Saved By the Bell isn't actually good.

Neither are Zero Tolerance policies.

Quote:

Fifth-graders in California who adorned their mortarboards with tiny toy plastic soldiers last week to support troops in Iraq were forced to cut off their miniature weapons. A Utah boy was suspended for giving his cousin a cold pill prescribed to both students. In Rhode Island, a kindergartner was suspended for bringing a plastic knife to school so he could cut cookies.

As somebody who was suspended as a Freshman for using a non-threatening turn of phrase, I can attest that Zero Tolerance is stuuuuuuuuuuupid. They amount to nothing more than a license for authoritarian social workers to act like the strict Law & Order gestapo they wish they were.

Is there any kind of necessity for zero tolerance against guns? Shouldn't tolerance for guns be determined case-by-case, and not actually require Zero Tolerance? One would think that bringing an actual gun to school, and not a water gun, is an unforgiveable offense zero policy or no.

Were you or have you been affected by zero tolerance in your own schools? How fast should this be gotten rid of?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Dissed because fuck you, Saved By The Bell was brilliant. Oh, Slater...

Zero tolerance is what you can expect when parents get freaked out about the dangers lurking at your school, and want answers now. No one actually thinks it works, but principals are retarded and want to keep their jobs*.

Also, zero tolerance for guns at schools: makes a whole lot of sense until you go to one of those shithole schools in the sticks where they still have classes that teach you how to shoot rifles and hunt and all that. I expect they're rare, but not non-existant. Also: ROTC. The guns in both examples are probably provided by the school though.

* Not a retarded thing to want. Well, what can I say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

Zero tolerance is what you can expect when parents get freaked out about the dangers lurking at your school, and want answers now.

I live right next to a high school and I was walking my dogs there a couple months ago as I did from time to time, and a cop came up to me. He told me that I wasn't allowed to walk my dogs on school property in the city limits. I said OK but asked him why. He said a few years before, some kid stepped in dog poop while at recess and his parents sued the school district and won.

These policies aren't about safety, they are about liability.

I mean, think about the third example: "Mommy! Timmy brought a knife to school today!"

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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 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. As BM said, it's a liability issue, and I don't think anyone wants their kid's school to get owned by some lame multi-million dollar lawsuit over something easily preventable.

I remember my elementary school didn't allow you to bring any sort of drugs/medicine in and if you did it would have to be stored with the school nurse. I had been having a lot of headaches, so my mom would pack some Advil in with my lunch. Most of the teachers were willing to look the other way, but you'd have the occasional ones that were dicks and got me in trouble once or twice (all this being prior to Zero Tolerance policies).

I was speaking idiomatically.

The bans on medications are what I don't get. When I was in elementary school, I had to carry an Epi-pen in case of allergic reactions (my parents were a little overcautious, I think). School officials weren't thrilled about it, but I carried it with me, as opposed to leaving it with a school nurse (lol, we were so rural we didn't have a school nurse). My grandfather even made me a leather pouch to wear it on my belt, which looked a great deal like a knife sheath. Thank god it was pre-9/11.

It was a shock to come to Maryland and see just how picky they were in my cousin's school. Where's the logic in making asthmatic kids leave their inhalers with a nurse? As far as I know there's nothing harmful in an Albuterol inhaler, and if the kid actually had difficulty breathing, it's not great that they have to track down the nurse to get the medication out of a locked cabinet.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Heh, yeah, I remember in elementary school some of the asthmatic kids would have attacks during gym class and then one of us would have to run down to the nurse's office (except not running because that would get you in trouble in the halls) to get their inhaler and bring it back out. So ridiculous.

FELIPE NO

@ the topic name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96Wf5cv_4s

Now then, as for the actual TOPIC:

I was "fortunate" enough to have avoided pretty much all zero tolerance policies, since I haven't stepped foot in a public school since 6th grade. However, it doesn't take a genius to know that this shit is too far. It really says a lot when you have to cut off toy soldiers' weapons because you're too afraid of getting sued, basically. It speaks volumes about the quality of our justice system and the greed of our people as a whole when we have to do this bull to avoid getting laid the smackdown with a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

What really boggles me is that couldn't the judge just throw out a case if he deems it unfit to go to trial?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

With the exception of Tiffany Amber Thiessen, Saved by the Bell was fucking awful.

Now that that is out of the way, I agree with Landon's thoughts that 'No Tolerance' is "justifiable grounds" for taking away the rights of others. Its crap. This doesn't necessarily prevent a violent crime from happening as someone will go out of their way to break rules if the intent is there. There will NEVER be enough resources for ABSOLUTE safety for the students. Thats just the way it is.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Luckily I have never had to go through school with anything like this. In elementary school kids were allowed inhalers, not sure about medication. I remember one kid brought a knife to school in grade 6, he got in a lot of trouble and suspended for a week as well as having to speak to the students about the dangers of knifes. It was all dealt with by the school without the aid of any groups.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by RainMan

'No Tolerance' is "justifiable grounds" for taking away the rights of others.

Minors have very few rights.

Originally Posted by RainMan

This doesn't necessarily prevent a violent crime from happening as someone will go out of their way to break rules if the intent is there. There will NEVER be enough resources for ABSOLUTE safety for the students.

That's a more compelling argument, but it's really not the reason for zero tolerance.

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

Originally Posted by nuttyturnip

The bans on medications are what I don't get. When I was in elementary school, I had to carry an Epi-pen in case of allergic reactions (my parents were a little overcautious, I think). School officials weren't thrilled about it, but I carried it with me, as opposed to leaving it with a school nurse (lol, we were so rural we didn't have a school nurse). My grandfather even made me a leather pouch to wear it on my belt, which looked a great deal like a knife sheath. Thank god it was pre-9/11.

You got somewhat lucky, as the leather pouch he made for my Epi-pen (which was actually somewhat necessary) looked even more like a knife case. I can't remember how many times kids reported me for carrying a knife. Thankfully all the teachers knew what it was already though.

My middle and high schools had zero tolerance policies for "violence or the threat of violence," and even the teachers got tired of hearing about it. It was heavily abused when I was in 8th grade, the last year of middle school. Our principal was removed after it was discovered that he was accused of burning down his ex-girlfriend's house several years prior, and the three assistant principals all made grabs for power. It basically became a race to see who could suspend more kids. Using the zero tolerance policy as an excuse, teachers were told to send people to the office for as little as saying "I'm gonna hurt you for that" out of frustration. Just saying the word "kill" was supposed to send up a red flag. That and the blanket excuse of "insubordination" were used to suspend lots of kids.

Nothing was ever done about it though, because all the parents cared about was safety. One of those vice principals ended up as the principal of a new school in the area, and another was promoted to principal there for their excellent work. Hard to believe that was all pre-9/11, though only one year prior.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I see a lot of mentions of 9/11, but you guys remember that Zero Tolerance didn't really become a big deal until after Columbine, right?

How ya doing, buddy?

I mentioned it since Columbine didn't really spur much actual change in my area like 9/11 did. It brought about a lot of talk, but nothing came from it except the introduction of a Zero Tolerance policy that existed in name alone and lockdown drills that proved how truly doomed we all were if there was ever an actual shooting. Zero Tolerance didn't have any significant effect until the administration power struggle I mentioned and after 9/11. Before that it was only used to create a sense of general fear.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Tritoch

I mentioned it since Columbine didn't really spur much actual change in my area like 9/11 did.

Heh, really? 9/11 wasn't even caused by kids.

My school district has a "college going" culture practically from Elementary School, though, so I guess they had to do everything they could to protect our precious juicy brains.

FELIPE NO

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 Crash Landon

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.

I've had plenty of cause to consider these things, you know. I was raised in a very fundamentalist Christian environment, and much of my upbringing consisted of "sheltering" me from everything that could possibly be conceived of as sin (I didn't start watching PG-13 movies until I was 15 or 16).

I am a living example of what is wrong with this approach--when I thrust out into the real world and encountered "secular" things, it required an entire paradigm shift that undoubtedly contributed to my college-aged depression. I love my parents tremendously, and I know that this "sheltering" may be somewhat situational (as opposed to a strict upbringing); it seems I was born afraid (actually the unfortunate emotional residue of a choke at age 7), and if there was ever a child that screamed, "SHELTER ME!" it was me. Also, I'm pretty sure depression runs in my genes.

These are things that I hope to remedy, to the best of my ability, once I have children. I am already more straight-forward with kids (the ones I am around a lot) than my parents were with me.

All this being said, while fundamentalist Christianity and the Zero Tolerance policy may strike a similar chord, I would ask you to consider not correlating them too strongly. My parents, while being very overprotective, would never set out on a frivolous law suit--they are constantly complaining about that sort of thing, and I imagine other fundamentalist Christians have this in common with them. I mean, I don't think you were blaming them for Zero Tolerance antics, but I wanted to make it clear where they (in my experience) stand on the issue.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I went to one of those hippie montesorri schools when I was in the fifth grade. Aside from the whole thing being a huge better-than-you circle-jerk, they also had a zero tolerance for any kind of mention of guns or gestures representing a gun. When I transfered there and was reprimanded for pretending my hand was a gun I was somewhat shocked and a bit disgusted at that point. I think this was my first time experiencing how ridiculous people could be.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Heh.

I remember being suspended from school for writing on my arm. I didn't write anything in particular, just scribbled a little bit on my hand and forearm.

They considered it "an act of depression and bad parenting." They used those exact words.

The scribbles beared no resemblance to, or had any affiliation with anything bad, and were very, very, very few.

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

Mmmm... I know someone who made a book long ago (before Columbine) that taught you how to make a bomb, and he brought it when he was in middle school. The principal just told him he was a naughty boy, and just threw the book away.

But yeah, I knew someone who got suspended for bringing a plastic knife to spread cream cheese on his bagel. And then I knew another person who nearly got suspended for bringing eye drops.

Zero Tolerance sucks. Being punished for having over-the-counter medicines or having toy soldiers is just...

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Principals and school officials want to avoid more Columbine scenarios. Nothing wrong with this attitude. However, they do so in a lazy, stopgap way that requires no real thought or effort. Rather than actually have competent school counselors, or look into whether a child is just expressing the typical teenaged angst, or anything that requires judgement on a case-by-case basis so that everyone gets the sort of attention they need, they throw down a blind catch-all policy that punishes innocent expressions while without really being vigilant for the warning signs of a troubled child.

It's so the school system looks like they're doing all they can to "keep your children safe", without being assed to actually do so. It's the same with any governmental institution. Airline security, for example. The problem is that schools just are not being held accountable for their laziness, I think partly because moms are just as lazy. They don't want to think, they just want a security blanket to wrap themselves in and feel like they're safe from all the scary boogeymen out there.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Divest

Heh.

I remember being suspended from school for writing on my arm. I didn't write anything in particular, just scribbled a little bit on my hand and forearm.

They considered it "an act of depression and bad parenting." They used those exact words.

That should've been the part where you threatened to call the newspapers.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Monkey King

However, they do so in a lazy, stopgap way that requires no real thought or effort. Rather than actually have competent school counselors, or look into whether a child is just expressing the typical teenaged angst, or anything that requires judgement on a case-by-case basis so that everyone gets the sort of attention they need, they throw down a blind catch-all policy that punishes innocent expressions while without really being vigilant for the warning signs of a troubled child.

It should be said that with the budgets public schools are under, the sort of case-by-case basis thing you are talking about would stretch an already thin system. And what competent counselor would want to work at a school that pays so little?

It's easy to blame people who work at schools for things that happen at schools even if it isn't their fault.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

It should be said that with the budgets public schools are under, the sort of case-by-case basis thing you are talking about would stretch an already thin system. And what competent counselor would want to work at a school that pays so little?

It's a school not a goddamn court of law. It's not like these kids get to appeal decisions.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It's easier to err on the side of over-caution than to try and figure out the right thing to do every single instance anything comes up. I mean, how much spare time do you think the overworked school teachers and administrators have? Do you think they're really getting paid to put up with a bunch of bullshit kids who, more and more each year, treat them like absolute shit? And the parents are even worse.

The parents appeal decisions more and more through the court of law. I'd rather schools err on the side of caution than pay more in taxes for school budgets going increasingly to litigation fees.

Imagine if a school let something by that it could be proven it wasn't actively trying to stop! We're talking millions and millions of dollars.

Plus, as always, minors don't get the same privileges as old folks. That isn't just in school, that's basically in every single facet of life.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?