Here’s a chilling charming tale, a follow-up to an earlier story, about a high school honors student who, in moving his grandmother to an assisted living facility, inadvertenly left a non-serrated bread knife in the back of his pick-up. Hilarity, and explusion for a full year, ensued.
Still, Buinger had to admit–zero-tolerance rules made life easier. They eased the burden. By applying consistency instead of subjective judgment, you had support for your actions rather than claims of discrimination. If Jim Short disregarded the Taylor Hess case and six months later a different principal responded another way with, say, a Latino student, you would surely hear cries about prejudice.
That, above all, was why Short’s supervisors wanted firm formulas. Their school district was in transition, undergoing “a change in demographics.” It was one-third minority now, mostly Latino. There was a distinct and growing gap between poorer and more affluent students. For people to have faith in the school system, they had to believe everyone was being treated equally.
Deep down, despite his unease, Jim Short agreed. He had to admit: He derived a certain comfort in not having discretion. He could lean on that. He could then say he followed the formula.
Yeah, because “follow the formula” is what we really want our kids to learn.
Gutless bastards.
What’s really scary about this is that it took a a well-liked kid with spotless record, a dedicated family, a lawyer, and intense national press scrutiny to get the district to sorta-kinda-waive their inflexible, draconian rules. If any of those steps had been missing, what would have been the outcome? If the kid hadn’t been straight-A, if the parents hadn’t been able to afford a lawyer, if the press hadn’t been alerted, or were burned-out by similar cases, what would have happened?