At the start of the 2023 athletic season, athletes received an email stating that the long term “In The Presence Of” rule had been altered. This impactful change to the policy initially went unnoticed by many students, especially the underclassmen. While the policy was geared towards athletes, it is important for those on teams and on the sidelines to understand the reasoning behind the rule, the recent change to its contents, and the predicted effects of the rule change on the L-S community.
The Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) has a baseline rule: Students in possession of, or caught using substances will receive athletic probation through a cut of 25% of their athletic season. Additionally, the MIAA had included a policy that students “in the presence of” substances, including sober students who were simply at parties with alcohol, were also eligible for probation. Although other schools didn’t embrace the “in the presence of” in their rulebook, Lincoln-Sudbury adopted the policy for their athletic programs until last year, when former Lincoln-Sudbury Athletic Director Art Riley brought the rule to the School Committee and past Superintendent, Bella Wong. After much discussion, they voted to remove the “in the presence of” section, and instead fall back to the MIAA’s baseline rule.
When Art Riley retired, candidates for the Athletic Director position were asked their opinion on the rule. Dan Lee, the current Lincoln-Sudbury Athletic Director, offered his reasons as to why the rule was changed. He contended that a driving factor for the removal of the “in the presence of” policy was the relationship strain it placed between students and faculty. If police issued a report to the school of students who were at a party with substances, it was then the responsibility of the administration to identify who would receive punishment. With the removal of the “in the presence of” rule, the police can provide a detailed list of who was in possession of alcohol or drugs, allowing for decisions of punishment to be based solely on facts rather than judgment calls. Mr. Lee also emphasized how the change eliminates “interrogation” of the students, while also prompting them to make smarter decisions when in the presence of police at a function. Mr. Lee mentioned a specific incident at Westwood High School, where a female student, attempting to hide from arriving police, ran off of a cliff into woods, and was ultimately hospitalized for her injuries. However, her family attested that she had been sober, and to Mr. Lee, if athletes no longer face punishment for being sober at a party, there is no reason to flee. “Time will tell if this will be a positive or negative change,” Mr. Lee says, but he believes it will be the former. Additionally, Mr. Lee had previously worked at Needham High School, which did not have an “in the presence of” rule, instead following the basic MIAA policy. His experience granted him perspective on the impacts of the rule, and led him to believe that the change to the “in the presence of rule” will foster a better relationship between athletes and staff, as well as a safer environment for students altogether.
Mr. Elenbaas, the Lincoln Sudbury Associate Principal for South House, however, is “torn” over the decision. Mr. Elenbaas has been a biology and chemistry teacher at L-S, coached the Warriors lacrosse and hockey programs, and several years ago was the Athletic Director for Lincoln Sudbury. Mr. Elenbaas explained that the “in the presence of” rule was initially enacted with two goals in mind: student safety and substance abuse prevention. Mr. Elenbaas explains the administration did not want to convey the message that “going to a massive party with numerous people drinking and using drugs is safe,” even if the individual is sober. He used shrapnel as a metaphor, illustrating the negative effects of placing yourself in environments where many of your peers are under the influence. He also continued to point out that while being a designated driver is a safe decision, it also can be dangerous, emphasizing that intoxicated, distracting peers in the backseat pose a legal and physical risk, since any open can in the vehicle becomes your responsibility. With the removal of the rule, Mr. Elenbaas commends students for protecting their friends, but worries that students are placing themselves at greater risk by being in situations with substances. However, Mr. Elenbaas also offers reasons for the change. For example, he recognized that students who were trying to protect their friends or teammates by acting as “designated drivers” were being put on athletic probation, a punishment equal to what students who were extremely drunk earned. Mr. Elenbaas stated this decision left parents, coaches, and students feeling that the rule was “unfair in the other direction.” Similar to Mr. Lee, Mr. Elenbaas alo cited the difficulty of interpreting a police report. Mr. Elenbaas was not a voting party in the process of removing the “in the presence of rule,” but he sees both sides to the argument and emphasizes the administration’s goals of protecting students. He also knows the importance of encouraging athletes to stay sober, and while the effects of the rule change remain uncertain, he hopes the adjustment brings improved communication regarding substance use and creates a healthier environment for athletes.
Officer Walch, Lincoln-Sudbury’s School Resource Officer, shared that the main reason the “in the presence of” policy was dropped was its unfairness to athletes. She highlighted how “the policy was not applicable to all LS students and only punished the athletes,” leading many students, parents, and coaches to believe the rule needed alteration. The same as Mr. Lee, she mentioned tremendous safety risks the rule posed for students, such as running into the woods when police were called to a party, and Officer Walsh also agreed the rule encouraged lying to officers. She expresses that “simple proximity to substances should not presume guilt of consumption.” Officer Walch hopes the rule change will have a positive effect on students, but she also affirmed how incidents of underage and illegal consumption of drugs and alcohol have increased in general, and that a goal of the administration remains promoting students to “make better choices.”
Kaitlyn Steffick, a senior at Lincoln-Sudbury and captain of the cross-country team, agrees with Mr. Lee and Mr. Elenbaas, and believes the recent removal of the “in the presence of” policy will have a positive impact on L-S. She contends that sober students shouldn’t receive the same punishment as students who are drinking, as these students are not responsible for the actions of their peers who are under the influence, and, oftentimes, students are not aware of all happenings at social gatherings. Fellow senior Holly Wessman had similar thoughts on the topic. She expressed that under the previous “in the presence of” rule, some students may even be incentivized to drink, since remaining sober would still cost them the same punishment as students who were drinking. With the removal of the policy, Holly believes that students will have less fear when going to social events, especially because many athletes don’t know if there is alcohol present at parties. At school, student-athletes will be rewarded for good choices, and it won’t feel like the faculty is “out to get students.” Holly believes safer choices will be made.
Many students at L-S were unaware that the “in the presence of” rule was changed, and some didn’t even know about the policy at all. The change is sure to impact seasons going forward, and understanding the reasoning behind the administration’s decision is crucial to fostering a positive environment at L-S.
