But something few people seem willing to criticize is Kavanaugh's drinking problem in high school. Why do we give him a free pass, in this version of "boys will be boys"? Not every teenager drinks alcohol, and not all who drink, do so excessively and repeatedly. So it's grossly disrespectful to young people to imply that they do. I take this accusation personally as a mother, but more significantly I take it personally as a high school teacher.
An adult told me recently that I have no idea if my students drink alcohol on the weekends. This was probably true when she attended high school. Certainly even longer ago, when I attended high school, we did not discuss drinking or other questionable behavior with our teachers. But high schools and expectations have evolved over the two decades that I have been teaching. Teachers are much more likely to know whether their students drink than they were in the past, and to be able to estimate data on the subject, because:
2. We have social inventory surveys at school that give good, frequent, anonymous data. Students participate in their Advisory classes, and we get excellent response rates. I realize that this may be an artifact of teaching in a wealthy suburban area, but I think it's worthwhile to mention. Our data shows interesting trends (e.g. away from alcohol and toward marijuana use), but also shows repeatedly that at most two thirds of our students have ever drunk alcohol with peers by the time they graduate high school. Two thirds sounds like a lot, but it leaves many students who do not drink.
3. We have more social-emotional opportunities for open discussion among students and teachers. There are entire classes at my own school about social norms and behavior, as well as many more informal times when students and teachers discuss alcohol, drug, and sexual choices. When plenty of students admit to drinking alcohol, and plenty of students explain why they make other choices, teachers accumulate real data.
I don't think that drinking alcohol in high school should disqualify people from most jobs in life. But if you are going to be interpreting and to some extent enforcing our law, in the highest court in the land, then it's reasonable to expect candidates to have a totally unimpeachable record about following the law themselves. (Possible exceptions for moral reasons, such as sit-ins or protests that lead to trespassing arrests, can be examined openly if applicable.)
And should this unimpeachable record start at age fourteen (or younger)? As to the argument that they're "just kids" - I know plenty of teens who make excellent choices, and I think that they are certainly old enough to be held accountable for those choices. Although some brain development continues for up to another decade, teenagers are fully formed human beings who express opinions, write interesting analyses, and are fully capable of knowing right from wrong. I leave it to my middle school colleagues to determine if this is true even younger.
We already, in fact, hold kids accountable for their choices. In the age of social media, colleges rescind admissions for harassment and other inappropriate behavior. Athletic team standards hold students accountable for unsporting conduct, which may include hazing, bullying, or substance use.
In the unlikely event that I am called upon to offer my opinion, here are my four basic criteria before anyone should be considered as a Supreme Court nominee:
1. No illegal use of alcohol or drugs, including underage use; no excessive use of any substance.
2. No cheating on any academic or financial matter.
3. No bullying, belittling, or hazing behavior.
4. No harassment or non-consensual touching of any other person.
This list will necessarily exclude a lot of people, both in and out of the public sector. However, the good news is that the USA is not Sodom, where it's impossible to find a quorum of good people (notwithstanding Lot's legacy admission to Canaan). For our highest court, I think we deserve it.
