Zero-tolerance policies are ill conceived
In the past two decades there have been several highly publicized incidents of school violence and a growing number of high school students who choose drugs over extracurricular activities for recreation.
These developments are unfortunate and school officials across the country have struggled to find a solution. Many have turned to zero-tolerance policies.
These policies mandate that if a student is found with a weapon or drugs he or she is suspended for a certain amount of time — no questions asked.
It is a simple solution to a complex problem. Unfortunately, the world is not a simple place.
Occasionally a student inadvertently breaks the zero-tolerance policy and is punished unjustly because administrators have no leeway in enforcing the policy.
Kyler Robertson is a perfect example of this.
The 16-year-old student of Byron Nelson High School in Texas was recently suspended for three days because he came to school with bloodshot eyes.
School administrators assumed he was taking drugs, hid behind the zero-tolerance policy and sent him home.
Robertson only wanted to be around his friends during an emotional time in his life — his father was murdered two days earlier.
Many people have bloodshot eyes after having an emotional experience in which they have cried for long periods of time. Surely administrators should have thought Robertson would cry after his father was stabbed to death.
Robertson’s unfortunate situation does shine a glaring light on the two major problems of zero-tolerance policies — they are inflexible and they go against the presumption of innocence until proven guilty that is one of the best parts of our justice system.
Zero-tolerance policies were designed to deter students from engaging in undesired behavior. Instead they allow administrators to take the easy road on discipline issues by excusing them from asking questions and using common sense.
Perhaps the biggest reason school systems use zero-tolerance policies is to avoid liability. If they treat all incidents as though terrorists where roaming the halls of the school then if something does go wrong they can say they did everything they could to prevent the problem.
This is a big problem.
Yes, students need discipline — from both the schools and their parents — but sometimes they are misunderstood. They need someone to speak with to try to make sense of what is happening in their lives — what is the point of having a counselor at the school if they are not going to be used?
Instead of suspending Robertson the principal should have talked to him then asked if Robertson would like to speak with the counselor.
And what about the presumption of innocence?
True this was not a court of law, but Robertson is a person and deserved to be treated as such, especially at school after such a traumatic event.
Robertson’s story does have a bit of a happy ending though. After passing a drug test, the school lifted his suspension.
It was one test Robertson never should have had to take in the first place.
