April 20, 1999 witnessed a terrifying school shooting in Littleton, Colorado. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, two high-school students, were the perpetrators of this brutal act. Columbine High School became their chosen target as they executed a well-planned attack amidst regular school hours. Their primary objective was to massacre several fellow students. Equipped with guns, knives, and explosives, both Klebold and Harris roamed the hallways inflicting significant harm.
Thirteen people in total, consisting of twelve students and one teacher, were sadly killed during the shooting spree. The two shooters responsible for the incident later committed suicide. Additionally, twenty-one more students were injured in this rampage. This event is commonly referred to as the “Columbine Massacre” and it was a pivotal moment in school discipline. Consequently, numerous schools adopted what is now known as “Zero Tolerance Policies.” These policies aimed to tackle rule-breaking and detect potential dangers or hazards by implementing a rigid and unwavering system of punishment.
Although originally designed to be foolproof and highly effective in promoting school safety, the implementation of these policies has resulted in notable negative consequences. Suspension rates and expulsions have dramatically increased nationwide, leading to a decline in both the quality and safety of education throughout America. The initial aim of creating a fair and secure environment has been compromised as a result of the severity and unfairness inherent in these policies. It is clear that these policies are not infallible and do not adequately safeguard all individuals.
The news highlights the evident abuses and flaws of Zero Tolerance Policies. Some examples of these abuses include the suspension of a Valedictorian who accidentally left a kitchen knife on her car seat while moving, resulting in her missing graduation. Moreover, three students were suspended for sharing Certs mints, and others from the same school faced suspension for sharing Aspirin and cough drops. Shockingly, a student was expelled for saving a classmate from suicide by hiding their knife and informing a teacher.
Multiple incidents have resulted in disciplinary actions at various schools. One of them involved a student who shared her inhaler with a classmate experiencing an asthma attack; she was subsequently suspended. Another incident occurred when a student’s mother unintentionally packed a butter knife in her lunch when the student was only 10 years old, leading to expulsion. Similarly, an elementary school student faced suspension for wearing a firefighter’s costume that included a plastic ax during a Halloween party. In another case, a student brought nail clippers to school which resulted in suspension and possible expulsion. Lastly, at a high school, a male student was suspended for answering his mother’s phone call during lunch.
The New York Times reported that during Mothers Day week, she was stationed in Iraq, highlighting an instance of abuse within the Zero Tolerance Policy. This case is just one among many. Is it accurate to claim that policies like zero tolerance are the sole method of ensuring children’s safety throughout America? According to Ferrandino, numerous studies and reports from law enforcement agencies, think tanks, safety summits, government decrees, and the minor industry focused on school safety have failed to discover an alternative approach guaranteeing student safety.
The question at hand is whether zero tolerance policies should be reformed to ensure the safety of students and create a conducive learning environment. I strongly believe that there is a need for such reforms, considering that kindergarteners are being suspended for playing with small toy guns, such as Lego’s, which pose minimal risk. It is apparent that the current policies enforced by schools are problematic. In my opinion, zero tolerance policies are excessively strict and compromise the quality of education in American schools. While they do prioritize physical safety, they ultimately make it unsafe for students to effectively learn.
Doctor Jenna Saul, speaking on NPR radio, criticizes zero tolerance policies, stating that they are wrong for several reasons. She suggests modifications to create a truly safe school environment for students. According to Saul, as adults who serve as role models for children, we should be demonstrating critical thinking by considering all the information provided to us and making informed judgments and decisions.
Saul argues against the concept of equal punishment for all violations of school rules, deeming zero tolerance policies inherently unjust (#7 and #3). Despite this, one prominent argument in favor of maintaining these policies in their original form is that alternative measures have yet to be discovered to ensure the utmost physical safety of students. I do concur with this apprehension. From a purely physical standpoint, zero tolerance policies are indispensable for schools and should not be altered (#1). Nevertheless, this solely addresses the aspect of physical safety.
Despite prioritizing the physical safety of children, these policies have created an atmosphere where kids feel reluctant to express themselves and face difficulties in their learning process. Trent England, a legal policy analyst, and Steve Muscatello, a researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies both argue that transforming schools into authoritarian establishments and punishing every misbehaving child is not the answer to combat school violence. This quote forms the foundation of my counterargument against the claim that these policies guarantee “safety.”
Zero tolerance policies have led to a notable increase in expulsion rates as they prioritize the physical safety of students. In the 2005-2006 academic year, severe disciplinary measures were implemented by 48% of public schools, as reported by the U.S Department of Education in 2008. These measures consisted of suspensions lasting five days or more, expulsions without any accompanying services, and transfers to specialized schools for particular offenses (Indicator 19).
Armistead states that there has been an increase in severe disciplinary actions. Previously, 74 percent of these actions were suspensions lasting for 5 days or more, while expulsions accounted for 5 percent and transfers to specialized schools made up 20 percent. Currently, the suspension rate is at 82 percent, but the expulsion rate has decreased to 15 percent. It is crucial for students to feel safe in their schools because fear of physical attacks, inadequate facilities, or staff unable to handle threats can hinder their learning and development. Zero tolerance policies ensure fairness among all students (Armistead).
No one is given preferential treatment over others, regardless of their wrongdoing. This is fundamentally unjust. Even in legal courts, the principle of punishment does not follow a uniform standard. Dr. Saul argues that the policy initially aimed at promoting school safety by enforcing rules is now being used as a justification to provide equal treatment to all children, even when they require specific corrective measures.
Schools should implement zero tolerance policies, recognizing that one size does not fit all and that treating all students the same is not ideal. While these policies do ensure physical safety, they lack fairness towards all students and can harm the learning environment. Therefore, I propose modifying zero tolerance policies to address each offense appropriately and preserve fairness.
