When I speak to my older sister, who graduated in 2015, about Ramaz, I feel as though we are talking about two different schools. Personally, it has been a struggle to stand by the Ramaz community as it constantly puts my grade through the wringer. Do not misunderstand me, though. As I stated in Part I of this Op-Ed series, I fully support Ramaz’s new image, but often feel aggravated that all the change happens to me.

The topics I am discussing in this issue are two small new policies among many more that Ramaz has implemented over my time in the school. However, I hope these discussions will clarify the actual problem and not merely claim, as students tend to, that rules should not exist. They have their purpose, logic, and proper place in our school environment.

If it’s not the rules themselves that are causing problems, then what is? I believe that the issues stem from the influx of tighter rules and regulations in such a short period of time. More importantly, I believe that upperclassman recall what Ramaz once was and miss it, despite knowing that the change is for the better.

Let’s begin with privileges. While one may argue that “privileges are a right” (said by Jack Ottensoser in his bid for G.O. President), a quick Google search reveals that this phrase is oxymoronic. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, privileges are a “special right that is available only to a particular person or group of people.” By definition, privileges should not be given to everyone.

So, if privileges aren’t actually meant for everyone, then why is the student body so up-in-arms about being deprived of them? For years, the Ramaz administration has used the word “privileges” when referring to a student’s ability to freely leave the building. Previously, full “privileges” were given to each junior after Pesach; however, this senior grade was the first grade that was forced to live by the real, rediscovered definition of “privileges.” Unlike years prior, we were told that full privileges were unattainable in our junior year and would only be distributed in small increments.

Most importantly, our “privileges” were the first to be fully distributed by the grade dean using the behavior of the grade and individual to dictate their extent. To me, the problem is clear. The current seniors and juniors are not necessarily aggravated about their diminished privileges. Rather, they are aggravated that they are being held to a higher standard than past Ramaz grades.

This brings me to my next point: lateness and detention. In life, people need to be on time and receive consequences if they are not. So, why do so many Ramaz seniors have such a difficult time grappling with this fact? In reality, it’s due to the school’s transition from an administration that didn’t enforce lateness to today’s administration, which has a very low tolerance for late students.

As seen in Rabbi Slomnicki’s email to students and parents, the administration is no longer messing around with lateness. Rabbi Slomnicki wrote, “students who arrive after 8:00 AM will be recorded as late…Students who are chronically late or consistently display poor citizenship will be placed on social probation upon their third detention within an academic quarter.” However, Ramaz seniors can easily recall a time when the administration used empty threats and attendance sheets that went nowhere to keep track of lateness. In fact, Ramaz seniors spent half of their Upper School tenure with no lateness consequences.

As Ms. Friedman noted to me, the Senior grade—by far—has always had the worst attendance and tardiness. In my opinion, the reasoning behind this is obvious: the Senior grade was present throughout this comprehensive revamp of the school’s lateness policy, and they experienced a massive change in the consequences for tardiness. Before, almost no consequences existed. Now, students are told that repeated lateness will result in half-hour long detentions and social probation. Thus, the Senior grade’s exposure to both systems doesn’t as much justify but explain their serial lateness.

Although I am not a psychiatrist, I truly believe that the student body’s reaction to these changes is normal. However, many of those in charge have not recognized this to the full extent. These changes were made without any regard for the mental health, sanity, and comfort of the Senior grade. Change is good, but too much change causes turmoil and disruption. Was it fair for the Seniors to have their high school experiences disrupted by all of these changes, and has the administration done enough to counteract this lack of consistency? I think it is obvious that my answer is “no.” In the next issue, I will sit down with various teachers, administrators, faculty and students to discuss their personal answers to this complex question.