Thankfully I’ve never been put in a position of “authority” that has been tied in to a ZT policy. I don’t believe I’d last.
But part of the matter here is, if we are to believe the reports, that the administrators and Board did not feel they had to explain themselves, even after it took being pilloried on the evening news to get them to re-prioritize.
She herself reported took the blade away and discarded it. This makes her be “in possession” momentarily and incidentally, but the penalty is the same as for someone introducing or transporting the weapon deliberately and seeking to cover it up. That is just wrong.
They had the ability to initiate the appeal process without waiting for the local TV news station to make a stink about it. So I’m afraid that rings a bit hollow.
I don’t see the problem with a zero-tolerance policy that says, if you find a student with a weapon, you need to hold a hearing to figure out what you should do about it. That’s what the policy is saying with “recommend for long-term suspension.” The actual consequence of the action is left to the administrators’ discretion.
Maybe the school administration just had some formalities to get through and the girl’s future was never in jeopardy. They wanted to formally account for an incident being reported and then resolved. The parents’ understandably flipped out and called the local news, who ran with it. That’s a pretty benign explanation of these events and is consistent with the policies on the school board’s site. You’re still left with the question of the appropriateness of the zero-tolerance policy hearing, but that’s different from a zero-tolerance expulsion.
I don’t know why I even care. I don’t really, but these zero tolerance policy pit threads are always dumb. No one thinks about. They just have a laugh about how dumb people are. It’s such low-hanging fruit of a pitting.
And ironically, the whole mindset of “This is wrong and it should never happen” was probably the same thing people were thinking when they started the zero tolerance policy in the first place.
You also have to have no fear of your kid being arrested. I bet there are schools out there with even harsher zero tolerance policies for students who trespass on school property while under a formal order to stay away (no matter how stupid).
Seems to me I saw a newspaper article rather recently, to the effect that exactly this attitude (zero tolerance toward zero tolerance) is becoming an increasingly popular attitude.
Or how about, they should wait until having a hearing or some such quasi-judicial proceeding, and then suspend the student if that’s their finding – instead of suspending the student immediately pending a hearing sometime in the future.
The thing is, missing school, especially more than a couple days, carries a real cost. I teach high school, and I see the impact of repeated absences all the time–it’s not just a matter of having to make up a bunch of bull shit busy work, it’s missing lectures and support and Q&A time. Not only do grades take a dive, which is important, but actual rest-of-your-life how much you know is a little less.
So have a hearing. Have your formalities. But do it that afternoon. Weapons violations and attempted suicides are big deals–they aren’t a routine part of the school day. It’s the kind of thing where you could get away with calling whomever you have to call to get things taken care of.
He is. Your child, at an early age where they’re still impressionable, stands up to peer pressure and does a good and noble thing. Then he gets punished for it. How do you encourage him to keep fling what’s right in light of those consequences? You teach him that, despite that outcome, dad approves and wants you to continue on the correct course, others be damned. Otherwise, the lesson the kid could take away from all that is that it’s more important to stand by and do nothing, not help even when it’s imperative, for fear of reprisal. So, I’m definitely on kayaker’s side here. Good job!
As George Carlin once said, “I get weary of this zero tolerance bulls–t. It’s annoying. To begin with, it’s a fascist concept; it’s what Hitler and Stalin practiced. It allows for no exceptions or compassion of any kind. All is black and white-no gradations. But even more important, it doesn’t solve anything. The use of such a slogan simply allows whichever company, school or municipality is using it to claim they’re doing something about a problem when, in fact, nothing is being done at all and the problem is being ignored. It’s a cosmetic nonsolution designed to impress simpletons. Whenever you hear the phrase zero tolerance, remember, someone is bulls–ting you.”
There is probably a zero tolerance on the zero tolerance of zero tolerance policies.
Anybody who imposes or implements a zero tolerance policy has indicated that they are incapable of making any kind of judgment. Such a person should not be in a policy making position or a policy enforcement position.
Can we now get to the heart of the question: who invented zero tolerance policies in the United States and when?
As I noted above, I think it’s unfair to put the blame on the people who implement a zero tolerance policy unless you can show they also had a hand in creating it.
Let’s say the local government passes a zero tolerance law on some issue. You’re a school principal and you argued against the law but it was enacted over your objections.
What do you do now? Do you resign your position in protest? Do you refuse to obey the law? Or do you try to do as much good as possible in your position and work through the bad parts like enforcing this law when it arises?
It would be really good to hear from someone who lives in the town and is personally acquainted with school and school district officials. Is there some subtext? Are these officials particularly stupid? Were they reprimanded in the past for not following law exactly?
Say what you will about Thailand’s dysfunction, but there’s often much more flexibility here than in the Land of the Free™. As just one of many many examples, U.S. pharmacies will not give nitrates in any quantity for emergency heart patients without a prescription. These pills have no recreational use, and even 500,000 pills would not be enough to build an effective bomb.
I would refuse to obey the law. Forcing them to capitulate or see themselves crucified for their obscene dogma is the way I would do as much good as possible. Throwing innocent children under the bus for the sake of their insanity is not an option.
You’re a public official in this hypothetical. If you feel that you can’t enforce the law then the honorable thing to do is quit your position. Putting yourself above the law is wrong.
You are awesome!!