The Index Eutαxia Swzein Dokei
Volume LXXVI, No. 1
September 2014
Haverford, Pennsylvania - haverfordindex.com
Haverford Overhauls Drug Policy, Makes Decision Not to Test
Editor-in-Chief Manav Khandelwal ‘15 thoroughly explores the recommendations and rationale of the drug task force. These include an emphasis on education, the decision not to test randomly, and the new ‘Brother’s Keeper’ policy. Manav Khandelwal ‘15
Introduction While students enjoyed their summer vacations at the shore, abroad, or at home, 19 members of the Haverford community met regularly as part of the Safety, Character, and Culture Task Force that was assembled this spring. The task force’s aim was to develop policy recommendations for the Board of Trustees to implement following local police’s discovery of the infamous “Main Line Takeover Project.” This finding led to the arrest of several alumni and one Haverford student. Between May 1 and August 1, the task force, led by Board of Trustees Vice-Chairman Dick Graham ‘52, met dozens of times to conduct research, hold discussions, and speak with people outside our community. It was divided into three subcommittees, each made up of six members. The “Safety and Health Subcommittee,” headed up by Mr. Graham, included Lower School Dean of Students Jay Brown, parents Barbara Klock, Sharon Merhige, and Vince
Rossi, and Assistant Headmaster Mark Thorburn. Upper School Counselor Ms. Janet Heed was later added to this group. Amy Petersen directed the “Character Subcommittee,” which included parents and alumni Bob Clothier ‘79 and Maurice Glavin ‘83, Director of Admissions Henry Fairfax ‘99, Upper School Dean of Students Mark Fifer, and Haverford parent Ken Schwenke. The final subcommittee, the “Culture Subcommittee,” was led by another Jack Lynch. His Haverford parent, team included Liz Anderson, Associate Headmaster Brian McBride ‘82, Assistant Director of Athletics Michael Murphy, Middle School Dean of Students Tracy Nelson, and Mark Turner. The task force devoted over 500 man hours to try and solve the apparent drug problem among Haverford students. “We talked to a lot of people,” said Mr. Graham in a recent interview with The Index. “I talked to 15 headmasters of different schools all across the country, some of whom I knew, to see how they were handling the situation. We did a lot
Random Testing Would Have Achieved Little Ethan DeLehman ‘16
The discussion that has dominated student life at Haverford over the course of the last several months has revolved around the potential implementation of drug testing on students, particularly without warning. To say that this sparked a bit of a response from the student body would be an understatement. Almost immediately, claims of an impending deterioration in trust between students and administrators began to sprout up at an alarming rate. This was then accompanied by accusations that the entire student body was being subjected to an unnecessary measure in order to punish the actions of select individuals. From these claims came countless arguments, two of which appear to hold the most water. Firstly, administering drug tests with the intention of then taking those results and giving outright punishments to those marked positive would be far from
Also inside this Issue...
“Anything that would increase the chance of a boy dying, we had a hard time advocating.” Why Haverford Did Not Implement Random Testing In the May issue of The Index, Headmaster John Nagl was quoted as saying that he felt drug testing would be implemented by the start of this school year. In early August, however, after a prolonged period of silence from members of the task force and Dr. Nagl himself, the school released its new drug policy, one that does not entail any sort of mandatory drug testing program.
Alex Sanfilippo ‘16
After Ninth Headmaster Dr. John Nagl announced the decision to establish a Character, Safety, and Culture task force, and that the primary objective of the task force was to discuss the possible implementation of a random drug testing program, the initial reaction amongst Haverford students, and even a number of faculty members, was resoundingly unanimous, “No.” Few afforded to give the Task Force the necessary thought and reflection regarding such a monumental decision. After all, decisions such as these are not made lightly, and without careful consideration of the prospective benefits for all Haverford School students. While the school still reserves the right to test students for drug use, at the discretion of Mr. Green and other administrators, a wave of relief swept the study body after the decision
Harry Bellwoar ‘15 gives his take on senior exams on page 13. bloomberg.com
See page 14 for Eric Petersen ‘15’s analysis on the Ukrainian Civil War.
So, what is behind the apparent aboutface? “I learned. A lot. This was the biggest learning point, not just for me, but for the task force,” Dr. Nagl remarked. “There were a number of people like me who came to the task force convinced that a random drug testing program would keep the boys safe. We looked extensively at this issue, and there is no consensus that drug testing programs have any [positive] effect on the health and safety of boys.” Mr. Dick Graham added, “We found experts on either side of the equation, but it was not the majority that [supported drug testing], and their evidence of why they thought it was the right thing to do did not tackle why it stemmed drug use.” Both men also pointed to the link between
testing for marijuana and a rise in alcohol consumption, the latter of which is more likely to result in death among adolescents. Dr. Nagl put it simply, saying, “Anything that would increase the chances of a boy dying, we had a hard time advocating.” Continued on Page 4
Alex Sanfilippo ‘16 argues that, if random drug testing had been implemented, there would actually be fewer harsh punishments handed out to students who violated the School’s drug policy.
the best approach of tackling the issue. Secondly, the key to forming a Haverford community that acts in unison to assure that no student struggles with addiction is strengthening trust among students and faculty, not taking measures to weaken it. In an interview regarding the decision whether or not to implement drug testing, Headmaster John Nagl was quoted saying the following in regards to measures that could assist in getting students help, “We talked a lot about the mythical Boy Code; it’s the boys against the adults, and we want to inculcate the idea that ‘I am my brother’s keeper.’ It is not snitching to let an adult know that your friend is having a problem with weekend binge-drinking, that is getting him help.” At the core of both of the aforementioned arguments is a sense of safety in getting students struggling with substance abuse the help that they need. Continued on Page 12
of reading, a lot of internet searches.” After three months of deliberation, the task force recommended that the school not impose a policy of random, mandatory drug testing for marijuana. Instead, the focus of the new policy shifts towards proactive education and stricter disciplinary measures while retaining the right to drug test on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.” The school will also implement the “Brother’s Keeper” policy, which will provide amnesty to all students whose friends or family seek help before the student is caught using by the school. For more detail, read the following sections that cover each major aspect of this new policy.
Why Random Drug Testing Might Have Worked
An infrastructure for dealing with substance abuse based on trust and cooperation between students and the School is preferable to random testing, says Ethan DeLehman ‘16.
submit to the Index: index@haverford.org
was announced to postpone the possibility of mandatory, random drug screening. In general, a significant portion of the student body would not have been directly affected by this policy, and instead seemed to view it as a controlling exercise of power restricting the liberties we often afford ourselves as adolescents. In addition, the lack of student input regarding this decision failed to placate anyone’s frustrations. Despite widespread unpopularity, the implementation of a mandatory drug testing policy does have its merits– Dr. Nagl even confessed that he began the 500-plus hours spent in meetings with fellow task force members fully expecting mandatory drug testing to be the outcome. The primary goal of any drug testing policy is to both prevent and deter the use of marijuana and other illicit substances. Continued On Page 12
Also, see page 7 for Sixth Former Ian Riley’s monthly Film Review Column.
Article Letter fron the Editors Lab Cooperative Feature Director of Robotics Meet The New Teachers Mr. Cloran’s Final Year Fords Focus PA Governor’s Race Police Militarization Outdex
Page 2 3 5 5-7 8 11 12 14 16