Marsha Sutton: Zero tolerance equals zero brain function

More by Marsha

Two now-famous incidents reported last week expose what happens when the absurd zero-tolerance policy on weapons at schools is applied perfunctorily, without also applying rational thought or generally accepted standards for fairness.

Both examples perfectly illustrate the outrageous consequences that can occur when school boards employ absolute, inflexible language to shield themselves against potential disputes that might arise should cases be judged on an individual basis.

The first case told the story of six-year-old Zachary Christie of Newark, Delaware, who proudly brought to school a camping utensil that serves as a spoon, fork and knife. He intended to use the device, which he received after joining the Cub Scouts, at lunch - to eat food, not stab someone, obviously.

But zero-tolerance on weapons at school means no knives - no matter the circumstances, age of the offender or intent.

Zachary was suspended and faced 45 days in reform school until the decision was overturned a few days later by a unanimous school board, after public outcry forced the seven-member board of the Christina School District to reconsider the case.

The board decided to reduce the punishment for kindergartners and first-graders who bring so-called weapons to school and to review its overall code of conduct.

In the midst of this fiasco, zero-tolerance claimed another innocent victim, this one who may pay for his “crime” by being denied his life-long dream of attending West Point.

Seventeen-year-old Eagle Scout Matthew Whalen was suspended for 20 days from his New York high school for keeping a two-inch knife in a first-aid survival kit, locked in his car along with a sleeping bag, water and non-perishable food. The knife was given to him by his grandfather, a police chief.

But unlike young Zachary Christie, Matthew Whalen’s suspension has been upheld by the Lansingburgh Central School District school board, which means the high school senior may miss almost a full month of school and not be allowed to make up the work. And this may have serious consequences for college admissions.

Other examples abound. There’s the case of a Delaware third-grade girl who was expelled for bringing to school a birthday cake and cutting knife, which the teacher reported to school authorities but not before using the knife to cut the cake. Or the Louisiana second-grader expelled for showing her schoolmates a gold-plated watch of her grandfather’s that had a tiny knife as part of the timepiece. Then there’s the five-year-old boy from Pennsylvania suspended from school for wearing a firefighter costume complete with a toy ax.

Zero-tolerance on drugs and alcohol at school has resulted in numerous cases of children being suspended or expelled for possessing an aspirin, Tylenol, cough drops or mouthwash.

Determining what constitutes a weapon can be tricky. After all, schools themselves are loaded with potential “weapons.” Scissors in art class? A compass in geometry? A baseball bat in P.E.? A plastic fork at lunch? A sharpened pencil? How about students with long nails or carrying car keys?

On the San Diego Unified School District’s Web site, the policy on zero-tolerance for weapons, drugs and violence spells it out this way:

“Use, possession or brandishing of a weapon will result in a recommendation for expulsion. A weapon is defined as, but not limited to, a firearm, pistol replica, starter pistol, stun gun, BB gun or pellet gun, a knife of any size or type, a dirk, dagger, razor, slingshot, any explosives or fireworks. Any object used in a dangerous manner will also be considered a weapon.”

At High Tech High in Point Loma, a charter school and one of SDUSD’s most successful schools, educators do not enforce zero-tolerance.

In a story published in May on SDNN, Ben Daley, High Tech High’s Chief Operating Officer, said he regards each student uniquely and considers individual circumstances before determining appropriate action.

“The message that certain behavior is not acceptable, and may even result in a suspension, is important, [Daley] said, ‘but so is that we still love you and want you to come back.’”

The mechanical application of zero-tolerance laws allows boards to hand down decisions made not by thinking, reasonable people but by concrete rules that often have the effect of protecting administrators and elected officials more than students.

Zero-tolerance requires zero brain function. It denies students their right to be heard, in exchange for a neat, automated action that ensures that school board members remain safe from legal scrutiny and insulated from attack, debate or even casual conversation on the matter.

“Our hands are tied,” they say in unison.

On the other side, defenders of rigid zero-tolerance policies claim that subjective analysis and personal discretion have the potential for discrimination - with African-Americans and other minority groups the victims of harsher punishments than their white counterparts - and that only the courts and police should be allowed flexibility.

There has been considerable discussion over whether zero-tolerance makes school safer, with education experts weighing in on both sides, which means the evidence is unclear.

For Zachary Christie and Matthew Whalen and all the other unfortunate victims of a good idea gone awry, a concept designed to provide protection for all students has, in effect, stripped them of their right to be protected. What students now need is protection from the ludicrous, blanket application of an inept policy.

One positive outcome of this mess is that kids can learn how to fight injustice and know that they can find adult support for taking a stand.

Debbie Christie, Zachary’s mother, said it best in a follow-up New York Times article. “I want to put this behind him as soon as possible,” [she said.] “But I also want him to know that he has a voice, and when things are not right, he can stand up and speak out against them.”

Zero-tolerance, like so many other initially well-meaning regulations, has become subject to the law of unintended consequences. Common sense needs to replace robotic decision-making, because the wholesale use of these kinds of rules undermines respect for authority and makes a mockery of the policies that guide our public education system.

Marsha Sutton can be reached at: SuttComm@san.rr.com or via Twitter.

Tags: ben daley, high tech high, point loma students, san diego students, san diego unified school district, SDNN, zero tolerance

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 at 6:58 am and is filed under Columns, Education Commentary, Politics Opinion . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.