WILLIAMSPORT - A Lycoming County judge heard a multitude of arguments Wednesday, both for and against allowing some presently banned Jersey Shore High School seniors to "walk" at graduation ceremonies Saturday morning.
Judge Dudley N. Anderson said he will probably issue a ruling on the request for an injunction sometime later today, and that decision will be posted on the judiciary's official website.
An assortment of legal questions surround the actions of the students, school administration and school board in the aftermath of an alleged underage drinking party in March at a home in Nippenose Valley.
But the central question appears to be how far school boards can go when it comes to controlling student behavior outside the classroom.
The injunction request filed by local attorney Marc Drier seeks "to prevent the graduation restrictions and other sanctions arising out of a certain off-campus gathering."
That's the fancy language for a legal effort to reverse the Jersey Shore Area School Board's decision to prohibit these students from attending graduation.
Drier, the father of one of the banned seniors, is representing nine families, and the others are being represented by attorney Joel McDermott and co-counsel Patricia Shipman. Solicitor J. David Smith represented the Jersey Shore School District in the matter.
State police raided the party of about 70 young people, but declined to issue citations, and instead "sentenced" the young people to drug and alcohol education programs.
But when that party came to the attention of school officials via an anonymous message about a "Facebook" social website where some apparent admissions were made.
Emery told the students they would not be allowed to attend the prom, leading to a heated meeting with parents and students and a reversal of that decision, followed by a May 27 letter to some students, saying they had violated school policy and couldn't participate in the graduation ceremony.
Among the related events was a school board meeting featuring an hour-long "executive session" in which legal matters were discussed and an official statement concerning the ban was read into the record.
The biggest question for Judge Anderson appeared to be whether the ban extended the school board's authority beyond its legal borders.
He seemed less convinced of the parents' and students' attorneys claims that graduation ceremonies are not "extracurricular activity," but are an officially-recognized essential and sanctioned "capstone" to the educational process.
"It's not mandated they attend," Judge Anderson said. "They can opt out and they can't be required to attend ... It's different from graduation. It's a ceremony and it's not mandated."
If the ceremonies fell into that "official" category, Anderson said, due process of the law under the Pennsylvania School Code would have required a hearing. But Smith argued graduation is just a ceremony and as such is just a privilege - and any privilege can be taken away in an informal process at the behest of the superintendent or school board.
"There is no 'right' to participate in extracurricular activities," Anderson said.
McDermott said his research turned up no situation among any school districts in the state where denial of graduation ceremonies was outside the province of "suspension" or official, code-sanctioned discipline. He said the lack of sufficient proof of the infraction, and the basing of sanctions on Facebook entries amounted to "a gross abuse of discretion."
McDermott also pointed out student-athletes were required to sign an agreement - outside student handbook instructions or school code requirements - saying they will preclude alcoholic activity even outside school events and property as a prerequisite to participating in their extracurricular activity. No such signed statement was required for students approaching graduation ceremonies, he said, nor was it clearly stated along with listed punishments in any of the district's policies.
And as it turned out, Judge Anderson was somewhat skeptical of Smith's side of that argument. The judge revisited the word "discipline" several times in an animated exchange with the attorneys about the legal basis for their claims.
Superintendent Emery clouded the issue somewhat as the only witness to take the stand yesterday.
Emery, lead administrator for the school district for seven years, said the decision to suspend the students from extracurricular activities for 60 days wasn't clearly discussed, but he assumed the class trip - scheduled for this evening - and graduation were both "part of the package."
But in explaining his interpretation of the words "use, consumption and possession," as outlined by policy, Emery said he believe "possession" could be interpreted to mean a student in close proximity to alcoholic beverages, no matter how long he or she stayed at a party, or even if the student showed up and immediately turned around and left the scene.
"If you're in proximity, it's yours," Emery said.
When Smith argued that particular point and combined it with a broad interpretation of the district's rights to remove privileges, it sparked some incredulity from Judge Anderson.
"Following that logic, 'discipline' could be imposed if I took a young person to a Phillies game, where they are known to frequently hawk beer, if the teen was wearing a Jersey Shore jersey," Anderson interjected.
Discipline implied an official act, Anderson said, and while the district stands in place of parents during the educational process, nothing about the party appeared to relate directly to that process. A broad expansion beyond education could have the district dictating how students talk, drive, or act well beyond the boards and schedules of schools, he said.
Drier repeated the arguments listed in his legal filing, saying the party was outside the "reach of school board concern for conduct of these students."
He said he will argue before the judge that "participation in the graduation ceremony is not even an 'extracurricular activity,' as it is not an elective activity but is planned for all students who qualify whether they request participation or not. Furthermore, the handbook section on graduation ceremony clearly states the requirements, none of which involve judgment of the student's out-of-school conduct."
Furthermore, he said, using anonymously received Facebook entries amounted to "uncorroborated hearsay and not proof.
The hearing adjourned after an hour and a half of give-and-take and back-and-forth, and the arguments continuing even after the judge concluded the session, as the legal parties took advantage of the informal atmosphere to restate their cases and offer new views.
The judge appeared bemused by the continuing dialogue, then said the attorneys might have raised some of those thoughts while court was still in session, so he could actually consider it as part of the record.
