[ back ]
DEAN'S LIST - 4/13/2008
(by Dean Naddeo - OpEd Columnist - April 13, 2008)
Zero tolerance madness
In a nation built on the fundamental principles of liberty, freedom and inalienable rights, there can be no room for grade school policies that prescribe and profess “zero tolerance.”
Yet, several high-profile cases have recently entered the spotlight, each emphasizing the explicit problems with policies that effectively remove common sense and discretion from the equation.
The first incident involves young Randy Castro, who at the age of six, smacked a classmate’s bottom during a playground frolic, and was subsequently written up by school officials for “Sexual Touching Against Student, Offensive.” School officials also called the police to investigate the “crime,” which understandably led the child to state, “I thought they were going to take me to prison.”
The next case involves Malory Pinkney, the six-year-old son of a South Carolina pastor who was recently given a disciplinary referral for making “suggestive comments” about a teacher.
These utterances are said to have included a comment about another student checking out the teacher’s “butt,” and a remark about her being a “hottie.” Ironically, the critically offended teacher who reported Malory to school officials is the same teacher who allegedly provided a picture of a nude woman for him to use in a recent art project.
The final example involves the story of Savana Redding, the 13-year-old honors student who back in October 2003, fell victim to a “zero tolerance” policy gone wild.
When Savana was accused by a fellow student of having provided ibuprofen to her, a school secretary was ordered to strip search the young girl in search of “evidence.”
Despite never having notified a parent, the secretary instructed the child to remove her clothes down to her underwear. She then told her to pull her bra out and shake it, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. No “contraband” was ever recovered, and this story resurfaced this week because the case is currently being appealed before the full Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals.
In each of these examples, a young child has been a casualty of the zero tolerance insanity that has afflicted a nation that regularly boasts its tolerance to religious, sexual and cultural differences, to name a few. Yet, when it comes to the children – the innocents who require and deserve the most liberal application of tolerance possible – none is permitted. Such hypocrisy should never be entertained in a modern society.
For the record, it would be unfair to blame the school officials and police officers for taking the actions required of them. They are bound by decisions made at much higher levels of authority, decisions clearly driven by illogical Supreme Court rulings and the constant threat of lawsuits that could serve to bankrupt their schools and end their careers.
In closing, maybe the initial creators of so-called “zero tolerance policies” should have considered the irony of using such language: Linguistically and practically speaking, zero tolerance translates to zero discretion, zero prudence, and zero judgment.
[ back ]
