This is True does a good job of highlighting various abuses of “Zero Tolerance” policies at schools. These are policies, usually directed at (a) weapons and (b) drugs, in which…
This is True does a good job of highlighting various abuses of “Zero Tolerance” policies at schools. These are policies, usually directed at (a) weapons and (b) drugs, in which any violation, even a hit of a violation, results in major punitive damage — suspensions, expulsions, etc. Which may sound okay, but which, when intersecting with the real world, results in miscarriages of justice (and, as a result, disrespect for the rules themselves, and rules in general).
Take, for example, two recent instances.
Michael Gonzales of Tarzana, age 7 and in the second grade, had a 1″ toy gun (picture here) on his key chain. He wasn’t waving it around, but another kid saw it and narced on him. Zap. Suspension for a day (it could have been expulsion) under the California Education Code, which prohibits the possession of an imitation firearm on campus.
After an appeal from Michael’s mom, worried that a firearm violation on his permanent record might impact his future academic career, an appeals committee retained the suspension, but,
“The committee has decided to change the reason for the suspension . . . from ‘knife/explosive/dangerous object — Michael brought a toy gun to school’ to ‘disruption/willful defiance — Michael brought an inappropriate toy to school.’ “
Yup, inappropriate toys are grounds for suspension, and a blot on your record. Don’t consider doing something like consulting with the parents first. “Smite him, centuwion, vewwy sharpwy!”
And don’t worry about whether Michael actually disrupted anything — or willfully defied anyone. No sign that actually happened, but, hey, we’re givin’ the kid a break here, right? After all, it’s better than saying he was suspended for having a “knife/explosive/dangerous object” (not quite sure which of those three the toy represented here in cloud-cuckoo land), right?
The local PTA backs the policy and the outcome.
“The parents support zero tolerance for weapons because children can start out with toy guns and before you know it, it escalates to real guns. You have to put it in their heads at a young age that guns are bad because if you don’t, you will have a hard time controlling them later.”
Right. Second graders with little key ring fobs are a direct link to gang-banging Trenchcoat Brigades. That makes perfect sense. Teaches kids a valuable lession, too.
The LA Times has two stories on this, quoted above.
The other story is supposedy from the Ottawa Citizen, though I was not able to find a search function on their site.
A student again, Aaron Appel, also 7, brought a wooden souvenir letter opener that his folks had brought from Africa to Manotick Public School. He was suspended for five days. “”It’s an exact replica of an African tribal knife,” the principal noted. “The parents are indicating its use is supposedly as a letter opener. I told [Aaron] that there is zero tolerance for such things in my school and we’re trying to keep our schools as safe as possible.”
Yes, because I’m sure there are no letter openers at school. And Aaron’s father, a teacher, suggests that pens and pencils, also dangerous items, should be on the ban list.
Hmmmm. I have a letter opener, also brought back as a souvenir, on my bookshelf at work. I wonder when I’ll get a call from HR about it.
I’m not saying that regulations about weapons at school are wrong. My biggest bitch here is that ZT policies are the chicken way out. They keep school district personnel from having to make judgment calls that might lead to law suits (and, frankly, our litigious society has to therefore take some of the blame). If they judge too leniently, maybe someone gets hurt. If they judge too harshly, they open themselves up to criticism and scorn. So instead, they choose oversimplified answers, and turn everything into a black-and-white, no-nuances situation.
Guess what. That’s life. We need to get over it, and act accordingly. Reality is not black-and-white. We need to teach kids that making judgments is what being an adult is about.
So, for example, the Gonzales case noted above is obviously silly. On the other hand, if Michael had brought a real gun, serious action would need to be taken (toward the parents, not to a 7-year-old, though). Where should the dividing line be? Well, that might take some real decision-making by school administrators. Can’t have that. Easier just to ban anything that looks like, or is played with, like a gun.
Again, the real crime here is what we’re teaching kids. We’re teaching them that the rules — the regs, the laws — are silly, arbitrary, extreme, and unjust. We’re squandering this part of their education. When they grow up, they’ll expect the law to be similarly silly, arbitrary, extreme and unjust, and how do you think that will affect society?
Feh.
