It seems that government schools are becoming more like prisons every day. Rather than focus on academics, school administrators prefer to improve their disciplinary methods.Their latest creation is the “mere presence” rule that makes attendance at a gathering where alcohol or illegal drugs are being provided to minors a violation of the district’s good conduct policy, regardless of whether the student imbibed or not. Students who violate the good conduct policy may not participate in extra-curricular activities.
The mere-presence rule is more proof that the government uses its schools to control your life whether you are in school or not. Mere-presence has blurred the line between on campus and off-campus. People who want to drink and smoke are now never off-campus.
Students at keg parties, who used to only worry about their parents, now are more concerned about their new government parents, otherwise known as teachers and principals. Soon your principal may even want you to call him “Dad.”
Many lazy parents may not object to the new policy because it is parental welfare. Parents who receive financial welfare don’t have to work and now parental welfare means they don’t have to raise their kids.
Unfortunately, like financial welfare, parental welfare will become addictive. Why make efforts to raise your children if the government will do it for you?
The government sets a teenager’s curfew, specifies clothing selection with uniform policies, restricts use of the family car with driving restrictions, censors movies with the “R” rating system, and now discourages attendance at keg parties with the new “mere presence rule.” Parents and their children used to make these decisions.
The “mere presence” rule may not be constitutional in your state. In 1972, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a similar “beer rule” enacted by the Iowa High School Athletic Association. However, according to a Iowa school lawyer, the court, “went on to state that individual school boards or the Iowa Department of Education did have authority over student behavior and could enact such policies.” If your school adopts a “mere presence” rule, then you have the right to sue them for violating your rights
You could also fight back by starting private extracurricular clubs that are not associated with your school. For example, you could start a debating club that is not affiliated with the school. You could start a soccer league, a newspaper, a key club, etc.
Your goal would be to put the government-sponsored clubs “out of business.” Then when your college interviewer asks why you were not part of your school’s soccer team, you could say, “the school cancelled the team a few years due to the popularity of the private league.”
Starting an extracurricular activity is just like starting a business. You write a plan, advertise the benefits of your activity versus the government’s activity, and then manage the activity.
However, unlike like taxpayer-supported government activities, members of your club would have to pay dues or fees. To reduce the costs, you could find advertisers that would sponsor your club. You could have the “Sony” Student Marching Band or the “Nike” Soccer League.
These private extra-curricular activities would make your school’s “mere presence” rule irrelevant.