Garfield's copouts start with the adults

Some adults in the area either have turned softer than Charles Barkley's biceps or become so obsessed with technicalities they can't do the right thing. So let me turn to the staunchest disciplinarian I know to figure out this Garfield High School controversy.

My father.

Basic question: Dad, would you have let your sons play football if we'd been charged with a crime?

Rapid response: "That's a no-brainer, Jerry. You guys got to sit!"

Then he laughed. It was rather nefarious, very Mr. T, I-pity-the-fool laugh. Thank heavens, I was a pretty good kid.

"I'm sorry," Dad continued. "Y'all aren't even thinking about playing. Football is, like, the least thing that should be on your mind."

Simple as that. Misbehave, miss football. No debate.

So this Garfield situation is as confusing as it is troubling. Everywhere, you find adults not acting as strong adults or being afraid to be strong adults. As a result, the children suffer.

The Bulldogs played their season finale Thursday night with three irresponsible teammates who were part of a Garfield foursome charged this week in connection with two assaults and robberies last month.

When those four students were arrested in September, along with two more teammates, the three players got two-game suspensions. Then they were reinstated, leading to all this attention for a team that won just once all season.

The problem involves a string of copouts the length of a football field. The school district says it can't do anything because its rules don't cover disciplining students who commit crimes off school grounds. Garfield principal Ted Howard says he was advised to leave the situation alone, so he let the parents decide on punishment. Garfield coach Anthony Allen followed orders, and the parents allowed their kids to play Thursday against Woodinville.

In utopia, this wouldn't be a story. The parents would've recognized the need for tough love and pulled their children off the team. It is the parents' job to take the decision away from the school by making one themselves. They deserve the most criticism.

Because they copped out, we must move onto the next copout.

Garfield should've had the guts to do something, anything. Forget the rules; there are ways around rules, especially when we're talking about a rule that doesn't even exist.

Garfield's responsibility was twofold. Howard should've protected the school's reputation while also helping his troubled students in the most helpful manner.

He failed at both, and this incident has turned into a black eye not only for the school's administration and football team, but for anyone associated with Garfield. It's unfortunate but true. Traditions carry schools. Controversies tarnish them.

To his credit, Howard listens to and understands differing viewpoints in this argument. He seems genuine when he says his only option was to go strictly by the rulebook. When asked why he didn't do more, he said, "I think the policies have to change for us to address that."

To be fair, those Bulldogs players still could be proven innocent, but it would be difficult considering they essentially admitted guilt and returned stolen items to one of the victims. Regardless, an unforgiving public will remember only that the kids played while this cloud hovered.

Garfield had an out. Allen could've kept the players on the team but sat them during the games. It's a coach's prerogative.

If Allen had done this, the players would've received the discipline, regimen and stay-off-the-streets activity football provides while getting proper punishment. And if your goal is to teach children, here's a valuable lesson: Making kids stay on task when there's no obvious reward involved.

Because Garfield copped out, we must move onto the next copout.

The Seattle School District had better be revising its athletic handbook as we speak. And the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association had better be establishing a policy on athletes arrested, charged or convicted of crimes.

The language needs to be clear and merciless. No kid should be allowed to compete while in legal trouble. I'm sorry. Y'all aren't even thinking about playing.

If kids are found not guilty, then reinstate them. But the school should be allowed to take away extracurricular activities. It can't be in the parents' hands.

Schools don't let parents decide playing time. Why should they let parents make decisions that affect a school's integrity?

Howard describes Garfield High as spirit-filled, diverse and lively. He's an alum, Class of 1985. Garfield is more than the school he leads; it's his heart.

"You just kind of hold your head up high," Howard said, dismissing the negative publicity. "You know Garfield is bigger than this incident."

He should've drawn from that love to make his decisions, not from compassion, not even from fairness.

Playing high-school sports is not a right. If it were a right, every child cut from the team would be able to sue.

No one — neither the parents, nor Garfield, nor the school district — can escape blame. Every adult ran from proper discipline. It led to one embarrassing conclusion: A no-brainer turned into a controversy.

Even no-brainers have loopholes, if that's what the adults allow.

Well, you know what they say: It takes a village to raze a child.

Jerry Brewer: 206-464-2277 or jbrewer@seattletimes.com.