I am of the opinion that it doesn’t. I can not think of a single situation in which there is no exception to a rule that deserves some degree of tolerance.
That has been repeatedly demonstrated in schools and other places in society, and yet many still have zero tolerance policies.
So, is there any situation in which a zero tolerance policy would be completely functional, or is it always used just because it makes administrators’ jobs easier?
Wellesley college has had an honor system for a long time. A student who is caught cheating will be kicked out of school. When my wife was there, this seemed to work pretty well, and their level of cheating was low.
Schools have always had “zero tolerance” for truly serious acts – e.g., murder or mayhem. What makes it so stupid now is that it’s now is that it’s sometimes used for acts that are minor or which ought not be punished at all.
I think it would work in the following manners:
-Zero Tolerance of allowing civilians to own nuclear weapons.
-Zero Tolerance of of someone stabbing another repeatedly with a knife.
-Zero Tolerance of Brittany Spears ever being allowed to sing, perform, or record another album, ever again.
Beyond those (and similar circumstances), I would say no.
… and it will be especially difficult in, say, oh, just to pick one at random, an organization that is founded on the assumption that all acts can be forgiven and that their staff are the ones who can do the forgiving.
IMO ZT could be a euphemism for “zero thinking”. What’s that - you brought a nail clipper to school? Sorry, that’s forbidden, you’re suspended.
Randy Cassingham (of This is True fame) is a big anti-ZT crusader, and has a lot of good stuff on his site. If you’re not familiar with This is True, Randy does a lot of research prior to publication, so you can be pretty much 100% certain that anything he writes is accurate.
I think the zero tolerance policies of today are idiotic. Zero thinking is correct! All cases should be judged on their merits. Thinking really does need to occur.
Zero tolerance doesn’t work because it’s a combination of “zero thinking” and the rules not being drawn narrowly enough for a zero tolerance policy. If a school, for example, doesn’t want students to have any illegal drugs while at school, the zero tolerance policy should be for possession of illegal drugs, not just for possession of drugs. That’s how kids get suspended for having Midol.The problem is that not all rules can be that narrow without writing in exceptions.Sometimes those exceptions might not be thought of when the rule is being written ( I don’t believe it ever crossed anyone’s mind that zero tolerance policies would lead to kids being suspended for having Midol, or for accidently grabbing their parent’s lunch which contained a knife) and allowing for exceptions just puts the discretion in a different place.
I don’t know, I think I’d tolerate someone stabbing another person repeatedly in self defense. So you’d have to put in a self-defense exception. But then, someone has to decide if a particular incident fits the exception. And discretion is right back in.
doreen
Zero tolerance is the dumbest idea to come out of schools yet. They are just covering their butts from potential lawsuits in case some idiot kid gets tired of being picked on and brings his gun to school. Hopefully a growing backlash against Zero Tolerance will spell it’s much deserved death.
Sure. Just as soon as jackass attorneys quit helping golddiggers in their ridiculous lawsuits.
(No insult intended to attorneys who are not jackasses.)
As long as we have a culture that leaps to litigation for any and all causes, we will have zero-tolerance policies designed more as lawsuit armor than anything else.
At what point do you say it’s a nuclear weapon? Some people on a list I’m on are gearing up to try to replicate the acetone fusion experiments that were publicised recently. It’d be nuclear, and it may lead to weapon technology.
As doreen points out, there’s almost always a conceivable self defense situation for every act against a person.
Can’t argue there.
Even then there are exceptions. What if a kid borrows their parent’s car, and unkowingly take along a thirty year old marijuana cigarette thats been hiding under the seat?
Running with Scissors, I recently subscribed to ‘This is True’. It is interesting. I haven’t seen an anti-ZT story yet. Good link.
C K: Have they instituted a zero tolerance policy yet? I quit paying attention to the story when they came back from the meeting with the pope without having actually accomplished anything.
Yes, but if any child of mine gets expelled from school for having Midol or a nail clipper, I’d sue the school faster than they can say “Treaty of Ghent”. I’d wager they are creating more lawsuits with these ridiculus rules than they ever would have faced from gunshot victims.
Most of the time, I think zero tolerance laws are ineffective, because they refuse to take into consideration the context of each incident.
Still, that’s most of the time, and I will agree that there are situations which are so horrific that a zero-tolerance policy is the best way to go – sexual abuse by priests being one such example.
I’d say it depends what you mean by “zero tolerance”. That phrase has sort of come to acquire a dual meaning recently. When the context is kicking kids out of school for having nail clippers, then zero tolerance is a mindless phrase uttered by politicians so parents will think their kids are safer. But there is also zero tolerance in the sense that a priest who is found to have sexually abused a kid should be defrocked after one incident, which I’d say is reasonable. So it’s really all a question of connotation.
But what shall be in place of Zero tolerance?
In my opinion it doesn’t work. I was a board member at my sons PTA and they had implemented a ‘discipline for learning’ measure that was truly bad. Kids got ‘lines’ for anything that they deemed unacceptable and ‘Isolation’ in a part of the school for either fighting and being racist etc and ‘detention’ for smoking and swearing and being generally a nuisance.
It was supposed to be more of a detterent. It then turned out to be the most overly punishing school in the entire borough, and the kids just didn’t care; the atmoshere in the classrooms went straight down and it just became another layer of unwanted bureaucracy and was eventually scrapped. It was such a burden that the school went 30,000pounds in the red because of it.
Sure, I think there should be “zero tolerance” when it applies in matters of sexual abuse. But whatever happened to intelligence and discretion on the part of the teachers, principals and school boards? For the most part we’re talking about kids bringing in innocent things: cough drops, nail files, aspirin, water pistols; even a tiny key fob shaped like a gun. You want to take away the item in question, and ask the kid not to bring it in again? Fine. If necessary, ask the parents to come in and pick it up (but if I got called into school as a parent to pick up a packet of cough drops, you can bet your ass I’d raise hell). But suspending someone for this stuff? Come on. Hard drugs? Sure, I agree suspension is appropriate. A firearm? Damn right, even if it’s just a BB gun. Even something that looks close enough to a gun that it could easily be mistaken for one should be grounds for suspension. But this is where discretion comes in. A normal water pistol would not be mistaken for a gun. Any intelligent human being (hell, any semi-intelligent monkey) should know the difference.
I think you’re missing the point. You can’t argue about zero tolerance unless you specify which kind of zero tolerance you’re talking about. Zero tolerance can merely mean severe punishment the first time for a serious offense. That is a lot more acceptable (although still arguable) than the other meaning of zero tolerance - punishment for actions which are at most tangential to the crimes you’re attempting to stop. I doubt anybody believes that kids really should be punished for bringing nail clippers to school (with the exception of many moronic public school administrators). Zero tolerance is really just a buzzword which should probably be avoided for its confusion of meanings.