Editorial
‘Egg war’ incident raises larger issues Egg-throwing tradition of juniors and seniors reveal vague and poorly communicated policies and practices on student discipline
T
he real question left behind from the Oct. 27 “egg war” between Palo Alto High School juniors and seniors isn’t the egg battle itself as much as what the school’s response reveals about the lack of clear disciplinary and communication policies.
We find it easy to agree that any student found to have damaged property at Gunn High School should be punished. We have no sympathy for any student or parent that minimizes the damage or poor judgment that occurred that night. But the Palo Alto High School administration’s handling of the episode has raised a host of questions that must be addressed, including serious legal issues relating to when school officials should (or have the right to) intervene in students’ lives outside of school and how administrative “investigations” should be conducted, monitored and reported. While both school and district officials clearly wish the entire matter would quietly fade into a historical footnote, the allegations, denials and open questions deserve an official response from Superintendent Kevin Skelly, as well as a policylevel review, at least, by the Board of Education. It is clear that just about everyone wishes they could rewind to the day before the egg wars. Students involved, including some student body officers, have expressed dismay at the decision to relocate to the Gunn High School campus after they were intercepted by police at the Stanford University eucalyptus grove that has been the site of prior egg wars. Apologies and reparations have been made. Paly Principal Jacquie McEvoy found out about the impending traditional egg battle and alerted Stanford police in advance. But she inexplicably chose not to use the school’s e-mail system to send a notice warning parents of juniors and seniors that the tradition was unsafe, that Stanford had complained about it the year before and that she intended to discipline any students were caught participating. Since many parents knew nothing about the tradition, proactive school communication to parents could have enlisted parent help in trying to head off the event. McEvoy has been the subject of sharp criticism by some students, faculty and parents for her strict disciplinary measures since she came to Paly 2 ½ years ago and for what some perceive as a lack of respect for the views of the high school’s diverse stakeholder groups and a lack of communication explaining her philosophy. That has made reaction to this latest incident all the more intense, and makes it essential that McEvoy and Skelly respond carefully and clearly to the questions being raised. These include just what authority the school has over offcampus behavior of its students, what due process rights students and parents have when school officials are conducting an investigation into student behavior, and what the grievance procedure is for parents and students who believe they were improperly treated by school officials. It is good that Skelly has acknowledged his responsibility to step in and conduct his own inquiry into the way this matter was handled, and that he and McEvoy are meeting personally with parents who have complained about the handling of the investigation. The fact that we are at a point where there is so much emotion and anger is a reflection of a poor history of communication and a shocking lack of clarity and documentation of school policy. Skelly has no precise answers yet to some of the legal questions raised in this matter, and is focusing on stabilizing and healing the immediate outrage some parents are expressing. His challenge is to try to sort out rumors from reality, separate exaggerations from what actually occurred and then decide what needs to be done relating both to how this specific incident was handled and about the longer-term relationships between Paly’s leadership and students, parents and faculty. But it is clear that the legacy of this and prior incidents needs clarification and cleaning up, with strong leadership from the district administration and Board of Education. Skelly is precisely correct that the egg-wars and aftermath need to be kept in perspective, but it needs to be a broad perspective that promotes real change, true healing and, most importantly, accountability. Page 16ÊUÊ Ûi LiÀÊÓÇ]ÊÓää ÊUÊ*> Ê Ì Ê7ii Þ
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Free The Children Editor, As we head toward the holidays, many of us are looking for meaningful ways to embrace the season of giving. Earlier this month, the international youth organization “Free The Children” honored the achievements of passionate young Californians who are committed to improving their local and global communities at the “Invitation to Action: 10 by 10 Challenge” event. The celebration was hosted by Free The Children and Marc Kielburger, who co-founded the organization with his brother Craig Kielburger in 1995 when they were 17 and 12 years old. The event at the Oshman Family JCC brought together local speakers and entertainers, including DV8, a hip-hop dance group from Stanford; and youth activists from local schools such as Gunn High School, who challenged Bay Area residents to take a year-long commitment for social change through Free The Children. “Changing the world starts with just one person and it only takes 10 commitments,” Kielburger said. “Together we can change the world in 2010.” Free The Children, the world’s largest network of children helping children through education, opened its first U.S. office last year in Palo Alto. Since then thousands of young people in California have become involved. “Invitation to Action” inspired Bay Area residents to become a part of local and global change through Free The Children’s “10 by 10” challenge. As part of this commitment, Free The Children will work with supporters to fully develop 10 communities in the developing world and volunteer 1 million hours of personal time by the end of 2010. Everyone can get involved at www.freethechildren. com/10by10. There are many ways youth, families, educators, and community members can get involved in achieving real change globally and locally. For more information e-mail California@freethechildren.com. Shana Kirsch Free The Children Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto
Climate-change questions Editor, I don’t question that something is going on. I question whether humankind is to “blame” and whether humankind can do anything about it, whatever it is. First, I don’t think we really know what it is. That seems like a good place to start. There are many cycles that can be substantiated through the millennia. Is this just a cycle of some sort that is just plain vanilla, to be expected? Or should we spend quadrillions to try
to stop it? I have doubts that we can change sun-spot cycles, for one thing, if that is what it is. If we are producing too much carbon dioxide, it seems like planting more trees might be a good place to start. On the other hand, I have trouble figuring out a good way to stop volcanoes from erupting, and I’m not sure they would like it very much if we tried. Bruce N. Baker Kipling Street Palo Alto
High-speed flaws Editor, Your editorial about high-speed rail was too accepting of the current plan, which is quite flawed. Assuming the high-speed rail project is fiscally prudent (a doubtful assumption), it is time to think out of the box and rethink the route. It should meet two (currently ignored) requirements: 1) pass silently and invisibly through all residential neighborhoods and 2) locate stations to maximize ridership. The three airports will attract more riders than downtown locations because the airports already have parking, freeway access, shuttle services and flights worldwide. In Europe and
Japan, downtowns have large transit networks; we don’t. An under-bay tunnel could connect San Francisco airport to Oakland airport, helping offload some airline passengers to Oakland. Caltrain could become a feeder system to high speed rail by rerouting it to pass through San Francisco and San Jose Airports. If it is too expensive to pass through residential neighborhoods silently and invisibly (with tunneling), then they should be avoided. The current route down the Peninsula passes through 53 miles of residential neighborhoods. The route from Oakland Airport to Altamont Pass via I-580 passes through only 17 miles of residential neighborhoods. The Altamont Pass route is best; it provides access to Sacramento and Los Angeles. The Pacheco Pass route is worst; it skips Sacramento, and for Sacramento access, the Altamont Pass route must be built eventually anyway. For more details, see the website HighSpeedRailway.org. I urge everyone to get involved; otherwise, the politicians will force a monstrosity on us. Robert Herriot Byron Street Palo Alto
YOUR TURN The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
What do you think? Did you ever participate in or hear about Palo Alto High School’s “egg wars” in past years? Submit letters to the editor of up to 250 words to letters@paweekly.com. Include your name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contributions for length, objectionable content, libel and factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters will generally not be accepted. You can also participate in our popular interactive online forum, Town Square, at our community website at www.PaloAltoOnline.com. Read blogs, discuss issues, ask questions or express opinions with you neighbors any time, day or night. Submitting a letter to the editor or guest opinion constitutes a granting of permission to the Palo Alto Weekly and Embarcadero Publishing Co. to also publish it online, including in our online archives and as a post on Town Square. For more information contact Editor Jay Thorwaldson or Online Editor Tyler Hanley at editor@paweekly.com or 650-326-8210.