Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance

[blutoski]

All this for a kitchen knife? In the story that appeared in "This is True," when the girl found the knife in her lunch box, she immediately turned it over to the school authorities, who thanked her for her honesty and compliance - then suspended her. Regardless of notes sent home to the parents, this was stupid.

I'm not sure I agree. There is such a thig as turning oneself in and still being punished.

The hilited area is an unsupported assumption. And again, I have to ask: All this fuss over Midol? In the case I cited, the girl had it in her purse. In the case Primus cited, the girl gave it to a friend. In that case it could be dangerous, since the girl probably didn't know whether her friend was or wasn't allergic to something in the medication.

Depends on what you mean by unsupported. I always got a set of parental expecations at the beginnig of the year.

You have some good points. However, when it comes to outrageous acts on the part of people "only following orders" I don't think it's that unlikely they did something incredibly stupid. The Milgram experiment comes to mind.

No. In all the Milgram variations none were based on merely "following orders". All subjects were given reasoned justifications to urge them to continue. Usually that it was an experiment to enhance learning, but there were many permutations and some replications used a different pretense. Without exception, there was no punishment for stopping, so the subjects were using their own judgement when they chose to continue.

Anyway, it's not clear what social boundary experiments conducted in a lab actually tell us. I've read a lot of Milgram (I replicated some of his experiments at UBC) and there is not a lot that we can say for sure has real-world applications, except for some experiments that were conducted in real-world environments. For example, I spent a day on the SkyTrain calling out the stops. It's embarassing for some reason, but by the end of the day I was more comfortable with it, desensitized.

None of these experiments can be used to show whether the cited ZT decisions were 'stupid'. Also not possible to isolate whether the problem was ZT or individual bad decisions that may have actually conflicted with ZT rules.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

My instinct at this point is to assume that if a story is very outrageous, it's probably incomplete and agenda-driven. This is partly my age, and partly a specific result of doing so many skeptical investigations of paranormal claims and finding them to be so very different than the reporter's version. Also dealing with journalists as part of an investigation team (October is when the phone rings off the hook for interviews about ghost investigation). I have very little confidence in the average journalist's interest in sticking to facts. Most try to be good story writers, and they would be the first to admit this.

I understand your point about media coverage and the tendency to go for a good story over one that is accurate, but I would advise caution in using heuristics to decide what is going on in the world. I have become interested in criminal justice, and I could cite countless examples of official behavior that really is stupid, overbearing and vindictive. If you dig deeper into the Justin Carter Facebook story, it doesn't become any less outrageous than the initial news reports suggested. From what I have gathered, some (but not all) of the ZT stories are the same. Idiots really do run amok.

 

[blutoski]

I understand your point about media coverage and the tendency to go for a good story over one that is accurate, but I would advise caution in using heuristics to decide what is going on in the world. I have become interested in criminal justice, and I could cite countless examples of official behavior that really is stupid, overbearing and vindictive. If you dig deeper into the Justin Carter Facebook story, it doesn't become any less outrageous than the initial news reports suggested. From what I have gathered, some (but not all) of the ZT stories are the same. Idiots really do run amok.

Agreed - I was going more the other way, I was not so much using heuristics to decide the truth of the situation - I was using heuristics to lower the confidence in the accuracy and completeness of this information source when weighing evidence for the purpose of building a conclusion.

I agree that idiots run amok; but having dealt with media, I have to say that every journalist I've met has had a worldview and agenda. Some of them go into journalism explicitly to convert readers to their worldview. If their worldview is that teachers are idiots without exception (a surprisingly common view - teachers, lawyers, dentists, politicians... media makes a good living portraying them poorly), they will shape a story to that end.

And don't get me started on owners who direct their reporters to tell stories in a particular way! An ongoing exercise for me here in BC is a newspaper whose editor is completely anti-medicine and his homeopath daughter gets to write anything she wants as long as it is about how evil and stupid MDs are, all the other reporters are on notice not to write pro-vaccination articles, for example.

A more relevant example is a chain of newspapers here in Canada that has changed hands over the years, but for awhile it was part of a conglomerate that also owned the nation's largest chain of private schools. The mandate for its reporters was to portray the public school system as essentially ignorant union goldbrickers who hate children and put them in routine danger and can't teach either. Evidence was poor, so the owners (the Aspers) created a think tank (The Fraser Institute) to conduct 'research' into how bad public schools were in Canada. Its job is to crank out stories exactly like those on this Zero Tolerance thread, in order to undermine parents' confidence in public schools.

At the end of the day, my decision was that we don't actually have enough information on most of these, because the sources are suspect, regardless of how petty or moronic we know people can be.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (mega-snip) . . .

A more relevant example is a chain of newspapers here in Canada that has changed hands over the years, but for awhile it was part of a conglomerate that also owned the nation's largest chain of private schools. The mandate for its reporters was to portray the public school system as essentially ignorant union goldbrickers who hate children and put them in routine danger and can't teach either. Evidence was poor, so the owners (the Aspers) created a think tank (The Fraser Institute) to conduct 'research' into how bad public schools were in Canada. Its job is to crank out stories exactly like those on this Zero Tolerance thread, in order to undermine parents' confidence in public schools.
At the end of the day, my decision was that we don't actually have enough information on most of these, because the sources are suspect, regardless of how petty or moronic we know people can be.

According to this website, private schools also use zero tolerance (from the site, bolding and parenthetical material added):

Discipline: Zero tolerance is the norm in most private schools. Students are governed by contract law and can be dismissed for cause.

(public schools): Discipline is always subject to due process and an individual student's rights under the Constitution. It can take weeks even months to resolve issues.

Please understand that I support public schools. I didn't start this thread as a screed against public education. Private entities are just as likely to indulge in bureaucratic stupidity. Possibly the worst combination is when a private entity is given legislative powers, as with the court appointed monitors, members of a private legal firm, who were given power to regulate busing in L.A. schools back in the 1980s. They were not subject to any control from elected officials, and there was no right appeal regarding their policies.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I see they're still going after Justin Carter...

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features...back-court-making-facebook-threat-15014.shtml

http://www.ibtimes.com/league-legen...-making-terrorist-threat-earlier-year-1519972

He's looking at 8 years in prison. The Midol girl and the pop tart kid should consider themselves lucky.

Ugh, when is that case ever going to get resolved?

 

[blutoski]

According to this website, private schools also use zero tolerance (from the site, bolding and parenthetical material added).

Absolutely!

In fact, we had a news story the other day about a girl at a private school being told to change her hairstyle. It was big news... but not for critics of public schools. One article on FoxNews that they disabled Google bots on (ie: available by searching their site's Orlando affiliate, but not via Google)

Private schools only produce 'good news' stories for these outlets, and public schools are a goldmine of minor errors that need to be exaggerated and flogged for weeks. That's all I was implying.

Having said that, not all outlets are run that way, obviously. It's just a personal approach to assigning levels of trust to media reports.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Ugh, when is that case ever going to get resolved?

I'm guessing it will go to a jury, and the jury will convict. This is the congressional district of Lamar Smith, whose pet obsession seems to be policing the Internet.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm guessing it will go to a jury, and the jury will convict. This is the congressional district of Lamar Smith, whose pet obsession seems to be policing the Internet.

This case reminds me of a local affair. A few years ago a boy in a Pasadena, CA high school said he'd like to blow the school up. Since he and his father were known to (legally) own guns, the police raided their residence, upsetting the father, who had heart problems, to the point that he had a mild heart attack.

The mentality of prosecutors in such cases seems to be that they must make an example of the person they're prosecuting, to serve as a deterrent. They don't seem terribly concerned that they might be ruining the life of real human being.

In this case, had the boy said there was a specific school he had in mind and had named it, then his "just kidding" wouldn't count in my eyes, and an investigation into whether or not he actually planned to carry out such an act would be in order. As it is, this particular situation threatens free speech. We are, after all, free to say things that are stupid and hateful.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The reporting of public school problems v. private school problems was highlighted for me as a teen.

This was a time when radar detectors were valuable on the black market and there was a news story about a local public school finding that a few of its students had stolen a large number of such detectors from the student and staff parking lots. It was in the news and on the news, big deal locally.

At the same time kids at my private school were busted by the school for exactly the same thing. Difference: no cops were called, no newspapers were told, and no reporters ever showed up. Why? Because the people involved all have a vested interest in the good reputation of the school. These people paid thousands of dollars for their kids to get into this school and they were not going to then drag the school through the mud and tarnish its reputation over a broken window and a stolen radar detector. Some kids involved left the school, but some didn't. We were never told why and we never expected to be told.

Private schools have their own set of problems and after my time in one I chose quality public schools for my kids.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

That reminds me of something.

An acquaintance of mine from college claimed that his then 12-year-old cousin was locked in a mental ward in New Jersey for four days for telling a classmate something to the effect of "I'll bring a gun to school and shoot you!" in the course of a heated argument.

The kid had no intention of actually bringing a weapon to school and shooting anyone, obviously. He was just angry about something or other. He was guilty of nothing more than being a dumb and mouthy 12-year-old. But schools apparently take no chances in the wake of all those school shootings.

Another acquaintance claimed that his 13-year-old brother-in-law was kicked out of summer camp for jokingly saying that he'd kill himself. He might have said something to the effect of "If I have to stay at this place any longer, I'll kill myself!" It was an obvious joke, made to another kid there in the course of a casual conversation. The kid wasn't suicidal or depressed in the least but zero tolerance for "threats" meant that it was taken seriously.

It's awful, what an oversensitive culture we live in.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This case reminds me of a local affair. A few years ago a boy in a Pasadena, CA high school said he'd like to blow the school up. Since he and his father were known to (legally) own guns, the police raided their residence, upsetting the father, who had heart problems, to the point that he had a mild heart attack.

The mentality of prosecutors in such cases seems to be that they must make an example of the person they're prosecuting, to serve as a deterrent. They don't seem terribly concerned that they might be ruining the life of real human being.

In this case, had the boy said there was a specific school he had in mind and had named it, then his "just kidding" wouldn't count in my eyes, and an investigation into whether or not he actually planned to carry out such an act would be in order. As it is, this particular situation threatens free speech. We are, after all, free to say things that are stupid and hateful.

I imagine this prosecutor understands her Christian Taliban constituency, and she knows they support her on this.

 

[blutoski]

That reminds me of something.

An acquaintance of mine from college claimed that his then 12-year-old cousin was locked in a mental ward in New Jersey for four days for telling a classmate something to the effect of "I'll bring a gun to school and shoot you!" in the course of a heated argument.

The kid had no intention of actually bringing a weapon to school and shooting anyone, obviously. He was just angry about something or other. He was guilty of nothing more than being a dumb and mouthy 12-year-old. But schools apparently take no chances in the wake of all those school shootings.

The school had nothing to do with an involuntary ruling. That would have been done by a forensic psychiatrist. It's likely that the kid was identified as a risk based on history and from the assessment that followed; 4 days observation suggests there's way, way, more involved than that isolated threat.

This is part of what I was implying previously - you would be the last to know if this kid really had mental problems.

Another acquaintance claimed that his 13-year-old brother-in-law was kicked out of summer camp for jokingly saying that he'd kill himself. He might have said something to the effect of "If I have to stay at this place any longer, I'll kill myself!" It was an obvious joke, made to another kid there in the course of a casual conversation. The kid wasn't suicidal or depressed in the least but zero tolerance for "threats" meant that it was taken seriously.

It's awful, what an oversensitive culture we live in.

Yes and no. Imagine if he did kill himself, and the camp director had to explain, "Well, he did say he was going to kill himself, but we ignored it." Camp directors aren't qualified psychiatrists, and dealing with kids who 'joke' about suicide by sending them home is not oversensitive - it's a good reason to fire a customer in my opinion.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

According to the kid's cousin, it really was one clearly not serious outburst. They didn't have a school shrink interview the kid first or anything like that. Sending him to a mental ward was the first and last step when he made the so-called "threat". Of course, the person telling me this was the boy's cousin and he was relating what the kid and mutual relatives had told him. So it was, admittedly, a second-hand account from a potentially biased person.

I agree that sometimes a "joke" can be a real threat, veiled in faux innocence. But sometimes a joke is just that: a joke.

I work with troubled teens who sometimes give me a huge headache. I've privately joked about murdering my students. I've joked about killing myself, too. As you might be able to tell, I'm still here. Otherwise, I wouldn't be typing this right now. Oh, and all of my students are perfectly fine and dandy, thank you very much. Physically, that is. What is going on upstairs is a different story!

You've never said anything like "I could kill you for that!" or "This job is going to kill me" ? Not once in your life?

 

[colander]

Last month, my nephew told me that his friend's cousin got suspended for a year for saying the word "darn". Clearly the world has gone mad with punishment lust. I mean, what other explanation could there possibly be?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Go ahead, mock me. Mock it all you want.

Having seen "Zero Tolerance" in action with my own two eyes, I know that it's real. And it's a real problem.

This isn't a phony issue. Schools and other institutions operate as if the lunatics have taken over the asylum, particularly in America. Having worked in NYC public schools and being an unfortunate graduate of the NYC public school system myself, I see this all the time first-hand.

Like the father in that one episode of "South Park", I sometimes wonder if I'm the only sane person left on the face of the planet.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Yes and no. Imagine if he did kill himself, and the camp director had to explain, "Well, he did say he was going to kill himself, but we ignored it." Camp directors aren't qualified psychiatrists, and dealing with kids who 'joke' about suicide by sending them home is not oversensitive - it's a good reason to fire a customer in my opinion.

Anyone can play the "what if" game. What if the kid killed himself because he got thrown out of the camp?

"Rather than offering his support, the director shamed the victim by expelling him from the camp community... a child is DEAD because of this insensitive slob."

The argument you make above is exactly what we hear from administrators in the wake of every asinine ZT incident. They insist they are not qualified to exercise any judgment, so they must apply the same harsh policy to every perceived violation of the rules. They have no choice but to take every figure of speech literally. They have no choice but to assume homicidal intent on the part of a kid who chews his a pop tart into the shape of a gun.

The result is a wholesale abdication of common sense.

 

[truethat]

I have basically given up on trying to have a reasoned intelligent discussion online with anyone who reads these sensationalized headlines and runs with it without pausing to consider that MAYYYYYYBE there's more to the story.

For example, the kid that bit his sandwich into a gun was not suspended for biting his sandwich into the shape of a gun but for picking it up and aiming it at his classmates heads going "bang bang bang"

Now A. He could have done it with his finger and it would have had the same consequence. It's not OK to pretend to shoot your classmates. And yes it sucks that these are the days of our lives but they are, and mom and dad know that. Instead of flipping out I'd just give the kid a break and tell him not to do it again.


But no matter how many times I posted the article, asked people to consider the reality etc etc etc nope people want to run with "He was suspended for biting his sandwich into a gun shape."

<<<<<MASSIVE EYE ROLL.

The same thing with the waiter "crappy tip" stories that go on. No one questions anything, they just jump on the outrage bandwagon.


No you can't bring Midol to school. Give it to the Nurse and the nurse will give it to you. You can't allow kids to bring "drugs" to school and take them without supervision during the school day. What if a colleague takes one and it turns out that it's a hard drug and there's a bad reaction.

Zero tolerance policies are in place because we've got **** for parents out there who don't know how to teach their kids to be a respectful and cooperative member of a school community.

The "hell" one where the principal tried to revoke the diploma is the only one that made me raise an eyebrow.

People need to realize we live in a litigious society and the school has to protect themselves.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have basically given up on trying to have a reasoned intelligent discussion online with anyone who reads these sensationalized headlines and runs with it without pausing to consider that MAYYYYYYBE there's more to the story.

For example, the kid that bit his sandwich into a gun was not suspended for biting his sandwich into the shape of a gun but for picking it up and aiming it at his classmates heads going "bang bang bang"

What is the harm in that?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

People need to realize we live in a litigious society and the school has to protect themselves.

See, that's precisely what gets me. Well, part of it. The brain-dead, logic-deprived and cowardly oversensitivity is appalling in its own right and has larger ramifications all across society. It makes us all into a nation of uptight, legalistic worrywarts.

But the selfishness behind these actions also puts a bad taste in my mouth. In my mind, the obvious self-serving of the institution when it is trying desperately to protect itself above all other considerations makes it even worse.

They don't oust dumb kids for their own good or that of other's. The school, camp or other organization doesn't give a good goddamn about the children or their families. They pretend they do- but their number one priority is to not get sued by anyone. That's disgusting. They will lock a 12-year-old in a mental ward or destroy a 13-year-old's summer because of the "Cover Your Ass First" policy.

While I'm bringing up personal anecdotes, my former college got sued over something like this but from the opposite end of the spectrum. They had a policy that anyone who attempted to harm themselves in the dorms would be automatically evicted. It was stipulated in the contract you had to sign. The rationale behind it was to prevent lawsuits by parents who could claim that the school hadn't done all it could to prevent suicides on their property. They might have been looking at this case when they decided to safeguard themselves.

A depressed student tried to commit suicide at my former college's dorm by taking a large dose of sleeping pills but changed her mind and called 911. When she came back from the hospital, she found the room locked and herself evicted and was told to gather her belongings and leave while security guards stood around her. She sued, alleging discrimination against the mentally ill (among other complaints).

How heartless, that they punished someone for being depressed and attempting suicide. They added to her humiliation and her troubles, by making her homeless on top of everything else. All cause they wanted to cover their ass, just in case :shakes head:. How selfish. They essentially punished her for saving herself, which also potentially sets a dangerous precedent by giving overdose victims an incentive to not seek help. Even someone who overdosed accidentally could be tempted to keep it to him or herself, for fear they could be accused of attempting to commit suicide and evicted. So yeah, evicting someone because they might be suicidal to "protect" yourself shows a huge lack of compassion to me and makes me view the institution in an even more negative light. Far from making their actions more understandable, it makes their actions even more repelling. What they are essentially saying is "Sure, overdose on pills- just not here! Go down the block, ok, love?". The lack of caring they display is obscene.

By the way, you have to love the irony of a school incurring a lawsuit precisely because they took measures to prevent a lawsuit.

 

[TimCallahan]

I have basically given up on trying to have a reasoned intelligent discussion online with anyone who reads these sensationalized headlines and runs with it without pausing to consider that MAYYYYYYBE there's more to the story.

In the case of the valedictorian who was refused here high school diploma because she said "hell" in her graduation speech, the story wasn't blown out of proportion. That's the way it happened. A straight A student denied her diploma unless she submitted a written apology for saying "hell'. In the case of the kindergartener who was suspended, as Primus pointed out to me, things were blown out of proportion in the story. In the case I cited of the girl who was suspended for having Midol in her purse for menstrual pain, she was an honor student, and, again, the story was as it happened.

For example, the kid that bit his sandwich into a gun was not suspended for biting his sandwich into the shape of a gun but for picking it up and aiming it at his classmates heads going "bang bang bang"

Now A. He could have done it with his finger and it would have had the same consequence. It's not OK to pretend to shoot your classmates. And yes it sucks that these are the days of our lives but they are, and mom and dad know that. Instead of flipping out I'd just give the kid a break and tell him not to do it again.

The hilited area fits with at least part of my objection to zero tolerance policies: In many cases, there appears to be a sudden jump to suspension. Some lesser punishments might be tried first, such as confiscating the Midol.

But no matter how many times I posted the article, asked people to consider the reality etc etc etc nope people want to run with "He was suspended for biting his sandwich into a gun shape."

<<<<<MASSIVE EYE ROLL.

The same thing with the waiter "crappy tip" stories that go on. No one questions anything, they just jump on the outrage bandwagon.

I don't know what the "crappy tip" stories are.

No you can't bring Midol to school. Give it to the Nurse and the nurse will give it to you. You can't allow kids to bring "drugs" to school and take them without supervision during the school day. What if a colleague takes one and it turns out that it's a hard drug and there's a bad reaction.

Midol, an over the counter medication isn't what we'd call a hard drug. And, again, your idea of not freaking out applies here. Confiscation of the Midol might work just as well as suspension, without needlessly involving the school in litigation brought by outraged parents.

In the case I cited, the girl, an honor student, had Midol in her purse. She wasn't giving it to anyone. In the case Primus cited, the girl gave some to a friend. Again, this is an other the counter medication. BTW, can you imagine what a hassle it would create in a high school if every girl who was menstruating went to the nurse before the first bell to get Midol? Or what if they plagued their teachers for permission to go to the nurse's office through the day?

Zero tolerance policies are in place because we've got **** for parents out there who don't know how to teach their kids to be a respectful and cooperative member of a school community.

That actually varies from district to district. When I was substitute teaching I came in for quite a bit of abuse on the part of snotty little brats. At the same time, particularly in the Burbank School District, I had classes of kids who treated me decently, even middle school kids (ages 11 - 13). So, there are still parents teaching their kids decent behavior.

The "hell" one where the principal tried to revoke the diploma is the only one that made me raise an eyebrow.

Suspending a girl for having a legal, over the counter, medication in her purse, a pain reliever to take for menstrual cramps, didn't bother you?

People need to realize we live in a litigious society and the school has to protect themselves.

Ironically, as others on the thread have noted, zero tolerance policies can provoke lawsuits.