Losing my Tolerance for "Zero Tolerance"
 If you attend school in the Los Angeles Unified School District, don't carry a toy key fob like this one in your pocket. A 7-year-old boy was suspended in school for carrying one of these because it violates the district's "zero tolerance" policy on "weapon possession". |
Weekly Weird News
When I write True each week, there are sometimes patterns to the stories. There are certain recurring themes: Darwinism (in both the "survival" and "social" senses), stupid criminals, and -- lately -- "Zero Tolerance" stories. Mostly I'm amused by the foibles of teeming humanity. But the "ZT" stories tend to make me mad, and I've been talking about them here and there in the author's note in the online edition of This is True. Here are three recent stories, to give you the idea -- the first, by far not the first in the series, is one I thought was the most outrageous possible. As you'll see below, it's nowhere near the worst.
Candy, Little Boy?
(November 1997) A Colorado Springs, Colo., school district says it did the right thing when it suspended 6-year-old Seamus Morris under the school's zero-tolerance drug policy. The drug? Lemon drops. Taylor Elementary School administrators called an ambulance after a teacher saw the boy give another student some candy, which was a brand teachers didn't recognize. "It was not something you would purchase in a grocery store," a district spokesman said. "It was from a health-food store." A spokesman for St. Claire's Lemon Tarts, however, noted that the candy is indeed sold in Colorado's largest grocery store chain. School officials were not impressed, and not only upheld the half-day suspension, but told the boy's mother that a child who brings candy to school is comparable to a teen who takes a gun to school. (UPI) ...Maybe it's time for a "zero-tolerance policy" toward idiotic school administrators.
Rocket Scientist
(March 1998) David Silverstein, 13, was inspired to build a model rocket after seeing the movie "October Sky", a biography of NASA rocket scientist Homer Hickam. The boy took his rocket, made out of a potato chip canister and fueled with three match heads, to his Glendale, Ariz., school, where it was found in a search of his locker. School officials classified the toy as a "weapon" and suspended him for the rest of the year based on its "zero-tolerance" weapons policy. The police were also called, and the case is being referred to juvenile authorities. (Arizona Republic) ...How the U.S. lost its leadership in technological innovation -- one in a long series.
Bang-Bang, You're Brain-Dead
(April 1999) Administrators saw three students at the Union Colony Charter School in Greeley, Colo., playing with a water gun. According to the school's interpretation of the state's "zero tolerance" weapons law -- which mandates suspension of students who "carry, bring, use or possess a firearm or firearm facsimile at school" -- the unnamed boys have been suspended. According to standard practice in "weapons" cases, the boys must now face expulsion hearings. (UPI) ...Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense.
The last one, if you can't tell by my comment, was a sort-of final straw for me. It
led to the following author's note (in the 16 April 1999 broadcast, "11 April" issue):
A lot of mail came in last week about my story on the kids suspended (and facing expulsion hearings) for playing with a "weapon" on school grounds -- a squirt gun. A few people didn't understand the story: it was not "about" water guns. It was "about" the "Zero-Tolerance" trend in schools. There are obviously problems in schools from such things as drugs and violence. But terrorizing children with inflexible rules is not the answer. School principals have always had the responsibility to make and enforce rules, and punish accordingly when those rules are broken. "Zero-Tolerance" laws take that responsibility away. They mandate certain responses that can be way out of proportion to the rule violation in question. That is what these stories are about. "This is True" has reported on a fair number of these knee-jerk reactions to non-events. Children are put into the position of being treated as felons by being suspended and/or expelled over obvious toys -- the very same thing that would happen if they brought real guns to school. What happened to the punishment fitting the "crime"? What happened to justice? What happened to the education of these children? All of that is being ignored in the name of "Zero-Tolerance". Sure, in many cases the kids broke a rule, and those rules have a purpose (e.g., to avoid tragic shootings by police who think the guns are real). Most cases call for, at most, a stern talk in the principal's office -- not suspension, expulsion, police involvement or press conferences (as many of these cases have seen). It seems to me that if we feel a need to expel kids over water guns, there must not be many real problems our society needs to deal with.
This led to a huge amount of mail, nearly all of it in total support of my comments. Not all of it, however, was supportive. That's fine: I never mind honest, thoughtful, disagreement with things I say. But one woman kept coming back again and again, arguing "What if those squirt guns were loaded with bleach? Would you let them go? What about a rapist that is impotent? Would you let him go?" Huh? And she was serious! She thought she was debating real points! And, in case she's reading this, I'll say it again: I'm not arguing that everyone should be set free; I said punishments should fit crimes. Real crimes call for real punishment. Non-crimes do not call for real punishment! Pretty simple concept? Apparently not.
Because then came the shooting spree by two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and several people who really missed the point got pretty high and mighty and yelled "See?!" at me. That led to the following editorial, in the 23 April 1999 broadcast ("18 April" issue), which includes one of the more thoughtful of those letters:
Letters are still coming in on my "Zero Tolerance" rant a few weeks ago, and frankly, I wish they'd stop: there's nothing that will change my mind. For instance:Diane, somewhere in The South, wondered
- "If one of your children (or nieces or nephews or grandchildren) were one of the many killed in the recent Colorado shooting, would you be such a cavalier critic of the Zero Tolerance 'trend'?"
Absolutely yes, though my position is not "cavalier" but well thought out, which is why one event, as bad as it was, doesn't change my mind. And remember: I live in Colorado. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died in wars to protect our freedoms. I have no interest in trading them away for the false security these silly rules provide. Colorado is one of the leading states in "Zero Tolerance" -- about half of the stories on the "trend" in True are in fact based in Colorado! Yet that sure didn't help the kids in Littleton, did it? As if I haven't said this enough already, such rules do little to solve the real problems of drugs and violence in the schools.
Lee, a reader in Texas, knows that such rules do get out of hand:
- "In Garland, Texas, about a year or so ago, a boy was suspended from school under a similar 'zero tolerance' policy -- for forming his hand in the shape of a pistol. The Gestapo, er uh, police said that he was 'engaging in terrorist activity.' This incident didn't make the papers, but it's no less ludicrous than your [recent] story." And the kid is going to be able to get a job as an adult with a police record that says that ...how? "Zero Tolerance" means little more than "Zero Thought", and means "Zero Discretion" is given to the teachers and principals who we hired to educate our kids. And that's the last about this topic here ...until the next idiotic story appears in True. Unfortunately, I have little doubt that there will be another!
Let me illustrate with two more stories so we don't get too bogged down in the emotions of the Colorado shooting; I have a real point to all of this.
Candy, Little Boy? II
(November 1997 -- the next story after "Candy, Little Boy?" above) A 10-year-old girl at McElwain Elementary in Thornton, Colo., was one of a group of girls who "repeatedly" asked a certain boy on the playground if he liked them. The boy complained to a teacher, so school administrators, citing the district's "zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy", decided to suspend her. After an outcry from outraged parents, the school changed its mind. A district spokeswoman said school officials "probably" overreacted, but "it's all in how you look at it." (UPI) ...Same apple, different worms.
Blimey
(January, 1998) An 11-year-old British schoolboy met an Australian classmate and greeted him by saying, "G'day, sport." The boy, who was not named, was "caught" by a teacher, the school said in a statement, and while "there was no maliciousness or intent" on the boy's part, he was charged with racism for his greeting. "The boy was counseled, ...dialogue has taken place with parents," and the boy was made to write "I must not use racist remarks" 60 times, said the statement by Beverley Grammar School in Yorkshire. Tony Brett Young of the Australian High Commission was concerned it was a case of political correctness gone overboard. "'G'day sport' is part of our vernacular," he said. "It's just a traditional and friendly manner of speaking." (Reuters) ...Tony, you must remember that the self-appointed paternalistic PC snobs don't care what you think as they're more "culturally sensitive" of your nationality than you.
Now, the several issues these stories hint of are serious. Sexual harassment nearly brought down the President of the United States. It's a terribly unfair power issue, and where is there a greater power difference between the president and a lowly, unpaid White House intern? Drugs interrupt or end thousands of lives every day, not just among the people that choose to use them and can't manage to do it in reasonable moderation. People die in car crashes, drug users thrust their families into poverty, and the cost of their habits drive them to crime. And racism is surely a disgusting remnant of less enlightened eras.
But what are the stories above? The little girl wasn't sexually harassing a little boy, she was being a little girl, trying to learn how to deal with the opposite sex -- a trial-and-error process (don't you remember?) where the errors shouldn't be treated as a felony. The six-year-old boy wasn't using or selling drugs, he was sharing candy. Sharing candy! And the British lad wasn't making light of a fellow white boy's ancestry, he was trying to greet a potential friend in a way that was familiar to him.
Calling every botched encounter between genders "sexual harassment" tells true victims of that crime that their experience was similar to a schoolyard crush. Calling sharing "drug use" tells children that there's no difference between giving a friend a lemon drop and selling him heroin cut with rat poison. And calling the use of vernacular "racism" demeans people that suffer from horrible crimes: the denial of their ability to live and make a living. And it tells the people that are not involved in these issues that really, these things are just trivial things, nothing to worry about. This racism stuff is not a problem, drugs aren't a scourge, and sexual harassment is just consenting adults with unequal paychecks.
Are these the lessons legislators intend when they pass zero-tolerance laws -- and when bureaucrats enforce them? Because that's what the kids are learning. And, worse, the ZT trend gives a false sense of security. People want to know that things like school shootings can be stopped. But Colorado is at the forefront of the ZT movement! Here, ZT isn't a rule, it's the law. Did that help the students in Littleton? Of course not. Passing an inflexible law does not stop murder -- which is already quite illegal. Terrorizing a little kid for sharing candy -- and justifying it afterward when an outraged parent complains -- doesn't stop drug use. And it never will. As far as I can tell, Zero Tolerance has only negative effects. It must be stopped.
Some of the more interesting comments from readers -- and some responses to some foolish thinking -- are posted here.
Update: ZT is spreading to the "real world"! If you think ZT is only an issue of concern to schoolchildren, think again!
Most Recent Comments
Posted by Sue - England on June 25, 2010:
We have recently introduced a Zero Tolerance Policy on weapons in a 66 bed hostel for men with drug/alcohol/mental health issues. The men get really upset when we confiscate fishing knives and cooking knives etc, however we found to our cost it was not usually the man himself that caused us bother (although sometimes it was), it was when others accessed the knifes etc which had been left carelessly in sight that caused the most injuries. As we are now in a culture of not "Policing" residents we don't have the right to enter rooms and advise them about weapons. I believe Zero Tolerance is acceptable in this instance -- what do you think.
---
I think you're on a slippery slope toward parenthood and forced dependence on a nanny state. So if they bring a butter knife to their rooms to cut fruit, are they thrown out? Why or why not? -rc
Posted by Mike from Dallas on July 12, 2010:
I was drawn to this article and comments, and find myself wondering. I attended public schools, starting in the late 50's, through the 60's. School was not some idyllic "Leave It To Beaver"-land setting. We had bullies and schoolyard fights, and after school ambushes when a single bully was not sufficient to beat up a lone victim.
And, yeah, you betcha, we thought about taking a gun to school for protection and teaching bullies a lesson about Life. This was before the Gun Control Act of 1968 when guns were plentiful and easy to obtain. But there was one single reason why we never did it.
They called it Reform School. That's a euphemism. It's nothing more than prison, but for juveniles rather than adults. With all the inherent atrocities of adult prison. If you think bullies in school are bad, wait til you experience bullies in prison, I mean Reform School. Punishment for a juvenile for unauthorized firearm possession was swift and painful. More so if possession was on school ground.
So what happened? How did firearm possession in schools become SO common that Zero Tolerance policies had to be adopted to deal with it? Or is it even that common? Is it just the irrational fear of the possibility of a gun on campus that Zero Tolerance lends some false sense of security to the weak-minded? Too bad that it's the weak-minded who are the ones that are teaching our children.
I did find it inexplicable that, in the 80's, I read about school locker searches in Detroit to find firearms. And how parents of students who were found to be in possession were actually upset, suing the schools for violation of their children's civil rights to privacy.
So here we now have idiot parents and population, countered with idiot schools and legislators, with 99% of the students caught in-between for doing nothing wrong, all in the pretense of doing "something".
And where does any educator come off with the value judgment to MY children that pictures of guns give the false impression that guns are okay? Of course, guns are okay! They've been in our house all of their lives, and we've been on the range shooting them. Our armed forces use them, and so do the police.
Zero Tolerance is a pathetic attempt at a solution in search of a perceived problem. It's more important to LOOK like you're doing something than actually DOING something effective. Corporations are famous for this; look busy, even if you're not.
Posted by Dale, Utah on July 28, 2010:
Zero Tolerance policies are not about protecting the students or other apparent beneficiaries of the policy.
Very simply they are there to protect the school administration from being canned for being stupid. They force the administration not to use their brains (for which they can be criticized) and allow them to point at an inflexible rule - "I had to take this action because it is policy". This is the solution which the National Education Assoc., a teacher's union, promulgates. Their goal is not the education of students or the safety of students, but the continued employment of their members. All of these rules essentially dumb down the job of being an administrator. Being a stupid administrator isn't an accident, it's the whole point!
As an added bonus, these rules allow them to "educate" students in some of the NEA's own politically correct thought and speech. These ideas are floated to the sheep which attend PTA meetings and in that manner receive the support of parents. The PTA has long been co-opted as an arm of the teachers union and most parents remain blissfully ignorant.