|
Post by s73 on Jun 8, 2014 7:48:34 GMT -6
For those of you who work at schools that have a prescribed code of conduct I am interested in your opinion on this.
You have an athlete who has a spotty past but really seems to be turning the corner and making a significant change for the better. The last day of school, somebody turns in an anonymous social media picture of this kid to the AD (literally an envelope dropped off in his mailbox, no idea by whom) of him breaking the athletic code. Since he is going to be a senior and has been in trouble before, he is essentially done for his career.
Here's the issue, the picture is clearly old (no date on it) b/c the kid looks younger, smaller and has a completely different hair style. I would guess the picture is at least a year old. My question is, does your school handle things differently if the picture is deemed to be from a previous school year? Or do the rules apply regardless, "Hey he broke the code, who cares how long ago".
Thanks for any opinions you may have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 8:34:21 GMT -6
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think this is how it works at my school. If a kid is known to be in trouble--i.e. he either reports it or it makes the paper--that suspension will follow him. For example, we have a junior who might have to serve a two-game suspension for something he did as a freshmen. He didn't play as a sophomore, doesn't play any other sports, so the suspension hasn't been served. In the 2012 season, we had a senior serving a suspension from his sophomore year for the same reason--he didn't play as a junior, so the suspension still followed him.
In this particular case, though, I don't really know what our AD would do. I'm guessing no suspension but I don't know that for a fact.
|
|
mc140
Sophomore Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by mc140 on Jun 8, 2014 14:04:16 GMT -6
That wouldn't be accepted at our school unless the person handing in the picture puts their name to it.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 8, 2014 14:51:33 GMT -6
That wouldn't be accepted at our school unless the person handing in the picture puts their name to it. I agree w/ you. The whole thing feels a bit shady to me, but I'm also close to the situation so I was wondering if I was seeing this thing a bit tainted so to speak. Thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jun 8, 2014 19:01:48 GMT -6
I would think the statute of limitations should be at most 1 year for a high school kid. I would also ignore something that is anonymous. I would alert the parents and leave it as a parental issue.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 8, 2014 22:28:41 GMT -6
I would think the statute of limitations should be at most 1 year for a high school kid. I would also ignore something that is anonymous. I would alert the parents and leave it as a parental issue. I agree that you can justify discounting anything that was turned in anonymously.
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jun 9, 2014 1:10:47 GMT -6
I disagree on the anonymity issue. The anonymity of party A doesn't discount this kid's actions, especially if it's agreed that this is, in fact, the kid in question. That being said, it depends what he is pictured doing and what he's been in trouble for in the past. If he was never made to come clean about all past deeds, and it's something minor, I would let it go as a past transgression that doesn't necessarily impede his progress. However, if he was made to account for his past deeds, and he left this out, or if it's a major infraction, I would be less lenient.
|
|
|
Post by coachguy83 on Jun 9, 2014 1:10:50 GMT -6
People turn in thing anonymously when they have a personal agenda that they do not want known. Heck what if the peson that turned in the picture is the players back up trying to get a starting spot? I think you have a talk with the player about how that kind of behavior is unacceptable and leave it at that
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jun 9, 2014 1:48:30 GMT -6
If I take a picture of you murdering someone, does that change the fact that you've committed an illegal action?
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jun 9, 2014 6:44:21 GMT -6
If I take a picture of you murdering someone, does that change the fact that you've committed an illegal action? No statute of limitations on murder. You have the right to face your accusers in a trial.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 9, 2014 8:22:13 GMT -6
If I take a picture of you murdering someone, does that change the fact that you've committed an illegal action? If the picture shows the kid murdering somebody that changes everything. Athletic eligibility isn't his biggest problem then.
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Jun 9, 2014 8:28:36 GMT -6
I love the board. Somebody asks a question about a kid breaking athletic code and we jump straight to a murder analogy lol.
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Jun 9, 2014 8:31:26 GMT -6
If this infraction occurred after the kid had been talked to and started to change then I think it would be detrimental to punish him now for it. I agree with jmg999 about taking into account whether he was supposed to come clean and omitted this or if he was given a clean slate.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jun 9, 2014 10:48:26 GMT -6
If this infraction occurred after the kid had been talked to and started to change then I think it would be detrimental to punish him now for it. I agree with jmg999 about taking into account whether he was supposed to come clean and omitted this or if he was given a clean slate. I don't disagree in principle, but I think there are exceptions to coming clean. For example, let's say this is about underage drinking. He gets caught, admits he did it, and he gets punished. Then this picture shows a previous time that he did the same thing. Was he supossed to recall all the specific times he had a drink? Let's say he told you about the spring break party and the May 5th party and June 8th party and July 4th party. But this picture is from the April 19th party a year ago? Is he now in trouble again because he forgot all the parties that happened a year ago? I would say that after he is punished everything that happened before that is forgiven by his punishment particulary if it is the same type of offense.
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Jun 9, 2014 11:13:53 GMT -6
I agree with what you're saying, coach. I was thinking in terms of a new infraction. For example, selling weed that he never said he had done. That would change things.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 9, 2014 12:50:51 GMT -6
I disagree on the anonymity issue. The anonymity of party A doesn't discount this kid's actions, especially if it's agreed that this is, in fact, the kid in question. That being said, it depends what he is pictured doing and what he's been in trouble for in the past. If he was never made to come clean about all past deeds, and it's something minor, I would let it go as a past transgression that doesn't necessarily impede his progress. However, if he was made to account for his past deeds, and he left this out, or if it's a major infraction, I would be less lenient. This infraction has nothing to do w/ past transgressions. I also believe it stems from a personal agenda. With that being said, I am against the anonymous stuff for a couple of reasons, the biggest being that when it's anonymous stuff from social media who's to say it wasn't photo shopped? Kids are pretty slick w/ technology now a days. BTW, it's a picture of a kid double fisting 2 cervezas. No drinking in the photo. Definitely not expecting any dead bodies to surface (no hard feelings, just bustin' balls coach). Thanks for your replies.
|
|
mc140
Sophomore Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by mc140 on Jun 9, 2014 20:40:06 GMT -6
I disagree on the anonymity issue. The anonymity of party A doesn't discount this kid's actions, especially if it's agreed that this is, in fact, the kid in question. That being said, it depends what he is pictured doing and what he's been in trouble for in the past. If he was never made to come clean about all past deeds, and it's something minor, I would let it go as a past transgression that doesn't necessarily impede his progress. However, if he was made to account for his past deeds, and he left this out, or if it's a major infraction, I would be less lenient. Well how do you not know the picture was submitted by someone else who was drinking at the party? That has happened before. A parent has sent in pictures of a starter drinking from the same party her daughter was drinking at but not on camera.
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jun 9, 2014 23:56:26 GMT -6
The point I was raising was in regard to the actions of the kid in the picture. As to whether or not someone else was drinking at the party and whether or not they're the one who snapped the picture, that's a separate issue. If both acts are violations of policy, they'd both be dealt w/ separately. The analogy I drew, while extreme, was simple in its premise. Whatever the motivations of the person who turned it in, it's a separate issue from what is going on in the picture. In regard to the manipulation of images, there are several error level analysis analyzers online. They allow you to upload a photo in order to detect whether or not the image has been manipulated. There's one available at this link: 29a.ch/sandbox/2012/imageerrorlevelanalysis/This link (http://www.errorlevelanalysis.com/) offers an excellent explanation of error level analysis is and how it can be detected.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 10, 2014 5:17:19 GMT -6
I disagree on the anonymity issue. The anonymity of party A doesn't discount this kid's actions, especially if it's agreed that this is, in fact, the kid in question. That being said, it depends what he is pictured doing and what he's been in trouble for in the past. If he was never made to come clean about all past deeds, and it's something minor, I would let it go as a past transgression that doesn't necessarily impede his progress. However, if he was made to account for his past deeds, and he left this out, or if it's a major infraction, I would be less lenient. Well how do you not know the picture was submitted by someone else who was drinking at the party? That has happened before. A parent has sent in pictures of a starter drinking from the same party her daughter was drinking at but not on camera. Coach, I believe the picture was submitted by a parent who has an agenda. I also have very good reason and some decent evidence to base this belief on. Furthermore, I don't want to get into it online but the agenda is pretty twisted. Even more so than what you mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 10, 2014 5:32:58 GMT -6
The point I was raising was in regard to the actions of the kid in the picture. As to whether or not someone else was drinking at the party and whether or not they're the one who snapped the picture, that's a separate issue. If both acts are violations of policy, they'd both be dealt w/ separately. The analogy I drew, while extreme, was simple in its premise. Whatever the motivations of the person who turned it in, it's a separate issue from what is going on in the picture. In regard to the manipulation of images, there are several error level analysis analyzers online. They allow you to upload a photo in order to detect whether or not the image has been manipulated. There's one available at this link: 29a.ch/sandbox/2012/imageerrorlevelanalysis/This link (http://www.errorlevelanalysis.com/) offers an excellent explanation of error level analysis is and how it can be detected. Coach, With regards to what you are saying about the motives not changing that the kid did wrong as well as the ability to check photo manipulation, well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While I as much as anyone on here (& probably more so than most) do not want kids to be using drugs or alcohol, I am willing to hold kids accountable to our athletic code up UNTIL the point that we become more the MORAL POLICE and less an athletic department. I am not willing to hold my athletes or any others in our building to anonymous pictures being sent in with hidden (and some not so hidden) agendas. But even more so, I do not want to be playing a "gotcha game" w/ kids and their athletic careers. What I mean by that is if this picture was clearly recent and we had proof of it, then I would support a consequence (maybe even if turned in anonymously although I don't like it). But what I signed up for was to uphold our athletic code b/c it's what's best for kids. I cannot honestly look any kid in the face and say "Hey you clearly screwed up 15 months ago, you need to be held accountable for that b/c that's what's best for you". I don't think going back more than a school year to hold kids accountable is in their best interest, but rather becomes more of a vindictive act in my opinion. I don't want mistakes I made over a year ago held over my head and just am not willing to do it to anyone else, my team or otherwise. Again, JMO.
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jun 10, 2014 6:06:06 GMT -6
The point I was raising was in regard to the actions of the kid in the picture. As to whether or not someone else was drinking at the party and whether or not they're the one who snapped the picture, that's a separate issue. If both acts are violations of policy, they'd both be dealt w/ separately. The analogy I drew, while extreme, was simple in its premise. Whatever the motivations of the person who turned it in, it's a separate issue from what is going on in the picture. In regard to the manipulation of images, there are several error level analysis analyzers online. They allow you to upload a photo in order to detect whether or not the image has been manipulated. There's one available at this link: 29a.ch/sandbox/2012/imageerrorlevelanalysis/This link (http://www.errorlevelanalysis.com/) offers an excellent explanation of error level analysis is and how it can be detected. Coach, With regards to what you are saying about the motives not changing that the kid did wrong as well as the ability to check photo manipulation, well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While I as much as anyone on here (& probably more so than most) do not want kids to be using drugs or alcohol, I am willing to hold kids accountable to our athletic code up UNTIL the point that we become more the MORAL POLICE and less an athletic department. I am not willing to hold my athletes or any others in our building to anonymous pictures being sent in with hidden (and some not so hidden) agendas. But even more so, I do not want to be playing a "gotcha game" w/ kids and their athletic careers. What I mean by that is if this picture was clearly recent and we had proof of it, then I would support a consequence (maybe even if turned in anonymously although I don't like it). But what I signed up for was to uphold our athletic code b/c it's what's best for kids. I cannot honestly look any kid in the face and say "Hey you clearly screwed up 15 months ago, you need to be held accountable for that b/c that's what's best for you". I don't think going back more than a school year to hold kids accountable is in their best interest, but rather becomes more of a vindictive act in my opinion. I don't want mistakes I made over a year ago held over my head and just am not willing to do it to anyone else, my team or otherwise. Again, JMO. Coach, I believe that we are, for the most part, in agreement. I just see these as all separate issues from one another. In the case that you described (this action having taken place months and months ago), I agree w/ you that if this was an issue that was previously dealt w/ (not this particular instance but the issue as a whole), there's no need to punish a kid a second time for past transgressions. Also, based on your description of the picture, I agree that there are certain battles worth fighting and others that aren't. I believe that this would fall in the latter category based upon the infraction and the length of time since you feel it was committed. I also agree that we shouldn't be the gotcha police. I don't think that's any way to teach a lesson. In fact, you're right, it's much more vindictive. As for the anonymity issue, imagine if you and I coached on the same staff, where you were the head coach, and I wanted your job. Even if I followed you around for months hoping to catch you in a compromising position, then offered anonymous, visual evidence of this to the AD, my actions, while certainly questionable, wouldn't mitigate your actions. However unethical my behavior, it doesn't have any effect on your action. Therefore, whether I turn this in anonymously, or put my name to it, the evidence is the same. That's why I would not have any issues w/ information offered anonymously. I would give it the same weight as evidence offered nominally. In either case, I would go to great lengths to verify the veracity of the evidence, but I wouldn't immediately discount it due to its anonymous nature.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 10, 2014 6:27:25 GMT -6
Coach, With regards to what you are saying about the motives not changing that the kid did wrong as well as the ability to check photo manipulation, well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While I as much as anyone on here (& probably more so than most) do not want kids to be using drugs or alcohol, I am willing to hold kids accountable to our athletic code up UNTIL the point that we become more the MORAL POLICE and less an athletic department. I am not willing to hold my athletes or any others in our building to anonymous pictures being sent in with hidden (and some not so hidden) agendas. But even more so, I do not want to be playing a "gotcha game" w/ kids and their athletic careers. What I mean by that is if this picture was clearly recent and we had proof of it, then I would support a consequence (maybe even if turned in anonymously although I don't like it). But what I signed up for was to uphold our athletic code b/c it's what's best for kids. I cannot honestly look any kid in the face and say "Hey you clearly screwed up 15 months ago, you need to be held accountable for that b/c that's what's best for you". I don't think going back more than a school year to hold kids accountable is in their best interest, but rather becomes more of a vindictive act in my opinion. I don't want mistakes I made over a year ago held over my head and just am not willing to do it to anyone else, my team or otherwise. Again, JMO. Coach, I believe that we are, for the most part, in agreement. I just see these as all separate issues from one another. In the case that you described (this action having taken place months and months ago), I agree w/ you that if this was an issue that was previously dealt w/ (not this particular instance but the issue as a whole), there's no need to punish a kid a second time for past transgressions. Also, based on your description of the picture, I agree that there are certain battles worth fighting and others that aren't. I believe that this would fall in the latter category based upon the infraction and the length of time since you feel it was committed. I also agree that we shouldn't be the gotcha police. I don't think that's any way to teach a lesson. In fact, you're right, it's much more vindictive. As for the anonymity issue, imagine if you and I coached on the same staff, where you were the head coach, and I wanted your job. Even if I followed you around for months hoping to catch you in a compromising position, then offered anonymous, visual evidence of this to the AD, my actions, while certainly questionable, wouldn't mitigate your actions. However unethical my behavior, it doesn't have any effect on your action. Therefore, whether I turn this in anonymously, or put my name to it, the evidence is the same. That's why I would not have any issues w/ information offered anonymously. I would give it the same weight as evidence offered nominally. In either case, I would go to great lengths to verify the veracity of the evidence, but I wouldn't immediately discount it due to its anonymous nature. Coach, I agree that anonymous stuff should be "looked at" but I don't feel it has the same weight as something turned in w/o anonymity solely for the reason that I feel that if you strongly believe in something you should be willing to your name on it. Not willing to do so tells me that you have an unwillingness to stand by it which IMO speaks to credibility. How much so? That's certainly debatable. But I think you make some solid points and I certainly agree w/ some of them. Thanks for the replies.
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Jun 10, 2014 23:39:16 GMT -6
One thing I'm thinking about here is this....
What is the jurisdiction of this when it's in the summertime and not during the season or school year?
What does your athletic code say about "out of season" or "summer"? I agree with a lot of things said here, but if that picture was taken 2 July's ago and the kid wasn't in school....it could change things.
I would offer (without knowing the past transgressions, etc.) that you can suspend the kid for a game or two...but bombing him for the season and beyond could generate retaliation by the parents.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 11, 2014 7:06:38 GMT -6
One thing I'm thinking about here is this.... What is the jurisdiction of this when it's in the summertime and not during the season or school year? What does your athletic code say about "out of season" or "summer"? I agree with a lot of things said here, but if that picture was taken 2 July's ago and the kid wasn't in school....it could change things. I would offer (without knowing the past transgressions, etc.) that you can suspend the kid for a game or two...but bombing him for the season and beyond could generate retaliation by the parents. Our handbook states that it's a 24/7/365 policy. Now, can our district legally enforce that is probably another question entirely. But since we have districts lawyers, I would assume they were consulted before this was put into print. But you know what they say about assumptions. Personally, my thoughts are that maybe schools in general are over reaching some by monitoring summer behavior. But that is probably a discussion for another time.
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Jun 11, 2014 13:08:45 GMT -6
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think this is how it works at my school. If a kid is known to be in trouble--i.e. he either reports it or it makes the paper--that suspension will follow him. For example, we have a junior who might have to serve a two-game suspension for something he did as a freshmen. He didn't play as a sophomore, doesn't play any other sports, so the suspension hasn't been served. In the 2012 season, we had a senior serving a suspension from his sophomore year for the same reason--he didn't play as a junior, so the suspension still followed him. In this particular case, though, I don't really know what our AD would do. I'm guessing no suspension but I don't know that for a fact. This is ridiculous. So I smoke weed as a freshman, turn my life around because some school teacher/coach paid some attention to me and motivated me to get on the straight and narrow, and then somebody turns in a picture when I am a junior and I am punished?!? And we wonder why kids don't play sports and parents think schools have lost all ability to use common sense. Here is my question, all of the time I hear teachers belly aching because mom and dad drop off their kid at school and expect the teacher to raise their kid. They gripe and complain because they think they shouldn't have to do this, the parent should. And yet, you as a teacher/administrator turn around and try to hand out punishment to a kid for something he did while not at school? How about this thought, if a kid breaks a rule from the time of the first game to the time of the last game, you have the ability to police that kids life, any other time stay the he!! out of these kids life. I HATE THESE POLICIES. I am all about setting examples and trying to get kids to make the right decisions, I think that is just the right thing to do. But I don't think any school district has any right to tell a kid what he can do outside of school. How many coaches/teachers/administrators drink to much, smoke cigs or weed and so on (just go to any coaching clinic)? Not trying to hijack or start a major argument, but this stuff drives me nuts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2014 13:24:54 GMT -6
I agree with your overall premise, coach, in regards to these policies, especially when in many places they don't even cover all extra-curricular activities. They only cover sports.
My two examples were a bit different, though, than the original poster's situation. In the two examples I listed, these kids were caught at the time they committed the acts. It wasn't after the fact. It was out-of-season but since they didn't play any other sports and didn't play football the next year, the suspensions still followed them.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jun 12, 2014 21:39:00 GMT -6
I've got two stories on this topic, and thought the admin got it right once and wrong once. Once had a kid get an anonymous picture of him turned in that was literally on crinkled up printer paper like the person was just walking around with it stuck in their pocket, and sure enough the kid got suspended over the contents of the picture, though it was clear that he was much younger when the picture was taken.
A few years later a baseball player at our school got caught drinking or smoking or something after his junior baseball season, so he decides that he will come out for football and serve his two week suspension during football so he'd be ready for the start of baseball. Admin figured out the plan and decided that no, his suspension wouldn't be served in football, he was suspended to start the next baseball season. I didn't think that the County School District code of conduct allows for that, but I'm not positive. BTW kid quit football as soon as he heard that the suspension was following him to baseball season regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jun 13, 2014 6:36:08 GMT -6
A stray from the OP, but would you have any luck in getting a committee together to rewrite the code so that it's more reasonable? E.g. move away from the "all year" accountability and make it for in-season only?
On code all year round sounds more like the district wants to be mommy and daddy than letting mommy and daddy be mommy and daddy.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jun 13, 2014 7:02:25 GMT -6
In a world where the above is possible, Anon = non-valid
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jun 13, 2014 7:33:00 GMT -6
In a world where the above is possible, Anon = non-valid You mean it's impossible to have .5% body fat on one's torso and north of 40% in the face?!
|
|