Zero tolerance = zero brain
By Thoreau
The only thing encouraging about this story is that the adults who interacted with the kid once he was “in the system” actually recognized that he didn’t deserve what was happening to him, and treated him decently.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector —
September 2, 2010 @ 11:14 pm
In the very beginning, “zero tolerance” must have looked good on some educrat’s c.v. In the years since, you’d think that the system would have wised up. Kids on the shooting team used to bring their rifles to school, for goodness sakes…
Comment by Kevin Carson —
September 2, 2010 @ 11:22 pm
“…about a month before all this started, a boy in my grade got a poor mark on a test and grabbed the first person he saw as he came out of the class (a 15-year-old about half his size) and threw him against a locker. The kid ended up with a broken arm and a lot of bruises. The culprit got a 2-day suspension. So it’s not even that Zero Tolerance is an awful thing that prevents people from using their heads, it also looks only to certain cues and completely ignores kids with real problems who pose a very real physical threat to others around them.”
Sounds like the way management games “quality” metrics in every workplace I’ve ever been in.
Comment by Fraud Guy —
September 3, 2010 @ 12:48 am
So certain types of potentially, but often non-, damaging behavior are strictly controlled and highly penalized, but other types of usually damaging behavior are shrugged off.
For some reason, I swear I’ve heard about something like this before.
So anyway, I was reading in the local newspaper about the driver who got time served and court costs for his 5th DUI, reckless driving, driving without a license (suspended) and driving without insurance, while the teen with a first time marijuana possession charge got 30 days (suspended) for a couple of joints, 200 hours of community service, and 1 years probation….
Comment by ajay —
September 3, 2010 @ 5:37 am
about a month before all this started, a boy in my grade got a poor mark on a test and grabbed the first person he saw as he came out of the class (a 15-year-old about half his size) and threw him against a locker. The kid ended up with a broken arm and a lot of bruises. The culprit got a 2-day suspension.
The culprit played, I am guessing, for some sort of sports team?
Comment by steven —
September 3, 2010 @ 7:39 am
The larger boy who threw the smaller boy against the locker committed an offense for which there should be zero tolerance.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 3, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
This isn’t quite right.
Zero tolerance is a concept that was imposed on school administration by politicians.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 3, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Forgive me, Thoreau, I’m going to invoke privilege.
If he hadn’t been an obviously middle-class white kid, I’m less optimistic that he would have been treated so well, especially on first contact.
Also, based on brief encounters with such authorities in early high school years, I think he was terribly fortunate in any case.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
I think you’re probably right to invoke privilege here, Eric.
Being a recent arrival from Western Europe (presumably with a slight accent) might have also helped him in a way. He doesn’t fit any of the stereotypes that the probation officer might have of spoiled suburban kids gone bad, but he isn’t foreign in a threatening way either. He’s impossible to categorize, which helps reinforce the fact that the facts of his case don’t fit any categories either.