Has "Zero Tolerance" gone too far?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 2:40 pm

I was watching the news the other night. Actually, I was only half watching it, so I’m not sure about the location, exact time, or anything. Anyways….

They had a story about a boy who was suspended from school for violating the schools “Zero Tolerance” rules regarding guns in school. Apparently, the boy was playing a policeman in a school play. They were practicing the play, and he went to the bathroom. He forgot to leave his fake gun prop in the practice area, and a teacher saw him. The teacher reported it to the principle, and the principle suspended him.

So now this kid has in his records a suspension for violating the no guns in school rules. He’s very concerned that this may affect his ability to get security clearance later in life, as he hopes to go to the police academy. The School Board is apparently backing the principle.

Another example from several years ago…. A girl was suspended from Fairborn High School (Fairborn, Ohio) for having/taking drugs. The drug in question was Midol, and she was taking it for menstrual cramps. However, according to school officials, the school has a strict “Zero Tolerance” policy against drugs.

So my question is…. Has “Zero Tolerance” gone too far? Is it just a bit ridiculous to suspend a kid because he forgot to take a prop off before going to the bathroom? Or to suspend a girl for taking an over the counter medicine for cramps?

R.A.G. · Post by **R.A.G.** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 2:46 pm

Of course it's bloody ridiculous. Then again, School Boards do all kinds of ridiculous things, such as ban certain portions of American Literature because it is "Offensive."

But I do see your point. Play-props and Midol getting kids suspended is taking "Zero Tolerance" too far.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 2:57 pm

MooCow wrote: <snip> prop gun <snip>

This is really stupid. I can see him getting accosted and even held up temporarily because of the prop. I don't understand the suspension being upheld. Without knowing the specifics I'm going to have to assume a few things like: being a school play, it has the school's backing and at least one faculty sponsor. This sponsor is the person who obtained the props for the play, not the student. Rehearsal was not happening during normal class hours.

Now... If they want it to be "Zero-Tolerance" then they shouldn't have allowed the prop in the school. If anyone should get in trouble for the violation of the policy, it is the faculty sponsor who initially brought the prop into the building. As a former prop-master, I might be upset, somewhat, by a prop leaving the stage but during rehearsals that's not as much of an issue, especially for an actor running off to use the toilet quickly in order to get back to rehearsing faster.

To summarize: Stop = good. Question = good. Call In and Reprimand = not so good, but acceptable. Suspend for Prop = bad.

MooCow wrote: <snip> OTC drugs <snip>

This example is not as stupid. My school had a similar policy, one I supported (and violated, but that's a separate issue). It isn't really possible to distinguish between OTC pills and other drugs. If you see a kid popping a pill in class, that's a bad thing. Therefore, for those who wanted to have OTC medication available, you needed to bring in the pills you wanted in a sealed bottle (or, I think, with a doctor's or parent's note... I never bothered with that part) and leave them in the nurse's office. Anytime you needed a pill you went to the nurse and got one. As our nurse was very centrally located, it was fairly easy to stop in between any two classes or go quickly during a single class and only miss a minute or two (barring a trauma case being treated when you arrive).

Van Der Litreb · Post by **Van Der Litreb** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 2:58 pm

Is this for real?

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:00 pm

I think the zero tolerance stance is as atupid as bush's foreign policy about zero tolerance.

some people make me sick.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:05 pm

Is this for real?

If you mean the question and the situations presented, Yes. I appologize for not providing the actual articles, but a brief search for them didn't turn anything up.

If you mean life or the message board, well that's a pretty in depth philosphical question which I'm not equiped to answer.

Kunan · Post by **Kunan** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:09 pm

Zero tolerance policies cross the line the moment they are used for the concious and intentional impediment of things that the policy was (allegedly) never meant to impede. Take the greek ban on computer games: it crosses a line because it, as a policy supposedly intended to stop computerized gambling, it bans any form of computerized game, on the grounds that it is not easily distinguished on the field whether they are meant for gambling or not. (I have to wonder if it would be permissable to ban computerized text as well, since it might be difficult to distinguish whether it's really some kind of code used by people betting on sporting events or something.)

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:23 pm

I'd like to herein note that my school's Zero-Tolerance policy on drugs was meant to impede the use of both OTC drugs and reduce the chance of prescription and illegal drug use going unnoticed. It was instituted, I believe, after an attempted suicide by overdose on school grounds. I know that it was considered (and, I think, rejected once or twice) previously to keep some students from buying and using another student's ritalin or other less legal drugs.

In any case, the policy was meant to remove all drugs from the hands of students as long as they were in school during normal school hours. I believe there was a by-policy that allowed a waiver of the policy for specific circumstances, such as those who may need emergency doses of something where seconds count or the ability to keep pills within one's locker for non-standard hours use (such as late rehearsals or practices). They needed to remain inside the locker during the normal school day, however, and you weren't supposed to take them then. I think you were supposed to notify the nurse that you had them as well, not that most people paid any attention.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:32 pm

I can understand that Anguirel, but it seems to me that suspending someone for taking Midol is a bit extreme. Did they break the rules? Yes. But should we damage their academic careers because of it? No.

I presume that suspensions are the same now, as they were 8 years ago. If you get suspended, any homework/test/etc grades you miss during your time out are forfeit. That can really FUBAR your GPA.

I have no problem punishing people for breaking rules, even stupid rules, but is cracking down on drugs/guns/hamsters/etc worth ruining someones life?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:44 pm

I see a lot of this sort of thing. Working at the prison has shown me just how assinine the whole zero tolerance thing can be, however conversely its shown me some of the reasons it gets that far.

In example.

The local Junior High School has received seven bomb threats, at least in the last three months. Each time they get one of these threats they have to take it seriously. Which means they have to evacuate the school, call a bomb squad, which around here means generally speaking, waiting 45 plus minutes for people from either Grand rapids or Lansing to arrive. This of course isn't cheap. Nor does it make for a good environment to teach children.

Eventually they catch the girl who was making these calls. They of course suspend her, but they also suspend several girls whom they suspected knew she was doing this. They also suspended a boy who brought a knife to school, a jack knife-the folding kind you clean your nails with really. All of this because of zero tolerance. Some of these kids may never be able to enroll at this particular school system again.

But I can see how they got to those steps. They tried and tried, and tried to get people to play by the rules. As usual people have to be jack asses and push and push. For me, at least, its easy to see how an assinine policy like Zero Tolerance cmes into being.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 6:53 pm

here's one for ya.

my sophmore year in High School, the School District banned crop tops, short shorts and any kind of heels unless they were cowboy boots. at this time, the huge fashion was short shorts and crop tops and I mean that kind of clothing was EVERYWHERE. you had to really go out of the way to find a normal t-shirt and a pair of pants. and of course, all the girls bought two closet full of these clothes that couldn't be worn at my school. this did manage to get local media attention because most of the parents were wealthy enough to "entice" the media in an effort to shame the school into changing their minds. did it? nope. instead they amended their rules a bit. you CAN wear shorts, but they have to be knee length. you CAN wear crop tops, but when you raise your arms, your belly button can't be seen. you can wear heels(pumps) only if you're on a school function and have a release form.

their reason for doing this? the School District got a survey back (as well as released medical records, signed by the parents) that there was a 48% increase in teen pregnancy within the School District. so their brilliant plan was that if girls couldn't dress sexy, then they wouldn't get knocked up.

if a girl is caught wearing anything that breaks the rules, they're sent into the nurse's office where they have to stay until a parent brings a change of clothes. any class time they miss is counted as an unexcused absense (aka skipping class) even if your teacher knows you're in the nurse's office waiting for a change of clothes.

it was one of the few rules that no one was immune from, not even the kids whose parents has clout.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:02 pm

Back in, oh, 1997 or so when the Antichrist Superstar was running wild [Don't stop me if I've told this story before, because I really like it] our school banned all Marilyn Manson t-shirts. Naturally, a group of people didn't like this, because hey, they liked wearing MM t-shirts.

So the annual teacher auction was coming up in a few weeks, and a bunch of the Manson fans teamed up, bought the principal for the day, dressed him up like Marilyn, and paraded him around the school.

Everyone was free to wear Manson shirts after that.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:04 pm

Oh that is beautiful. Mad kudos to those kids.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:08 pm

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 8:35 pm

MooCow wrote:I presume that suspensions are the same now, as they were 8 years ago. If you get suspended, any homework/test/etc grades you miss during your time out are forfeit. That can really FUBAR your GPA.

Depends on the school system. Here, we have both In-School Suspention and Out of School Suspension (known as ISS and OSS.) ISS is basically like detention for three days - you sit in a room in what is basically a very small cubicle, you can't eat or drink (which is against school policy anyway), can't sleep or put your head down, can't talk, and the teachers are supposed to give you lots of extra work. In addition, you can only go to the bathroom on regularly scheduled breaks and you get your own lunch period with the other ISS kids - you can't talk or sit next to anyone then, though you can watch ESPN on the CCTVs that are in every room and get the freshest food. I got ISS for swearing after someone hit me - which is another example of bullshit zero-tolerance policies; I think yelling "fuck!" after someone hits you upside the head with their class ring turned around is perfectly reasonable - and I actually really enjoyed it; bust your ass, get all the work for the day done by halfway through second period, and then sit there and read for four hours. ISS isn't listed on your transcripts when they're sent, and your grades aren't penalized (in fact, I know a lot of kids who've brought their grades up with the extra work in ISS.) I'd be willing to bet that those kids got ISS or the equivalent, though it wouldn't really suprise me if they got OSS.

OSS, on the other hand, is what Moo's talking about - you get to stay at home for a week, but everything you do during that week is counted as a zero. If you're in a fast paced class, you can easily miss enough grades to fail you for the semester, and that will /really/ fuck you up.

Edit: Grammar/spelling.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 9:00 pm

Salvation122 wrote: you can't eat or drink (which is against school policy anyway)

For a high school? That's totally fucked up shit, yo.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 9:05 pm

For a high school? That's totally fucked up shit, yo.

I presume he means in class. If so, that's how my high school was. Most of the teachers had rules against eating/drinking during class. Between classes was fine, and sometimes a teacher would have a party or something where you could eat. But normally, no food was allowed in the classroom.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 9:10 pm

Adam wrote:
Salvation122 wrote: you can't eat or drink (which is against school policy anyway)
For a high school? That's totally fucked up shit, yo.

Couple of years ago, we had two or three guys bring in little water bottles with LSD in liquid suspension. They drank it before going to class and all started on a bad trip at the same time. No more water bottles.

In reality, it's very rarely enforced - I go to the vending machines(!) and get a powerade during sixth period almost every day.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 11:52 pm

Adam wrote:
Salvation122 wrote: you can't eat or drink (which is against school policy anyway)
For a high school? That's totally fucked up shit, yo.

We didn't allow eating or drinking outside of the cafeteria, either, but that was more because of the fear that all those lazy teenagers would be slobs. Which we would have been, to be perfectly honest.

Again, the enforcement was selective. I used to go into school at 6am or so every day, and eat a can of tuna fish [protein's good for breakfast] or fruit, sitting around in the Commons with the vice-Principal, who studiously ignored the consumption so long as I made sure not to make any sort of mess.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 12:01 am

We had the same policy. But that never stopped me from walking the halls with an open mug of coffee for the first 3 hours of every day. And no one ever bothered me about it, even if most other people weren't allowed so much as bottled water.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:47 am

We kind of had the same policy. Officially, no food/drinks were allowed in the classroom, but individual teachers could rescind that for their classes (my geometry teacher let his best class each year bring sodas into class).

What happened to detention and/or taking the item away? Jeesh. During my junior year, my school decided to ban penknives. If you got caught with one, it was taken away and you got a 4 hour detention. Now? Probably suspension and arrest...

Silent Sniper · Post by **Silent Sniper** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 3:15 am

For absolute weidness on policy, I doubt you can beat my high school. A few examples:

Weapons: There is a specific list of items that can't be brought to school. I don't have a copy with me, but suffice to say while nail clippers are considered a weapon, a katana technically is not. [sarcasm]Can someone please tell me which of those is more dangerous?[/sarcasm]

Food/drink: Officially not allowed outside of the cafeteria, but there are cending machines in at least half of the halls.

Study hall: When I was a freshman, if you were on the honor roll, you didn't have to stay in one room for that period, and could just go to a room if you had to make a test up or something. Now that has changed to you need to get a pre-signed pass from a teacher to go anywhere. That stupidity doesn't apply doesn't apply to other people, who can just sign out of their study hall and go.

Attendance: Last year the administration decided that the best way to reduce tardiness was to move homeroom (when attendance was normally taken) to between second and third periods. Hence, people who would normally miss homeroom, where absolutely nothing is done, they would usually fail whatever class they had first period because they were late enough to be counted as absent. The really stupid part of it was, that happened because they had to get a late pass, and the attendance office has absolutely the slowest clerk I have ever seen.

Kunan · Post by **Kunan** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 3:52 am

MooCow wrote:I have no problem punishing people for breaking rules, even stupid rules, but is cracking down on drugs/guns/hamsters/etc worth ruining someones life?

I would just like to point out that if you are even asking that question you have a potential problem with punishing people for breaking rules, even stupid rules.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 4:39 am

And just to pick that nit a little finer....

The question of whether or not cracking down on undesirables warrants ruining a persons life does not contradict the original statement of having no problem with punishment. It simply clarifies the statement of agreeing with the idea of punishment for infractions to include consideration for appropriate response. Under this blanket all crimes should be punished, but not all crimes are created equal. Punishment has to sting, but it does not always have to scar.

If the above looks like 5 dollar words for 5 cent ideas, I blame the Jolt, the headache and this freezing cold office.

Psykoguy · Post by **Psykoguy** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 4:52 am

This reminds me of the article i once read where a kid was suspended for sexual harassment, the kid was a 2nd grader and he kissed a girl on the playground

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:29 pm

I would just like to point out that if you are even asking that question you have a potential problem with punishing people for breaking rules, even stupid rules.

ummm... no. I love when stupid people make assumptions.

Willy pretty much understood what I was saying. Thanks Willy.

You see, punishment does not need to ruin a person life. It's a problem I have with our current system of Justice/Punishment (But that's another thread entirely).

You broke the rules? Fine. Then for the next 3 weeks you have to stay after school and help the janitors clean the bathrooms. Or Mow the lawn. Maybe wash the buses. Or we could be smart and bring back corporal punishment. Broke a rule? We'll take you out on the football field and give lashings (ok, maybe we won't). Or maybe make you run laps and do pushups. Hey, it works for the Military.

The difference between this and suspension is that it doesn't damage your academic career. That's a concept that just makes no sense. "Look... you are headed down the wrong path. We'll fix that by making sure you never get into college." Huh?!?!

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 3:16 pm

did anyone's school try to enforce the use of transparent back packs? my school tried to do that (even teachers had to use transparent bags to carry their books and notebooks) until the teachers complained that they couldn't find any. the use of transparent backpacks and mesh netting bags was enforced in certain Houston schools where the most gang violence occured. of course, my SD didn't want to be the only kid on the block without doing such a thing.

the enforcement only lasted for a week due to the lack of finding any suitable bags and the SD being unwilling to purchase them to re-sell to students.

this was also during the time that my school was supposed to start doing block scheduling. never happened. students wigged out over having to spend 3hrs in classes instead of 1hr. nevermind that meant you only take that class once or twice a week.... gawd I went to a stupid school.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 4:50 pm

Mine outlawed backpacks entirely. That was inconvenient, especially for me. I didn't use my assigned locker. In fact, I didn't even really know where it was. I knew it was in a wing of the school that was something like a quarter mile round trip from the part of the school I spent 80% of my time in. It's fucking hard to walk around a crowded hallway with notebooks for 5 classes and still balance a full mug of coffee.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 6:27 pm

I know how that goes Marius. I never used my locker except to store class books I never used. quite often my locker was on the other side of campus in the most crowded wing. fuck dat. of course I did have some disadvantages over you Marius. my ex-boyfriend had almost all of his classes near me, so he was more than happy to lug my books for me. mwahahahaha.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 7:31 pm

I love Canada.

;-)

Van Der Litreb · Post by **Van Der Litreb** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 7:59 pm

We didn't allow eating or drinking outside of the cafeteria, either, but that was more because of the fear that all those lazy teenagers would be slobs. Which we would have been, to be perfectly honest.

Or you would have used the trashcans strategically placed around the school and in the classrooms. It's not a difficult concept. Even the teachers knew how to do it.

We didn't have any particular rules, mostly, I think, because it's supposed to a place for educating and maturing kids, not the teachers.

I did manage to get one rule introduced because of me, though: No rollerskating in the hallways. *sniff, they really cared, after all* I heartily ignored that, of course, but it's always nice to be appreciated.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 9:17 pm

*imagines Veed in a 70's disco-rollerskating movie*

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Thu Nov 21, 2002 11:28 pm

Zero tolerance didn't come about because the schools tried every other option to curb a certain behavior and nothing worked. Most of these no-weapon zero tolerance policies came about after the news media went wild over the school attacks a couple years ago. Zero tolerance was basically a balm for the parents, and a chance for the school board to get into the local newspaper on a subject the news media was particularly hot to write about.

The Okeemapopie School Board tonight unanimously passed a zero tolerance policy against bladed weapons in all district schools. The move comes in response to the recent stabbing of a sixth-grade Kickapoo Middle School student by a visiting 3-year-old, who was reportedly despondent over the loss of his woobie.

"After Columbine happened," board member Wayne Do-Goodre said, "we all thought that sort of thing could never happen here in Okeemapopie. But then when we heard about the violent attack in Kickapoo, we realized it could happen anywhere. I and my fellow board members knew we had to do everything in our power to ensure the safety of the children of Okeemapopie while they attend school. This policy is intended to do just that."

Okay, not to make light of things like Columbine, which we've all agreed was a terrible thing, but come on - haven't we all read articles just like this? Nobody really thinks suspending little Susie Smartpants for bringing a plastic butter knife to school is going to keep anyone safe from some kid with access to a gun who's gone off the deep end, do they?

The other thing zero tolerance is designed to do is take the heat off the schools when a student is punished for breaking rules. I think schools hide behind zero tolerance policies in order to avoid things like Mr. Rich Butthead coming in to holler at the principal for giving Rich Butthead, Jr. a detention for some real infraction, like telling the gym teacher to piss off. Or worse, Mr. Rich Butthead going to his golfing buddy, Mr. Superintendent, and trying to convince Mr. Superintendent to fire the principal for doing his stinkin' job.

IMO, zero tolerance is anti-justice. Consequences should fit the action. The officials in our schools should either be allowed to dispense disciplinary action when they see fit, or should be removed from their positions if they are actually incapable of doing so. Instead, we set up "zero tolerance" policies so school officials don't have to think anymore. In fact are discouraged from doing so, in favor of relying on "zero tolerance" to do the thinking for them.

The Traveler · Post by **The Traveler** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 12:52 am

The past decade has taught us that all children are criminals who don't deserve a second chance. They cannot be reformed, and bear nothing but murderous malice for adults. In addition, this is not the parents' fault, because Lord knows paying attention to your children, learning what they're interested in, and letting you know that you're there for them if they ever have questions or concerns simply does not work.

Or so they'd have us believe.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 3:58 am

Being a police officer, I also have three younger siblings who are in grades 5, 7, and 9. The zero-tolerance post definately caught my eye. First, there is no way in hell that the boy should have been given that harsh of a punishment for his forgetfullness. First, it was a school play! It was not like this kid decided that on Halloween he was going to dress as a cop and bring a fake gun to school - he was in a school-issued function in which he was ASSIGNED the part of a police officer. Now if the SCHOOL's drama coach, principal, etc. had the mind enough to allow the student to use a gun, fake or not, in their play, then they should be the ones taking the cake here. They sound like hippocrites if you ask me. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. Gimmie a break. "Okay, we have a zero-tolerance law in effect for absolutely no guns in school...except school plays." I don't think so! Somebody needs to stand up for this boy and put those school officials in their place.
Now, as for the girl with the Midol - I am sorry to those of you who disagree with me, but I think she deserved what she got. Being in school growing up, when the zero-tolerance rules had not yet been implemented, it was standard procedure and just plain smart of parents to send a note with their child, to the teacher, informing them that their child had medication with them. If the girl knew that there was a zero-tolerence for any type of drug in her school, she should have known better. If she had any doubts or questions as to the "drug" status of Midol, it would have only taken her two seconds to ask if it was allowed or not. The reason I feel this way is basically just that the goal of these rules is to not make exceptions. They want NO drugs and/or NO guns in the schools. In the first situation, with the boy, it was as much the schools fault as the boys, if not more. But, in this case, the girl willingly gave up the opportunity to ask permission or to make other arrangements. By letting her get away with this, other students will make up excuses for their own drugs. What about the junior girl who had an abnormal pap smear and she brings marijuana to school, saying that it eases her pain of her pre-cancerous condition? Let one off the hook, and you'll be in for some fun with the others. Just my opinion here, of course.
Sorry about the book I just wrote. LOL - Teja

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 4:01 am

First things first: Hi. Get your ass over to Bulldrek proper so that we can initiate you.

Second: For chrissakes, woman, blue on black is not the easiest thing in the world to read! I'm not against colored text as a default, but at least make it something with enough contrast for us to be able to read it without hurting our eyes.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 4:04 am

The blue she used has a bit more contrast than the bulldrek blue used in signatures and so on. Of course, I've never seen a whole post in bulldrek blue, so whatever rocks your roll.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 4:08 am

sorry bout the gentlemen. Didn't think it'd be that bold cause I didn't preview it first. My bad.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 4:17 am

No problem.

That said, you did make some good points, particularly about the girl with the Midol. However, I think that the idea was not that they were being punished unfairly, for lack of a better term - I think we all agree that the people in question clearly violated the rules in place. The problem comes when determining whether or not the punishment is reasonable, and whether the policy should have been there in the first place.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 11:30 pm

Now, as for the girl with the Midol - I am sorry to those of you who disagree with me, but I think she deserved what she got. Being in school growing up, when the zero-tolerance rules had not yet been implemented, it was standard procedure and just plain smart of parents to send a note with their child, to the teacher, informing them that their child had medication with them.

First off...welcome to Bulldrek.

Not being female, I wonldn't know, but how embarassing would it be for a school age girl to let her peers and her teachers (esp male ones) that she needs to take Midol? If it was me, I'd be a little embarassed...

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 4:41 am

Not being female, I wonldn't know, but how embarassing would it be for a school age girl to let her peers and her teachers (esp male ones) that she needs to take Midol? If it was me, I'd be a little embarassed...

Thanx for the welcome Cash. I do agree with you that it would be devastating. Not so much to her female peers, who would actually probably just feel bad for her, but I'm sure there would be those boys who decided to use the opportunity to ream her with it. I feel bad for her, but I still stick to my point that she really should/could have atleast notified administration - or had a parent do so - that she had meds she needed. One of the main reason they don't even want over-the-counter drugs is cause they don't want kids o.d.'ing or snorting or any of the many other imaginary ideas they come up with. Even if one of her gal friends asked for one to help with her own cramps or whatever, say she gets an allergic reaction - who's paying for the doctor bills? The school. It's all a liability issue and it sucks, but sometimes they have to enforce them over stupid stuff to keep it credible. Just my opinion, though, man.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 11:10 am

Moo wrote:So now this kid has in his records a suspension for violating the no guns in school rules.

It's not a permanent record to the best of my knowledge. I doubt it will effect anything other than getting into other schools if he's expelled.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:14 am

Re: the Midol thing

I seem to recall that at my high school, it was possible for parents to write a note or fill out some form basically authorizing the school nurse to dole out standard over-the-counter drugs on an as-needed basis. Things like aspirin, ibuprofen (Advil), acetominophen (Tylenol), etc.

In that case, it would be pretty easy for a female student to go down to the nurse's office between classes, get whatever she needed, and if necessary, get a pass excusing her for running late to her next class. Girl gets Midol, nobody but the school nurse needs to know.

Seriously, the Midol example is pretty non-serious.

My concern is that zero-tolerance policies, in their purest, most ridiculous forms, get in the way of kids who need an inhaler for asthma in case of emergencies, or even more alarming, the kids who need to carry an epi-pen in case of severe allergic reactions. Granted, most schools have the sense to recognize that these, at least, need to be exceptions to the "no drugs in school" rule. However, I can certain foresee a school having fits because some poor kid forgets to give the nurse the note saying, "Bobby is going to be carrying an inhaler from now on. Love, Dr. Isaidso." Because, really, teenagers are pretty prone to forgetting things like that. Would it be wrong of the kid? Sure. But such a kid shouldn't be punished to the full extent of whatever zero-tolerance drug policies the school has in place.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 6:32 am

Thorn, you naile exactly what I've been trying to say. I couldn't agree with you more.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 12:06 pm

But such a kid shouldn't be punished to the full extent of whatever zero-tolerance drug policies the school has in place.

This is exactly What I was trying to say, and why I disagree with Zero-Tolerance rules. Yes, kids having Crack is bad because Crack is bad (mmm kay?). Kids having Midol is bad because Administration can't tell the difference between Midol and Crack. NOT because Midol is bad. There is a world of difference here, and the punishment should be different.

Suspending/expelling someone because they forgot to bring a stupid note? Geez... what happens if they forget their gym clothes? Do we give them fifty Lashings and put them on a chain gang for 25 years?

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 12:17 pm

Speaking as someone who enforces - and is protected by - zero tolerance policies, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

I work in the Australian Taxation Office, answering client enquiries over the phone. In order to access a client's records, we must get the taxpayer to cite their Tax File Number (a nine-digit number known only to them and whoever they choose to give it to), and get three pieces of identifying information (eg name, birthdate, current address). If they cannot provide the Tax File Number, we will not access their records, no matter whether or not we think it probably really is them.

Equally, if someone rings up on behalf of another taxpayer, unless the caller is listed on the taxpayer's records as an authorized contact (which requires the taxpayer to have previously advised us of this authorization in writing), we absolutely will not talk to that caller about the taxpayer. It doesn't matter if we really can tell the taxpayer would be happy with us talking to them. We just won't.

I for one am glad of this. I don't feel qualified to make borderline judgements in cases where there really is a good case for the caller, but not a watertight one. I do not wish to have to make those judgement calls when it's my job and my ass on the line, if I get some caller who's a good actor, a good manipulator, or I'm unconsciously having a more-sympathetic-than-normal day. (Okay, so it doesn't happen often, but still.)

Those rules are there to protect the taxpayer's privacy; they also serve to protect my job, and protect me from prosecution. I can tell you I'm damn glad they're in force.

Admittedly, the only ramification of my zero tolerance is that a taxpayer has to call back later with the right details - I'm not ruining kids' futures. Just pointing out, though, that there is a case for zero tolerance in some situations.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:57 pm

In some situations, yes...

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:46 am

Jestyr wrote:Speaking as someone who enforces - and is protected by - zero tolerance policies, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

I work in the Australian Taxation Office, answering client enquiries over the phone. In order to access a client's records, we must get the taxpayer to cite their Tax File Number (a nine-digit number known only to them and whoever they choose to give it to), and get three pieces of identifying information (eg name, birthdate, current address). If they cannot provide the Tax File Number, we will not access their records, no matter whether or not we think it probably really is them.

Equally, if someone rings up on behalf of another taxpayer, unless the caller is listed on the taxpayer's records as an authorized contact (which requires the taxpayer to have previously advised us of this authorization in writing), we absolutely will not talk to that caller about the taxpayer. It doesn't matter if we really can tell the taxpayer would be happy with us talking to them. We just won't.

I for one am glad of this. I don't feel qualified to make borderline judgements in cases where there really is a good case for the caller, but not a watertight one. I do not wish to have to make those judgement calls when it's my job and my ass on the line, if I get some caller who's a good actor, a good manipulator, or I'm unconsciously having a more-sympathetic-than-normal day. (Okay, so it doesn't happen often, but still.)

Those rules are there to protect the taxpayer's privacy; they also serve to protect my job, and protect me from prosecution. I can tell you I'm damn glad they're in force.

Admittedly, the only ramification of my zero tolerance is that a taxpayer has to call back later with the right details - I'm not ruining kids' futures. Just pointing out, though, that there is a case for zero tolerance in some situations.

Entirely different situation. You get access to another person's tax information, I'm willing to bet you could do some /really bad shit,/ of which identity theft is probably the greatest concern. Here, a kid maybe smokes a little reefer and goes to class with shitty balance, glazed eyes, and a rather silly disposition. Your policy is in place to protect others as well as yourself and the government; zero-tolerance policies on drugs are in place to cover the school's ass and nothing more.

Maelwys · Post by **Maelwys** » Wed Nov 27, 2002 9:11 am

Alright, most of y'all know where I live. I remember Daki's example of the clear backpacks in Houston, though I was out of school at the time, and it was in a different part of town.

For the gun. Well. I think we all agree that the School district is in the wrong on that one. The teacher who allowed it in the first place should have the balls to stand up and say something. But they won't.

For the drugs. Damn. I guess the chick is just out of luck. She chose to break the rules of the school. I'm guessing that the school has a system setup where she could leave the medication with the school nurse, and come in and get it whenever she wanted. Hell, even our school had that policy. Bring a container of medication, a note from parent/doctor, and the school nurse would hold onto it for you, and even provide passes for you if it was a time sensitive medication.

I knew several people that dealt with the school like that, and I almost did myself, though my meds were long lasting enough my senior year, that I didn't have to take any during the school hours. (Plus the nurse usually winced whenever she saw me after the first time she saw me. Walking into the nurse's office with a broken arm is always a fun thing).

As for Zero-Tolerance...Well, it all depends. Zero Tolerance in meaning that if you broke the rules, you get punished, I'm fine with. However, punishment must fit the crime, something most school districts do not believe in. (The do, however, believe in making you sign away your rights at the beginning of the school year.

And now for some personal anecdotes. In our school, the rule was, no food or drink in the classrooms. However, bottles of water were fine. Cokes, IIRC, were not. Go figure. However, I know of several cases where the bottled water was often replaced by vodka.

No tobacco or tobacco products. Not for students at all. We could get busted for having a pack of cigarettes in our car in plain sight, if our car was on campus. However, that outline of the skoal can in the coach's pocket was alright. Though my senior year, we'd have people who'd dip in class. Nice brownstain in the back of the room by the end of the year.

Oh. And our school district had the rule "There will be no fornicating with fowls on school property." in our Student handbook.

Vralkie · Post by **Vralkie** » Wed Nov 27, 2002 10:57 am

At my school they instituted a no tolerence policy towards drugs during my junior year. This lasted about 4 weeks of being actively enforced. During that time 5 girls were suspended from classes for swearing at teachers...

Has "Zero Tolerance" gone too far?

Has "Zero Tolerance" gone too far?

Re: Has "Zero Tolerance" gone too far?

My school is run by monkeys...

Zero-Tolerance

Sorry bout the blue