Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Mike from Dallas on February 22, 2010:

ZT is nothing new. The name is new, but the concept has been around longer than all of us. In fact, it was the concept of Zero Tolerance that was the basis for much of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Too bad that ZT is actually being used to override the Constitution.

For past generations, you never questioned Authority because that was disrespect. The John Birch Society epitomized that with "America, Love It Or Leave It." A criticism of any problem in the country was treason against the entire country. A sentiment echoed not so long ago with a recent President.

How OFTEN have we heard adults say, "Well, the rules ARE the rules," without questioning WHY they're the rules? Especially the police. To share an anecdote, one fine day several years ago, I was driving down a street in Detroit when I heard gunfire up ahead. Rather than continue driving into a danger zone, I made a U-turn and went back the other way. It was a one-way street. A cop stopped me for driving the wrong direction. I explained about the gunfire. That was not the issue; the issue was me driving in the wrong direction. I took it up with the court. The judge stated that the law is the law. Pay the fine, please.

Now, most people would support my position. But enough will side with the cop or the judge. One, the rules are the rules. And secondly, I'm just Joe Citizen and not above making this up (no, it was true). But cops and judges are role models and would never be so intransigent, would they?

And there is the problem, people; those who believe that Authority is infallible. King George III was just a poor, maligned leader who suffered at the hands of rabble like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by Felix, Dutch Flat on February 22, 2010:

I sometimes think the greatest thing the government could do would be to mandate a week session every school year in every class on how to think for yourself. Talk about the bill of rights. Learn how to tell cops to get a warrant and how to keep your mouth shut. Talk about the difference between the end of your fist and the start of somebody else's nose, and learn how to grow a thick skin and stop blaming everybody else for your own mistakes.

And if some student has the nerve to say "Not Me" and walk out of the class, they get an "A" and the rest of the week off -- but only the first one.

Posted by Shannon, Houston TX on February 22, 2010:

I agree that ZT is a one way ticket to nowhere. However, I disagree with your opinion of the cause. I'm a teacher and I can say there's no class we sit through on gun, drug, etc rules. It's not blindly following a rule that has been taught. In my opinion, the individuals who suffer from ZT are also suffering from a severe case of CYA. Our society is always looking for someone else to blame for their mistake and I think these administrators are so busy thinking what could happen if something went terribly wrong later down the line. What would happen if that 9 year old shows up with a shotgun in 2 years and starts shooting?? Will I be blamed for letting the toy gun go?? This is what administrators think and what leads to the loss (or lack) of common sense shown.

Posted by Joyce, Arizona on February 22, 2010:

Actually, I'm not surprised considering that Obama recently signed an extension of the Bush eavesdropping laws. In fact, Obama has been extending so many of the Bush policies (along with keeping Bush people) that it's hard to believe he was elected because of his platform of "change". He's changed nothing! He talks like a Democrat but acts like a Republican.

Posted by Linda, Southern California on February 22, 2010:

My husband and I attended a lecture a few years ago by a well-known professor who does work on memory, and specifically on falsely implanted memory. She went through various methods of convincing people that something had happened to them when it really hadn't - showing them a fake picture, having people agree with false memories, etc. She showed a graph of the effectiveness of various methods, but the part which really got our attention was the baseline 7% of people who believe something false with absolutely no evidence. These could be the birthers, alien abductionists, Holocaust deniers - pick the ones you think are absurd. 7% is TWENTY-ONE MILLION PEOPLE in the U.S. So your total of 5.8% idiots is not too far off the baseline. Until it rises above 7%, I figure it's just noise.

---

My point about that is, if the survey had been statistically valid (a true cross-section of Americans), that 5.8% would likely be much higher. I'd guess greater than 7%, but that's just a guess. And it's a scary prospect. -rc

Posted by LD, Ohio on February 23, 2010:

More than a decade ago I made clear to my children that using the term "common sense" made absolutely no sense in this day and age. You see, "common sense" means that it is found just about anywhere, that it is usual, that there is more of it than other types of "sense". We all are aware, even if we fail to recognize it, that people today seem to have more dollars than sense ... even in a depressed economy.

Point of fact: The "common sense" of today is one-sided, blind and unthinking, bound by rules rather than ethics, CYA rather than appropriate cogitation.

What I advised them to say, the terminology I use which I feel is far more accurate and appropriate, is "uncommon good sense". If you think about it, it should make good sense to you too.

---

The "common" in "common sense" doesn't mean that it's found everywhere -- it obviously isn't. Rather, it's the sense of "shared". The phrase is from the Latin sensus communis, meaning the "common feelings of humanity", and has come to mean "sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge." Thus, sound judgment based upon the common feelings of humanity, rather than specific training. Feelings of connection and justice foster common sense; strict adherence to rules no matter what destroy it. -rc

Posted by Peter, Manchester England on February 23, 2010:

@Shannon You make sense. (You had better stop before it gets you in trouble). Here in the UK we are about 10 years behind the ZT malarkey which we are importing from the USA. The removal of any kind of personal responsibility and its replacement by corporate zero-tolerance, zero-risk policies is becoming the norm.

I would like to retain the freedom to choose a proportionate response to any situation. In respect of the law: the law is an ass. That is to say it is the very bluntest of instruments and cannot separate the grey from the black and white. That is why it has no place in our day-to-day decision making such as how a teacher handles an ostensibly racial insult in kindergarten.

Zero Tolerance = The lowest common denominator given the highest possible power.

Sigh.

Posted by dennis, san francisco on February 23, 2010:

I agree with you about the ZT loonies repeating what they were taught when small. Most children believe whatever the big people tell them and many never grow out of it. But I think it's still a chicken-and-egg question. How and why did it get started in the first place? I never ran into it when I was young (I'm in my 70s). Even in the military the rules were almost always tempered with a good portion of common sense and the ability to recognize the relative importance of things. This was true even in a combat zone, where issues of safety and discipline are certainly more important than they are in a Philadelphia high school.

---

It started as a response to actual problems -- guns and illicit drugs in schools -- and was fostered by lawsuits, in that they wanted to ensure no one was unfairly targeted (like minorities). The result: everyone is unfairly targeted. I suppose that's fair in a way.... -rc

Posted by Neil, Cheshire, UK on February 23, 2010:

This story is confusing as well as frightening, although I'm glad to see that the school is facing prosecution. Was the assistant principal activating the camera remotely, at random times?!?

As for the people who said in the poll that such monitoring was acceptable, they were probably caught out by the question. Monitoring (by the proper authorities, not by the schools) is indeed acceptable in order to catch illegal activity or abuse, but it's impossible to know what is going to be seen before indiscriminately activating cameras. Surely that's the point about freedom from unreasonable searches (and seizures) - that violations of property (and propriety) are justified only in order to corroborate evidence of wrongdoing, not to check to see if there's any evidence of anything happening in the first place!

I agree with the "QEP" reader on one level: as you reported it, the principal in Patrick Timoney's case was applying ZT logic in a district where she didn't have the power to do so. The "model" policy was giving administrators no more freedom to do the wrong thing than ZT district policies give them to do the right thing. Was not her reversion to the (presumably) familiar was a violation of her training.

Posted by Don in Scottsdale on February 23, 2010:

The "Yes it's fine" or "No it's bad" answers are not the problem. The people with positive or negative opinions aren't the problem. Those who just allow it to happen will be responsible in the end. I think you should have asked "If this was instituted tomorrow, would you actually DO anything about it?"