Pubdate: Thu, 10 Jul 2003
Source: Southland Times (New Zealand)
Copyright: 2003, Southland Times Company Ltd.
Contact:  http://www.southlandtimes.co.nz/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1041
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

JUDGMENT CALLS

Sometimes taking a hard line is really taking a soft option, writes The 
Southland Times in an editorial.

It can open up inconsistencies and double standards that could be avoided 
by less dramatically pleasing measures.

Those who think James Hargest High School simply made a clear stand against 
drug abuse when it excluded Scott Irvine are kidding themselves. The 
school's actions were more emphatic than careful.

The 14-year-old broke the law. He used cannabis.

He did not do it while he was at the school, or under the school's duty of 
care. He was expelled anyway.

The school sees no reason to explain itself. Some points can be made on its 
behalf even so, not the least of which is the alarming extent to which drug 
abuse occurs among young New Zealanders.

But then, drink-driving is no less a problem.

Should students who have done so be cast from Hargest? Should any who have 
committed a burglary still be permitted to study there? What about an 
indecent assault?

Disconcertingly, the answer to that last question is far less clear-cut 
than the Irvine case appears to have been. A parent has come forward to 
tell how her daughter, a Hargest pupil, was indecently assaulted by four 
pupils a month earlier than the Irvine case. Two held the girl down, one 
raised her skirt and the third placed his hand under her pants.

It happened at the school. The offenders were stood down for four days. The 
mother says the school told her that this was the most severe penalty it 
had available. This and the Irvine case provide worrying contrasts.

Schools, like students, have rights as well as responsibilities. Nowhere is 
it written how all schools should behave in all circumstances. In fact, it 
is the clear intention of lawmakers that schools have a significant degree 
of freedom to establish their own character.

Within reason, it is entirely acceptable for some schools to be more 
hard-nosed than others about what they find intolerable behaviour. Provided 
all this is made clear to the pupils and their families when they choose 
schools, it is not a problem.

But the degree of internal inconsistency that appears to have arisen at 
Hargest is troubling. So is the fact that when he was interviewed about 
this serious matter, three days afterwards, Scott Irvine had no adult 
support person with him even though his mother had asked to be there.

When he later appeared before the school's disciplinary hearings committee 
he did have his uncle, Detective Senior Sergeant Brian Hewett, with him. Mr 
Hewett later said that the process afforded his nephew fewer rights than a 
police investigation, yet it produced a more severe penalty.

It will be an easy step for some to conclude that all this means is the 
school got right what the law gets wrong. Hardliners would add that the 
best way to achieve consistency is to use the Irvine case as a model and 
bring other penalties to this level. They would probably call it zero 
tolerance, which sounds so much better than intolerance. They would 
envisage legions of teenagers straightening up and flying right.

The reality would be schools readily and easily exporting their problem 
kids, rather than all that namby-pamby messing about trying to help them.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager