No More Tolerance For Zero Tolerance
By Cathryn Crawford (10/15/03)
Once, long ago, there was legitimate reasoning behind the zero tolerance policy in our public schools that could be fathomed - but there’s also legitimate reasoning behind the saying that good intentions pave the way to hell. Originally, zero tolerance measures were aimed at dangerous kids who brought guns and drugs to school. However, the number of items and behaviors now considered suspension or expulsion-worthy has grown to an infinitely ridiculous amount.
The terms regarding these items and behaviors are conveniently vague, as well, and vary from place to place. There is zero tolerance for weapons - what is a weapon? Is it a butter knife, a laser pointer, a beeper? The same question applies to drugs. Is a children’s multi-vitamin a drug? What about an inhaler? Certs? Mouthwash?
What about zero tolerance for “disrespect” or “insubordination”? Is that simply whatever the administrator of the school deems it to be? For example - in Mississippi, there is a law that allows students older than 13 to be expelled if they are “disruptive” in class three times over the course of the school year. What power that gives to administrators – how convenient for them! With the vague wording of these laws, they can remand any child that they see as a troublemaker to an alternative school so that they no longer have to “deal with” them. What qualifies as a disruption? Is that chewing gum in class or passing notes or using profanity - or pulling out a gun and threatening the teacher with it?
Futures – in the guise of college scholarships – are being put in jeopardy because of zero tolerance. Consider the case of the 17 year old honors student from Arkansas that was sentenced to 45 days in alternative school because his father accidentally left a scraper and pocketknife in the car the weekend before. Despite the pleas from the father, the school system refused to budge on the inviolate “weapons possession” punishment. Then there was the 18 year old girl who was arrested and charged with a felony for having a kitchen knife in her car that she had been using to open boxes. She was denied her right to graduate and she now has a criminal felony on her record. Is this the ultimate aim of zero tolerance?
Does constant fear of the tiniest infraction bringing severe punishment actually cause children to respect teachers and school administrators? Hardly. On the contrary, it fosters an attitude of resentment, disrespect, and deep anger towards authority. It also leaves no room for a positive relationship between children and teachers – there is, for the child, always a fear of punishment for the slightest unintended wrongdoing. It leads to a form of self-censorship that is representative of life under dictatorships.
Do we really want the cookie-cutter kids that zero tolerance strives to create, devoid of fire and passion and intelligence and creativity? Do we want kids that are always afraid to speak their own mind and stand up for themselves for fear of disrupting a classroom and being suspended or expelled for it?
Perhaps the only positive aspect of zero tolerance is the likelihood that the children who had to endure it will be the ones who are likely to change it.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Cathryn Crawford
