By Byrne Fahey and Pia Chakravarty
In October, the Princeton High School administration cancelled the school’s annual Homecoming dance. In January, seven PHS students were suspended for alcohol use prior to and at cotillion. On May 24, students attending prom will use a breathalyzer on their way in the door.
The PRS Board of Education passed policy 5535 on April 24, which authorizes the use of a passive breath alcohol device, more commonly known as a breathalyzer, at prom and other school events. As per this policy, the administration has the flexibility to breathalyze all students, random students, or students suspected of alcohol use at any point during a school-sanctioned event.
For students that test positive for alcohol, the school will follow normal procedures, sending them to a physician for further medical examination and notifying their parents.
The objectives of the new policy are manifold.
Judy Wilson, superintendent, said, “The goals are simple: safe and secure environment for all students, fair and effective screening, a better time for everyone at what should be a beautiful event for all students and, I might add, a pleasant event for all chaperones.”
At prom, the board has decided that all students will be screened. However, at other events the procedure may vary.
As a board member, Wilson supported the policy. She explained: “We want to continue to sponsor wonderful social events for all pupils [but] the reality is that some students see social events as times to push their boundaries and fall short on good decision making. They need to be healthy and safe; everyone else should be able to enjoy themselves.”
Students, for the most part, are outraged.
”I was slightly appalled,” said Jacques Bazile, a senior, of his reaction to news of the policy. “I can understand where the administration is coming from with this policy due to past history. But I think that they’re taking it a bit too far. There’s a large portion of the student body that doesn’t partake in drinking or substance abuse.”
Logically, the breathalyzers shouldn’t affect these students, but as Bazile said, “It’s more of an image thing. [Administrators] feel that the student body is getting more out of control.”
”I feel like it says that they have no trust in us,” said Daisy Wu, vice president of the Student Council.
Many students believe the board was influenced by the alcohol intoxication and consequent suspension of several students at cotillion this past January. “Because of that group of people, they’re taking it out on the whole student body,” said Bazile.
The policy, along with the cancellation of the annual Homecoming dance earlier this year, has lead to increased tensions between the student body and the administration.
”In the past year or two maybe, the school board has been creating some increasingly heavy handed policies that are slightly out of line,” said Kevin Petrovic, a senior.
Additionally, students denounce the policy because it does not necessarily prevent all dangerous behavior. “I think even with the breathalyzer test that there will be some kids that will still pregame, they’ll turn to marijuana,” said Lianyi Wang, a senior.
The breathalyzers will prevent drinking before prom, but as Wu put it, “After prom, that could be a different story.”
”So the same activities are still going to be happening. [The policy] is just keeping it from happening in a supervised setting where they could get help if they needed it,” said Bazile.
Some students are so upset that they are considering not even attending the dance.
”People are planning to boycott prom,” said Wang. Others are brainstorming ways to get around the test.
”So we’re going to get either a rabbi or a priest to do a religious ceremony where we’re allowed to drink and if they try to get us in trouble we’ll sue them,” said Kaltman, jokingly. But for some, examining the legality of the policy is no joke.
”There are actually several people that are looking into the legality of the policy and are researching on precedents as to what has happened in previous cases where legislative bodies and the Supreme Court have dealt with issues of student rights and how schools infringe upon them especially in cases of illicit substances,” said Petrovic. “I’m definitely looking into … If there’s a possible legal justification to have the policy overturned.”
”Students have their rights protected by various government statutes, the Constitution is applicable in this case, and specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, that says that students are entitled to their right of privacy,” explained Petrovic. “Obviously there are exceptions but I don’t believe any of the exceptions apply here, due to the fact that I don’t believe that the method used is reasonable or necessary to identify students who arrive at events intoxicated,” he said.
Wilson, however, disagrees.
She said, “I do not consider this even an imposition let alone a rights issue. The right is to come to a school event, to be able to socialize and experience a fun evening, and not infringe on peers or chaperones … let alone end up suspended or in a hospital.”
Petrovic countered, “I would say that testing all students with a method that is more invasive than is required is unnecessary and illegal.”
Pursuing the legality is not just act of teenage rebellion or a show of anger for certain students.
Petrovic said, “I think a lot of people instinctively will feel something might not be right or might not be legal but even though every citizen has the right to sue … it’s often difficult [so] people tend to drop it … and I think that following up is important.”
He added, “I think it’s good to show people that they have the ability to fight something that is not right.”
Byrne Fahey and Pia Chakravarty are a junior and senior, respectively, at Princeton High School.

