I realize this is rehashing my earlier post somewhat, but now we’re hearing directly form Kyle McAlarney — not just from his mother — his reaction to Notre Dame’s decision to suspend him for a semester for marijuana possession… and it ain’t pretty:
“Speaking for my family, we’re very ashamed and very disappointed with how Notre Dame handled everything. I did everything I could do and more, but they didn’t judge me on that. A regular student would not get half the punishment that I received.”
Look, I don’t care where you come down on the issue of marijuana use or Notre Dame’s drug policy. Personally, I tend to think that marijuana should be legalized, and that regardless, Notre Dame’s policy is too harsh. But those are side issues. The central issue here is that Kyle McAlarney is not being truthful. His statement to the press is either dishonest or ignorant (and if the latter, he should know better). He is publicly bashing Notre Dame for inconsistency where no inconsistency exists. There is simply no possible defense of McAlarney’s statement. He should be “ashamed” — not of Notre Dame, but of himself.
Cue Black & Green, which says it better than I could:
Now to a story that really bugs me. Kyle McAlarney said in no uncertain terms, that he is “ashamed” by Notre Dame’s punishment for him. I caught the headline and thought for sure that it read “McAlarney ‘ashamed’ about his own actions.” In my morning stupor, I thought that the young man had taken responsibility for his mistake and plans to move on. How silly of me. In today’s society, when does anyone take responsibility for their own actions? …
I’m not feeling sorry for you, Kyle. I truly believed that you would take the high road here and just take your punishment. I understand that you must be frustrated. It’s ok to disagree with the University’s reaction to your crime. However, to pretend that you are being held to a higher standard than everyone else is blatantly ridiculous. Apparently you haven’t heard that just about every other drug case ends up with a semester dismissal from Notre Dame. ND is not like a public school, it’s not like Boston College, it’s not like any other university in the world. True, this suspension is harsh. You should have thought about your punishment before you decided to light up.
While the semester suspension doesn’t come as a surprise to me, the McAlarney family seems blindsided. This is where I have some sympathy for K-Mac. He obviously was surrounded by people who told him that the disciplinary action would not be this harsh. If he was expecting better news, it is natural to be bitter. He did act respectably before this and took the indefinite suspension from basketball well. However, saying that he is being treated more harshly than others is downright false. I really hoped Kyle would rise above that.
Read the whole thing, which notes that McAlarney’s blatantly false comments are feeding a predictable spasm of anti-Notre Dame backlash in the media. Way to pay back the university for the free education and all the opportunities it offered you, Kyle.
I’d also recommend this earlier post by Black & Green, written before McAlarney whined to the press, which shows just how absurd the whine really is:
First let me applaud ResLife for this difficult decision. No matter your opinion on marijuana use, the difference between DUI and drug possession, and the Administration in general, the McAlarney’s dismissal from the University fell in line with normal procedure.
From DuLac:
“11. Disciplinary Suspension  Separation from the University for at least one semester. The student is eligible to apply for readmission to Notre Dame. Readmission after suspension is not automatic; a suspended student must complete an application for readmission. Readmission must be cleared by the Office of Student Affairs, the suspended student’s academic department and the Office of Student Accounts.”
Four out of five drug cases at ND result in a one semester suspension. Many students return to normal college life the next semester and move on. Of course, this policy is much stricter than most colleges nationwide, but Notre Dame holds its students to a higher standard.
Had this been a “normal” case, the punishment would have raised no eyebrows. Had he been a less integral part of the basketball team, few would bemoan Kyle’s dismissal. He knew what he was doing, and must face the consequences.
Along the same lines, here is thebeef’s comment on my earlier post:
Domers’ reaction to K-Mac’s suspension is absolutely ridiculous.
The university has not treated K-Mac any differently than they have treated anyone else.
DuLac is very specific on this issue: “Possession or use of any controlled substance including…marijauana…is a serious violation. Students who possess or use such substances shall be subject to suspension or dismissal.�
That is the rule. Period. Suspension or dismissal. K-Mac violated the rule, now he’s paying the price. …
I hope that Domers are not suggesting that athletes be held to a more lenient standard than the average student. Probably not. From the sound of it, people are pissed off with the rule itself.
I think it’s fine to disagree with the rule, but this rule should hardly be surprising. Notre Dame students know that this is the rule. They shove du-Lac down your throat during Frosh-O. Everyone is informed of the rule. Those, like K-Mac, who possess controlled substances, know what they are risking.
Oh, and one more thing: I remember a lot of Domers giving the Gators a hard time for not coming down harder on Jarvis Moss for a similar offense, and allowing him to play against South Carolina (a game the Gators won on the play of Moss…allowing them to eventually advance and win the N.C.) These Irish fans proudly proclaimed that Notre Dame would never go so easy on one of its own athletes, because Notre Dame is more than a Football factory focused on winning at all costs. We have standards. Well, here you have it.
The hypocrisy is staggering: criticizing other schools for their lax standards and patting yourself on the back for being associated with a school that has high standards, and then going ballistic when those high standards are enforced. It’s a bit like praising the “classiness” of your school’s fan base, then advocating physical violence against opposing fans. In other words, typical NDNation crap. But to the extent that it reflects the opinion among a broader cross-section of Irish fans, that’s really unfortunate.
Notre Dame deserves praise, not criticism, for doing what so many universities fail to do: holding its athletes to the same standards as other students, not giving them extra chances just because we want to win games. (You think Notre Dame would have lost to St. John’s last night if Kyle McAlarney had been playing?) We can all debate the wisdom of the policy itself, but no one should deny the correctness of enforcing the policy — whatever it may be — consistently with respect to athletes and non-athletes alike.
Anyway… I’ll conclude by quoting from Hal’s comment on the aforelinked earlier Black & Green post:
Having been kicked out of ND myself, I know a little of the embarrassment and anger Mac’s feeling right now (I say “a little” because my situation obviously did not play out in the newspapers.) I hope, for his sake and ours, that he chooses to come back to ND, which it sounds like he’ll be allowed to do.
When I was booted, I carried away a lot of residual anger from the process. In the run-up to a decision from the university on your status, you’re made to jump through a bunch of hoops and make some commitments, and when that doesn’t save you from expulsion, it leaves you feeling extra stupid.
But in retrospect, that anger was just coming from embarrassment. I deserved what I got, and ND gave me a second chance. Further, upon readmittance ND proved itself to be anything but the calculating, callous place I’d painted it as during my exile.
Indeed, when a year later, I developed a drinking problem that seriously hurt my academic perfomance, the counselors, profs, and the Deans at my college (Waddick and Austgen) bent over 180 degrees to help me get my life in order and graduate. It would have been very easy for them to say, “This kid had his chance. We’re done with him now.” But instead, they guided me towards the solutions that let me get my life in order.
It’s not exaggerration to say that I would not be the stable, successful person I am today without their help and compassion.
I mention this, not because I think Mac has all the same sort of problems I did. But I’m guessing that a large part of his anger stems from being cast out of a family he felt very much a part of. I know hat feeling and it sucks.
But the best decision I ever made — in all my life — was to commit myself to finishing what I started at ND.
I wish Mac luck wherever he goes. But I really hope he comes back to us.
|
Categories: Notre Dame, NCAA Basketball & Pools
|
January 24th, 2007 at 7:27:29 pm
Well it is true that a regular student wouldn’t have their arrest posted all over the news, including the NY times, ESPN, and CNN. Maybe that is what he meant.
But, I don’t think that is what K-Mac was referring to.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:34:19 pm
Considering that’s not a plausible interpretation of his words, as he was referring to Notre Dame’s actions, I would agree that it probably wasn’t what he meant.
As thebeef said in a portion of his comment that I didn’t quote, it’s (obviously) not Notre Dame’s fault that the media has imposed an “additional punishment” via bad publicity. That’s (again, obviously) simply par for the course when you’re a Division I athlete and you break the law & get caught. If he’s whining about that, he gets an equal amount of sympathy from me for his “victim” status as if he’s whining about the university’s nonexistant inconsistency in enforcement: namely, none.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:38:25 pm
[…] our opinion on marijuana use, the difference between DUI and drug … Original post by Brendan Loy and software by Elliott Back […]
January 24th, 2007 at 7:41:00 pm
The only thing is- he actually did get a harsher punishment than most. The typical suspension is for one semester- McAlarney got one semester plus the summer. most students would be able to go to summer school and thereby make up for missed time- he did not get this. While he’s feeling a little too sorry for himself, the fact of the matter is that he did in fact get a harsher than average punishment.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:42:25 pm
P.S. Supposing that were his argument… what would the contention be, exactly? That Notre Dame should impose lesser sanctions for infractions by athletes in big-publicity sports, because the media coverage is considered part of the punishment? If so, would that mean that football players get the most leniency, since theirs is the sport that gets the most publicity, while men’s basketball players would get the second-most leniency, women’s basketball would get the third-most, and so on? Would the level of leniency vary from player to player and position to position — for example, the star quarterback (whose infractions would inevitably get the most publicity) gets the most leniency, while a benchwarming linebacker gets harsher treatment?
Yeah, that seems fair.
So fair, in fact, that I think we should export this “McAlarney Theory of Justice” to the criminal-justice system! Celebrities should get lesser sentences than non-celebrities because the negative publicity is part of their punishment! “Equal justice for all” is a good ideal, but it misses the big picture. Even if O.J. Simpson had been convicted, he could have been sentenced to “time served” because he spent so much time under the lens of the media glare. Yup… makes perfect sense.
[/sarcasm]
January 24th, 2007 at 8:24:33 pm
Its unbelievable that ND suspended this guy for that amount of time, and the round-about dishonest, impersonal process that accompanied the suspension. They should have taken away his campus housing and status as a member of the team for one semester, but to force him out of school is anti-Catholic. Notre Dame loves its drunks but it treats those with one-time petty drug infractions like they are baby killers.
January 24th, 2007 at 8:30:50 pm
Timthomasnd, please clarify: do you support treating athletes different from non-athletes? Because the penalty you are proposing would be vastly less serious than the penalty that Notre Dame typically imposes on students who commit “one-time petty drug infractions.”
January 24th, 2007 at 8:35:11 pm
Notre Dame is just scared to death of counter-culture. Get drunk, break stuff, annoy everyone in your dorm… community service. Smoke a doobie… semester suspension. It’s an illegal substance! OMG! What would my Granger neighbors gossip about me at Knollwood Country Club if we didn’t suspend this kid?!
January 24th, 2007 at 8:36:18 pm
Brendan,
I would like ND to honestly address two questions:
1) Why the leniency for drunk drivers?
2) What are the statistics for other students who have been accused of drug use?
If all students are automatically suspended for possession of weed, then why the wait on this case?
January 24th, 2007 at 9:11:29 pm
tim,
I can’t really excuse the supposed double standard for getting a DUI that is enumerated in du Lac. I do know that when one of the most important football players on last year’s team got arrested for DUI, he was suspended for the rest of the season. This gives me reason to believe that if Kyle had gotten a DUI instead of a pot arrest, we still wouldn’t have seen him play this season. (As to the hole in this argument, that is that he might have gotten a stronger sentence than the football player, I’m not privy to what the football player’s actual punishment was, so I can;t say whether Kyle actually did get a stronger sentence.)
The disparity in punishment between the two offenses might be that DUI doesn’t appear to be a big problem at Notre Dame. Obviously, DUI is a serious and dangerous offense deserving of strong disciplinary action. There is a policy, however, in having such high drug punishments: Notre Dame does not want drugs on its campus, and this might have been a problem prior to the administration’s approach in addressing drug offenses. The University uses the likelihood, and almost certainty, of suspension for drug possession or consumption for its general deterrence value. This approach has been highly successful: There is almost no drug use on Notre Dame’s campus. (I know the incident happened off campus, but the punishment needs to be consistent regardless of where the offense occurs).
As for most of Kyle’s comments, I have been to Reslife a couple of times and had close friends go for serious offenses as well. It’s a terrible experience, the system is not always handled fairly, and like Kyle, I felt disappointed that the committee made little effort to understand the specific circumstances. So in that regard, I do feel sympathy for him. However, the idea that his punishment was worse because he is an athlete is misguided and unfortunate. Almost all drug offenses result in suspension; I have heard of many that resulted in suspension and none that didn’t. It’s a near certainty that a drug offense will result in a suspension. Although there was probably very little possibility that the committee would show leniancy because of his status as an athlete, and the policy goal of showing that double standards do not apply, he was almost certain to receive a punishment that would not allow him to play this year.
January 24th, 2007 at 9:14:49 pm
You can also find ND alum who can tell you about cases where the suspension was not automatic. Classmates of yours can tell you of people who were kicked out of the dorms as a first-time punishment. IF the policy is truly a blanket policy now, then there would be no need for this month long illusion of what was supposedly an analysis and evaluation of the incident by Res Life.
January 24th, 2007 at 9:16:02 pm
Another point: Just like any punishment with the possibility of reinstatement, the person punished needs to accept responsibility for his or her own actions and understand the wrongfulness of the act. Kyle’s comments do not bode well for his return to Notre Dame, and in that regard, his decision to go public with these thoughts were a very poor decision. I hope the University understands the frustration that its students feel when subjected to such harsh punishments, especially immediately following the “verdict,” and gives Kyle a chance to show that he understands why he was subjected to this punishment. Either way, it’s on him to change his tune if he wants to return to the University.
January 24th, 2007 at 9:18:48 pm
Not a fan, a lot of these alumni went to school before the current policies were in place. You’d be better off getting your impressions on how the system works from current students or recent alumni.
January 24th, 2007 at 9:35:04 pm
Tim, I would like you to honestly answer my question.
And, both Tim and Not a fan, don’t argue against a straw man. Nobody said anyone is “automatically suspended” for anything. Obviously, there is a process — the details of which the university can’t comment on in individual cases, for privacy reasons — and some students presumably get leniency, for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not they’re on a sports team. Others get more severe penalties, as is made obvious by the rule, which states that either suspension or dismissal is possible. So of course there needs to be a process, not an instant, “automatic” decision. Off the top of my head, I would guess that one of the factors is whether or not the student has a prior record of (comparatively minor) ResLife/duLac violations — something we don’t, any of us, know about Kyle — as well as the circumstances of the violation, the seriousness of the offense, etc. Just because Notre Dame was a universally strict policy doesn’t mean there are no variations in punishment. That would be stupid, and I assume none of you would actually support a system like that. You’re just suggesting it because it appears to suit your present rhetorical purposes, but it’s a fundamentally dishonest argument. An “automatic” policy, with no case-by-case analysis at all, would obviously be far worse than the system that exists now.
That said, I would certainly like ND to answer Tim’s question #1 (I made that point rather forcefully in the previous post), and as for #2, I’d love to hear confirmation of the statistic cited above (4 out of 5 get suspended for a semester, and some of the other 1 out of 5 get more than that). In the absence of any such confirmation, though, it’s fairly obvious from all available anecdotal evidence that, at least in recent years, the vast majority of drug offenses have resulted in at least a one-semester suspension. So if you’re implicitly saying, “why doesn’t the university release statistics, and until they do, we should assume — contrary to all available evidence — that most students are treated less harshly than Kyle,” you’re being irrational.
January 24th, 2007 at 10:27:15 pm
Brendan, I guess if McAlarney can’t be ashamed of ND then I, as an old grad and a judge who deals with young men like him can be. I am ashamed. A policy to throw him out of school may be easy for a beaurocrat to administer, but is hardly helpful. If he has little history of drug use, then the sanction is extreme and leads to the current problem where young people equate pot with meth and other more dangerous drugs and dismiss the risk equally. If he is dependant or addicted, throwing him out of school will not help him or cause him to become accountable. Addiction, if present, is not cured by punishment. There were presumably a host of other intermediate sanctions available - suspension from the team, throwing him off the team, taking away his scholarship, etc available. I don’t care about the double standard question or if he acted immaturely - we knew he was probably immature and wws in a hilgh pressue situation. What really concerns me is the decision to make sacrificing education a punishment when other alternatives may have available. If this is the way a supposedly enlightened Christian University reacts to its students’ problems, it is a shame.
January 24th, 2007 at 10:57:19 pm
Per usual, the apple has not fallen far from the tree. I opined last night that K Mac would not react well to an actual limitation placed upon him by authority, given his mother’s “shameful” remark. Bingo. He uses the same characterization today.
To the good judge: it is never the responsibility of an institution to motivate an individual to stop engaging in self-destructive behavior. ND “encourages” the students to not engage in such by attaching severe penalties. If students ignore the consequences, there is nothing left for the university to do. I dare say, however, having had personal knowledge of the caring of the Holy Cross religious on campus - particularly when it comes to substance abuse - it would be fatuous to even suggest as possible the belief that ND would refuse to outline possible rehabilitation and redemption for substance abusing students. Would. Not. Happen.
If K Mac is truly interested in becoming a better man (by definition one who does not use illegal substances to achieve a high) he may avail himself of the myriad opportunities (most of which are free) for support and direction.
Of course, Fr. Hesburgh was fascist for famously disbursing the peaceful Vietnam war protest on campus, right? How was it that nobody was expelled? Fr. Ted took away 1st Amendment rights from the students, dared them to test his resolve, and is seen to be one of the leading academics of the 20th Century. Huh?
Bottom line, and may it ever be so: do not do the crime at ND if you are not willing to do the time.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:02:17 pm
A whole semester for weed. What is this world coming to?
January 24th, 2007 at 11:08:11 pm
Is that you “Dead Head” Ed? We did a lot of crime together back in the day. Ohhh, yeaah.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:10:59 pm
JimND69, I have no objection to your comment -
- IF -
you would apply the exact same logic to any student, whether on an athletic team or not.
(In which case, you might want to explain how your proposed alternative punishments — “suspension from the team, throwing him off the team, taking away his scholarship” — would apply to a non-athlete.)
You say you “don’t care about the double standard question.” But how can you so easily dismiss it? It is precisely what Kyle McAlarney accused Notre Dame of: a double standard that works against him. That accusation is patently incorrect, and what McAlarney appears to actually desire is a double standard that works in his favor. The “double standard question” is the fundamental question at issue here. Everything else is debatable, and reasonable people can disagree. What we should all be able to agree on is, a double standard is inappropriate… and it’s inapproproiate (and dishonorable) for Kyle McAlarney to accuse Notre Dame of a double standard were none exists.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:23:32 pm
Ed, that’s a fine analysis for some types of offenses and some individuals. But it simply does not work in the real world for these types of problems. for example, there is substantial statistical evidence that the amount of jail time - whether you send someone to jail for 7 days or 70 - has no effect on recidivism for substance abuse cases. the deterrence factor you suggest is simply not present in a chemical dependance case. Lines like don’t do the crime if you can do the time don’t apply to this kind offense nor to a university, which is not after all a criminal justice system. so if your goal is to improve behavior for the better - a goal for ND I hope - severe punishment is worthless. Even the prosecutor in this case apparently recognizes this. McAlarney is not ignoring his responsibility. He is pleading guilty and is being given an opportunity to be accountable while not damaging his future. Is the goal efficient administration of the university or producing better men and woman while maintaining order? the university may have suggested rehabilition for him, but if he is thrown out of school, they are not helping it happen. If anything it just delays therapy if necessary, which is contrary to all the expert advice in such situations.
By the way, Hesburgh was not a fascist on this issue. I got busted my first semester and had to report to him personally - talk about scared - He spoke to me one on one in a firm concerned manner, set rules for me and then took me into a conference room where I was introduced to a psychologist who interviewed me to make sure I wasn’t having adjustment problems or didn’t seem to have a substance abuse issue. It certainly was never suggested that a logical punishment was to take away the very purpose of his and my presence there - my education. I guess having done this stuff for a very long time, I no longer believe is quick black and white solutions such as severe punishment. It feels good for the punishers, but in some cases (and this may be one) it is counterproductive. But just my opinion for whatever it is worth. I guess I was shocked by the anger expressed towards McAlarney. I would have thought at ND students had heard that none of us is without sin so maybe we should put down the stones.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:34:25 pm
Brendan, I misspoke. I wasn’t saying that I didn’t care about a double standard. there are such problems in every system and have always been at ND. I just don’t know enough about this situation to agree or disagree whether one was present here. but I do think the policy is wrong. As to beating McAlarney up for these few statements while he his reeling from this problem, I would prefer to see how his handles it in the long run rather than judge him on attributed remarks 24 hours after getting his life turned around. this is my first posting to a blog - didn’t mean to get anyone riled. by the way, I went from nd to USc law, so maybe I should start a mirror blog somewhere
January 25th, 2007 at 12:32:01 am
Thank you for your response, Jim.
I will simply never agree that an institution that necessarily must maintain order and the ubiquitous and overdone “fairness” has a choice but to engage in as much black & white thinking as possible. A zero tolerance for drug possession is entirely reasonable and necessary.
Since you cited stats related to behavior, please allow me to lay one on you….of 100 self-admitted addicts who begin treatment, be it medical or twelve step only, less than three will make it three years without using again, and only one will manage to maintain abstinence five years out, or if you wish, sobriety.
Given these odds, against the overwhelmingly crucial responsibility of ND to maintain behavioral standards, I have no problem with the seemingly deaf ear the administrations have had over the years relative to mitigating illegal drug possession.
Thanks again, Jim. Love Thee Notre Dame!
January 25th, 2007 at 1:19:37 am
http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2007/01/23/News/Mcalarney.Suspended.For.Two.Semesters-2670572.shtml?sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
Maybe he was treated differntly. This seems to say that students usually receive a ONE semester suspension. K-Mac was suspended TWO.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:10:16 am
I think of marijuana as the door to the world of drugs and as such should be kept closed. However, it bothers me that so many writers seem to equate it with meth, cocaine, etc.
For some alcohol is the door to the world of drugs… Enjoy your glass of merlot!
January 25th, 2007 at 10:42:58 am
Thank you JimND69 for your comments. ND has a particular duty, because of its uniquely Catholic mission (where forgiveness of sin and redemption are so valued), to reach out and grab our lost sheep. The just punishment would have been stern but not harmful.
Brendan, I really do appreciate this blog and the ideas you raise, but at times you come off as a Notre Dame apologist. I don’t know if that is purely to please your readers, but you should reflect that it is possible to love the institution while being critical of it as well.
January 25th, 2007 at 11:05:54 am
Tim, you are misreading me. I am not saying I agree with Notre Dame here. Indeed, I made it quite clear that I don’t. (”Personally, I tend to think that marijuana should be legalized, and that regardless, Notre Dame’s policy is too harsh.”) I’m not defending Notre Dame, let alone apologizing for it. I’m simply saying that McAlarney’s position — that he is being mistreated because he’s an athlete — is clearly false, and that making such an unfounded accusation is irresponsible, dishonorable, and reflective of a profound unwillingness of take personal responsibility which I think is far too pervasive in our culture.
You might ask, why am I focusing on my disagreement with McAlarney, rather than focusing on my disagreement with Notre Dame? The answer is that I believe the question of whether Notre Dame’s policy is inherently too harsh is something that reasonable minds can differ on, and it’s the sort of thing where we’re unlikely to change each other’s minds, whereas Kyle’s irresponsible statement is clearly wrong and anyone, regardless of their position on the broader issue, should be able to acknowledge that. In addition, I think everyone should answer the question I asked you — “do you support treating athletes different from non-athletes?” — with a clear and unequivocal no, and thus any objection to Kyle’s harsh sentence should be clearly based on a general criticism of the policy, not an objection to its application in this case. Related to that, I would like to see everyone acknowledge the basic facts at issue here, specifically the fact that Notre Dame has a universally harsh policy toward drug cases generally and not just toward McAlarney, because I hate it when people argue on the basis of false facts. It frustrates me enormously when I see arguments that seem to be based on the false notion that Notre Dame is somehow inventing a tough drug policy out of whole cloth for P.R. reasons, when all evidence is clearly to the contrary.
In other words, criticize Notre Dame if you want; that’s fine. All I’m demanding is that people criticize them for the right things. I do not believe that the existence of one potentially valid criticism makes it okay to indulge in all manner of invalid criticisms of the same target, nor do I believe that it makes me an “apologist” to distinguish between valid and invalid criticisms.
Regardless, I certainly agree that “it is possible to love the institution while being critical of it as well.” I believe my criticisms of Notre Dame for its policies on gay student groups and the Vagina Monologues, my criticism of some Notre Dame fans for being classless and/or homerish, and of course my sometimes harsh assessments of the football and basketball teams — all of which I have been criticized for, sometimes quite savagely, by my fellow Domers — aptly demonstrate that I’m more than willing to criticize Notre Dame when I believe criticism is appropriate. Just because we might disagree about, or attach different levels of importance to, a particular issue, doesn’t make me an “apologist” generally.
January 25th, 2007 at 11:53:09 am
On the other hand… reading the above-linked Observer article, I can almost wrap my mind around a defense of Kyle’s and his mother’s statements, based on this quote:
Okay, first of all, we need to strike out the words “when he already sat seven Big East games,” because — clearly, obviously, undeniably, indisputably — it would be completely inappropriate for ResLife to consider how many Big East games Kyle “sat” in making their decision, since that would be creating an inconsistent standard for athletes and non-athletes. I mean, if we were talking about a student involved in some other extracurricular activity, would that be a factor? Suppose it was an Observer writer who had been forced to “sit out” seven issues of the paper. Would that be considered as a reason for leniency? Of course not. So, strike that portion of Ms. McAlarney’s statement, and let’s focus on “I think he would have gotten one semester if he was just a regular student. I think we could accept that, understanding [he broke a law]. But two semesters?”
On its face, this is a reasonable criticism. Indeed, without actually knowing what went into the decision, it’s even potentially reasonable to suggest that Kyle might have gotten harsher treatment because he’s an athlete. But here’s the thing: I don’t think Ms. McAlarney is being entirely honest. She says, “I think we could accept” a one-semester suspension. But that seems to be at odds with her other statements, that she and Kyle were expecting “good news” and that they thought Kyle would be playing basketball again this semester (which, by definition, means he wouldn’t be suspended at all).
Anyway, I propose the following. It is reasonable to criticize Notre Dame on the following grounds:
• The timing was poor, they waited too long, etc. (though this needs to come with an acknowledgement that we don’t actually know the reasons for the timing/delay).
• The drug policy is inherently too harsh. Nobody should be suspended from school for a first-time petty drug possession offense.
• A two-semester suspension is too harsh, and may be reflective of a desire to make an example out of Kyle because he’s an athlete. A one-semester suspension is more typical for all students, and would have been the appropriate penalty.
However, it remains unreasonable to criticize Notre Dame on the following grounds:
• The decision should have been handed down immediately/automatically.
• The drug policy is inherently too harsh as applied to athletes. They should just sit out games, that’s it. As for other students, well, whatever.
• A two-semester suspension is too harsh. A one-semester suspension would also have been too harsh. That Kyle was suspended at all proves that Notre Dame is singling him out for especially harsh treatment.
In other words: if you want to make the “especially harsh treatment because he’s an athlete” argument, fine, but you have to be willing to accept a one-semester suspension then. If your contention is that he should have gotten something less than a one-semester suspension, you need to make your argument more broadly applicable to all students, not just Kyle and not just athletes, because at that point you’re arguing for a complete change of university policy, not just a different enforcement decision in a particular case.
Also… here’s a question. Notre Dame keeps citing “privacy reasons” for not releasing any information about Kyle’s hearing. Can’t Kyle waive that? If so, and if he and his family feel so strongly that he was given extra-harsh treatment because he’s an athlete, I think they should waive the privacy rule and allow (indeed, request) the university to publicly release its reasons for giving him a two-semester suspension rather than just one. Without such a release, we simply don’t know — it’s entirely possible that Notre Dame had perfectly valid reasons, but they aren’t allowed to tell us that. It’s really quite a one-sided debate: Kyle can bash ND all he wants, and ND can’t respond, for fear of invading Kyle’s privacy. With every new statement he makes to the press, that rationale becomes increasingly laughable.
January 25th, 2007 at 12:09:31 pm
Well done.
January 25th, 2007 at 12:24:38 pm
Thanks.
We’ll ignore the fact that I should be paying attention in Evidence instead of blogging about Kyle McAlarney. :)
January 25th, 2007 at 4:24:40 pm
“the round-about dishonest, impersonal process that accompanied the suspension”
What is that supposed to mean?
I was an AR at ND and while we were lucky in my hall not to have a lot of discpline problem, nothing makes me more angry than students and alumni who smear Res Life for being “unfair” or “secretive” or “underhanded.” The argument is too ranging to address concisely; but I’d encourage you to consider for one second that the people who work there don’t do it because they hate students. They try very hard and work very long hours to apply discplinary procedures in a way that encourages the construction of successful community on campus. And, yeah, that includes a zero-tolerance policy on drugs.
And there’s no such thing as a “summer semester.” There is a summer session, but in my experience with Res Life, most people who are suspended for the spring semester are also prohibited from returning to campus over the summer. There’s little chance that KMac could “make up” the work he missed during his suspension over the summer anyway. I don’t know what his major is, but the course offerings are rather limited.
KMac got what any other student who had a drug arrest would get. Hands down. Believe me — neither I nor the rector I worked for were any fans of the lenient attitudes toward alcohol; but that doesn’t mean that a zero-tolerance policy on illegal drugs isn’t reasonable.
Moreover, I repeat: none of us has any idea what KMac’s disciplinary file looks like. He could have had many other encounters with Res Life. We will never know and it’s not Res Life’s responsibility to tell us. *And* KMac didn’t receive the harshest punishment Res Life could have given him. Under duLac, he was technically subject to expulsion. Seems to me they took at least some mitigating factors into account.
KMac is a whiny brat. He could have come out of this the bigger man. He could have said “I don’t agree with the university’s decision, but I will respect it. I take full responsibility for my actions and welcome the opportunity to return to Notre Dame to complete my education in the fall.” But he didn’t. He took the petty route. And for that he deserves whatever comes to him.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:40:20 pm
And, please . . . “lost sheep”? Mercy and justice do not demand that a community tolerate flagrant disregard for the standards it sets for its members. A Notre Dame education is a privilege — and clearly one that KMac doesn’t appreciate.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:56:12 pm
in my experience with Res Life, most people who are suspended for the spring semester are also prohibited from returning to campus over the summer
If this is true, then we’re back to square one: the McAlarney’s family’s comments are entirely false and completely out of line.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:07:51 pm
I’d add too that if you are suspended during the spring semester for the fall, you are also prohibited from staying on campus for the summer.
And I don’t really understand everyone’s complaints about the timing of this. The incident in question apparently occurred after the RIder game, which was on December 28. Most ND offices are closed until a week or so before school starts and I’m willing to bet that KMac didn’t voluntarily report it to Res Life. So, in essence, it seems that KMac’s hearings probably took place during the first week of classes — which is what would have happened for any other student. In all, this happened pretty quickly, as Res Life would have waited until it had all the information and would have given KMac enough notice of the hearing so that he could get a student advocate if he wanted (yes, they do exist, though they’re usually completely ineffectual) and arrange for his rector (if he has one) to come in on his behalf. There was nothing delayed, shady, or underhanded about this.