I don’t actually have a problem with wearing a lanyard around my neck. My school ID photo is dated and ridiculous, but always good for a laugh. The orange/purple color combination is odd, but not really a huge deal.

But I do have a fundamental problem with District 219’s ID policy: it serves virtually no purpose.

A couple theories were provided, or thrown around by students, back when the policy was first implemented. Several people mentioned an Illinois state law that mandated visibly wearing an ID at all times. If this law exists, it’s very well hidden; 20 minutes searching the Illinois General Assembly’s list of school-related legislation yielded not a single mention of student identification on any bill pending or current. If anyone knows the whereabouts of the law in question, I’d love to see it.

The other, more popular justification for the policy pertains to school safety. In a back-to-school newsletter from Dr. Ryan McTague, principal of Niles North, he said, “this policy was enacted in response to tragic school shootings that took place at elementary, high schools, and college campuses throughout our nation last year.”

That sounds quite reasonable, but makes no sense whatsoever. The students responsible for the Columbine shooting would have been wearing ID tags if their school had such a policy. They would have been allowed into the building, easily identifiable as students, and the tragedy would have occurred just the same. At Sandy Hook, an ID policy would not have changed the fact that the shooter strolled into the school armed and dangerous. No one mistook him for a student in the first place. Again, an ID policy would have done nothing to avert such a tragedy.

Even if a well-enforced ID policy somehow was sufficient to magically increase school security, Niles North’s policy is woefully unenforced. I enter school with my ID in my pocket or under my coat every single day, and I’m never met with more than a general “Everyone put your ID on!” I’ve made it through entire days with no ID, as the only time anyone seems to care is when entering the lunchroom. I’m not saying that I want my ID to be constantly checked; but if the school is going to laud a pointless rule as a grand safety measure, they could at least have the decency to enforce it.

There’s also the fact that, at least five times this year, I’ve seen Niles West students at Niles North wearing borrowed Niles North lanyards or temporary IDs. It’s probably easier for West students, or other non-North students, to enter the building now than it was before: if they can get their hands on a lanyard, they’re guaranteed to be met with no opposition upon entering the building. In other words, in addition to causing no apparent improvement on school safety, the ID policy may well be making Niles North less secure.

I don’t take issue with the actual act of wearing an ID. It’s a minor inconvenience at worst. But I do take issue with a pointless, ineffective rule with more drawbacks than benefits. I’d like to hear an administrator explain the point of the ID program without referencing Sandy Hook or Columbine, without vaguely referring to a state law that may or may not exist. We as students have the right to know why our rules and regulations are as they are, and in the case of the ID policy we have been given no valid justification.

The question was how to improve school safety. The solution was the ID policy. The solution was wrong. I don’t want Niles North to be some security state, I don’t want to be patted down upon entering or made to walk through a metal detector. I don’t know what reasonable, non-intrusive measure would increase school safety, but I know it’s objectively wrong to say it’s the ID policy.

To hear the opposing view, please check out this article by Leah Berlowe