohesion that was not mentioned in the column. This, along with the fact that breathalyzers do not test THC levels or whatever the drug might be, provides support for the contention that students will, in all likelihood, turn to other more dangerous forms.
Furthermore, one need only look at the efficacy of roadblocks to determine that planned stops, where students or the public at large are aware are not substantially effective in achieving their goals.
That's the explanation and support for what was an otherwise clear column. Next time, I suggest you actually read it.
- Robert Phansalkar
Herald Columnist
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 2:48am):
Thanks Robert! You totally, like, took the words right out of my mouth. I'm a highschool student like you! I hope your next piece talks about the totally stupid dress codes in public highschools! lol! I mean, why can't I wear my mini skirt anymore, but that one Jewish guy always gets to wear his hat inside. That's sooooo gay!
Don't worry, Robbie. You might write articles that are totally irrelevant for the vast majority of college students, but you'll always have a loyal following here at my highschool! Go Wildcats!!! GHS smells! We are totally gonna kill them in next year's homecoming game. lulz. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Anonymous (April 25, 2008 @ 1:17pm):
people on the BH write about national and international issues all the time that have NO PRACTICAL RELEVANCE. I'm sure all the top advisors in the country are looking to the badger herald to craft their policies, and I'm sure all those students that care about the articles and go stand out in Library Mall with a sign protesting somethinig are really making a difference. at least this is local issue and is related to a huge campus issue - drinking and alchol abuse. the state's whole problem with drinking starts in high school.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
