We live in a society that at times seems to take great pains to produce the most idiotic and inane policies possible. In this era of nonsensical political correctness, where up is told it’s really down, and the word “is” has infinite meanings, one of the most confounding practices to be injected into our society (almost like some kind of illicit drug) is that of Zero Tolerance.
On the face of it, Zero Tolerance policies seem to make sense, especially in a society that is portrayed as increasingly dangerous and hostile. It is, in a sense, a natural backlash from a society that feels battered by crime and hatred. Kids going into schools and shooting up the place; little league coaches molesting children; gang bangers causing all kinds of havoc; we see these things and hear about them every day on the TV or in the papers and we want to protect ourselves. Zero Tolerance policies provide tough consequences for those who go beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior, hoping to reduce or eliminate those who would do so. Whether our communities are actually dangerous places or we want to prevent them from becoming so, Zero Tolerance policies look great on paper but actually provide a false sense of security while destroying the freedoms of ordinary people. The truth of the matter is not so much that Zero Tolerance policies can’t be effectively used, but rather we are using them against the wrong people.
Zero Tolerance policies are as much a part of our education system now as pencils and paper. But are they really making our schools safer for our children? Does expelling a kindergarten student for throwing a temper tantrum and throwing a crayon at the teacher make the rest of the kids safer? Was the child really a monster or just having a bad day? With Zero Tolerance we may not have a chance to find out since the first infraction results in expulsion. What about expelling a junior high school girl who brought a butter knife to school for the Home Economics class she was in, but instead of taking it right to the classroom like she was instructed, got sidetracked with some friends and discovered her mistake during the lunch break. Someone sees the knife in her backpack and next thing she knows, she’s being sent home indefinitely for carrying a concealed weapon. No matter the reason for the knife’s presence. With Zero Tolerance, no excuse is good enough. What about the high school sophomore who chooses to wear his “I Love Jesus” t-shirt to school? Do the children of atheist parents faint in his presence or go into convulsions? Does sending him home to change or face suspension really make the rest of the school safer? The problem with Zero Tolerance in our schools is that they lack any effort to use Common Sense and employ every effort to maintain a façade of impartiality and fairness, all the while destroying the academic careers of otherwise trouble-free kids for expressing an opinion that isn’t hate filled or inciting violence or for making an innocent mistake, which, by the way, is what growing up is all about. Rather than promoting a safe learning environment, these policies have only succeeded in making our schools more like the prisons we hope our children never visit as adults. Is this how we foster freedom and democracy in our children today?
Kids may be the most affected by the Zero Tolerance society, but adults encounter their fair share too. A classic example is our new and improved airport security policies. Aimed at giving the appearance of safety in aviation, the actual practices and enforcement of security policies are widely viewed as nonsensical, in large part because they seem to take every chance to avoid actually increasing security. At the security checkpoint, people are prohibited from carrying nail clippers, cigarette lighters, small letter openers, or other ordinary items beyond the metal detectors and x-ray machines. You can, however, have matchbooks or pilfer a butter knife from the lounge near your gate. Your shoes must be examined thoroughly, to ensure that they aren’t really bombs. But what if someone just started hitting someone else with his or her shoe really hard? Zero Tolerance would soon prohibit all shoes on flights. More extensive searches are made of old ladies walkers or infant carriers, especially those of Caucasian women despite the fact that the last people to hijack and use planes as weapons fit an entirely different profile.
And that is where the government applies it’s own version of Zero Tolerance. From a political perspective, Zero Tolerance policies are aimed not at reducing harmful behaviors, but at getting and keeping votes and power. Such policies include a ban on racial profiling in the case of suspected terrorism, a policy that completely disregards everything we know about the Islamic militant radicals who wish for an end of western civilization. This is not to say that all Middle Easterners are terrorists or that all terrorists are Middle Easterners, but at this point the preponderance of the evidence shows that focusing on these kinds of folks will likely yield higher safety quotients than harassing Granny at the subway station will. Politicians have also created an all-encompassing Zero Tolerance attitude with respect to opposing political parties and ideologies, following the example set for them by their religious or special interest or corporate benefactors. In this case, there can be little or no dissent within the ranks. Any disconnect between the party line results in censorship at best, marginalization or expulsion at worst. That’s hardly an inspiring atmosphere for national political discourse that affects all our lives. Nothing says freedom like stifling opposition opinions.
Strangely enough, that segment of society truly deserving of a Zero Tolerance policy is the one we seem to give Unlimited Tolerance to, namely the heinous criminals who murder our friends, rape our children, destroy our financial lives, and erode the public trust. To these people, society (through the politicians and PC idiots) has a seemingly unending supply of tolerance. It shows in the way we release them from prison early (or at all) despite their horrific crimes. It shows in the way juries defy all Common Sense and free obviously guilty people. It shows in the way that the courts toss out evidence that proves guilt or innocence because of insignificant technicalities. If ever a portion of society earned a reputation for needing a Zero Tolerance policy, it is the people who commit the worst acts on other people. Yet somehow, their behavior gets excused.
Zero Tolerance fails because it assumes that all people think the same, act the same, and are equally dangerous. It focuses only on the perceived infraction, establishing that an infraction actually occurred, and then proceeds directly to the harsh punishment attached to that act. It cares nothing for rational explanations or opportunities for learning and growth; it cares only about punishing and setting an example. It slowly drives away individuality and replaces it with a wariness of each other and an expectation of privacy invasion. Zero Tolerance is a forced trade off between the public and the government. We give up some autonomy and you give us security. Instead, we give up our ability to teach our kids and identify real problems for the mere appearance of security.
Perhaps most troubling of all though, is the fact that Zero Tolerance naturally embraces conformity and punishes individuality. This is a great benefit to the power brokers in the capitols across the country, but it spells doom for the average person. As we continue to indoctrinate our children and ourselves with the notion that Zero Tolerance is the only sure way to security, and as we perpetuate an environment of distrust, we will eventually become a parody of ourselves, screaming for freedom as we build walls around ourselves.
This entry was posted on Friday, August 12th, 2005 at 6:55 am and is filed under Common Sense, Government, Life, Politics, Reform, society.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 12th, 2005 at 7:55 am
Excellent post. In a way, this is reminiscent of the “mandatory minimum” sentencing that is all the rage for nickel-and-dime dope dealers.
In the same way that “zero tolerance” has led to a NHS student being suspended for possessing Midol on school grounds, “mandatory minimum” sentencing removes from the Judge the discretion he/she once had to direct an offender into an alternative to imprisonment.
In both cases, what we get, of course, are policies that do little to enhance the good of the community or make anybody any safer-“tough” policies without a little human discretion being allowed are doomed to fail. Just look at our prison population if you don’t believe it.
August 12th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
The local schools around here don’t even allow scissors. My children are on inhailers and can’t even carry them to class or at least, give them to the teacher. This law is going too far.
August 12th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I agree with the intolerance of Zero Tolerance and everything you’ve said. I like to ad two things to the discussion. The first being that having a zero tolerance policy for things – especially in schools allows teachers and administrators to weed people out for the most inane reasons – especially kids who may bring down scores or threaten the no child left behind funding scheme. This also goes hand in hand with the litigious society problem where zero tolerance rose out of “outrage” and “lawsuits” that immediately follow almost anything that happens. A kid brings Advil or a butter knife to school – someone can sue for security. A teacher disciplines a student or gives them a grade appropriate to their work and the kid sues for abuse and or descrimination. And if the parent tries to discipline the kids at home, then they get sued for abuse or the kids try to become emancipated. This is a direct result of not having any form of common sense in schools, society or the legal system. This problem is a direct result of the #2 problem of zero tolerance, which is Absolutism vs. Relativism.
Absolutism which is also what is causing so many problems in religion has spilled over into the world – so all our policies are one size fits all black and white policies. Eventhe Pope has said that relativism is the greatest threat to the world.
I say it is just the opposite. Absolutism is easier, but it is rarely appropriate and leads to wholescale societal challenges.
When you approach everything from the middle or the lowest common denominator all you end up doing is wedging out everyone on either end, which then leads to extremism and disaffection.
Nowhere can absolutism vs. relativism been seen in greater light than the 2004 presdidential election. Bush is an absolutist, kerry is a relativist. Absolutists make easy to digest comments and have a fixed unflexible answer for everything. Relativists handle each issue differently and change as the information changes – to absolutists, that’s known as flip flopping.
Look no further than Iraq for an illustration of what happens when you try to apply absolutism – you get a quagmire of unrealism.
So remember, next time someone asks you what to do, be a relativist and say “it depends”
Zero Tolerance is for people who can’t be bothered to think.
August 12th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
The zero tolerance policies depend upon those who relish enforcement and punishment.
The school incidents should be decided by educators who have some knowledge of children and viewed in relation to the circumstances. It should be left to the judgement of the staff not carved in granite somewhere else entirely.
If we insist on zero tolerance why is Karl Rove still employed by the president? His lies have endangered people and caused harm. How about zero tolerance for treason? That would make more sense than a plastic knife in a lunch bag or an inhaler.
August 12th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Before I comment about Ken’s post let me say that I am still amazed that someone managed to actually take a shot at Karl Rove. I mean HELLO what does Karl Rove have to do with this conversation? Save the crap for another post eh?
Now to the topic at hand, zero tolerance never works. Life is not black and white, there are many gray areas. Zero tolerance never works. In our public schools, Zero tolerance is in fact a way for school administrators to avoid having to make actual decisions, which involve THOUGHT and LOGIC. I nthe case of the airport security, don’t get me started. I have zero respect for those yahoos. When they start profiling instead of targeting old ladies in wheelchairs and mothers of six small children, then we’ll talk.
Go Ken, you rock, you are my voice of reason!!!
Jess
August 13th, 2005 at 9:08 am
This is not a flippant reply Ken, I read and enjoyed and agreed with much of what you wrote.
I was a victim of zero tolerance a few days ago. While driving my 18 wheeler through a very dangerous stretch of highway (which I drive through 4 times each work day) I was pulled over by a policeman, for speeding. In reality I was trying my best to drive safe and so I was keeping up with the 4 wheeler traffic. That is the safest way to drive in the city with a 40 ton truck and trailer. The posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour, but the traffic was moving at 60 miles an hour. If I had applied brakes to slow down to 45, it would have been unsafe (for the small 4 wheelers, not my truck) so I drove with the flow. The policeman who pulled me over was a MDOT (Missouri Department of Transportation) officer who only watches and tickets trucks that are speeding or appear to be unsafe.
I was angry, very angry. I have a 20+ year safe driving record, not a accident, none. That is millions of miles we are talking about. I tried to explain to the officer that I was doing what a safe truck driver does. I told him honestly that I couldn’t afford a ticket for safe driving.
He had his job to do also, and he wrote me a ticket for 61 in a 45 zone. We are talking big big fine now. It was posted as a work zone, so the minimum fine was posted to be $250. There would have been a extra fine for being more than 15 miles over posted speed. I was expecting a $500 fine.
The officer told me he had no choice he had to ticket me.
Somehow the officer brushed aside zero tolerance and when I got the ticket mailed to me, it was for $90. He bent the rules a little for me, but he had his job, I had mine. I am certain that the officer sent the ticket in as 5 or 6 miles per hour over the posted speed.
Some of the stories I have heard about school children being called out for zero tolerance are pathetic. At the same time the school administraters cannot stop smoking in the boy’s room…….go figure.
So Ken, I follow your reasoning, and look forward to more civil discussions you have with us.
Your blog is a quiet reasonable place, I know you can’t control the comments, but you Ken are a quiet blogger who rocks.
August 14th, 2005 at 1:41 am
legalize drugs. You should look at the Libertarian party. They believe in legalizing drugs. I do not do them but I do not think the government should tell me what I can and cannot use and the government should not tell someone what they can and cannot sell.
Research the Libertarian reform movement, it is interesting.
August 14th, 2005 at 6:27 am
(responses)
Jolly- As always, good of you to chime in. I can agree with mandatory sentencing for the most heinous crimes (murder, rape, torture) but agree that there should be more discretion among judges and their cases.
And our abysmal prison demographics have more to do with ridiculous laws, like the war on drugs, than with keeping the country crime free. I’ve talked a bit about legal reform early in this blog-with posts between 1-18-05 and 2-3-05, if you’d care to take a look.
Angel- Yes, it has gone too far. It’s high time to throw these silly rules out and throw out any of their adherents as well. What happened to using one’s brains? Glad you left a thought.
Rudicus- You bring up some points I’d not thought about. Naturally, these nonsense zero tolerance policies can be used as tools for discrimination or just to get rid of so-called undesirables. But what is this? The feudal system?
And yes, the society of law suit mania does encourage a zero tolerance mentality, coupled with a blameless society.
Absolutism may work fine in a box with few if any fluctuating parameters, but in the real world, very little is black and white, except of course, black and white.
Think for yourselves folks, and suddenly zero tolerance policies become unnecessary. Great comments, Rudicus.
KWW- Yes, and subjugation too! As for the Rove issue, as with any “concrete” policy, Zero Tolerance isn’t applied consistently, which is another reason for it to go.
Glad you dropped by.
Jessica- Thanks for the great compliment.
I think the Rove analogy was meant as an example of the hypocrisy of policies like Zero Tolerance and the political parties exemplify the attitude with their divisive tactics. But as you say, maybe that’s another post.
Our world is going topsy-turvy these days, and lies and upside down policies are just more fuel on the fire. Until average citizens join hands and say “Enough” we will continue to lose more and more of our autonomy.
Hope to hear from you again.
Web_Loafer- Glad to hear that the cop used some Common Sense. Also, glad you dodn’t get dinged too badly. Speed limits are perfect examples of “soft” zero tolerance policies. How often have you seen a police cruiser speeding down the road, NOT headed for an emergency? Sporadic enforcement lends to the view of a corrupt bureaucracy, an unfair system, causing more to try to break the rule. Some rules are in place for reasons of control or renumeration, and not for public safety.
I think that freeway speed limits should follow The Basic Rule and be more flexible depending on factors like weather and trafic flow. I speed…we all do from time to time. It’s a matter of knowing what the roads can handle and what you can handle too.
Thanks for the great compliment. Hope to hear from you again.
Pol Pie- I’ve already advocated the legalization of drugs in an essay on 2-8 called “Ending the War on Drugs.” Check it out.
My main problem with the libertarian movement is their over reliance on capitalism as a solution to everything. But I am in line with their attitudes about freedom and limited government.
Thanks for the comment.
August 15th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
This is a brilliant essay that deserves a wider audience.
You should publish it in the newspapers.
August 15th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Ken,
My first thought about your post resonated in a philosophical way. Can we have Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance?
My second thought was an old saying, but nonetheless salient for this discourse here: “There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals.”
This statment is not a justification for negative discrimination, but pushes us to think beyond PC terms and ask the question, what should we do, for example, in schools that mandate the curriculum and testing that pushes to mediocrity rather than excellence among and between individuals?
When blanket policy decisions are made and laws put on the books that force individual discretion out of the equation, yes, you do get uniformity and remove subjectivity. But, then you get isomorphism – a gravitation toward the middle. And if middle is really the goal, a community settles for mediocraty not excellence we see the ramifications permeate all of society.
Society should set the bar higher.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:58 am
(responses)
Orikinla- Many thanks. Please feel free to spread these thoughts to anyone you want to, including your local paper. The main problem there is that they often limit op-ed or reader letters to a certain number of words, which as you can see is not upper most in my essays. I like the ability to get all the thoughts out without having to edit for space. Send people to Common Sense, put up a Common Sense button on your site, print out a bumper sticker (both links are on the right column) and help spread the word that Common Sense is not dead.
Hope to hear from you again.
Windspike- I almost titled this post Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance, but settled on an homage to Bizarro instead. And your second thought is indeed salient here.
Settling for middle ground only plants the seeds of failure. THere are plenty of people who willreach middle ground and peak on their own abilities, but to make middle ground the high point is to keep all others from reaching their potential.
Similarly, punishing all offenses the same reduces the effectiveness of all punishments. If the penalty for throwing a pencil at another student is suspension and the penalty for punching another student in the face is also suspension, why not go for broke? (no pun intended.)
Zero Tolerance is a failed theory in that it doesn’t prevent or reduce through constructive efforts, only reacts to a problem that has gotten out of control. Blanket Zero Tolerance is zero Common Sense.
Gerat comments as always.
August 21st, 2005 at 6:08 pm
Amusing to note, as I read this, that one of the adverts on your Blog was for a free bankruptcy quote site …