Zero tolerance has removed from school administrators and teachers any and all responsibility to make judgments and use common sense when dealing with students. In short, it is a ploy by legal consultants to make otherwise intelligent, educated people into robots, incapable of looking out for the safety and welfare of our kids.
Ultimately, zero tolerance policies are blanket rules set up by administrators and schools that are incapable or unwilling to handle real violations of the law effectively. Zero tolerance policies are tools that make administrators feel good about themselves when, in reality, they have no real control over the problems facing their schools. It’s like using a flame thrower to swat a mosquito.
Is zero tolerance teaching anything to the youth of Charles County Yes, and the painful lesson is that all of their hard work and good behavior means nothing if they happen to make a mistake. Will zero tolerance prevent this from happening to any other student in Charles County? No.
My son forgot about his pocketknife, and inadvertently brought it to school. He knew he should not have it there, and planned to keep it in his pocket until he returned home. Should he be punished? Yes. Should the punishment fit the wrongdoing? Absolutely. Was my son’s inattention deserving of the punishment that he received from the school (expulsion for the remainder of the year)? Definitely not.
Jill Richards, writing in the University Of Dayton Law Review, states:
“In general. Zero Tolerance policies are rigid and inflexible because they provide no administrative discretion for certain actions pertaining to weapons. These policies apply the same penalty irrespective of the individual or the circumstances in which the misconduct occurred.
“ZT policies were originally intended to provide students with equal fairness in disciplinary matters by providing a hard and fast approach to deal with any and all infractions the same way. Not only are the policies easy to use, but easy for school officials and legislators to understand. For example, a student bringing a water squirt gun to school is subject to the same disciplinary measures as a student carrying a .38 magnum to school.”
Former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor also worried about Zero Tolerance. In a speech from 2001 to a group of women lawyers in Minnesota, she said she is worried that zero tolerance laws were too willing to sacrifice common sense for the politics of public safety.
The ACLU also speaks out against zero tolerance policies. Rhode Island Executive Director Steven Brown states:
“Zero tolerance policies serve as a simple-minded substitute for actual thinking and common sense. That is hardly something an educational institution should be proud of.”
The American Civil Liberties Union spokesman, Ed Yohnka, states, “These are regressive, narrow-minded, knee-jerk policies [that] eliminate the ability to exercise some human and humane judgments.”
In an August 9, 2006 press release the American Psycholog
