“Zero tolerance”: Good policy, or needless limit on discretion?
Zachary Christy (AP Photo/Steve Ruark)
The news came out this morning that Zachary Christie, a 6-year-old Delaware first-grader, is back to school. He made news by bringing a small pocketknife with a fork and a spoon to his school. His mother didn’t know he did it. He didn’t know he shouldn’t have done it. He just wanted to bring his cool new camping tool to school to eat his lunch.
He had faced 45 days of suspension from his school, and enrollment in an alternative school for troublemakers, after violating the school district’s “zero tolerance” policy on bringing weapons to school. According to today’s story about the case, the “Christina School Board voted unanimously Tuesday to reduce the punishment for kindergartners and first-graders who take weapons to school or commit violent offenses to a suspension ranging from three to five days.”
The board used its discretion to change the rules based on the circumstances of this case. So the zero tolerance policy wasn’t, really, zero tolerance. Is that so wrong?
Obviously, nobody thinks weapons should be allowed in schools. The punishment for that should be harsh. Obviously, it would have been nice if Zachary’s mom knew he was bringing it and could have prevented it. But a strict reliance on that belief could only come from someone who has never had a 6-year-old kid. Be as vigilant as you want; something is going to slip past your notice.
So it seems to me the right decision was made here.
But do you agree? If not, why? Can you ever imagine a time when the circumstances would make a zero tolerance policy useless? Don’t we have sayings like “that’s the exception that proves the rule” or “rules were made to be broken”?
If you agree that the right decision was made, can you imagine a situation, a crime so horrible, that “zero tolerance” would be the right approach? Can you imagine completely removing the discretion of the rule-makers from the individual circumstances of a case?
Kurt is the director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, where he has worked since August 2002. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor. 
I think the right decision was made here considering the facts as I’ve read them. It seems to me any time we set absolutes for anything, you will always get cases like these. Every now and then you’ll read about someone that gets convicted of some sort of crime, and the mandatory minimums are way too harsh based on the circumstances. (cue the “liberal judges” and “racist right-wing laws” mudslinging)
The point I’m making here is that the people we put into place to make decisions on these kinds of thing, be it judges, school principals, etc. should have shown good decision making ability to get the job in the first place.
I don’t agree. Many sent to mingle with the real bad population have only been exposed to the lower class trouble makers.
Does anyone realize that very seldom does good rub off on bad as bad rubs off on good.
Almost the total population in reform school are behavior disorders. This case seems to be far from it. He is not in that class and should not be exposed to it either. Rules are made to be bent and broken. Just look at our current judicial system.
The law says a person is innocent until proven guilty, but many of these “newer” laws they are trying to pass like prescriptions for Sudafed, no texting or cell phone calls while driving, etc. already presume that everyone is guilty even though a person has not committed a crime until these laws were created. To me, a person has to do something physically damaging against another person and when that occurs, then they are guilty and the punishment must be severe. We are hurting the freedoms of many people so a few people can benefit.
Will they ban metal eating knives as a person could use it to either kill someone or eat their dinner? How about a pen where you could seriously stab someone or write with it? How about cars as you could crash into a pedestrian and kill them or drive safely to work with them? People who are for these types of “newer” laws do not want them applied consistently across the board like the items I just proposed, which to me means the original law should be declared invalid as you are being selective and inconsistent in the application.
zero tolerance puts everything in a black or white category. We all know that most things are a shade of gray.
“Zero tolerance” policies ultimately recognize the simple truth that our public school educators - especially at the administrative level - are just too stupid to make viable decisions.
This is but one of many examples of just that. To our public school bureaucrats a 16 year old with a 9mm is just the same as a 6 year old with a spork - as per the policy.
“Zero tolerance” is not, of course, the proper solution to this problem. It is merely a crutch.
What we really need is to just stop letting stupid people educate our kids.
And don’t think that these folks partially reversing themselves after the public outcry somehow indicates that they get it. Clearly they still don’t having only reversed themselves for Kindergarteners and first graders.
As an aside, your assertion that “[o]bviously, nobody thinks weapons should be allowed in schools.” is patently false. I, for one, disagree, albeit not necessarily for students.
Policies don’t protect kids anymore than restraining orders protect battered wives and husbands from their abusers. Zero Tolerance rules are tools for mindless drones and bureaucrats unable or unwilling to make rational, adult decisions. It lets them hide behind a rule instead of taking responsibility.
There’s a world of difference between this little boy and larval stage felons and anyone with half a brain can see it. The twits at the school district enforcing this ridiculous policy are the ones who should be suspended.
“Zero Tolerance” is just one more knee-jerk piece of puffery we enact so we can say we pounded on the table and did something decisive, when all we really did is throw out common sense and obviate the need to think. Go Fish said it perfectly. We hide behind overblown policy instead of dealing with the reality presented by individual circumstance. Of course this kid should not have been suspended. He shouldn’t even have been reprimanded. One phone call to his parents — “Don’t let him bring a pocket knife to school, OK?” Done. That’s all that was needed.
This is a farce, and Zachary and many like him will pay the price for our over-zealous stupidity. The administrators responsible should be ashamed. If anyone should be censured, start with them.
“Zero tolerance” is an excuse not to think, a shield for administrators who hire low-quality decision-makers, and a shield from overly-litigious people whose precious little darling never does anything wrong. It’s a bad policy.
This story is bad, but this one http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,565520,00.html is even worse! This kid wants to go to West Point, all he wants to do is go to school, and the district threw the book at him for a two-inch pocketknife kept in a survival kit in the car. Don’t we want our kids to think about preparing for emergencies? Don’t we want them to be able to assess situations and respond rationally? If so, we’re not teaching them that by having this idiotic zero-tolerance policies at school.
In the end, a zero-tolerance policy is a way for a school to seem like they’re doing something to address a problem when all they’re doing it making it worse.
Gosh! “Zero Tolerance Policy” in this context initially ended in a ridiculous decision. The initial decision was modified but the whole affair caused a lot of stress and expense for the child, the parents and the school system. I do wonder if this “Zero Tolerance Policy” was ever explained (beforehand)to the children–as age appropriate.
I don’t think it can be put any better than Go_Fish just put it.