Initially an attempt to prevent students from falling victim to senseless acts
of violence while in school, the gradual decision of school
boards nationwide to implement zero tolerance policies in regard to weapons, drugs and alcohol
is only proving to victimize students in another way: through
their permanent records.
The problem began when President Clinton enacted the Gun-Free
Schools Act of 1994, which mandated a one-year expulsion for
students caught in possession of a firearm. Taking the idea
further, school boards across the country have dreamed up
so many additional stipulations to add to the list that students
like Ashley Smith, 11, are being suspended for such trivial
reasons as bringing a Tweety Bird key chain to school: the
chain fit into the school's weapons category. Because of ridiculous
rules like the one that affected Ashley, zero tolerance policies
are causing good students who have no malicious intent to
receive the same punishments that disturbed students with
malevolent objectives receive.
Thus, school districts across America must reform their zero
tolerance policies because they do not consider a student's
intent, they violate a student's right to due process, they
violate a student's right to privacy, and they mar a student's
permanent records.
The most obvious discrepancy with zero tolerance policies
is that they are blanket policies that punish all students
in "violation" of them. Unfortunately, most of these
policies do not have stipulations that allow for a review
of a student's intent. Thus, a student who wants to practice
good hygiene and brings Scope mouthwash to school suffers
the same punishment as the student who wants to murder his
classmate and brings a .22 caliber firearm to school.
One case study illustrates the foolish lengths to which this
policy can be taken. Shanon Coslet, 10, was a student at Twin
Peaks Charter Academy in Longmont, Colorado. One day her mother
packed a small knife in Shanon's lunchbox in order for her
daughter to be able to slice an apple. When Shanon realized
the knife might violate her school's zero tolerance policy,
she turned it into a teacher who told her she had done the
right thing. Regardless, Shanon was still expelled from school.
This example illustrates how this blind, blanket policy leads
to the harm of innocent students; ironically, the same innocents
that administrators had hoped to protect in the first place.
No doubt the zero tolerance policy has justly punished students
with malicious intent, but the alarming increase of student
expulsions across the country leads us to believe that many
innocents like Shanon are being punished as well.
In California's Orange County alone, expulsions for weapons
violations nearly tripled just three years after the implementation
of a zero tolerance policy. Suspensions were up 329 from the
1989-90 to 921 in the 1993-94 school year, with a gradual
increase every year since. We cannot believe that the actual
number of students bringing deadly weapons to school tripled
in only a few years. A more plausible explanation is that
students like Shanon are being smothered under an unyielding
blanket policy.
Without a review of a student's intent, zero tolerance policies
deny those same students their right to due process. The United
States Constitution stipulates that "no person
shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law. Using this principle as a guideline, school boards
must see that their blanket policies violate the spirit of
the Constitution.
Though the founding fathers may not have been able to foresee
the development of a zero tolerance policy, indubitably they
would not have endorsed a "one-size-fits-all" punishment
devoid of a democratic hearing. The American Civil Liberties
Union spokesman, Ed Yohnka, states, "These are regressive,
narrow-minded, knee-jerk policies [that] eliminate the ability
to exercise some human and humane judgments." We agree
with Yohnka. The current action of the school boards violates
the student's right to due process, a fact that places the
policy in supreme violation of the United States Constitution.
Most zero tolerance policies also infringe upon a student's
constitutional right to privacy. In one case, a teenage girl
was suspended after a dog sniffed out a bottle of Tylenol
in her backpack. Similar to what the Supreme Court found in
Roe v. Wade, many civil rights activists believe that the
girl's right to privacy was violated.
Some schools with zero tolerance policies allow over-the-counter
medications such as Tylenol or Midol, but they require that
the medications be submitted to the front office and administered
by the school nurse. In many cases, however, school nurses
are not available and embarrassed females must receive their
Midol or, even worse, their birth control pills, from the
hands of an often-male administrator (incidentally, birth
control pills are prescribed for reasons other than preventing
pregnancy). For these reasons, many girls choose to preserve
their privacy by keeping their over-the-counter medications
and prescription drugs to themselves. Consequently, many of
those girls are being suspended for violating zero tolerance
policies. Students who wish to keep the exact rhythms of their
monthly cycle or their doctor's advice private must be allowed
to do so.
Lastly, punishment for zero tolerance violations permanently
mars a student's school record with a suspension or an expulsion,
the two most severe disciplinary actions a student can receive.
One tragic example of zero tolerance gone too far involves
thirteen-year-old honor student Cosmo Zinkow who was given
a two-week suspension for giving his French teacher a bottle
of French wine as a Christmas present. Zinkow, who was taking
a college prep curriculum, will probably be punished yet again
for his benevolent action when his college applications are
in review. Not only does the suspension appear on his school
record but his grade point average also suffers as a result
of missing two full week of school. Almost all zero tolerance
policies prohibit "perpetrators" from making up
any missed work.
School boards must realize that their zero tolerance policies
cause more detriment to students than benefits. They must
readjust their policies and examine violations on a case-by-case
basis so that only students with malicious intent will be
punished for their actions. If administrators can do this,
then playful students like the Richmond, Illinois, teen who
was suspended for jokingly "firing" a "deadly
weapon" (a paperclip) at a cafeteria worker, will no
longer be unjustly punished for such trivial acts.
April 2001
|