Culp 1
Sarah Culp
Professor Meisner
English 105
22 November 2002
Preserving the Right to Make Distinctions
Schools have always expended effort on keeping students orderly and
well behaved, and a variety of methods of discipline have been employed to
encourage and influence students to follow the rules. These methods have
included everything from corporal punishment to reverse psychology. In the past
decade, a new system of keeping order has spread across the nation and been
adopted by an overwhelming number of schools: zero tolerance. However,
despite the willingness of educators and administrators to embrace this concept,
in several cases, it has resulted in injustice and unwarranted hysteria.
Zero tolerance in its purest and most dangerous form is the concept of
firm, mandated punishment for misbehavior, regardless of the circumstances of
the offense or the age or mindset of the offender. Not all schools are so strict in
their zero tolerance policies, but many are. The zero tolerance fad has
continually grown in popularity, especially after the school shootings at the turn of
the century (particularly that of Columbine High School in Colorado). According
to the National Center for Education Statistics, 94% of schools report having
zero-tolerance policies for offenses involving firearms, and 91% have similar
policies for weapons other than firearms (Kaufman and others 2000, qtd in
Culp 2
McAndrews). Eighty-seven percent of schools have zero-tolerance policies for
alcohol, and 88% have policies for drugs. 79% each have policies for violence
and tobacco (McAndrews).
There are many cases where a student may deserve a reprimand, but,
under a policy of zero tolerance, is treated far more harshly than they deserve.
For example, in a widely publicized case in 2001, an eight-year-old named Billy
Barnes was suspended from his Lockeport, N.S. school after pointing a chicken
strip at another student and saying "Bang." In the same year, another eight-yearold was suspended in Jonesboro, Arkansas (which had suffered a school
shooting three years prior) after he pointed a chicken nugget at a student and
said, "Pow, pow" (Cosh). Children should be taught that guns can be dangerous,
and many parents would disapprove of their child simulating a gun (with poultry
or any other object). However, for a school to suspend a child, marring their
records for the remainder of their academic life, simply for a thoughtless game, is
excessive and ridiculous.
Simulated weaponry is only one of the areas where schools should allow
some leeway to children before jumping to severe punishment. In 1997, a tenyear-old girl in Thornton, Colorado, was threatened for suspension for sexual
harassment. The cause was a male classmate's complaint that the girl and her
friends had repeatedly approached him on the playground to ask if he liked her,
despite his asking them to stop. After an investigation, officials did not attempt to
Culp 3
suspend her, but she missed a field trip with her class and, according to her
mother, gained a new awareness of the world grown-ups live in. "They jumped to
conclusions," she said. "Sorry doesn't mean much to a 10-year-old" (Cummins).
The administration of the school had an obligation to the male student to
investigate his complaint, and to discipline the girl if warranted. However, there
was no reason to incorporate the phrase "sexual harassment" into the
proceedings, especially before the case had been fully examined. Had the zerotolerance policy not been in effect, perhaps the officials would have felt less
pressure to label the incident and punish the offender.
Occasionally, the administration is so eager to ferret out wrongdoing that
they end up disciplining those who did nothing wrong at all. Such was the case
with 6-year-old Seamus Morris of Colorado Springs. Morris was suspended for
half a day for sharing some candy with his classmates – organic lemon drops
which neither the principal nor the teacher recognized, and thus treated as a
“controlled substance.” As a result, Morris was suspended and, according to his
mother, told that he was “lucky to get away with a Level 2 infraction, that it could
have been a Level 4 infraction,” which could have resulted in a year’s expulsion.
The paramedics were also notified, and one student was taken to the hospital,
despite displaying no adverse reaction (Foster 5A).
In other situations, zero tolerance has forced punishment for students
who, while technically breaking the rules, had mitigating circumstances that
should have been taken into account before a penalty was decided. The most
Culp 4
extreme example of this is the case of Brett Ratner, an eighth-grader in
Purcellville, Virginia. Ratner discovered that one of his classmates was
considering suicide. When she showed him the knife she had with her, Ratner
took the knife and put it into his locker, intending to take it home and discuss the
situation with his mother, a nurse. The school’s dean discovered the knife, and
the school board voted to suspend Ratner for four months for having a weapon
on school grounds. Ratner unsuccessfully appealed the decision and then sued
the district for violation of his rights to due process and freedom from cruel or
unusual punishment, but the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
rejected his case (“Supreme Court” 1).
There are dozens of other reported cases of punishment under zero
tolerance policies wherein the offender has exhibited no malice or intent to cause
disorder. An eighteen-year-old girl in Naples, Florida was arrested one week
before graduation, after a school resource officer discovered a knife on the floor
of her parked vehicle. Despite her explanation that she had been helping a friend
move the previous weekend and the knife had been left behind, she was
arrested. The charges were later dropped, but she missed her graduation
ceremony. In other cases, children were suspended for offenses such as drawing
a picture of a soldier bearing weapons; wearing a firefighter’s costume to school
for Halloween that included a plastic axe; possessing unlit sparklers inside a
book bag; and bringing toenail clippers to class (Cosh). All of these cases have
plausible and benign explanations, which do not warrant such gross punishment.
Culp 5
While these examples show the failing of zero tolerance to adequately
mete out justice in all cases, the basis of these policies is rooted in the sincere
desire to improve schools by controlling the disorder and misbehavior within
them. It is proven that academic achievement is linked to the level of order and
discipline in the school environment (Barton, Coley and Wenglinsky, 1998, qtd in
Holloway). Holding students and their parents accountable for their actions is a
noble idea. However, when the students are not old enough to be accountable,
or their actions were simple mistakes or oversights with no malicious intent or
harmful result, zero tolerance does nothing to improve their character or their
environment. A school is not improved by punishing the people who never
wanted or attempted to ruin it, and that is what happens when administrators put
aside their own judgment in favor of the blind mandate of zero tolerance.
The solution is to inject human perspective back into the disciplinary
process. There is nothing wrong with having strict guidelines in a school, or with
severe punishments for people who knowingly break rules and/or endanger other
students. However, administrators should be given the freedom to make rational
decisions regarding who deserves expulsion, suspension, detention, a
reprimand, or a warning. According to Todd Gaziano, director of the legal center
for the Heritage Foundation (a conservative group),
Discipline requires judgment calls…Part of the job of educators is to
make distinctions between a little bit bad and something really
threatening. Parents are ashamed that school officials can't
Culp 6
exercise common sense. We entrust them with our children. If they
can't distinguish between a chicken finger and a gun, or a prank
which deserves a reprimand and a real crisis, then how can we
trust them to teach proper moral behavior? (Schuster)
We cannot expect our nation’s educators to serve simply as walking, talking lists
of rules and regulations. Many parents decry the lack of personal attention their
children are given in schools, with large class sizes and principals who stay in
their offices. How can those things be remedied when we have policies restricting
our students from being seen as distinct human beings when they are
disciplined?
As the zero tolerance fad grows, our schools become more militaristic and
less humane. It is essential that we examine the failings of these policies while
we are still able to amend or reverse them.