Stuyvesant Rules, But Its Rules Don't

Teenagers view rules as nothing more than chains holding them back from independence, creativity, or fun. Students are told that many rules exist to provide safety and security. Indeed, the school administration implements a variety of rules to create a productive environment for students and staff. However, while we believe that many of the rules at Stuyvesant are well-intentioned, some are clearly in need of reform.

Entering and Exiting the Building

Throughout the day, many students have the privilege of spending their free or lunch periods outside. However, the predetermined blocks of time during which students are allowed to enter the building are a significant downside when choosing to leave the building and a major point of contention between students and the administration.

Currently, students are only allowed to return to the building during the last five minutes of a period. Administrators say that this rule enables the security staff to keep track of who enters the building more efficiently than if students streamed into the building throughout the entire period. However, it could be argued that students entering in a steady stream would be easier to handle than students going in and out in 10-minute bursts. In addition, because students scan into the building, the administration has the technical capacity to monitor the entrance of students throughout the period.

As for making sure that intruders do not enter the building, security guards are stationed next to the bridge entrance throughout the whole day, monitoring incomers. Overall, the rule restricting entry throughout a period inconveniences students without having any practical benefits; the rule should be amended by allowing students to swipe in and out through the Tribeca Bridge during any time during the period. Monitoring the entrance and exit of students throughout the period would not jeopardize the security and safety of students and the school, while also providing students with much-needed flexibility.

The ID Catastrophe

From entering the school to checking out textbooks, students identification (ID) cards are their all-access keys to Stuyvesant. It is significantly more challenging for students to get through their everyday academic lives without their ID cards. As such, it is understandable that the administration places a $1 fee for temporary ID cards as an incentive for students to be more careful with such a vital resource. However, this is not a completely effective incentive because the value and utility of the ID card itself become the incentives students need to be more careful with misplacing their IDs. The fee is an added burden placed on students, especially on those who do very little to improve their track records regarding losing their ID cards.

Even after paying the $1, students still do not gain the benefits of a full ID. For example, they will often be refused entry to the library and not given school lunch when presenting the temporary ID. This creates a punitive system for losing your ID, and one in which even after you have ostensibly paid the price you continue to face difficulties. This, too, is a rule that could do with an amendment to better meet the needs of the students. One practical solution would be to implement a strike system: students only need to pay the fine on their fourth time forgetting their ID. Furthermore, Stuyvesant should ensure that the temporary ID is fully functional. Finally, Stuyvesant should reduce the cost of a temporary ID to a more reasonable price for a small slip of paper—25 or 50 cents.

Other Rules

While the entry policy and the ID policy are the harshest rules at Stuyvesant, they are not the only ones. Many rules serve no clear purpose, and the lives of students could be improved through reforming (or abolishing) such rules. One example is the ban on wearing hoodies and headphones when entering the building. Not only is it difficult to enforce, but it is also illogical given that hats and heavy overcoats are allowed under the same policy. If the reason behind this policy is to prevent students from carrying forbidden items into the building, prohibiting hoodies while permitting hats and large overcoats seem arbitrary. Therefore, as the cell phone policy has been made more flexible, the administration should consider relaxing other similarly strict rules: Stuyvesant should permit students to wear hoodies and headphones when entering the building.

In a somewhat related vein, the zero-tolerance policy on facial decoration is extreme. While students should be recognizable, requiring students to remove any type or minimal amount of face paint or decoration will further dampen school spirit, especially in cases like El Día de Los Muertos, where many students wear face paint in a fun and educational setting. Finally, another frankly absurd rule is the policy on locker trading. There is no reasonable explanation for banning locker trading entirely; students should be able to exchange lockers for mutual convenience.

When one considers all of the rules we abide by in our daily lives at Stuyvesant, an alarming number of them serve no ostensible purpose other than to inconvenience the student body. In addition, enforcement varies tremendously from dean to dean and teacher to teacher. Therefore, even though a rule might seem reasonable on paper, in practice, its arbitrary enforcement makes it seem absurd, which only leads to confusion and discontent. Reforming many of these rules—or at least explaining why the rules are needed—and having more accountability for the figures responsible for enforcing the rules, would be early steps to making Stuyvesant a better place for students at no cost or disadvantage to the administration.