On April 12 parents and students jammed the headquarters of School District 225 to protest a decision to suspend 24 members of the Glenbrook South High School lacrosse team after a party at which senior team members used wooden paddles to warm the buttocks of new members. A few also consumed alcohol at the event which took place in one student’s home while his parents were away.

Not one family wanted to press charges when the incident came to light, and Glenview’s police department reported "no indication of serious injury." Still the district, which endured international humiliation after last year’s hazing ritual in Northbrook, felt compelled to act. School rules prohibit hazing, so GBS Principal Dave Smith got the accused students out of class and had them interrogated without lawyers or parents present. He then suspended the students and cancelled their lacrosse season. Superintendent Dave Hales is now recommending that the 11 students who allegedly did the paddling be expelled for the rest of the school year.

About 70 parents sat patiently in the board room as members took care of routine business. Outside, a line of people unable to see or hear anything was growing. Watch Editor Sandy Hausman tried to alert Board President Carol Rogal to the problem. "There are about 50 people standing outside," she said. Rogal pounded her gavel and ignored the complaint.

Board member Tom Shaer, who was seated in front of Hausman, turned and said, "Just wait a minute, Sandy." Assuming Shaer would carry the ball on this matter, Hausman said nothing more, but the board continued to discuss routine business – awarding plaques to members of the high school yearbook staff and chatting with the students. When the board finally appeared ready to discuss the fate of the lacrosse team, Hausman tried again.

"Excuse me," Rogal interrupted, pounding her gavel. "I’m sorry, Miss Hausman. The people that are here are here, and we’re very grateful for them, and we will hope that after they’re done speaking, perhaps they will allow other people to come in and speak. This is the size of the room we have, and this is what we normally are at [SIC], so thank you."

Hausman asked why chairs could not be brought into an area between the audience and the board. "At this point, I’m running a meeting," Rogal replied. "I would like to get through it so I could hear all the people who have the things that they want said, so I would appreciate it if you would let this go on. Thank you!"

"People should be able to come in," said a member of the audience.

"And they’re welcome to come in," said Rogal. "I’m not stopping anybody." The audience erupted with comment and applause as more parents came in from the hall. Many sat on the floor or stood behind board members.

When the dust settled, there were at least 150 people in the room, and many were not pleased that the board had kept them waiting outside, ignoring their right to be part of the proceedings. Sensing the anger, Board Member Tom Shaer called out. "Point of information, Madame President."

Rogal banged her gavel and asked the parents to be quiet.

"There’s an obvious implication here that the board is not interested or not willing to reasonably make efforts to hear people and to let everybody participate by hearing what’s said," Shaer began. "That is nonsense. I respectfully request that you not make that type of mistake. I don’t think any of us expected this number of people here tonight."

The crowd moaned, and Shaer continued his lecture.

"If you’d let me finish please. We do the best we can. I can assure you that we are interested in what you have to say. . .but if somebody. . .set a tone of adversarial relationships and antagonism, it’s not going to help anybody, and if that tone is set by this board, you have a right to be irritated and to express that. That tone hasn’t been set. I wish I could say that that tone is not being set now, but I’m sensing it. So let’s just slow down, take a deep breath, afford everyone in this room the right to follow the process, and that’s it. Nobody’s out to set any sort of an uncooperative tone here. So this was an honest situation that occurred. Already I’m sensing some vibes that somebody’s trying to really not give everybody a fair shake. That hasn’t been the case with this board. It is not the case now. It will not be the case in the future. All we are doing at this point is following the process according to the rules. Thank you."

Editor’s note: A professional radio sportscaster, Shaer clearly enjoys the sound of his own voice, but somebody needs to call this guy out.

Before parents were allowed to have their say, Superintendent Hales informed them that the board would hold a closed-door meeting at 1:30 p.m. Sunday, April 18 to decide whether to suspend 11 students. Hales said students who had been paddled during the party were given a chance to reduce their suspension by five days if they agreed to undergo counseling and keep their mouths shut about the incident. All had accepted the deal and returned to school Monday.

Hales said a district-appointed hearing officer would talk with each of the boys recommended for expulsion during the week. The findings of the hearing officer would then be presented to the school board before Sunday’s vote. Each case, he said, would be considered on its own merits.

Families would be informed of the vote "as soon as possible after that meeting."

Hales said he had received a large number of letters, e-mails and faxes from students, parents and people who were not directly involved. He promised to share the correspondence with the board.

"I want to remind the public that this is a working board meeting," said Rogal. "It is the policy of the board not to respond to comments from the public made at our meeting. It’s important that you limit your comments to three minutes so we can hear from as many people as possible. I’m gonna’ have to be very strict on this time limit," she added. Showing the crowd a large egg timer on her desk, Rogal warned that the board usually allows just 30 minutes for all public comment.

Bill Smigiel, the father of two boys involved in the party, made a polite appeal to the board, assuring members that no parent supports hazing. He argued that strict new rules put in place after the Northbrook hazing had "created a train wreck waiting to happen. The first kids [to break the rules] were gonna’ get it." Smigiel said students had apparently missed the message District 225 hoped to send about hazing and wondered if perhaps something was wrong with the message. "Your definitions might be clear to you, but societal practice is not."

Smigiel explained that his older son had given his younger brother a tap on the fanny. "He did not drink. He did not paddle anyone, and it happened to be his brother’s birthday. This is a standing tradition in our house and in many others. This is his only offense, and for this he faces expulsion. Is this hazing, or is this a family matter? Do you really believe that this is a matter for the school board?"

The younger brother had given a sworn statement that he was not "hazed," raising the question of how well District 225 had defined the term. "I can’t understand how the board feels it has a right to say he was hazed when he says he wasn’t." Smigiel said.

"This isn’t what happened last year," he continued. "There is no tape to continually embarrass the town. All of this year’s kids expressed remorse."

By now, the distraught Dad had exhausted his three minutes.

"Mr. Smigiel," said Rogal – mispronouncing the man’s name. "Could you cut it?"

Smigiel pressed ahead. "I don’t believe the community is behind you on this one. The zero tolerance policy is just too tough for a pretty vague area. Some of your best and brightest simply made some mistakes in judgment. No one was hurt. Give them some space."

A shrill alarm on someone’s watch sounded, again signaling that Smigiel’s time was up.

"Okay," said Rogal, dismissing the speaker. "Thank you very much. Thank you, Bill, really. There’s a lot of people who want to speak."

Tom Shaer then climbed back onto his soap box.

"The gentleman mentioned we don’t have community support. . .This country is not descended from fearful men, people who did not want to speak or advocate causes that were for the moment unpopular. . .You can’t play to that, and we won’t do it. If, by some chance, there is a vote for expulsion or against expulsion, it will not occur because we are trying to do. . .anything other than what we think is right. . .We wouldn’t vote against [expulsion] because we’re bowing to pressure from this great number of people in this room."

"We’re not supposed to be responding," said board member Karen Long. "We only have 30 minutes."

Parent Sylvia Studt wondered who had decided to call a press conference about this alleged hazing. "As a result of that, the media immediately began showing tape of the Glenbrook North incident, and viewers were led to believe that another hazing incident took place in the district. They ran the disgusting scenes over and over again, leading people to believe that this was a similar, nightmarish act. As a result, residents and students are angry. We know this party was not anything extraordinary, but that coverage only worsened our reputation in the public’s eye. I think we are owed an apology, and the person who called the media should be reprimanded."

Editor’s note: After the hearing, board member Tom Shaer, who provided advice on media relations during the Northbrook hazing crisis last year, followed Studt into the lobby to argue with her. Observers described him as "aggressive" and "intimidating." While Shaer may know sports, he’s got a lot to learn about leadership. The appropriate thing for any public official to say to any citizen who takes the time to come out for a public hearing is, "Thank you for coming."

Studt urged parents to tell the board that "what happens off school grounds is our own business. Parents and police are fully capable of handling infractions that do not take place on campus."

The crowd broke into lusty applause. President Rogal warned that showing support in that way would only detract from the time available for public comment. The crowd moaned and laughed. "Well, it’s true," she replied.

Parent Nancy Morgan said she didn’t know anyone who thought a school board should be policing activities off campus. "You’re in our living rooms, you’re in our bedrooms, you’re in our basements, and I think that is inappropriate."

Susan Drucker said she used to have great faith in Glenview’s public schools and would turn to them for help if her child had a problem. Now, she said, the board had made such strict rules that she was "afraid to come to you. You’re changing the way I teach my son. Instead of saying, ‘Don’t drink,’ I think I’m going to have to start saying, ‘Don’t get caught.’ I have never been scared like I am today."

Several parents disputed the superintendent’s claim that the boys were repeatedly warned against taking part in a traditional initiation ceremony. "They were never told by their coach or teachers not to do it," said Bob Wise. "They signed an athletic code of conduct which makes no mention of it whatsoever. They signed a statement at the beginning of the school year stating they received and understood the new rules governing hazing, but they were never given any lessons to teach them what it meant. You have the police determining that there was no crime, and you have no one who was forced to participate. Calling it hazing is questionable, especially since it was never clearly defined by the school."

To underscore that point, many students have been wearing tee-shirts that provide the definitions of "initiation," and "hazing."

William "Jeff" Jeffery, a parent and former GBS athlete, suggested the board visit a website called "stophazing.org." There they would find many tips on what to do about hazing. "The school has done none of them," he noted. While students at Glenbrook North had received extensive instruction on the subject of what constitutes hazing, how and why people should resist, he said Glenbrook South students had not. Even the lacrosse coach had been mum on the subject.

He questioned the superintendent’s claim that he was not aware of annual initiation rites conducted by various teams. Jeffery said last year’s teacher of the year, Ben Hussmann, had written a letter to Hales about frequent hazings at GBS and warned that without an educational program there would be trouble. "He was right," Jeffery concluded. "I guess that’s why he was teacher of the year."

Cap Gray added that the definition of hazing was "hazy." Referring to the lacrosse team’s paddling party he concluded, "This is not hazing. This is bonding. You’re the board of education. Let’s educate."

Harry Pearl said a long-term educational program was needed to change attitudes about hazing. When he was young, Pearl said people didn’t recognize the problem of driving under the influence of alcohol, and they didn’t see the merits of seatbelts. Today, thanks to powerful public health campaigns, more people wear seatbelts and fewer drive drunk.

Katie Siegel urged the board to act on a value commonly promoted in Glenview – tolerance. "We ask our kids to be tolerant of differences in race and religion, to be tolerant of their teachers. They are people too – with families and problems. We ask them to tolerate their parents’ own human frailties. Can we return the favor to them and lead by example with tolerance?"

Student Adam Korn called expulsion "academic execution," and accused the board of being more concerned about its public image than about the welfare of students.

Senior Erin Lauesen accused the school board of taking "the easy way out" in responding to last year’s hazing in Northbrook. "By making a rule that’s so black and white, you took away your ability to think in an individual way. If you knew any of the boys on this lacrosse team, you would be thinking you’re out of your mind to even consider expulsions."

"Since my freshman year, I can see a change," she told the board. "Students have lost faith in teachers and administrators. If expulsion was to take place, it would be the end of everything we love about Glenbrook South." She urged the board to reconsider its hazing policy.

Tom Hart Jr. read from the student handbook that says students can be suspended or expelled for taking part in hazing. "The key word there is ‘or,’" said the budding barrister. "They’ve already been suspended." Turning to another page he noted that student athletes caught drinking could be barred from playing 10 percent of their games. The lacrosse players had lost the chance to play in any games.

Tom Hart Sr., speaking after his son, called the evening historic. "My son and I are in the same room, and it appears I’m going to have the last word," he joked. Explaining that he had served on the OLPH school board, Hart said he had great sympathy for the board. "If we had anything this tough, we’d just punt to Father Flavin."

Hart urged the board to be sure the punishment fits the offense. "They have already lost their season. This is no small pain for any athlete, but it’s especially significant for a junior or a senior with hopes of getting a college scholarship."

The administration had told suspended students they could not make up work missed during their time out of school. "This is not insignificant either," said the senior Hart. "Two weeks ago we got a letter from the University of Illinois. It was written to all of the kids who were accepted there, and it said, ‘We’re watching you. You had better keep up your grades,’ because they have the option to rescind that acceptance. Expulsion is the equivalent of the death penalty for many of these boys, and it simply does not fit the offense," he concluded.

Bruce Johnson denounced the idea of expelling students who used paddles on their team mates, comparing the school board to "a group of people that were burning books in Germany back in the thirties."

Mike Pfiffner argued that "suspending a child serves no real purpose and places the child at greater risk. It’s going to make things worse. What do we really gain?" he asked, urging the board to "educate, don’t expel."

Fighting back tears, Vicki Swanson said every child had a right to education, and the time students were suspended should have been used to teach them about hazing and peer pressure. She also thought the boys should be allowed to continue playing lacrosse on an informal basis – taking advantage of good coaching to improve their skills. "There could have been much good mentoring done, rather than putting them back in front of the TV or on the street."

Donna Waldron said the students had actually used their time away from school to serve the community. They had volunteered a total of 75 hours at Glenview/Northbrook Youth Services, The Grove, churches and Wagner Farm. "None of this was suggested by the school. Service projects are what should be required," Waldron concluded.

"The punishment proposed thus far is a result of what happened at Glenbrook North last spring," said Arnie Grant. "What’s been done so far is excessive. The school board was put in place to guide education. It was not put in place to make decisions such as this."

"You guys have kind of gotten yourselves into a pickle with the rules that were written [last year]," said father and soccer coach Jack Weber. "I"ve gotten a lot more out of student athletes when I’ve done something with positive reinforcement as opposed to negative reinforcement. I was a psychology major at Yale. Let’s do something for these kids that is positive. I don’t see how expulsion serves any of us. We have to work with kids and give them an opportunity to make the right choices."

Bill Easton and his son Sean also came before the board. They had nothing to do with the lacrosse team, but their family had known the pain of expulsion. School officials had found a marijuana pipe in Sean’s car. The boy said he hadn’t used it for months – had decided drugs were not for him, and he took a drug test to prove it. That meant nothing to the school board which voted to kick him out.

Sean’s dad felt the punishment was too severe. Likewise, he thought expulsion of the lacrosse players would be an overreaction. "We need to challenge the board’s procedures, because they are not correct," he concluded. "Expulsion removes children from the school. It removes families from the community, and it’s very difficult to live with."

Sean said he did not expect the board to feel sorry for him, but he wanted members to know what this punishment means for a student. "I have spent many nights crying myself to sleep or staying awake all night, because I can’t play baseball, and I can’t graduate, and I can’t go to prom."

The younger Easton said he had been paddled as part of an initiation ceremony when he was a freshman, but he did not consider that hazing, nor did he view it as a bad thing. "It made me feel cool," he continued. "If you kick these kids out of school, you will screw up their lives. I’ve personally struggled for the past three months to ..."

Sean paused and his father finished the sentence. "To live," he said. "Exactly," said the boy. "I don’t think I’ll ever recover from this."

The audience gave Sean a long, supportive round of applause, but when the public hearing ended, board member Tom Shaer followed the Eastons into the hallway and informed Sean that his remarks were not appropriate.

Editor’s note: We disagree. A policy of zero tolerance has been shown to be wholly ineffective in deterring students from typical teenaged behavior, and it is not in anyone’s best interest. Some students are bright and inquisitive. They will experiment with drugs and alcohol. Other students find team initiation rites meaningful. While these behaviors can be destructive, booting kids out of the classroom creates terrible hardships and prevents the educational opportunities needed to guide young people toward safer, more productive ways to celebrate life.

Too few parents have paid attention to the election of enlightened, progressive school board members. They have left the important job of governing our schools to people who are misguided and out of touch. This board, in turn, selected a superintendent who should go back to Fort Wayne, Indiana.

The likely upshot of their actions is damaging to the community in many ways. Students feel wronged by administrators and teachers, creating fear and distrust in the classrooms and hallways of our high school. Families file lawsuits, and taxpayers get the bill from the district’s lawyer. Bad press is damaging to Glenview’s reputation, and that could take a toll on property values.

Even if the board decides not to expel students, the damage is done. It can only be repaired by a community willing to stay involved – to assure that better people are elected to the board and that bad policies, like zero tolerance, are abolished. We hope that’s the silver lining to the latest cloud over GBS.

After the meeting, Hales told the Pioneer Press, "I have a great deal of respect for the students and parents who were [here], and no one likes to be in a situation where there’s conflict, but I’m not one who reacts to pressure."

Principal Smith dismissed complaints that the school had not done enough to educate students about hazing. He told the Glenview Announcements that excusing students for that reason was like letting someone off the hook for bringing a gun to school because they hadn’t been talked to.

The Announcements, which learned about the incident even before Glenview police were notified, editorialized in support of the decision to suspend all students for 10 days and called on the community to back the school board in whatever it does.

"Some people in the community have sympathized with the hazers, characterizing this case of physical hazing and alcohol abuse as traditional high school high jinks," the paper wrote. "That attitude is wrong and it is one reason why this unacceptable behavior continues to plague this school district. For years, officials and adults looking the other way characterized the Powder Puff tradition as harmless high jinks. And each year it became more violent, until last May 4's fiasco. But the time for overlooking such behavior is long past. The district’s revised code of conduct and hazing prohibition rules put student safety front and center."

Editor’s note: We believe educating students about the nature of hazing and peer pressure would be far more valuable to the entire student body than expelling 11 students who have clearly become scapegoats for an embarrassed, frustrated, ineffective administration. What’s more, in a democracy community values must be considered by government. Glenview is not a community that condones violence or alcohol abuse, but this is a compassionate community that recognizes the nature of youth and the need to work with our children rather than pushing them away. Some lacrosse team members did not drink or paddle. The fact that no parents wish to press charges and that no child was seriously hurt suggests the students exercised restraint. We urge the school board to do the same – to take responsibility for the district’s own failure, to begin a comprehensive educational program on hazing, to clear the records of all students involved in this incident, to allow students to make up classroom work missed during suspension and to rescind the ill-advised cancellation of the lacrosse season.

We also think Glenbrook District 225 should follow the lead of the village by hiring a skilled public relations professional to improve communication with parents, residents and the media. A word to the wise: Tom Shaer is not the man for that job.

In an e-mail to one unhappy parent, Shaer said he doubted the district could get a large enough group together to hold a town meeting on the topic of hazing. Seeing that as a challenge, parents have now begun planning a rally to take place outside the administration building at 12:30 p.m. Sunday, April 18. "People are outraged by what has occurred," said one organizer. "Bring your own lawn chairs," said another who volunteered poster boards and markers to make signs. "It will be just like the 1960's!"

While the decision on whether to expel students will be made behind closed doors, the board will open its meeting with another public hearing, according to spokesman Freeman. Any interested party may speak at 1:30 p.m. in the District 225 administration building, 1835 Landwehr Road. You can also leave voicemail at 847-486-4400 for board members Carol Rogal (ext. 4782), Elias Matsakis (ext. 4784), Tom Shaer (ext. 4781), Donna Torf (ext. 4783) or Karen Long (ext. 4788).

Mr. B shares his thoughts on the crisis at GBS: "The handling of this Lacrosse thing is way over the top. The punishments already handed down were a rush to judgment to make Superintendent Dave Hales look like he is rooting out crime, but the gesture comes at the expense of a few minor pawns – the kids. In a recent school publication, Hales himself said kids’ brains at this age are not fully developed, and they don't always make good decisions. Hales is creating impossibly high standards for the kids to live by, leaving them afraid to talk to the people who run the schools when real trouble is afoot. We need to have this guy run out of town. I also think it’s unfortunate that parents and kids will be silenced by the tiny deal that the lawyers struck – cutting suspensions to five days if they would refuse comment to the media. Who's hazing now? If I were a board member, I'd have to ask myself, 'Where is this guy taking me? And why do I have to face an angry mob?'"

Mrs. S thanks parents for coming out and speaking up about the tyranny at GBS: "Many touched areas so important for the school to know. I love the lady towards the end who emotionally said she was afraid of the school, feared for her kids and was afraid to confide in administrators about the kids’ problems because they might retaliate against her boys! Wow."

J.G. Ranz says this is business as usual for the high school board: "These people still don’t know how to deal with youthful behavior that has gone on since we crawled out of the trees – behavior that will continue regardless of the police state they create at Glenbrook South. Few district residents know what goes on over there. The board is just a whipping boy for superintendents who hold all the power, and I fear Hales is just getting started. Arrogance does not begin to describe the conduct of this and other local boards of education. In one sense, we get what we pay for. These people work 20-40 hours a week for free, and even with the best of intentions, end up as puppets of the administration. They’re not the least bit interested in what the public has to say. You can address the board for as long as you like if you’re saying something to compliment somebody over there. If not , you will be told to sit down and shut up. Even though you may want to enlighten or help, you will be tagged as a trouble maker, and will earn nasty comebacks. It's their baby. They hoodwinked a mostly asleep population to elect them. Now it's their job, and they want the public to go away. Maybe a good whack on the behind would wake these board members up to reality and give some of them a little common sense and courage."

Fritz and Walter write: "As a couple of old GBS grads, we want to publicly announce our support for the board's crackdown on students caught off campus with a paddle in one hand and a drink in the other. In fact, we urge the board to go the extra mile and bring the long, painful nightmare of adolescence to an end for Glenbrook parents. Just imagine the possibilities.  A messy room could bring a two-day suspension. A sassy mouth could get kids kicked out for three days. We could throw students out for five days if they get a D in math, send girls home for a week if their skirt is too short and their tank top too tight, and nail kids for ten days if they’re caught petting in the park. You can never have too much 'big brother' when teens just happen to be teens. Don't these board members and administrators have something better to spend their time on ? How about grade inflation, or run amok salary increases at twice the rate of inflation, or the ability to tax to the max to cover it."

Joe Williams takes issue with the Watch's comments on how School District 225's Superintendent, David Hales, has handled hazing incidents off campus: "You state that he should be expelled for the policy that he and the attorneys for the district developed after last year's powder puff debacle. Then, in the very next sentence you state that residents should stand up and tell their elected officials that what happens off school grounds is simply not their business. So who is responsible -- Dave or the residents who take no action? Dave is in a classic no win situation. He has to battle a litigious society coupled with political correctness run amok. If he developed a policy that takes into account common sense, he could face legal action every time somebody takes a spitball to the side of the head, on or off school grounds. Because people no longer have the ability to think for themselves, which is exemplified by the number of parents who have their attorneys on speed dial, a person in Dave's position has to take the road that appeals to the lowest common denominator."

The Watch replies: We hold our superintendent to a high standard of intelligence and courage. He should never appeal to the lowest common denominator, nor do we worry that the district would be sued over matters taking place off campus. If anything, the conduct of our current board and superintendent have invited lawsuits. 

WM thinks the schools step in because parents aren’t doing their job: "Some twenty years ago one angry mother told off the Glenview Police when they picked up her troublesome darling in a neighborhood park. Her reaction: "They were only playing hide and seek." All were sorry when the same young man got killed in an auto accident a few months later. Bottom line, the parents can be and unfortunately in many instances are the problem. Parents need to train and keep their youngsters under control. Depending on schools and other government staff people to train and manage your children is not the way to go."

YOUR TURN: Write to glenviewwatch@aol.com or 3537 Maple Leaf Drive, Glenview, IL 60025. If you haven’t already done so, please consider making a contribution to support The Watch. Non-deductible checks should be payable to Glenview Watch. Thanks for your support and for reading. Dean Schott and Sandy Hausman, Co-Editors.

To read past issues of Glenview Watch, Click Here