The excesses of ZT are the equivalent of far too many "laws" and welfare programs of our various governments. As it happens, a good idea that can be realistic and a help in daily living is enacted. Now, in order for the program to work, some kind of committee needs to be instituted. And that fact becomes the downfall of the program, since the individuals being paid by the enactors want to be sure that they will continue their sinecures and not have to seek employment in the real world. And the group then builds layers of "protection" around the original idea and the personnel. The idea is "evoluted", growing constantly and becomes impersonal and mutates into something the originators did not ask for.
So much for not watching all the idiotic forums and boards of America. Keep your eyes on them, fellow citizens.
Posted by
Richard, University of Florida on June 8, 2008:
It is no surprise to me that the entire ZT movement (indoctrination) started in the schools. If after years of application and generations of exposure the mini-government of the local school can convince its students that it is ok for the government to eschew due process, habeas corpus, and other such rights and responsibilities of civil life, imagine what ideally docile subjects said school will churn out for the larger state (which, by the way, funds the very schools that are supposed to be training independent and thoughtful adults). To deny a student the right to circumstance, evidence, analysis, and public debate -- how much more dehumanizing, let alone un-American, can a system become?
Thank you Randy, for holding this ground. Your page should be required reading for all educators.
Posted by
Michael J, Sydney, Australia on June 20, 2008:
It has always seemed to me that "Zero Common Sense" is the problem, rather than "Zero Tolerance".
I think that a zero tolerance approach to illegal drugs makes perfect sense. However punishing our correspondent Dennis, who clearly didn't use drugs, is simply stupid. The principal should have waited a few seconds to see if he actually bought the drugs before acting.
We hear similar stories of students being punished for vitamins or even candy, because it looks like drugs. Again, the problem isn't lack of tolerance, it is plain stupidity.
Too often, the perpetrators of this foolishness will claim Zero Tolerance as their justification, but it just isn't true. A policy of zero tolerance for weapons means stamping out weapons, not suspending kids for pointing their finger and saying "bang".
Perhaps we need teachers and administrators who can make a simple decision, rather than some of the zombies who currently pervade.
The ZT'd Reader: Other Readers Respond - Comments
Posted by Cat, Albuquerque on June 7, 2008:
The excesses of ZT are the equivalent of far too many "laws" and welfare programs of our various governments. As it happens, a good idea that can be realistic and a help in daily living is enacted. Now, in order for the program to work, some kind of committee needs to be instituted. And that fact becomes the downfall of the program, since the individuals being paid by the enactors want to be sure that they will continue their sinecures and not have to seek employment in the real world. And the group then builds layers of "protection" around the original idea and the personnel. The idea is "evoluted", growing constantly and becomes impersonal and mutates into something the originators did not ask for.
So much for not watching all the idiotic forums and boards of America. Keep your eyes on them, fellow citizens.
Posted by Richard, University of Florida on June 8, 2008:
It is no surprise to me that the entire ZT movement (indoctrination) started in the schools. If after years of application and generations of exposure the mini-government of the local school can convince its students that it is ok for the government to eschew due process, habeas corpus, and other such rights and responsibilities of civil life, imagine what ideally docile subjects said school will churn out for the larger state (which, by the way, funds the very schools that are supposed to be training independent and thoughtful adults). To deny a student the right to circumstance, evidence, analysis, and public debate -- how much more dehumanizing, let alone un-American, can a system become?
Thank you Randy, for holding this ground. Your page should be required reading for all educators.
Posted by Michael J, Sydney, Australia on June 20, 2008:
It has always seemed to me that "Zero Common Sense" is the problem, rather than "Zero Tolerance".
I think that a zero tolerance approach to illegal drugs makes perfect sense. However punishing our correspondent Dennis, who clearly didn't use drugs, is simply stupid. The principal should have waited a few seconds to see if he actually bought the drugs before acting.
We hear similar stories of students being punished for vitamins or even candy, because it looks like drugs. Again, the problem isn't lack of tolerance, it is plain stupidity.
Too often, the perpetrators of this foolishness will claim Zero Tolerance as their justification, but it just isn't true. A policy of zero tolerance for weapons means stamping out weapons, not suspending kids for pointing their finger and saying "bang".
Perhaps we need teachers and administrators who can make a simple decision, rather than some of the zombies who currently pervade.
Read the article that everyone's commenting on, or post a comment about it.