Imagine our school without the amiable chime of scanners welcoming us back every time we enter the building and wishing us a speedy return every time we leave. Imagine being able to go outside during free periods. Imagine the school without dean and social studies teacher Daniel Tillman patrolling the halls saying, “One, Two, Five” in his gentle but authoritative tone. It may be hard to imagine, but not that long ago, this was the state of student rights and freedoms.

As every generation of freshmen enters our school, it accepts the current condition of student rights as the status quo. The administration’s curtailing of these rights is thus gradually forgotten over the years. We lose our freedom regarding free periods and extracurricular activities because the administration is too quick to correlate good behavior with good grades.

And because the student body is unaware of the history of its rights. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, students were prohibited from going outside during free periods. The administration cited security reasons, student safety and a nonexistent Chancellor’s regulation that required students to remain in the building during frees. Since the 2007-2008 school year, ID scanners have been used to swipe in and out for lunch periods. For a school with 3,183 students, the scanners provide the administration with a simple method for keeping tabs on everyone within the building. With the scanners, the administration thinks it knows exactly where a student is at every moment of the day, except during his or her lunch period.

Last year, there were three reported incidents of disruptive student activity at Whole Foods, Barnes & Noble and the Regal Battery Park Stadium 11. After being notified by these three venues, Teitel considered not allowing any incoming freshmen to go out for lunch.

The official policy now states that all freshmen are to have out-to-lunch privileges retracted if they receive a grade of ‘Unsatisfactory’ (U) or ‘Needs Improvement’ (N) during the first marking period, despite the fact that there is little evidence to show that poor grades correlate to misbehavior outside of school. And while some students are not responsible enough to go out for lunch, the administration needs to mete out punishments on a case-by-case basis rather than restrict the privileges of those who have done no wrong. Punishing the entire student body for the actions of a few students does not send the right message. It has come to a point where students only see punishments, rather than rewards, as an outcome of their actions.

Growing up in the city, students are trusted with a great deal of responsibility. Students travelling from all over the city need to learn to be autonomous starting from their freshman year, if not earlier. Restricting students from leaving the building during lunch and even during their free periods for supposed security reasons is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

With more and more restrictions imposed on students’ out-to-lunch privileges, there will naturally be more students than ever in the school any given period. The class of 2010 has 791 students, the class of 2011 has 785 students, the class of 2012 has 849 and the class of 2013 has 858. Overcrowded hallways and congestion are becoming a larger issue every year, forcing the administration to allow students to congregate only on certain floors so as not to disrupt classes.

If students were allowed outside during free periods, the school’s chances of a liability issue would increase. If a student does not scan his or her ID in the morning, an automated call is made to that student’s home number. But instead of functioning as a tool of student safety, the administration is using the scanners as a means of punishing students. Arriving late from lunch too many times, even if only by a minute or two, will result in a revocation of your out-to-lunch privileges, whether you are late to your next class or not.

The administration’s tendency of punishing rather than positively reinforcing extends to extracurricular activities. Upon failing two classes or a physical education class, students are not allowed to play on a sports team. A ‘U’ or an ‘N’ on a report card may soon affect participation in extracurricular activities as well. Last year, many students were pulled out of SING! within a week of the show because of their grades. Now the policy may be extended to other extracurricular activities. The policy is meant to encourage students to spend the time they used to spend on their extracurricular activities on their homework and studying for classes.

In the cases of both non-academic activities and out-to-lunch privileges, the administration assumes a strong correlation between good grades and good behavior. Yet the two are not necessarily associated.

Extracurricular activities balance out students’ schoolwork and serve as another reason to come to school. Not only is preventing students from participating in non-academic activities disheartening, but the measure also limits the exposure students have to the world outside academics.

By putting in extra time playing soccer on a team, building a set for a production, or researching the state of our world for Model United Nations, students can gain experiences that they never would have in a classroom. In a large school, relationships can easily become impersonal. But with smaller and tight-knit clubs, pubs, and teams, students can search for their passion alongside others with similar interests. Individuals may very well find their passions and pursuits for the future. The extracurricular activities offered at Stuyvesant go hand-in-hand with the academics.

As important as maintaining the reputation of the school is, the administration should keep in mind that every student needs to grow as a person and not simply as a generator of favorable statistics.