St. Ignatius High School Administration:
Earlier this week, alumni received an email detailing the new random drug testing policy that is set to go into effect this coming fall. This raised widespread concern, which has been expressed extensively, both publicly and privately. This outburst of animosity suggested to us that a more formal expression of alumni sentiment was necessary. We wrote this petition and posted it on several social networks with the intent of collecting signature to append to it. The dissent is overwhelming, and the list of alumni that have signed on is indicative of that. On behalf of the alumni of St. Ignatius, we formally request that this policy be immediately rescinded for the following reasons.
First, wellness policies such as drug testing are based on assumptions that run contrary to the mission of St. Ignatius: instead of giving students the knowledge and tools to form their character through decisions that they make, the drug testing policy seeks compliance through surveillance. Despite purporting to be non-punitive, the policy necessarily seeks to correct behavior through constant surveillance. The only argument for the effectiveness of this policy is that notifying parents of the test results will shape students’ behavior. The only reason that this might shape students’ behavior is because those students are assured punishment - this must be the case, as if counseling or education were the intended mechanisms for change, a unit in the required theology or health classes would no doubt suffice. Therefore, the policy only serves to displace the assurance of punitive measures - St. Ignatius may not directly impose the punishment, but if there is any hope for this policy to achieve its goals, there must be an implied threat of absolute punishment. This deceptive “don’t shoot the messenger” positioning is reprehensible in and of itself, to say nothing of the fact that it deprives the student of the ability to make the correct decision by ensuring punishment, putting the critical thinking solely in the hands of authority figures, which forms a power relationship directly contrary to the stated mission of St. Ignatius: to produce men capable of working for good of their own volition.
In addition to the detrimental effects that the policy will have on the mission of St. Ignatius, it will no doubt be very expensive. In fact, most of the outpouring of disagreement is centered around the fact that drug testing is an irresponsible allocation of funds. Given the current estimates of the cost of this policy, 60 or more students could receive scholarships to St. Ignatius were the funds redirected to them. To spend this money on a policy that is at most questionably beneficial to (and, at worst, directly retards) the mission of St. Ignatius is an affront to those of us that hold the values of our alma mater dear.
As alumni, we make donations to ensure that every qualified student in the Cleveland area has the opportunity to be formed into Ignatius men. Seeing the administration implement a policy that threatens the model of an Ignatius man is extremely concerning. Therefore, let this be our formal request that the current St. Ignatius administration rescind this new drug testing policy.Updates
May 4, 2014
The administration has acknowledged the volume of signatures and requested a formal meeting to discuss the policy. We have drafted a list of counter-proposals that prioritize student support over surveillance. Expect an update regarding the outcome of these discussions once the meeting concludes.
25 Comments
This money would be better spent aiding deserving students struggling to pay the high tuition.
Sorry, part of my post copied over incorrectly. The last paragraph should read "Lastly, and probably most importantly, the cost argument is secondary to the way it goes against the fundamental philosophy of St. Ignatius. This would still be a bad policy if it cost the school nothing."
The assumptions that went into the 60 figure were as follows: 1500 students 4 tests per year $50 per test 10k tuition 50% tuition scholarships (average student receives $6,100) Sure the exact number might be slightly higher or lower, but these are reasonable assumptions.
Jonathon, 1) This is from the FAQs included with the letter to parents: "Will every student be tested? Initially, samples will be taken and analyzed for every student. After the initial sampling, random testing will be conducted throughout the academic year." 2) So now you want to argue they aren't spending enough??? 3) The question is: how much is it worth spending to help young people stay drug-free? 4). That's because there are no other costs. The per-pupil fee is inclusive and includes the cost of collection of samples and distribution of results. 5). That's your opinion. I think differently.
Joe - you should read the petition. I think it outlines a compelling argument that the policy IS punitive, it just functions by shifting the actor of the punishment to the parents of the student. This MUST be the case, as if the only mechanism of the policy were education and resources, a unit in the required health and theology classes would no doubt suffice. This is completely contrary to the mission of St. Ignatius: to give men the tools and knowledge to allow them to make good decisions by themselves. Nobody's said that Ignatius isn't ALLOWED to do this, just that they shouldn't. "If you don't like it, then leave" is essentially orthogonal to the welcoming and educational mission of Ignatius.
Jonathan, I encourage you to read my longer reply under another comment in this thread. But I will address your point. You say that "forcing compliance through constant surveillance does not form individuals who behave correctly. It forms individuals who behave correctly under surveillance. Instead of forming students with the ability and will to choose a life without drugs, this policy merely forces them to be a certain way until graduation." I think there are two problems underlying that argument. One, it assumes that the ONLY approach the school is taking to form students will be testing. This doesn't replace all the things the school does to educate students about drug abuse. All of those measures remain in place. Two, it ignores the way young men are formed. They don't come into Ignatius as adults, they come in as children that are closer to middle school than college. Especially in those early years, where young people are so susceptible to peer pressure and groupthink, fear of "getting caught" may be the extra impetus necessary to encouraging students to make healthy choices. Over the next four years they grow (physically, intellectually, emotionally), so that they are prepared to face those pressures when they hit college. And, if those years are drug-free, studies show they'll be more likely to avoid addiction in the future. By way of example, what about a teacher that requires his students to submit all papers to Turnitin.com? Naturally, that encourages his students not to plagiarize out of the certain fear of getting caught. But kids make mistakes, and that teacher uses those episodes to illustrate how to properly quote and attribute sources, how to paraphrase information, and he continually stresses why plagiarism is wrong and why attribution is important. The year ends and those students have developed the scholarly habits needed for success whether a teacher uses Turnitin.com or not. Turnitin.com, arguably, is
1) I'm pretty sure you're not reading anything is writing, especially because you couldn't even spell my name correctly. Re-read what I said. I pointed out how ambiguous that exact portion of the letter is. 2) You're missing the point. The lower you argue that the cost is, the less effective the policy will be. 3) That is not, and has not been any part of the discussion. There are clearly cost trade-offs to the policy, but even these are secondary to the fundamental, philosophical flaws with the program which you continue to ignore (see 5). 4) It will take a time out of teachers' and students' days. St. Ignatius definitely pays teachers and the students' time is definitely worth something as well. This isn't even accounting for the decrease in donations the school gets as a result of this policy. 5) Ignoring the most important part of the debate doesn't make you right. The fact remains that this policy changes the way that St. Ignatius forms young men. Forcing compliance through constant surveillance does not form individuals who behave correctly. It forms individuals who behave correctly under surveillance. Instead of forming students with the ability and will to choose a life without drugs, this policy merely forces them to be a certain way until graduation. That is no way to form young men, and certainly not the way for St. Ignatius High School. Until you address this point, there is absolutely no reason to discuss further.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Copy link or share directly
St. Ignatius High School Administration:
Earlier this week, alumni received an email detailing the new random drug testing policy that is set to go into effect this coming fall. This raised widespread concern, which has been expressed extensively, both publicly and privately. This outburst of animosity suggested to us that a more formal expression of alumni sentiment was necessary. We wrote this petition and posted it on several social networks with the intent of collecting signature to append to it. The dissent is overwhelming, and the list of alumni that have signed on is indicative of that. On behalf of the alumni of St. Ignatius, we formally request that this policy be immediately rescinded for the following reasons.
First, wellness policies such as drug testing are based on assumptions that run contrary to the mission of St. Ignatius: instead of giving students the knowledge and tools to form their character through decisions that they make, the drug testing policy seeks compliance through surveillance. Despite purporting to be non-punitive, the policy necessarily seeks to correct behavior through constant surveillance. The only argument for the effectiveness of this policy is that notifying parents of the test results will shape students’ behavior. The only reason that this might shape students’ behavior is because those students are assured punishment - this must be the case, as if counseling or education were the intended mechanisms for change, a unit in the required theology or health classes would no doubt suffice. Therefore, the policy only serves to displace the assurance of punitive measures - St. Ignatius may not directly impose the punishment, but if there is any hope for this policy to achieve its goals, there must be an implied threat of absolute punishment. This deceptive “don’t shoot the messenger” positioning is reprehensible in and of itself, to say nothing of the fact that it deprives the student of the ability to make the correct decision by ensuring punishment, putting the critical thinking solely in the hands of authority figures, which forms a power relationship directly contrary to the stated mission of St. Ignatius: to produce men capable of working for good of their own volition.
In addition to the detrimental effects that the policy will have on the mission of St. Ignatius, it will no doubt be very expensive. In fact, most of the outpouring of disagreement is centered around the fact that drug testing is an irresponsible allocation of funds. Given the current estimates of the cost of this policy, 60 or more students could receive scholarships to St. Ignatius were the funds redirected to them. To spend this money on a policy that is at most questionably beneficial to (and, at worst, directly retards) the mission of St. Ignatius is an affront to those of us that hold the values of our alma mater dear.
As alumni, we make donations to ensure that every qualified student in the Cleveland area has the opportunity to be formed into Ignatius men. Seeing the administration implement a policy that threatens the model of an Ignatius man is extremely concerning. Therefore, let this be our formal request that the current St. Ignatius administration rescind this new drug testing policy.Updates
May 4, 2014
The administration has acknowledged the volume of signatures and requested a formal meeting to discuss the policy. We have drafted a list of counter-proposals that prioritize student support over surveillance. Expect an update regarding the outcome of these discussions once the meeting concludes.
25 Comments
Inconsistent with the goals of a school like the St. Ignatius I attended. Spend time and money supporting students in pursuit of personal growth - spiritual, academic, emotional, psychological and physical.
This money would be better spent aiding deserving students struggling to pay the high tuition.
Sorry, part of my post copied over incorrectly. The last paragraph should read "Lastly, and probably most importantly, the cost argument is secondary to the way it goes against the fundamental philosophy of St. Ignatius. This would still be a bad policy if it cost the school nothing."
The assumptions that went into the 60 figure were as follows: 1500 students 4 tests per year $50 per test 10k tuition 50% tuition scholarships (average student receives $6,100) Sure the exact number might be slightly higher or lower, but these are reasonable assumptions.
Jonathon, 1) This is from the FAQs included with the letter to parents: "Will every student be tested? Initially, samples will be taken and analyzed for every student. After the initial sampling, random testing will be conducted throughout the academic year." 2) So now you want to argue they aren't spending enough??? 3) The question is: how much is it worth spending to help young people stay drug-free? 4). That's because there are no other costs. The per-pupil fee is inclusive and includes the cost of collection of samples and distribution of results. 5). That's your opinion. I think differently.
Joe - you should read the petition. I think it outlines a compelling argument that the policy IS punitive, it just functions by shifting the actor of the punishment to the parents of the student. This MUST be the case, as if the only mechanism of the policy were education and resources, a unit in the required health and theology classes would no doubt suffice. This is completely contrary to the mission of St. Ignatius: to give men the tools and knowledge to allow them to make good decisions by themselves. Nobody's said that Ignatius isn't ALLOWED to do this, just that they shouldn't. "If you don't like it, then leave" is essentially orthogonal to the welcoming and educational mission of Ignatius.
Jonathan, I encourage you to read my longer reply under another comment in this thread. But I will address your point. You say that "forcing compliance through constant surveillance does not form individuals who behave correctly. It forms individuals who behave correctly under surveillance. Instead of forming students with the ability and will to choose a life without drugs, this policy merely forces them to be a certain way until graduation." I think there are two problems underlying that argument. One, it assumes that the ONLY approach the school is taking to form students will be testing. This doesn't replace all the things the school does to educate students about drug abuse. All of those measures remain in place. Two, it ignores the way young men are formed. They don't come into Ignatius as adults, they come in as children that are closer to middle school than college. Especially in those early years, where young people are so susceptible to peer pressure and groupthink, fear of "getting caught" may be the extra impetus necessary to encouraging students to make healthy choices. Over the next four years they grow (physically, intellectually, emotionally), so that they are prepared to face those pressures when they hit college. And, if those years are drug-free, studies show they'll be more likely to avoid addiction in the future. By way of example, what about a teacher that requires his students to submit all papers to Turnitin.com? Naturally, that encourages his students not to plagiarize out of the certain fear of getting caught. But kids make mistakes, and that teacher uses those episodes to illustrate how to properly quote and attribute sources, how to paraphrase information, and he continually stresses why plagiarism is wrong and why attribution is important. The year ends and those students have developed the scholarly habits needed for success whether a teacher uses Turnitin.com or not. Turnitin.com, arguably, is
1) I'm pretty sure you're not reading anything is writing, especially because you couldn't even spell my name correctly. Re-read what I said. I pointed out how ambiguous that exact portion of the letter is. 2) You're missing the point. The lower you argue that the cost is, the less effective the policy will be. 3) That is not, and has not been any part of the discussion. There are clearly cost trade-offs to the policy, but even these are secondary to the fundamental, philosophical flaws with the program which you continue to ignore (see 5). 4) It will take a time out of teachers' and students' days. St. Ignatius definitely pays teachers and the students' time is definitely worth something as well. This isn't even accounting for the decrease in donations the school gets as a result of this policy. 5) Ignoring the most important part of the debate doesn't make you right. The fact remains that this policy changes the way that St. Ignatius forms young men. Forcing compliance through constant surveillance does not form individuals who behave correctly. It forms individuals who behave correctly under surveillance. Instead of forming students with the ability and will to choose a life without drugs, this policy merely forces them to be a certain way until graduation. That is no way to form young men, and certainly not the way for St. Ignatius High School. Until you address this point, there is absolutely no reason to discuss further.
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 100 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
Inconsistent with the goals of a school like the St. Ignatius I attended. Spend time and money supporting students in pursuit of personal growth - spiritual, academic, emotional, psychological and physical.