Common Sense Has Fallen To Zero Tolerance

[I wrote the paper for a Language Awareness class at Capital University a couple of years ago.]

Jesse Harmon

UC 110 09

December 7, 2010

Common Sense Has Fallen To Zero Tolerance

“It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense.” –Robert Green Ingersoil

            Should someone be arrested for bringing a cell phone to school?  Should a child be jailed for bringing a nail trimmer into a school building?  Is it ethical to arrest a child for skipping a class?  Should students be suspended for bringing paper clips into the classroom?  According to 80% of school districts in America, it’s perfectly fine (Skiba).  This 80% of school districts have enacted a fairly new system called the Zero-Tolerance Policy system.  In this system, if a child breaks a rule, they receive the harshest punishment possible.  Although there have been instances of extreme violence in schools, the zero-tolerance policy is not an effective way to discipline students because there is no flexibility in these rules, (the zero tolerance policy can have a detrimental effect on the education of students).  The following essay describes how inflexible the zero tolerance policy can be. 

            Zero tolerance began in the 1980s after Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984.  This law states the legal drinking age is to be set at 21 instead of 18 that many states had at that time, and that a Breathalyzer test should be conducted.  The minimum tolerance rate would be a 0.08 or a 0.1.  Today, this has been changed to include ANY number being shown on the Breathalyzer test (Hanson).  Schools have adopted this zero tolerance idea.  Since drugs were running rampant in the public school system in the 1980s, schools began to inflict harsh punishments on students who committed crimes, which mirrors the adult “get tough” attitude that many law enforcement and public officials were geared toward.  During the 1990s, however, that idea spread to many people in the community, who demanded schools include firearms, knives, drugs, alcohol, and violence.  However, this did not stop the massacre that happened on April 20, 1999 in Columbine, Colorado.  Two high school students brought guns to school, shooting and killing 13 and injuring 25 students and staff.  After this devastating situation, people across the country demanded schools to implement a zero tolerance policy.  What these people didn’t know was that this was an opportunity for school districts to gain control.  For example, the high school that the author of this essay attended, Logan High School, in Logan, Ohio, went through a period of change.   In November of 2000, the community of Logan voted for a levy that would allow the school district to construct new schools.  In November of 2008, the new high school was completed, and students and faculty moved in December.  Once the move was complete, the school installed policies that stated that all vehicles belonging to students and faculty were to be tagged and monitored throughout the time the vehicles were located on school property.  If a student was caught smoking in their car, which happened to be on school property, the student would get referred to the office, the privilege of parking was revoked, and the vehicle was to be towed at the owner’s expense.  This caused outrage throughout the student body of the school, but no one made a stand against it.

This policy was intended to deter students from doing criminal activity, but schools all over the country have pushed the issue too far.  There have been examples of why the zero tolerance policy is needed.  In September of 1997, a fight broke out at Decatur High School.  Two gangs started to yell, and a fistfight broke out.  Seven black students were suspended on October 1, 1997 because of the fight.  This sparked outrage from the community.  However, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and thousands of members of a group called Operation PUSH, famously attended a protest at the school on November 14.  Reverend Jackson and several others were arrested two days after the protest, for disturbing the peace.  Reverend Jackson and PUSH filed suit against the district because of racial bias.  Six students were represented in the lawsuit, (the seventh dropped out of the district).  The plaintiff claimed the district handled the situation poorly; the punishment exceeded the original offense.  The presiding judge, Judge Robert McLosky, threw the suit out.  He claimed the district was well within its rights of suspending these students (Skiba). As obviously seen in this example, the zero tolerance policy could lead to racism.

The major problem is that schools are taking students away from the education that is desperately needed.  A seventeen-year-old student in Chicago, Illinois, shot a paperclip from a rubber band.  The paper clip, which was aimed at another student, instead hit a cafeteria worker, breaking the worker’s skin.  The student was expelled, and charged with a misdemeanor battery.  The school advised the student to drop out of school. 

There are many other incidences that do not make sense.  Russell J. Skiba’s 2000 article titled “Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence,” and Dr. Nancy A. Heitzeg’s article, called, “Education Or Incarceration,” gives many examples of how the zero tolerance policy does not work.  Dr. Heitzeg’s thesis was that the zero tolerance policy gives no leeway, and that it is very rigid.

In May of 1999, in Pensacola, Florida, a sophomore student at the high school gave a friend a pair of nail trimmers with a file.  The teacher saw the nail trimmers, confiscated them, and reported the girl to the principal.  The girl, who was aspiring to be a doctor, was given a ten-day suspension and threatened with expulsion.  As the principal stated later, “Life goes on.  You learn from your mistakes.  We recommend expulsion.”  How could a pair of nail trimmers lead to expulsion?

The rigidity is obvious, but the zero tolerance policy also infringes on the rights of students.  In February of 1999, a freshman at a school in Ewing, New Jersey was sleeping in class.  The teacher suspected the student of doing illegal drugs, and asked the nurse to check the student’s vital signs.  When the student refused to conform to the ridiculous situation, the principal suspended the student and refused to allow him to return to school until he passed a drug test.  The father filed suit against the school, but the young man eventually gave in and took a drug test. 

Also in February 1999, a student was suspended from Westlake High School because he announced that the French teacher was not fluent in the French language.  The principal accused the student of “verbally attacking” the teacher  (Skiba).   According to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  In Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, the United States Supreme Court extended the first amendment rights to students, (US Supreme Court Center).    Schools do not have the authority to infringe on the rights of students, but of course, they still do.

A student’s First Amendment right of freedom of expression was violated in Ponchatoula, Louisiana.  A twelve-year-old student, who was diagnosed with a hyperactive disorder, told students not to eat all of the potatoes in the lunch line, or, as he stated, “I’m going to get you.”  The twelve-year-old student was suspended for two days, and the police charged him with “terroristic threats.”  He was incarcerated for two weeks while awaiting trial (Justice Policy Institutions, The Advancement Project).   

In Arlington, West Virginia, two ten-year-old boys put soapy water on a teacher’s desk.  The boys were charged with a felony, with a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison.  The case was later dismissed.  The Eighth Amendment plays a role in this situation.  The amendment states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

In another example of the Eighth Amendment being violated happened in Palm Beach, Florida, when a fourteen-year-old student, who was disabled, was accused of stealing a couple of dollars from a fellow student.  The principal called the police, and the fourteen-year-old student was charged with strong-armed robbery.  According to the prosecutor, the situation “depicting this forcible felony, this strong-armed robbery, in terms as though it were no more than two dollars, shoplifting fosters and promotes violence in our schools.”  Media pressure forced the court to drop the case (Heitzeg).  Because the student was disabled, does that give prosecutors and administrators the right to inflict harsh punishments?  Absolutely not.

There are many instances where the punishment considered is completely nuts.  An eleven-year-old student died from an asthma attack after the school wouldn’t allow her to carry an inhaler with her (Building Blocks For Youth).  In another case, an eleven-year-old girl was tasered by police, arrested, and charged with battery of a security resource officer after disrupting a school function and resisting with violence.  The eleven-year-old girl had pushed another student.  As of the writing of this source, one could assume the case was still on trial because of how Heitzeg wrote the text. 

Examples like these show that administrators will make ridiculous and outrageous decisions based on the zero tolerance policy.  The idea may be fantastic on paper, but in reality, it does not work.  Since the policy’s inception in the mid 1980s, it has been implemented in about eighty percent of school districts nationwide (Skiba).  According to statistics published by Dr. Heitzeg, about 3.3 million students are suspended each year.  One hundred thousand or more of these suspensions turned into expulsions after the fact.  What is outrageous is that this number doubles that of expulsions in the year 1974.  Schools have reported higher dropout rates in recent years because of students being suspended and expelled.  Evidence shows that there is absolutely no evidence to support that zero tolerance policy is effective in any way.  Despite a drop in school related crimes in the 1990s, schools still insisted that the zero tolerance policy be instituted.  School funding has decreased, while security measures have increased, (security measures meaning metal detectors, more officers in schools, et cetera).  Evidence has shown that there is absolutely no correlation between the zero tolerance policy and “safer schools.”  More and more minorities are being suspended and expelled since the zero tolerance policy went into effect (Heitzeg).  However, in Skiba’s 2004 essay titled, “Discipline is Always Teaching,” he states that the rates of suspension and expulsions are not divided equally by race.  African-American students are four times more likely to be suspended, and two and a half times more likely to be expelled than their Caucasian counterparts.  Skiba also mentions that ninety percent of out of school suspensions were because of disruptive behavior.   Basically, the zero tolerance policy does not work. 

There are many alternatives to the zero tolerance policy that schools need to consider.  Schools can have their counselors talk and mentor the troublesome students.  A middle school principal in Indiana did exactly this.  According to her, the school’s suspension rate dropped by nearly fifty percent (Skiba).  Another alternative is to have legitimately suspended students do community service.  The zero tolerance policy should be used only for the most serious infractions, such as bringing a real gun to school.  Schools should increase bully prevention programs, as violence is a major source of criminal activity.  An elementary principal in Indiana decided to participate in Project PEACE, a program that involves training the student early on that certain behaviors are not acceptable.  This principal stated, “We’ve taken it to the point that there are peace spots in every room, and there’s a poster in my office.  They click right into it…It’s amazing what the training does,”  (Skiba).

Another alternative is to apply the zero tolerance policy with greater flexibility in problem schools.  The situation must be assessed, and the age and context must be taken into consideration.  Reyes suggests that all infractions need to be defined, classified, and appropriate handling of each infraction should be sought.  School resource officers should take and pass developmental psychology classes, taught by a certified instructor, whether it be a college professor or a clinical psychologist (Reyes).

            As mentioned before, the Tinker case needs to be considered.  Another case, Goss vs. Lopez, 419 US 565 1995, should be assessed.  The ruling states that students may not be suspended without a hearing.  However, many schools do not follow this.  The fourth amendment is violated a lot in schools as well.  Schools conduct unreasonable search and seizures on students’ backpacks, lockers, and even their bodies.  However, a lawsuit sought by the Safford Unified School District #1 against Savana Redding, an eleven-year-old girl who was caught with ibuprofen in her backpack, was lost because the court ruled the strip search was unreasonable.  The bizarre ruling did state that the school was able to search her outer garments and her backpack, but that the strip search was too far.  Students now do not have much hope to be defended by the fourth amendment. 

            Of course there will be situations where the zero tolerance policy should be put into effect.  Students who bring real guns to school, dangerous and sharp knives, with the intent to harm people, known illegal narcotics, and gang fighting should all be taken seriously.  We do not need potential murderers and rapists in our public school system.  The troublesome students need to be mentored, counseled, and monitored.  A gun brought into the school by a teenager or pre-teen is a dangerous thing.  A butter knife and a toy soldier should not be the sole reason to expel someone. 

            The zero tolerance policy is obviously not working as planned.  Many people have suffered, and will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives because of it.  Students who were suspended for bringing nail trimmers now need to face the fact that they may not get a job because of their “criminal record.”  Parents need to get involved with their students’ activities as well.  In order for schools to be safer, officials need to consider the facts stated in this paper.  Common sense is needed in order for discipline to be effective.

Works Cited

Essex, Nathan. "Student Dress Codes Using Zero Tolerance?." Education Digest Oct. 2004: n. pag. Web. 8 Dec 2010. 

Hanson, David J. "The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984." Alcohol Problems and Solutions. Sociology Department, State University of New York, 2009. Web. 3 Nov 2010.<http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/ YouthIssues/1092767 630.html>.

Heitzeg, Nancy A. "Education Or Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies And The School To Prison Pipeline." Forum on Public Policy (2009): n. pag. Web. 3 Nov 2010. <http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ870076.pdf>. 

"History of Zero Tolerance." Zero Tolerance Laws. Zero Tolerance Laws, 2008. Web. 3 Nov 2010. <http://www.zerotolerancelaws.com/historyofzerotolerance.html>. 

Kajs, Lawrence T. (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: an alternative approach to zero tolerance. Education Research Quarterly, 29(4).

Reyes, Augustine. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? an evidentiary review and recommendations. Discipline, achievement, and race; is zero tolerance the answer?, 63(9). Web.  29 Nov 2010.

"School to Prison Pipeline: Fact Sheet ." New York Civil Liberties Union. New York Civil Liberties Union, n.d. Web. 3 Nov 2010. <http://www.nyclu.org/schooltoprison>. 

Skiba, Russel. "Discipline is Always Teaching." Education Policy Briefs 2.3 (2004): 1-11. Web. 29 Nov 2010.

Skiba, Russel. "Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence." Indiana University. Indiana Education Policy Center, Aug. 2000. Web. 2 Nov 2010. 

Skiba, Russel. "The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance." (1999): 372-382. Web. 10 Nov 2010.

“Tinker V. Des Moines Sch. Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969)." US Supreme Court Center. United States Supreme Court, 2007. Web. 29 Nov 2010. <http://supreme.justia.com/us/393/503/case.html>.

"Zero Tolerance." Building Blocks For Youth. Building Blocks For Youth, n.d. Web. 3 Nov 2010. <http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ issues/zerotolerance/facts.html>.