Michael Sheridan, an eighth-grader in Connecticut, bought a bag of Skittles in the hallway of his middle school. Because this is against school rules, he’s been suspended from school, will miss an honors student dinner and will have to give up his title as class vice president. You can read all about it in the New Haven Register.

My initial reaction was: “Wow, is the school nuts? This seems pretty extreme over candy, a food all of us as adults enjoyed in childhood without anyone turning it into a federal case.” Then, I started thinking about federal cases, in particular the one that’s unfolding here in New York. There are some interesting parallels going on. Eliot Spitzer broke some laws and he’s going to lose his office over it. But, the question must be asked: Are the school’s rules regarding candy as reasonable as our nation’s laws regarding money transfers and prostitution? In other words: Should a student be punished as severely as Sheridan is being punished for breaking rules that weren’t even rules a few short years ago? (Plus, it’s candy! Moms buy their kids candy! It’s harmless — unless you happen to eat it in large quantities, but that’s another issue. I wonder if this school that’s so keen to prevent children from ingesting one stray sugar molecule also has fully funded its gym programs?)

(I want to add: I don’t think the child should receive no punishment. After all, he did break a rule. But the punishment meted out seems in excess of the crime. Missing a dinner to honor his academic achievements seems counterproductive and stripping him of his class title seems overzealous. The analogy with Spitzer would be, I think, if he had been caught speeding. Sure, he would have been embarassed and met with censure for breaking the law. But would he have had to resign as governor? I don’t think so. The punishment should fit the crime.)

Eliot Spitzer, and his apology for an activity he is yet to name, did not come up at my house last night.                  Now that could mean the kids didn’t know about it because the news broke too late in the school day to become gossip there. And then they went home to the Nintendo Wii, which was still filling the house with the sounds of a furious jungle fire fight when I got home.                 On the other hand, maybe they knew but were were too busy torturing each other and their parents to raise the subject.                    In any case that gives me time to think about what to say when this conversation does play out. As I write this, I have no idea what to say, but that’s OK.  In a little while, I’m going to be one of several reporters here working on a story about how parents plan to talk to their kids on this very subject.                  That’s a great thing about this job: not just talking to folks about big news – whether it’s the shooting of John Lennon, or September 11 and its aftermath – but listening to them trying to make sense of the events. Even if a lot of the time it doesn’t.                   After listening to some of the morning radio shows today – and the trashy level of  discussions there –  it’s clearly a good idea to have that conversation with your kids. What are you going to say?