NationStates Jolt Archive

With the talk of capital punishment in schools, I feel like it's time for a more serious education-related topic. Well, one that not unintentionally hilarious, that is.

So I'm going to ask you all about the Zero Tolerance Policy. What's that, you ask?

A zero-tolerance policy is a policy of not having a tolerance for transgressions: any infraction of existing laws and regulations, regardless of mistakes, ignorance, or even extenuating circumstances, will be met with full punishment. The term may be used in general or with reference to a particular category of transgressions, e.g. a zero-tolerance policy towards alcohol use.

It is typically enacted by an organization (usually a school) against a particular action, or possession of something on organization-controlled property. Many schools have a zero-tolerance policy concerning drugs or weapons. For example, a student possessing or caught using drugs on school property governed by a zero-tolerance policy could immediately suffer the highest possible consequence for their actions. Many organizations avoid these policies because it binds those in authority to an action, regardless of circumstances. The policy must be written extremely explicitly or it may have negative consequences.

As of 2004 many publicized cases have sparked slight controversy with regards to (at least what some perceive as) irrationality of the policies. These cases include students being suspended or expelled for transgressions such as carrying Advil (a legal, non-prescription drug) in backpacks, keeping pocketknives (small utility knife) in cars, and carrying sharp tools outside of a "woodshop" classroom (where they are often required materials). In some jurisdictions, zero-tolerance policies have come into conflict with freedom of religion rules already in place allowing students to carry, for example, kirpans.

Most policies were enacted after the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. One well documented case took place in the Ashland, Oregon School district.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan. The punishment should fit the crime, but these laws don't allow for that level of flexibility. Besides, it's led to such gems as a 13-year-old girl getting strip-searched because she was caught with a couple of Advils (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24savana.html?_r=3), a kid who was suspended for having a gun-shaped keychain the size of an eraser (http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html)--which may still have been stupid on the kid's choice, but it's by far not the most egregious example on that page.

The APA agrees that it doesn't work (http://www.apa.org/releases/zerotolerance.html), and given that kids have been kicked out of school for possession of things like Tylenol, cough drops, and Scope (http://www.usatoday.com/educate/ednews3.htm) I think I'd have to agree.

But maybe I'm not seeing the other side of this, so I welcome debate. What do you guys think of it? Do you like it? If so, why? If not, why not?

No two snow flakes are alike. It's foolish to treat everything of a certain nature with zero tolerance. We do need to have zero tolerance toward certain actions which cause true harm. Murder (not involuntary manslaugher), assault, rape should be treated with zero tolerance. Other things, where a person is not harming another should be looked at on a case by case basis. After all, Advil is not Heroin.

No two snow flakes are alike. It's foolish to treat everything of a certain nature with zero tolerance.
I have zero tolerance for heptagonal snow flakes.
After all, Advil is not Heroin.
But it should be. It should be. :D

What Kryo said. Yeah.

I feel like a lot of kids have the idea that they can get away with anything. I think zero tolerence would give some of them a much needed wake up call.
Of course I don't approve of students being punished for possession of tylonol, or anything dumb like that.

No-tolerance policies are inherently stupid. They purposely instruct people to act ignorantly, without any context of the situation. Even a no-tolerance policy for rape is ridiculous; what if somebody threatens a person with torture and death if they don't rape someone else (yes I know it's an uncommon situation hush up)?

A better idea is a policy which doesn't tell people to ignore everything they know and just apply the worst possible punishment. So, pretty much anything.

No two snow flakes are alike. It's foolish to treat everything of a certain nature with zero tolerance. We do need to have zero tolerance toward certain actions which cause true harm. Murder (not involuntary manslaugher), assault, rape should be treated with zero tolerance. Other things, where a person is not harming another should be looked at on a case by case basis. After all, Advil is not Heroin.

I'm talking specifically as it applies to schools, which usually boils down to drugs and firearms/firearm facsimiles (squirt-guns, keychains, hands in a gun gesture)

I'm talking specifically as it applies to schools, which usually boils down to drugs and firearms/firearm facsimiles (squirt-guns, keychains, hands in a gun gesture)

In that case, just take the part about murder (etc) and change it to bullying and the answer is pretty much the same.

Here's the problem. Schools don't have them, a school shooting happens and parents and the community goes Librarian poo over how the school could have let this happen, wasn't anyone paying attention, yadda yadda yadda.

So school boards and state legislatures quickly enact the policies and/or laws. Suddenly it becomes worth your job if you DON'T jump on everything and everyone is told to follow the damn thing to the letter, not just the spirit.. Then someone's kid gets suspended for bringing a squirtgun to school, and everyone goes Librarian poo again, even though these were the same folks who previously were up in arms over the school being too loose.

In other words, could you guys please make up your minds what it is you want us to do?

Let he that has not sinned cast the first stone.

Here's the problem. Schools don't have them, a school shooting happens and parents and the community goes Librarian poo over how the school could have let this happen, wasn't anyone paying attention, yadda yadda yadda.

So school boards and state legislatures quickly enact the policies and/or laws. Suddenly it becomes worth your job if you DON'T jump on everything and everyone is told to follow the damn thing to the letter, not just the spirit.. Then someone's kid gets suspended for bringing a squirtgun to school, and everyone goes Librarian poo again, even though these were the same folks who previously were up in arms over the school being too loose.

In other words, could you guys please make up your minds what it is you want us to do?

So it's wrong of me to get upset when kids are suspended and/or expelled from school because they made an 'L' with their fingers and pretended it was a gun?

Only if you were one of the people who forced the school into the position in the first place.

So it's wrong of me to get upset when kids are suspended and/or expelled from school because they made an 'L' with their fingers and pretended it was a gun?
No, but on the other hand, remember who wrote the laws and on whose behalf.

No, but on the other hand, remember who wrote the laws and on whose behalf.

Why can't there be a middle ground? Why is it between draconion no-tolerance laws and nothing?

It's just that sometimes people aren't happy with the state of affairs, then force a change, and are just as unhappy with the new situation.

If we could get a good middle ground going it'd be ideal, but people's kneejerk reactions to problems might force this out of balance somewhat.

Why can't there be a middle ground? Why is it between draconion no-tolerance laws and nothing?
Because the people who draft these laws (I.e. school boards and legislatures) tend to respond only to outrage and people with pitchforks.

What Kryo said. Yeah.

Seconded. :)

Zero tolerance is an enforced policy is a bad idea. It removes all flexibility from fitting the punishment to the crime.
However a stated Zero tolerance policy on events so rare that the general populace wont be able to determine its not being enforced is useful for helping to control a given populace.

Because the people who draft these laws (I.e. school boards and legislatures) tend to respond only to outrage and people with pitchforks.

Well I can be as whiny as they are, if I please. Therefore I will settle for nothing less than absolutely reasonable laws on the subject. :D

Zero-Tolerance = Zero Thought Required.

Which is singularly inappropriate in an institution intended to promote thought.

Zero-Tolerance = Zero Thought Required.


Seems so evident, when you see it laid out in front of you.

Zero Tolerance Ist Pferdendüngemittel!

I once had to deal with this at my liberal institution high school. They had a "Zero Tolerance" policy on bullying. There was one guy who used to drive me crazy. So I told them that he was doing this, and I waited for them to dish out the Zero-Tolerance Redemption Hammer.

This process was repeated fourteen times.

Another reason as to why I say that it is Le fruit de l'anus is that my college, the Illinois Institute of Technology, also has a "Zero Tolerance" policy on drug and narcotic use. Guess what: My roomate got caught smoking pot IN OUR ROOM (Thank God I went home for the weekend--I live in Chicago). I thought that the Zero-Tolerance policy of the Illinois Institute of fricken Technology would expell him.

They didn't.

Zero tolerance policies are reactionary - no one wants to get sued, and zero tolerance lets you demonstrate that you did due diligence in preventing whatever problem you're responsible for preventing. People get hurt, but there's no way around it as long as the culture remains as litigious as it is. It's better to ban an activity than to risk being sued because some group thinks they weren't given equal consideration (for example). Without zero tolerance, you'd basically be begging trial lawyers to get rich off you.

Zero tolerance doesn't work. You get students being expelled for stupid infractions such as having mouthwash or cough medicine on school premises, you have students who are attacked by their classmates and beaten who are then expelled or suspended form school for fighting when they are only defending themselves; and similar situations. Its asinine, its not productive and in some cases not even good for the self esteem of the students.

Zero tolerance doesn't work. You get students being expelled for stupid infractions such as having mouthwash or cough medicine on school premises, you have students who are attacked by their classmates and beaten who are then expelled or suspended form school for fighting when they are only defending themselves; and similar situations. Its asinine, its not productive and in some cases not even good for the self esteem of the students.

Sometimes the only way to avoid accusations of discrimination is to use categorical rules. Zero tolerance saves school districts millions in legal costs. It's a no-brainer, really.

Sometimes the only way to avoid accusations of discrimination is to use categorical rules. Zero tolerance saves school districts millions in legal costs. It's a no-brainer, really.

You know what else would save schools millions? Not letting stupid people file frivolous law suits against schools.

"My little Timmy was under a lot of stress with my 4th divorce and all, I mean he actually liked this step daddy since he didn't hit him nearly as much as the last two. Its not fair that he was forced to go to ISS because he was shoving Jimmy in the locker and taking his lunch money! Jimmy should be punished too!"

That's the line of thinking (overly exaggerated, tragitized, and humorated) that lead to this kind of policy. The policy is as reactionary and stupid as the reasons it was put in place!

You know what else would save schools millions? Not letting stupid people file frivolous law suits against schools.

"My little Timmy was under a lot of stress with my 4th divorce and all, I mean he actually liked this step daddy since he didn't hit him nearly as much as the last two. Its not fair that he was forced to go to ISS because he was shoving Jimmy in the locker and taking his lunch money! Jimmy should be punished too!"

That's the line of thinking (overly exaggerated, tragitized, and humorated) that lead to this kind of policy. The policy is as reactionary and stupid as the reasons it was put in place!

It would be nice, but you can't stop people from filing those kinds of suits. It's not just schools - it's pretty much any organization, large or small.

In other words, could you guys please make up your minds what it is you want us to do?

Figure out all the problems with their kids, play parental roles and generally be the responsible, upright citizenry they couldn't be arsed to be and take the fall for everything. That about sums it up.

Figure out all the problems with their kids, play parental roles and generally be the responsible, upright citizenry they couldn't be arsed to be and take the fall for everything. That about sums it up.
Oh? Is that all? Now hold real still. I'll be right back after I go get the fish I'm gonna slap you silly with. :tongue:

It would be nice, but you can't stop people from filing those kinds of suits. It's not just schools - it's pretty much any organization, large or small.

You can't stop them from doing it but you can stop the law suit from having any kind of significant impact if you let uncommon sense actually impact the law... or of course that would require voting for politicians/policies that are intelligent.

BTW, Uncommon Sense is what most people call Common Sense

Oh? Is that all? Now hold real still. I'll be right back after I go get the fish I'm gonna slap you silly with. :tongue:

He's right, its what many parents expect from you these days.

You can't stop them from doing it but you can stop the law suit from having any kind of significant impact if you let uncommon sense actually impact the law... or of course that would require voting for politicians/policies that are intelligent.

BTW, Uncommon Sense is what most people call Common Sense

Most people cheer on the lawyers who sue corporations who don't use "zero tolerance" or other categorical rules. No one likes corporations. Some people hate them. Schools get more sympathy, but it's still the same game. Deception and bounded rationality make it hard to know what you're even getting when you vote for your local school board members, if you bother to vote for them at all (they're usually unknowns, at any rate). Most taxpayers don't want to drop $10 million because the local high school didn't have a zero tolerance policy toward some thing or other. Pocketbook issues trump any consideration for some kid who got expelled and had to relocate after starting a fight, rather than being given a detention, as would've been the case when I was a kid. It's a no-brainer, again.

Most people cheer on the lawyers who sue corporations who don't use "zero tolerance" or other categorical rules. No one likes corporations. Some people hate them. Schools get more sympathy, but it's still the same game. Deception and bounded rationality make it hard to know what you're even getting when you vote for your local school board members, if you bother to vote for them at all (they're usually unknowns, at any rate). Most taxpayers don't want to drop $10 million because the local high school didn't have a zero tolerance policy toward some thing or other. Pocketbook issues trump any consideration for some kid who got expelled and had to relocate after starting a fight, rather than being given a detention, as would've been the case when I was a kid. It's a no-brainer, again.

And what about the other kid, who was minding his own business, got jumped by the fight starting kid, and was also expelled for fighting?

You are right about it being a no brainer, there was absolutely no thinking involved.

And what about the other kid, who was minding his own business, got jumped by the fight starting kid, and was also expelled for fighting?

You are right about it being a no brainer, there was absolutely no thinking involved.

It's an awful big assumption that there was no provocation or involvement at all from the other person. Investigations, at any rate, are time-consuming and unlikely to reveal the truth. Witnesses are unlikely to be unbiased. But I'm talking about policy, rather than specific hypotheticals. Intelligent policy sometimes allows for less-than-ideal results.

It's an awful big assumption that there was no provocation or involvement at all from the other person. Investigations, at any rate, are time-consuming and unlikely to reveal the truth. Witnesses are unlikely to be unbiased. But I'm talking about policy, rather than specific hypotheticals. Intelligent policy sometimes allows for less-than-ideal results.

Nothing short of feeling actually threatened by the other person constitutes a reason to start a fight anyway; totally not to the point I know. The real point is that the punishment doesn't even fit the crime whether it be a perceived transgression or not. In theory perhaps the Zero-Tolerance policy might sound good but in practice its often hypocritical and ridiculously implemented. I'd call for a zero-tolerance policy against stupidity but for the reasons above I just mentioned it would never work.. Zero-Tolerance is a bad idea when it becomes reality.

Oh? Is that all? Now hold real still. I'll be right back after I go get the fish I'm gonna slap you silly with. :tongue:

I do hope it's trout. I've not had some good trout in a while.

Nothing short of feeling actually threatened by the other person constitutes a reason to start a fight anyway; totally not to the point I know. The real point is that the punishment doesn't even fit the crime whether it be a perceived transgression or not. In theory perhaps the Zero-Tolerance policy might sound good but in practice its often hypocritical and ridiculously implemented. I'd call for a zero-tolerance policy against stupidity but for the reasons above I just mentioned it would never work.. Zero-Tolerance is a bad idea when it becomes reality.

It remains the only workable way to limit your liability if you're a large institution. A relocated student is better than a bankrupt district.

I'd call for a zero-tolerance policy against stupidity but for the reasons above I just mentioned it would never work.. Zero-Tolerance is a bad idea when it becomes reality.

Ahhh, but what about zero-tolerance... against zero-tolerance?

Nothing short of feeling actually threatened by the other person constitutes a reason to start a fight anyway; totally not to the point I know. The real point is that the punishment doesn't even fit the crime whether it be a perceived transgression or not. In theory perhaps the Zero-Tolerance policy might sound good but in practice its often hypocritical and ridiculously implemented. I'd call for a zero-tolerance policy against stupidity but for the reasons above I just mentioned it would never work.. Zero-Tolerance is a bad idea when it becomes reality.

Zero-tolerance doesn't even sound that good on paper.

Ok - we don't want a school shooting, so we don't let the kids carry guns on school grounds. And we don't let them carry things that LOOK like guns, and we....*what? Did no one notice we just jumped the shark, there? Are we really suggesting that there will be a school shooting because some kid is carrying something that LOOKS like a gun?*

Zero-tolerance doesn't even sound that good on paper.

Ok - we don't want a school shooting, so we don't let the kids carry guns on school grounds. And we don't let them carry things that LOOK like guns, and we....*what? Did no one notice we just jumped the shark, there? Are we really suggesting that there will be a school shooting because some kid is carrying something that LOOKS like a gun?*

That's why I covered my ass by saying 'perhaps'. I agree with you on this.

My God, I think I've actually managed to start a legitimate discussion! Never in my wildest dreams could I have expected this.

Not that I'm admitting to trolling. No, I most assuredly wanted this. I... I just can't believe it came to be.

I'm so happy I could cry.

Zero Tolerance: The only way in which an emery board can be classified as a Deadly Weapon.

Ahhh, but what about zero-tolerance... against zero-tolerance?

Hmmm... I like the sound of that. Could it work, though?

The punishment should fit the crime, but these laws don't allow for that level of flexibility.

Meh. More than punishment fitting the crime, I think that the emphasis should be put on:
1.ok for "zero tolerance" in the investigation phase: no crime, no infraction should be overlooked as irrelevant, and culprits should be found (whenever possible: human rights and correct legal procedures are paramount).
2.no "punishment": I don't want those guilty of a crime to "pay" (there's no way of "repaying" a homicide after all: of course it's different with minor offences). I want to be sure that they're not going to do that again; that is, jail (or other restrictive measures like social services) until rehabilitation has been completed and certified by an independent, competent and accountable authority.

Let he that has not sinned cast the first stone.

This is me casting the first stone!

Zero Tolerance: The only way in which an emery board can be classified as a Deadly Weapon.

I turned a wrapper on a lunch sandwich into a weapon once. Balled up foil makes a good weapon. And it looks innocent from the outset... :)

Zero tolerance is all about zero decisions. That's why it's so popular in schools. Government schools, that is. Their administrators and teachers don't have the ability or the desire to noodle out what to do, so that have a blanket zero-thought process in place.

Government schools, that is.

Because no private school has zero tolerance policy, right?


Oh, wait. Once again, youre full of shit.

Because no private school has zero tolerance policy, right?


Oh, wait. Once again, youre full of shit.
At least violations there give the students the opportunity to transfer to another private school, rather than being banned from government schools altogether.

Name one that does.

The private school by my house, Wheaton Acadamy.

Personal anecdotes are easy. Ask for more!

At least violations there give the students the opportunity to transfer to another private school, rather than being banned from government schools altogether.

Nice ninja edit. Oh, ps- getting expelled from one private school doesnt mean you cant ever go to another.


Keep trying.

The private school by my house, Wheaton Acadamy.

Personal anecdotes are easy. Ask for more!
Probably mandated by some misguided state accreditation office. Now that you've jumped on the trivial part, try taking on the rest. Zero-tolerance is just zero-thought and it does work great for government employees.

Probably mandated by some misguided state accreditation office.
Actually, no, it wasnt. It was mandated by the 'headmaster' or whatever the fuck they call him over there.

Now that you've jumped on the trivial part, try taking on the rest. Zero-tolerance is just zero-thought and it does work great for government employees.

Zero-thought works great for people anywhere.

Do you ever get tired of making wrong assertions?

I feel like a lot of kids have the idea that they can get away with anything. I think zero tolerence would give some of them a much needed wake up call.
Of course I don't approve of students being punished for possession of tylonol, or anything dumb like that.I think I'm along the lines that zero-tolerance doesn't work. Zero tolerance makes the process of punishment seem unreasonable and unfair. I know as a kid I never paid attention to a teacher who I thought was unreasonable or unfair. I remember doing things just because I was told not to do them and that I thought the teacher was an unfair prick. To be a teacher you need to be seen as firm, but also fair. Zero tolerance is firm, but by no means fair.

If a kid does something seriously wrong then the kid needs to involved in the process where their punishment is decided. Unless the kid can understand why what they did is wrong then there's no point in punishment. The kid will just remain, embittered, and ready to defy the school authority once again.

Treat the students like they're in the military, give collective punishment, it works.

Treat the students like they're in the military, give collective punishment, it works.

And that's worked so well in so many POW camps in real life and movies.

Let me tell you a little something about zero-tolerance policies.

I went to a "zero tolerance" high school. I was in high school when Columbine went down, but my school had metal detectors BEFORE that shit.

The "zero tolerance policy" was that if you brought drugs or weapons to school, you got the boot. Instant expulsion (supposedly).

In reality?

I did drugs in high school. I don't mean I did drugs during the years I was attending high school; I mean I physically did drugs while in school. At least half a dozen teachers and staff were well aware of this. They never caught me red handed, but they could have if they tried.

But I was at the top of my class. I was in 5 AP classes each year. I was a white kid from a nice middle class family, who everybody knew was headed for college after I graduated. I turned in my homework and I passed my tests.

So everybody joined together in harmony and simply declined to notice that I was tripping balls by the end of second period every day.

I wasn't the only one. The "good" kids at my school (all of whom were white middle class honors kids) got away with shit. The "bad" kids got kicked out of school for doing the exact same shit.

This is a terrible poll. The "no" has two elements. You cant respond "no" for any other reason than that they are ineffective. I think they are not good at all because they lead to unjust results. If something has absurd results I do not care if it is ineffective.

Let me tell you a little something about zero-tolerance policies.

I went to a "zero tolerance" high school. I was in high school when Columbine went down, but my school had metal detectors BEFORE that shit.

The "zero tolerance policy" was that if you brought drugs or weapons to school, you got the boot. Instant expulsion (supposedly).

In reality?

I did drugs in high school. I don't mean I did drugs during the years I was attending high school; I mean I physically did drugs while in school. At least half a dozen teachers and staff were well aware of this. They never caught me red handed, but they could have if they tried.

But I was at the top of my class. I was in 5 AP classes each year. I was a white kid from a nice middle class family, who everybody knew was headed for college after I graduated. I turned in my homework and I passed my tests.

So everybody joined together in harmony and simply declined to notice that I was tripping balls by the end of second period every day.

I wasn't the only one. The "good" kids at my school (all of whom were white middle class honors kids) got away with shit. The "bad" kids got kicked out of school for doing the exact same shit.

Your school had an excellent approach. Unfortunately, not all schools act that way.

maybe each school could be private and then it could set its own policy and we wouldn't have to care

oh wait everything has to be co-ordinated by glorious overcombine hivemind

This is a terrible poll. The "no" has two elements. You cant respond "no" for any other reason than that they are ineffective. I think they are not good at all because they lead to unjust results. If something has absurd results I do not care if it is ineffective.

I intended for there to be more options, but I hit submit by mistake before I was able to.

Sadly, "other" will have to suffice.

With the talk of capital punishment in schools, I feel like it's time for a more serious education-related topic. Well, one that not unintentionally hilarious, that is.

So I'm going to ask you all about the Zero Tolerance Policy. What's that, you ask?



Personally, I'm not a huge fan. The punishment should fit the crime, but these laws don't allow for that level of flexibility. Besides, it's led to such gems as a 13-year-old girl getting strip-searched because she was caught with a couple of Advils (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24savana.html?_r=3), a kid who was suspended for having a gun-shaped keychain the size of an eraser (http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html)--which may still have been stupid on the kid's choice, but it's by far not the most egregious example on that page.

The APA agrees that it doesn't work (http://www.apa.org/releases/zerotolerance.html), and given that kids have been kicked out of school for possession of things like Tylenol, cough drops, and Scope (http://www.usatoday.com/educate/ednews3.htm) I think I'd have to agree.

But maybe I'm not seeing the other side of this, so I welcome debate. What do you guys think of it? Do you like it? If so, why? If not, why not?

We need zero tolerance policies because to do without them sends the wrong message to our kids.

Do you want your kids to grow up thinking that authority figures are people with judgement to be trusted?

That their education is in the hands of trained adults capable of appraising a situation and reacting appropriately when novel situations arise?

Do you want your kids to enter the real world thinking that their own judgement is welcomed, useful, or necessary?

Without zero-tolerance policies we have to trust our educators to recognize, by nothing more than their own experience and sense, the difference between a violent psychopath waving his shoe and yelling "it's a bomb!" and a teenager with an overly ironic sense of humor pointing at his friends shoes and saying "dat's da bomb."

Both of those children need to be punished equally otherwise people will need to learn to recognize sarcasm to feel safe in school.

We need zero tolerance policies because to do without them sends the wrong message to our kids.

Do you want your kids to grow up thinking that authority figures are people with judgement to be trusted?

That their education is in the hands of trained adults capable of appraising a situation and reacting appropriately when novel situations arise?

Do you want your kids to enter the real world thinking that their own judgement is welcomed, useful, or necessary?

Without zero-tolerance policies we have to trust our educators to recognize, by nothing more than their own experience and sense, the difference between a violent psychopath waving his shoe and yelling "it's a bomb!" and a teenager with an overly ironic sense of humor pointing at his friends shoes and saying "dat's da bomb."

Both of those children need to be punished equally otherwise people will need to learn to recognize sarcasm to feel safe in school.

Excellent use of sarcasm, my friend. Bravo.

We need zero tolerance policies because to do without them sends the wrong message to our kids.

Do you want your kids to grow up thinking that authority figures are people with judgement to be trusted?

That their education is in the hands of trained adults capable of appraising a situation and reacting appropriately when novel situations arise?

Do you want your kids to enter the real world thinking that their own judgement is welcomed, useful, or necessary?

Without zero-tolerance policies we have to trust our educators to recognize, by nothing more than their own experience and sense, the difference between a violent psychopath waving his shoe and yelling "it's a bomb!" and a teenager with an overly ironic sense of humor pointing at his friends shoes and saying "dat's da bomb."

Both of those children need to be punished equally otherwise people will need to learn to recognize sarcasm to feel safe in school.

I call for an encore!

Excellent use of sarcasm, my friend. Bravo.

Might not be sarcasm. The sooner kids learn that life is incredibly unfair and that nobody really gives a damn about what happens to them, the sooner they'll be prepared for that unforgiving reality where men are expected to "suck it up" and die an early, painful death and women are moving in that direction.

Then again, getting rid of zero tolerance and allowing harrassment to continue would also prepare kids for the cruel world of adulthood.

Might not be sarcasm. The sooner kids learn that life is incredibly unfair and that nobody really gives a damn about what happens to them, the sooner they'll be prepared for that unforgiving reality where men are expected to "suck it up" and die an early, painful death and women are moving in that direction.

Then again, getting rid of zero tolerance and allowing harrassment to continue would also prepare kids for the cruel world of adulthood.

In either case, the result is a rising popularity of Emo.

In either case, the result is a rising popularity of Emo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7IxliAPjAk
If life is so fair, why do roses have thorns?

[Bottle's] school had an excellent approach. Unfortunately, not all schools act that way.What? Surely that's pretty much the worst approach. Is there some sarcasm I've missed? :confused:

Treat the students like they're in the military, give collective punishment, it works.I thought collective punishment was meant to instill a team spirit rather than a sense of discipline.

Your school had an excellent approach. Unfortunately, not all schools act that way.
At the time, I thought so too. I figured I was doing my part by playing their game. I did the work they assigned, so they let me do whatever I wanted.

In retrospect I think their approach is going to cost me in the long term. They put no effort into helping the kids who were at risk, who were already struggling, and who actually needed attention.

Those kids aren't going to magically disappear.

Lots of them dropped out. My graduating class had 350 students at the beginning of our freshman year. At graduation we had 250.

A few of my former classmates are dead, but most aren't and won't be for a long time. They're going to be around and they're going to be everybody's problem, and if somebody had paid just a little more attention when they were 15 then they might have been a lot less of a problem.

"Zero Tolerance" = "No personal judgment."

I remember a tv show once... I want to say it was the Simpsons but I can't remember. Anyway, one of the kids was accused of breaking a rule that fell under the "zero tolerance policy" and thus the kid was prettymuch toast. At one point, the parents were entreating the school principal to intervene, and he said "I'm sorry, there's a Zero Tolerance policy which means I cannot exercise my personal judgment in any way whatsoever."

And that's the problem exactly. A kid comes to school with a bottle of aspirin in their pocket they'd forgotten to take out before leaving for school, or a child who accidentally brings their father's lunch instead of their own and is punished because there was a butter knife in the bag... This is the point at which something has gone horribly wrong.

"Zero Tolerance" = "No personal judgment."

I remember a tv show once... I want to say it was the Simpsons but I can't remember. Anyway, one of the kids was accused of breaking a rule that fell under the "zero tolerance policy" and thus the kid was prettymuch toast. At one point, the parents were entreating the school principal to intervene, and he said "I'm sorry, there's a Zero Tolerance policy which means I cannot exercise my personal judgment in any way whatsoever."

And that's the problem exactly. A kid comes to school with a bottle of aspirin in their pocket they'd forgotten to take out before leaving for school, or a child who accidentally brings their father's lunch instead of their own and is punished because there was a butter knife in the bag... This is the point at which something has gone horribly wrong.

Yah, like srsly.

I went to a school that didn't have a zero tolerance policy and that school had a better discipline/safety record than any other school in the area. Someone brought a bottle of aspirin to school the administration laughed it off and took the bottle away, called the parents to come get it, and it was the end of that. Someone got hit with a book and shoved in a locker than the student who did it was the one who got punished, not both students.

"Zero Tolerance" = "No personal judgment."

I remember a tv show once... I want to say it was the Simpsons but I can't remember. Anyway, one of the kids was accused of breaking a rule that fell under the "zero tolerance policy" and thus the kid was prettymuch toast. At one point, the parents were entreating the school principal to intervene, and he said "I'm sorry, there's a Zero Tolerance policy which means I cannot exercise my personal judgment in any way whatsoever."

And that's the problem exactly. A kid comes to school with a bottle of aspirin in their pocket they'd forgotten to take out before leaving for school, or a child who accidentally brings their father's lunch instead of their own and is punished because there was a butter knife in the bag... This is the point at which something has gone horribly wrong.

I remember a story on local news where the schools zero tolerance policy prohibited weapons such as guns, knives, or chains (http://www.robbinssports.com/sporting-goods-store/images/everlast-boxing-heavy-duty-chain-swivel-assembly-spring-4.jpg). A student was then expelled for coming to school with a chain (http://www.lakewoodconferences.com/direct/dbimage/50210413/Key_Chain_Light.jpg).

The administrator's explanation? We were just following the school's zero-tolerance policy.

No two snow flakes are alike. It's foolish to treat everything of a certain nature with zero tolerance. We do need to have zero tolerance toward certain actions which cause true harm. Murder (not involuntary manslaugher), assault, rape should be treated with zero tolerance. Other things, where a person is not harming another should be looked at on a case by case basis. After all, Advil is not Heroin.

^^This...Although the intense passive voice of the poll option makes my eyes bleed, lol..

Truancy by Isamu Fukui is a great fiction book to read that deals with this subject. I, personally, as a victim of Zero Tolerance, don't agree with this policy. Each crime should be weighed indivually.

Truancy by Isamu Fukui is a great fiction book to read that deals with this subject. I, personally, as a victim of Zero Tolerance, don't agree with this policy. Each crime should be weighed indivually.

You..want kids to be left totally unprepared when they enter the world of adulthood? Face it. Life is unfair. Half the world wants to stab you in the stomach, take all your money, and leave you in the middle of a desert to slowly bleed to death. The other half wants to enslave you and make you work, fight, and die for their leaders' luxery. The sooner the kids learn that arbitrary rules exist to screw them and that anarchy eventually leads to dictatorships when one group becomes powerful enough, the sooner they can learn to not get screwed nearly as often.

I don't see what point you're trying to make.

You..want kids to be left totally unprepared when they enter the world of adulthood? Face it. Life is unfair. Half the world wants to stab you in the stomach, take all your money, and leave you in the middle of a desert to slowly bleed to death. The other half wants to enslave you and make you work, fight, and die for their leaders' luxery. The sooner the kids learn that arbitrary rules exist to screw them and that anarchy eventually leads to dictatorships when one group becomes powerful enough, the sooner they can learn to not get screwed nearly as often.

Wow. So cynical it's disingenuous.

You..want kids to be left totally unprepared when they enter the world of adulthood?

And therein lies the essence of the conservative ideology. Things are the way they are, shut up and deal with it.

The 'adult world' can, and has, changed several times over the course of human history, and will change again. If the 'adult world' of today is as you describe it, with everyone being strictly Always Chaotic Evil, then it will change because of the children of today refusing to accept it as so. Trying to teach them that the world is shit and everyone hates them is only going to prolong the change. Teaching them that we should treat all other people as equals, and approach all situations with informed thought before reaction......

And therein lies the essence of the conservative ideology. Things are the way they are, shut up and deal with it.

I'd say it's more like "Things are the way we like it, shut up and deal." Because when things change in a manner that some conservatives don't like, say the 2008 election for instance, there's a whole lotta Hot Air Bawl-oons taking to the sky all of a sudden (Sauron, Fort Sumter, etc.)

When no guns policies lead to banning shirts and key chains, and no drug policies lead to punishing a kid with aspirin or Tylenol, "zero tolerance" becomes an absurd parody of justice. Zero tolerance is a bad principle to follow even when carefully set up to prevent such absurdities.

When no guns policies lead to banning shirts and key chains, and no drug policies lead to punishing a kid with aspirin or Tylenol, "zero tolerance" becomes an absurd parody of justice. Zero tolerance is a bad principle to follow even when carefully set up to prevent such absurdities.

Yes, its a horrible policy. Its all about not thinking, its all about covering your own ass, its all about the fact that tort law is an often abused set up of poorly written laws that nobody wants to fix because they are afraid they might get sewed for trying, in the end zero-tolerance is just another response to the zero-sense way of life that modern society encourages; and as long as this thoughtless anti-mentality exists there really won't be any significant changes in the zero-tolerance un-thought process.