Staying true to the name of this blog, this article came out late last year. It was about a female student in North Carolina who basically got expelled for bringing a paring knife to school. And the kicker to it all was that the knife wasn't even in her lunch...it was her father's lunch. The paring knife was intended to be used (by him) as a tool to cut apart the apple he packed for himself but that his daughter took to school accidentally.
There are a lot of things in this article that both baffle me and piss me the fuck off.
First of all, context anyone? Did nobody ask themselves why this girl had a tool knife with her before simply charging her with weapons possession. I assume she will be cleared on this charge seeing as how even from the article it's rather clear that this knife was not brought to school to be used on another person. Even if the lunch was in fact the student's, the knife was clearly meant to cut the apple and not human flesh. It's not a weapon if it's meant to be used as a tool. Even so, defending against this erroneous charge will cost her family money which even if they have the money to do so, is simply unfair to her.
Further contextual points could be simply her student record. We know from the article that she is academically gifted, is an athlete, and has never been in trouble before. The first two are not particularly relevant but the last one is. Did nobody think to have a talk with this girl about why she had a knife in her possession? I'm not saying we should be bringing knives into school here, what I'm saying here is that the punishment should be at least related to the accused's intent and her intent was clearly not causing harm to another. Remember, even a pencil can be used as a weapon but most likely it's gonna be used as a tool for writing. Should students who sharpen their pencils to fine points instead of dull ones be considered threats? I mean, why else would they need such a sharp point if not for harming others? But no, she's been suspended for the rest of her school year, charged with misdemeanor weapons possession, and banned from the campus. All because nobody could take some fucking context into mind.
The article doesn't say here if this student's punishment was the result of a "zero tolerance policy". In fact, it mentions that the principal does have authority to determine the punishment on a case-by-case basis. The superintendent points out (note the passing of the buck) that the punishment in such cases can be less severe when done accidentally and if the student reports it first to the principal and not a teacher but since this student was both unaware of the knife in the first place and was the victim of a random sweep for drugs, how could she have done so?
That being said, this punishment does have the air of a zero-tolerance policy. Where did these policies come from? And they always start with bullshit rhetoric too that no one gets called out on. "Our school has a zero-tolerance policy towards drugs/violence/bullying/whatever" --- they say that like up until that point they did have a tolerance for it. We always have a zero-tolerance for bad things but that doesn't mean we codify it. How many car accidents do we have every year? How many people die as a result of them? So does that mean our tolerance for automobile fatalities is anything even close to 42,000 dead a year? No! The answer is we tolerate ZERO fatalities on the road every year...but they happen, and when they do we deal with them rationally: assigning blame, cleaning up the scene, assessing damage, etc. We don't go around banning cars because people die because of them every year. There'd be nothing left to do if we went around banning things in a zero-tolerance fashion simply because somebody could conceivably get hurt or die from its use or exposure to it or whatever. So how is it that schools can have "zero-tolerance" policies?
No one wants to be bullied or bludgeoned or stabbed or etc. but it happens. The rational response is to assess the situation, find the context, restore order, and assign blame (not necessarily in that order). It is entirely irrational to simply say if you do this, you will be effectively expelled without regards to context; that you will not be given a chance to defend yourself, face your accusers, etc. Zero tolerance policies effectively kill discretion and discretion is a duty imposed upon those in positions of power. Police officers use it all the time. You know this when you weren't pulled over for going 66 mph. You know this whenever you were pulled over, that you weren't cited for what were probably a dozen separate violations that you didn't even know you were breaking. Teachers and principals are supposed to use discretion too.
Based on the text of the article, it would seem to me the proper response would have been to assess the situation and figure out the context. It would not have taken more than a phone call to this girl's father to have him corroborate his daughter's side of the story. The principal would know that this girl had not had prior discipline problems and the school counselor would be able to say that her mental state was fine. She could still be scolded for having the knife on school grounds and I would not begrudge the school seizing it from her permanently (or at least until one of her parents came to pick it up). She should've been let off with a warning and the whole incident should've been kept quiet to preserve her reputation. Seems simple enough to me and even if the school had reporting requirements, no one needed to know. If more than one of the sweepers noticed it, then that's where the principal comes in and does his leadership thing in reminding them that the school is not a police state and that people do in fact make mistakes and that it's not worth ruining this girl's academic life and reputation in the name of zero-tolerance.
And it's not like schools don't supply students with weapons. Remember using compasses to draw circles in art class? Good stabby weapon right there but ooh! a perfect circle (with a dot in its center). Shop class is full of hammers, awls, screwdrivers, powered sanders, saws, and routers perfect for bludgeoning, stabbing, and/or mutilating an annoying classmate. Home Ec. had knives, fire, boiling water. Hell, I handled fucking nitric acid in Chemistry class. Do you have any idea what that would do if it got on your skin or in your eyes? [And those guillotine paper cutters in art class. What kind of medieval schools did I attend growing up?] Or do they not have Shop and Home Economics anymore because of zero tolerance policies?
But that's obviously not what happened which brings me to the students. What the fuck? Seriously... Does nobody protest anymore? It's not like this was grade school and they wouldn't know better, this is fucking high school. At the very minimum, did nobody petition the school? Did no group of students show support for this girl by bringing in paring knives of their own the next day (non-threateningly of course, or even plastic knives if you wanna be a pussy about it)? How hard is that to protest a stupid rule? They can't suspend like twenty or thirty students over this and to that degree. It would embarrass the school and create the perception that they cannot control their students. Students DIED protesting the Vietnam war, they staged walkouts over dress codes when my father was in school (boys used to have to maintain crew cuts and wear button-down shirts and dress pants; girls had to have skirts and blouses) and a lot of them got in trouble...but they also got the rules overturned. The students in this school should be ashamed of themselves acting like sheep. They're just simple herd animals aren't they? This is the future of America folks...they've been trained well by their overprotective parents and oppressive school system into being afraid to express themselves, afraid to compete with each other, and afraid to stand up for themselves. It's really fucking sad.
And I don't really want to hear that it's against the law to bring weapons to school. No one's contesting that. What I'm contesting is the overapplication of arbitrary rules and regulations. Just like not all pushing can be considered fighting (sometimes it's just horseplay) and not all teasing can be considered bullying (sometimes it really is done out of love) and not all taunts can be considered malicious (sometimes it really is just a competitive spirit), a teacher upon seeing that a student is in possession of a banned item/substance/behavior should do his duty and interfere. However the path from interference to punishment should not be so clear-cut. It's not an A to B thing. As humans we believe in context otherwise we would all be Inspector Javerts. Sometimes a "knock it off!" or a "put that away" or a "tone it down" is really the appropriate response. If a student is pointing a chicken finger as a mock gun at a student, he shouldn't be suspended. The correct response would seem to be "knock it off". Personally I used to draw pictures of me shooting things in school inspired by movies like Star Wars and video games like Missile Command (yes, I'm old). Today a student doing the same thing would be suspended. I kid you not when I say that I handed in for Thanksgiving when I was in first grade, a drawing I made of a Pilgrim shooting a turkey, bullet in transit. In 1984 that was cute. I hesitate to think what that would've earned me if I were six today.
Saying it's all "zero tolerance" is really just passing the buck. It's basically saying "I'm a leader, but I don't want to have to do any of that pesky leading stuff". Teachers, principals, and really anyone who's in positions of authority should always be against zero tolerance policies as it deprives them of their ability to lead. It makes a mockery of their position, not only marginalizing them but placing them increasingly under the burdens of micromanagement. Why should a student trust his teacher with anything if the teacher is merely a tool of the establishment? Zero tolerance policies foster the idea that schools are police states and that teachers and principals are merely enforcers and to be feared. Why would I tell a teacher about something that's bothering me (e.g. I'm aware that another student is going to beat up after school or the case where a student took a knife away from a suicidal student and got suspended for it) if I fear that what I say may simply come back to haunt me. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination...but not at school apparently. Teachers are supposed to be trusted, not feared and zero tolerance policies do nothing to promote trust in authority figures.
Ach, I'm too annoyed to continue...but I'll end with this, is it ironic that I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance...or merely hypocritical? :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment