From the Archives: October 10, 1970.

In the beginning of this school year, a teaching department at Redwood High School voted on a policy for that department’s particular extracurricular activities. This policy, proposed by the department head, and to apply to all of that department’s extracurricular activities, passed a vote by the faculty members of the deparment by over two-thirds majority, 10 to 4. All of this was done in a legal fashion according to school policy.
 

A number of students involved in an activity under this department’s jurisdiction refused to comply with this new rule and were therefore not allowed to participate in the activity. (The number of students was five.)
When word of this small incident reached the ears of the Superintendent of the Tamalpais High School District, he made a judgement. His opinion was that it was a case of “opting for the rule” which represented the entire department, or “opting for the kids,” represented by five students (in this case). The Superintendent  made a decision before discussing it with the Department, its Chairman, and Redwood’s principal; “I opted for the kids.”
In temporarily rescinding this rule and taking all say on this rule away from the teachers, leaving it entirely up to the department until the rule was discussed, he yielded to the wishes of five student participants’ wishes. In fact, he went a step farther and temporarily put all control of the rule in the students’ hands. What does this reflect about the system when a minority of students is appeased, or “opted” for over a department’s ruling?