‘Zero tolerance’ not just for children

In his commentary written for The Washington Post, and subsequently published in the Bangor Daily News (Feb. 11), Marc Fisher recounts how two members of the Virginia House of Delegates attempted to alter Virginia’s “zero tolerance” law by adding “exceptions” which would give school officials the ability to examine and deal with situations brought before them on a case-by-case basis.

This is a shift from Virginia’s current law, which results in suspension, “… after being caught with a plastic knife that his mother had packed with the cake he brought to the school to celebrate his birthday.” Or the case of another middle school student who was “suspended for four months because he took a knife away from a schoolmate who told him she was considering suicide.” Fisher notes that the first of the proposed exception to zero tolerance law was heatedly opposed by lobbyists who declared the zero tolerance policy to be “our last line of defense against terrible children eager to turn schools into war zones.” In defending zero tolerance, one speaker declared that “plastic utensils are a primo tool for budding terrorists.”

The paranoia in the field of education today is frightening. It is obvious that the poor boy who wished to have his classmates celebrate his birthday with him did not intend to “revisit Columbine” armed only with a plastic knife and a cake. It is also obvious that the boy who quite possibly saved a classmate’s life by taking the knife from her did not intend to turn that knife on other classmates, teachers and staff members. These students were nevertheless punished for their actions rather than the intent behind these actions – which is, of course, the inevitable consequence of any law.

As a society, we look to government to protect us (too often from ourselves), and indeed this is one of the primary roles of government. As our representatives hear the often panic-stricken cries of their constituents, all too frequently laws are created which are arguably worse than the danger they were designed to combat. During the knee-jerk response which follows, these laws are inevitably written with the best of intentions; after all, who among us could argue that schools should be safe for our children, and that knives therefore have no place in them? Such a seemingly simple, self-evident statement of desire obviously has problems inherent in it, as with the case of the two boys from Virginia who were unfairly punished for actions which were not only harmless, but were benevolent. These boys were in effect accused of terrorism, de jure if not de facto – but the law does not recognize the difference. They had “knives” in their possession while at school; therefore, they are guilty.

One cannot help but feel anger and outrage over these stories. Here are two individuals who did nothing wrong, but were perceived under the law to have committed “crimes”. In fact, both students were acting in the best interest of others – yet they were treated as criminals. When Virginia’s zero tolerance policy was enacted, no one wanted to suspend a child for sharing his birthday cake with other students, and no one wanted to suspend a child for saving a girl’s life. Nevertheless, they are now “criminals” in the eyes of the legislature and this is wrong.

Interestingly, when Maine enacted a mandatory fingerprinting law for all teachers, who would argue that “schools should be safe for our children,” and pedophiles have no place in our schools? No one meant to treat teachers as criminals. For many of us, however, that is how we felt and still feel. We have been accused of crimes we did not commit. Like the Virginia law, Maine’s fingerprinting law was created with the best of intentions, and like the two boys, innocent teachers here have felt the unseen barb accompanying that law.

Is it possible to legislate safety? Is it possible to make morality a law? Should it even be done if the possibility still exists? It may easily be argued that both Virginia’s zero tolerance rule and Maine’s regulatory fingerprinting law are both misguided. It is unlikely that students who truly wish to harm others at school will be deterred by a policy which threatens expulsion if they are caught – like after Columbine we are all now too well aware, these students exist. Likewise, those individuals reprehensible enough to prey on children will not be prevented from doing so merely because they are fingerprinted. And the number of convicted pedophiles who would enter the education profession from Maine or away simply because they would then be surrounded by children must be minute. We cannot, as a society, continue to establish law through fear – not if we wish to maintain our free society as we know it, and as our forefathers had planned.

Quoting ruling Judge Clyde Hamilton, Fisher noted when Virginia’s policy went before the courts, “The panic over school violence has caused school officials to jettison the common sense idea that a person’s punishment should fit his crime.” Fisher continued, “Alas, the judge concluded he could not do anything about this; restoring sanity is the job of the legislature. God save us all.” A punishment should fit the crime, but what if no crime has been committed?

Harearl Moore is the former Assistant Headmaster of Lee Academy. He did not renew his teaching certificate because

of the fingerprinting law.