Zero-Tolerance Does Not Work

The climate verging on paranoia in schools has initiated countless security policies and procedures aimed at protecting their students---often from themselves.

The concept of zero tolerance, full and mandatory punishment for any transgression of the law or rules regardless of size first appeared during the 1980s as a safeguard against drug abuse and various other legal infractions including trespassing and sexual harassment. By the 1990s the mandatory punishment policy had been adopted by the nation's school systems in response to school shootings and other student-initiated acts of violence.

Zero-tolerance policies punish all offenses severely, no matter how minor. School systems began adopting these rough codes after Congress passed the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act, which required a one-year expulsion for any child bring a firearm or bomb to school. In many states zero-tolerance rules also cover fighting, drug, or alcohol use, and gang activity, as well as relatively minor offenses such as possessing over-the-counter medication and disrespect of authority. Most schools have zero-tolerance policies for firearms or other 'weapons" as well as for drugs and alcohol.

In response to school shootings zero-tolerance policies have been tightened creating a national intolerance for childish behavior. In some systems carrying cough drops, wearing black lipstick, dying your hair blue are expellable offenses. By definition, zero-tolerance erases distinctions among student offense, hence the national crackdown on Alka-Seltzer. At least twenty children in four states have been suspended from school for possession of the fizzy tablets in violation of zero-tolerance drug policies.

Zero-tolerance policies encroach on the constitutional rights of students. Advocates cite violence in schools as justification. Critics say the one-strike-and-you're-out policies go too far. Research indicates that, as implemented, zero-tolerance policies are ineffective in the long run and are related to a number of negative consequences, including increased rates of school drop out.

The imposition of draconian and inflexible zero-tolerance policies teaches Americans that government authorities have total power and can violate constitutional rights as they see fit. Also, it communicates to young people the idea their rights may be highly---and often unjustly---restricted on school policy.

Zero-tolerance policies punish otherwise innocent children who make a single mistake.

On a school bus in rural Mississippi five high school students passed the time on their long ride home by tossing peanuts at each other. When one of the nuts hit the bus driver, she pulled the bus over, called police, and had the boys arrested for assault, punishable by five years in prison. The criminal charges were dropped but the boys lost bus privileges. Unable to make the thirty-mile trip, all five dropped out of school.

In Maryland, a twelve-year-old student was charged with violating the school's zero-tolerance policy on "drug use and trafficking" and suspended from taking part in school activities. Her crime? She had attempted to help a friend who was suffering an asthma attack by offering her an inhaler. The friend's mother says her daughter would have died with the student's help.

In Columbus, Ohio a second-grader was suspended for drawing a paper gun, cutting it our, and pointing it at classmates.

A twelve-year-old-boy was handcuffed and jailed after he stomped in a puddle, splashing classmates.

Jewish youth in several schools were suspended for wearing the Star of David, which was sometimes used as a symbol of gang membership.

Zero-tolerance policies are ineffective tools for discouraging school violence which has remained fairly level since the early 1990s. 35 to 45 percent of suspensions are for repeat offenders. So we end up punishing honor students to send a message to the bad kids. But the data show the bad kids are not getting the message. Numerous statistics indicate the zero-tolerance security measures fail to decrease the number of students bringing weapons to schools, victims of violent crime, and students trying alcohol, cigarettes, and other illegal drugs.

Under zero-tolerance polices the elementary student is punished in the same way the high school senior is punished. The one who breaks the rules accidentally is punished the same as the student who wants to harm others. Zero-tolerance policies do not educate and reform America's youth but instead teach them that they possess no true rights.

If we like zero-tolerance policies how about zero-tolerance for DUI, for driving while texting, for injuring or killing a construction worker in a construction zone, for injuring or killing a police officer during an emergency stop, sex crimes, any crime destroying the feeling of security of the victim, and...... We are willing to live with zero-tolerance for our children but not for ourselves.

Surveillance cameras also fail their intended purpose....

Remember Ben Franklin "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Regards,
John Jenkins
865-803-8179 cell
Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com/
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

Entropy, It ain't what it used to be.