“We did investigations,” Principal Marc Gousse told a local TV station. “We did fact-finding. And as a result of that, we have some students who won’t be participating in various activities.” He referred obliquely to some students making “poor choices” and defended the school’s reputation, but said little else.

In the local community, opinion was divided between parents who thought the code was too harsh and administrators who felt the code wasn’t tough enough. “It’s a big jump,” Superintendent Stan Sawyer told the station, referring to the two-week suspension given for a first offense and the one-year suspension given for a second. “We’re not sure the intent of the policy as it exists is really driving home the fact with the students. So we are looking at making that more stringent.”

It’s a difficult balancing act, and as athletes, parents, coaches, and administrators around the country debate the pros and cons, many districts are adopting stricter rules and stiffer penalties, crafting codes that set higher standards than those mandated by their state associations. In a newly proposed set of rules at Weymouth (Mass.) High School, athletes caught possessing any amount of alcohol or tobacco will be ineligible for 25 percent of their season for a first offense and 60 percent of their season for a second offense. By design, that’s considerably tougher than the requirements of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA), which disqualifies first-time offenders for either two weeks or two consecutive games.

“We are well above the MIAA requirement,” says Weymouth High freshman dean Michael Barrett, presenting the proposals to the school committee. “The suspension from athletic activities will extend into the following sports season if the violation occurred at the end of the season [and] if a student is injured they cannot get out of serving the suspension.”

Weymouth has also proposed a separate penalty for using marijuana, steroids, and controlled substances, barring athletes for 50 percent of their season for a first offense and an entire year for a second offense. Non-athletes who participate in other extracurricular activities will face similar penalties for breaking the rules, and all decisions about enforcing the policy will be made by a 10-person committee of teachers and administrators.

“We spent considerable time reviewing the school’s chemical health policy [and] we did not want one person to make the decision and be the bad guy,” says Barrett.

In the Minneapolis City Conference (MCC), administrators are also enforcing higher standards than those of the state association. Although the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) allows student-athletes with a D average to compete interscholastically, the MCC has drawn its own line at a 2.0 grade point average, leading coaches and school administrators to question the policy’s fairness.

“If the 2.0 standard is so great, why doesn’t the rest of the state adopt it?” asks Jim Dotseth, a former three-sport coach who has become one of the policy’s most outspoken critics. “I always found it upsetting when we have graduation on the football field and kids who weren’t even allowed to play on that field were walking across the stage to grab their diploma.”

Dotseth believes the state’s standard encourages more students to stay in school until they graduate, and at Minneapolis Roosevelt High School, Athletic Director Al Frost, Jr., agrees.

“If a kid is making progress towards graduation every quarter, he should be eligible,” says Frost. “Toss out the 2.0. We can graduate kids with less than a 2.0, so why should we make it harder on athletes?”

For more information on the complexities surrounding codes of conduct, see “Unlocking the Code” in Athletic Management Feb/Mar 2007.

Kenny Berkowitz is an Assistant Editor at Athletic Management.