Saved By the Bell isn't actually good.

My district is more lax on zero tolerance policies. In the case of obvious threats, it's a decent plan, but that list is realistically limited to items like guns; illegal drugs or those without an appropriate prescription; concealable and realistically lethal weapons; incendiaries or similar items capable of moderate-scale destruction; otherwise hazardous and clearly inappropriate items, such as dangerous chemicals.

Obviously, the laws go too far. A kindergartener is very unlikely to have any malice aforethought in bringing a plastic knife to school, especially when it's accompanied by a very reasonable explanation. Punishing for the dispensation of over-the-counter medication is equally absurd. I've read of students being suspended for possessing Robitussin to soothe a cold. Prescription medicine is trickier, but if it's not a narcotic or anything seriously hazardous, there's not much harm in sharing a little pill. It would make sense for students to pass around Zantacs after certain school lunches.

The toy soldier thing is beyond ludicrous. That one nebulously borders upon violating the First Amendment.

"Zero Tolerance" is a sham. It's less of a safeguard against viable threats and more of a catch-all legal excuse to behave in a totalitarian manner. I've got little patience for any practice that knowingly and aggressively punishes the innocent.

I guess the matter at hand is one of intent. This is extremely difficult to prove, however. There's no reason to assume that every student who packs a plastic knife is a ticking time-bomb. Perhaps if the student has a history of violent acts, then you might keep a watch on him. But you can't realistically deny him a method by which to cut the crusts off his sandwich.

In any matter of proving intent, the burden of proof is upon the accuser. The defendant, in any courtroom, would be presumed innocent until established otherwise. I don't believe that this right ends at the courtroom's doors. Preying upon malleable, naive kindergarteners isn't just shortsighted; it's potentially traumatic.

I once heard of a student being expelled for bringing a bullet into school. Though it wasn't the greatest thing to show off to friends, I believe the school overreacted. Honestly, what was he going to do, throw it at someone really hard?

The worst I ever got was detention for reciting a dirty limerick. I suppose that in this age of zero tolerance, it would've been interpreted as a declaration of rape intent and that I'd have spent the next ten years staring at the world through a slot in the door.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

The only thing I could imagine is if it wasn't a used bullet and the kids decide to think it would be a good idea to smack it with a rock during recess or something.

I thought about that way back when I first heard the story. Though I knew it was a valid concern, I couldn't help but thinking that it was still pushing the boundaries of paranoia.

Hypothetically, an angry person could use anything as a weapon for harm. And hypothetically, the world is full of things that can harm us if abused. A sharpened pencil is just as deadly as a knife. Electrical sockets are not a playtoy. Either of them has lethal potential.

So what do we do? Do we enact a strict "crayons only" policy? Do we place every electrical outlet behind lock and key? How ridiculous and overcomplicated do we need to make the daily lives of these kids before we can breathe comfortably for their safety? How many more basic priveleges can we revoke before our children are treated no better than convicted felons?

And all this in the name of a brighter future for our kids? We may be assuring that they reach this future, but crippling them just to get there is not a journey worth taking, in my opinion.

I may be in the slight minority with my thinking, but I personally feel that children do not benefit by being coddled and sheltered. It leaves them fearful and unprepared for the world around them. Guns and drugs are real threats, but avoidance and fear campaigns are not the solution. Understanding and honesty are always the best responses to critical issues.
The best thing we could ever do for our children is answer every question they have about the issues of drugs, sex, violence, racism, etc., and not sugarcoat the truth, hide behind agendas, or make up answers when we aren't certain. No, we cannot ensure that all children will turn out fine, but those who do would be greater in number and better prepared.

Zero tolerance policies remind me of fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalists tell their children that a great many things are sins so that they'll fear and avoid everything that's not on the fundamentalist Christian agenda. They chalk the fear tactics up to piety, so of course nobody is misguided. How dare anyone accuse them of subjugating the naive.

And how dare you tell the school board that their actions are going too far! They're protecting the children! What do you have against the children? Do you want them to think drugs and weapons are acceptable solutions to their problems? Do you want your child to grow up thinking it's okay to point his fork anywhere he wants? People like you are why we can't rely upon home schoolings in the first place. Troglodyte.

This is why arguments against extreme punishments so often lose. It's difficult to prove undeniable fault in an administration that hoists itself upon a pedestal for erring upon the side of caution (and legal liability). Such an air of morality makes it quite easy to portray all advocates of sensibility as deluded hippies.

Someday, I should like to see a forward-minded principal expel every single student in his building who happened to be wearing shoelaces that day. Clearly, shoelaces are a threat; they can be used to strangle and choke someone. Possession of shoelaces is an implied intent to cause harm and creates a dangerous atmosphere. This crime must be stopped before it is ever committed!
Naturally, the entire school district would find itself in an uproar, and perhaps the principal would lose his job for such a stunt. But the point would be one worth making: The capacity for a threat is, in itself, not a threat at all.

But if I were a parent and my child told me someone had a bullet or two in class, I wouldn't immediately panic.

"Did he have a gun also?"
"No."
"Did he have a hammer, or maybe a rock?"
"No. Just a bullet."
"Did he threaten anyone?"
"Nah. He just wanted to show it off. He thought it looked cool."

And that'd be the end of it. When I was 10, I thought bullets were neat to look at too.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

I chalk all this whining up to the age of the people having this discussion. Too much bias here, especially since every one who is whining also claimed they got in trouble. Most people complain about things they get in trouble for.

I'm 31, not 13. I know the difference between reasonable suspicion and litigophobia. I was also never subjected to such asinine blanket policies in my public school career.

So you're wrong on that one.

I have no children, nor do I own property, so I don't pay school taxes either. Demographically, I have no vested interest in public schools.

My only concern is the gradual, consistent erosion of small liberties, and the fearmongering that causes it. It's wise to be vigilant. It's foolish to live in fear. And that seems to be the difference: wise administrators could easily discern the difference between the judicious and menacing uses of a plastic knife.

It's not about righting wrongs inflicted upon me, because there were none. I just don't like the apparent direction of an educational system that reinforces the idea that all people who like to use silverware are would-be felons.

I'm still allowed to be a conscientious objector, aren't I?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.