Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-11-06
Withholding the Diploma.

opinion 10 the contrary, the bOaro OF
Education is not acting this afternoon
on the question of making personal
cleanliness or neatness required course
for a high school diploma. The pro-
posed so-called dirty neck" amendment
to the rules of the board is in fact more
far-reaching. It's purpose is to place In
the hands Of the school officials
weapon which they do not nov possess.
In brief, the amendment would give
them authority to withhold diploma
from student whose Immoral conduct,
indecent language, violent or pointed
opposition to authority, persistent DISC
bedience or disorder, dishonesty or I'M
truthfulneSs, habitual hardness, unau-
thorized absence or uncleanly condition
Of person or clothing" indicates a def
cheney in character, despite proficiency
in study.
The amendment is sought by its pro-
ponents as a means of enforcing dis
cipline under the compulsory education
laws which now prevent the suspension
or dismissal of students between the
ages of seven and sixteen. In other
words, the fourteen-year-old student
now may be guilty of an offense which
under the rules of the board is punish
able by suspension, But as the law
prevents his being removed from school,
the proposed amendment would permit
the completion of his course, but would
withhold from him the diploma that
certifies to that completion.
It is conceivable that under this
amendment a student, brilliant as he
might be in his studies and exemplary
as might be his conduct, could fall
within the ban and lose q deserved
Diploma because of an inherent dislike
of soap and water. But that is unlikely.
The real purpose of the amendment is
understood to be the strategic position
that it gives the school officials In their
war against secret fraternities and So
cieties, That is an old war, and SO lar
the students apparently have been VIC
torious. Despite their pledge, counter
signed by parents, which places them
ON their honor not to join forbidden
societies or secret organizations, they 90
make these afiliations and go unpun-
ished. One purpose to be accomplished
by the proposed amendment is to create
the form of punishment that lies In
withholding diplomas.
The root of disagreement over ulis
amendment probably rests in ones con-
ception of the diploma as well as the
function of the public school system
If the diploma attests mere scnoiasC'c
attainment, the personal character Oh
the student does not enter the equatioo.
But if the diploma represents the at
tainnent of a certain fixed standard Oh
ethics by the student as well as Cne
completion of a course of study, failure
in one requirement could be considered
as ground for withholding the diploma.
If the public schools are to mold CHAR
acter as we'll as teach mathematics
consideration of the students character
plays a part.
It is ridiculous to believe that the
Board OF EQuCdJlOil WOuAO NCHJ - ~
liant and Woodworking student MS
diploma, even if the student refused
to cut his hair or remove the dirt from
behind his ears. And the Board OF
Education is entering on dangerous
ground when it attempts to write in
black and white the attributes OF good
character. But it seems logical to
withhold from the student who lies and
deceives his superiors the same honor
and distinction that is awarded
through a diploma, to those students
whose conduct, in the face of tempta-
ton, has been unimpeachable.
There might be a compromise based
on a distinction between the regular
diploma and a mere certificate attest
ing to a standard of scholastic at
tainment. 1t is doubtful If the board
could legally deny student the GER
LITIGATION of his scholastic record. Such
certification plays an essential part in
the students future education. To deny
it on the basis of a theoretical de-
| ficiency in character is to deny the pos
sibility of that reformation and reali-
cation of responsibility that, unfortu-
nateIy, is too often delayed until high
school days are over.
~-S- A0N-S-s