Whatever Happened to Common Sense?
Why Zero-Tolerance Should Not Be Tolerated

Dennis Connor
Undergraduate student, University of Northern Colorado
E-mail: connordennis@hotmail.com

The public schools of the United States, despite their proud past, are currently experiencing many difficulties. They seem to be under constant scrutiny and pressure to produce higher academic achievement and at the same time are being criticized by large segments of society. It is no secret that the environment which students experience in the public schools has changed greatly over the past twenty to thirty years, but there are many possible reasons for this; most of these explanations do not place the blame squarely on the schools themselves. Public schools are responsible for one thing, however, and that is the manner in which they react to the changes that take place. Prompted by increased discipline problems within school halls, many districts have adopted zero-tolerance policies toward certain problems, including drugs and violence. When considering current events such as school shootings or evidence of increased drug use among teenagers, this stance may seem rational. However, because they often force schools to make unjust decisions and are at the same time ineffective in increasing school discipline, public schools should eliminate the use of policies of zero-tolerance.

By definition, zero-tolerance policies are restrictive programs in which a thing is not tolerated in any form or at any level. For example, zero-tolerance programs against violence in schools have been used to justify the suspension of students who, using their fingers as mock ray guns, shot at imaginary aliens on the playground at recess. It is the hope of administrators that disciplinary actions such as this will greatly deter students from bringing a real gun to school. Similar to this is the suspension of students whose lunches have been packed with Aspirin for a headache or with plastic knives for peeling an orange. In each case, the goal of utilizing a policy of zero-tolerance has been that a strong enough message will have been sent to students that a more serious defiance of the rule will be averted in the future. I believe this intention fails on two counts: it does not deter worse events from taking place and is actually a mockery of true justice.

First of all, the separate actions encompassed in zero-tolerance policies are often so different--both in intent and possible results--that they are only related in very superficial ways. A student who brings a plastic knife to school to peel an orange is not on the same level as one who brings a machete in his or her backpack; in the former, there is obviously no intent to harm another student, nor would it be possible with such an item. Yet, under a policy of zero-tolerance, the two infractions could be punished in much the same way. The punishment of the lesser offence will almost always be exaggerated, making the crime seem more severe than it actually is; this is, in fact, the thinking behind zero-tolerance policies. Actions like these hardly seem effective in preventing worse things from taking place, as they don't take into account the actual motivation behind why a student might actually bring a weapon to school with the intent to harm others. A student who is willing to put him- or herself in that position is not likely to stop simply because others have been punished severely for much less severe infractions.

I believe the thinking behind zero-tolerance policies is contrary to both our natural sense of justice (or common sense) and to the way our justice system actually works. When students are suspended from school for participating in a mock war against imaginary space aliens at recess, neither intent nor possible outcomes have been considered; this is not the case in our criminal justice system. Students in this situation obviously intend no harm, nor will any more harm come of their game than a game of kickball. In fact, they might as well be genuinely threatening other students in some way: the disciplinary result would be much the same. While some of these acts should be punished, to apply the same standard to all of them is absurd. The reason for this can be found in an axiom dating back thousands of years: a punishment should fit its crime. Policies of zero-tolerance force this common sense to be abandoned, as students are often punished more harshly than their actions deserve.

In implementing policies zero-tolerance policies schools attempt to make equals of things that are not equal or even related. They deliberately exaggerate the seriousness of minor acts in hopes that major problems will be avoided; this is dishonest, and its positive results are unproven. In no way do I intend to suggest that schools should not have strict rules regarding things like drugs or violence; there should be strict rules regarding the bringing of weapons or drugs to school, and they should be enforced rigorously when broken. It is apparent, however, that policies of zero-tolerance often require schools to over-react to minor problems. Over-reactions contrary to the sensibilities of the public do not help improve the image many people have of public schools.

While healthy school environments and consistency in punishment from case to case need to be maintained, it is possible without resorting to policies of zero-tolerance. Schools should simply apply the idea that a punishment should fit its crime. I believe that most teachers and school administrators have the ability to make good disciplinary judgements on a case-by-case basis and should be allowed to do so. It will help schools maintain a proud image rather than one of places where paranoia reigns, but where serious problems are obviously still present. Schools should not rely on disciplinary policies that may seem effective because they are harsh and have an element of no-nonsense about them. Rather, they should maintain the time-tested values of justice and good sense.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: 30 September 2002 / Updated: --