|
Home » Legal » High School Civil Liberties Project » Zero Tolerance
Student Rights ZERO TOLERANCE What is zero tolerance? The zero tolerance policy is exactly what it sounds like: zero tolerance for any violation of a law or rule. Zero tolerance discipline policies are an automatic response to a certain offense, no matter how minor or how severe. The zero tolerance policy is a product of the false impression that our public schools have become more dangerous in the last few years. When was zero tolerance first used? Zero tolerance was first implemented by the federal government in 1988, when Attorney General Edwin Meese gave US Customs agents the authority to impound a boat or vehicle that they suspected of having illicit drugs on board. The policy was expanded beyond the US Customs agency and began to be applied to a range of offenses, including drug and alcohol use at school. During that time the ACLU filed lawsuits that claimed the policy violated civil rights concerning due process and search and seizure (Skiba v. Peterson, 1999). When was zero tolerance first used in schools? Zero tolerance became more prevalent in school discipline after falling from favor in areas of law enforcement. In 1989, schools in both New York and California began adopting zero tolerance policies. By 1993, policies had been adopted by school districts all across the country to deal with drugs, tobacco, weapons, and general school disruptions. In 1994 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gun-Free Schools Act, which mandates a minimum one-year expulsion for students who are found possessing any weapon. By 1996 more then 75% of school districts in the country had some sort of zero tolerance policy on the books. Local school districts have broadened the scope of zero tolerance to include threats and swearing, as well as any sort of insubordination or “defiance of authority.” In 1998 the total number of suspensions nationwide reached 3.1 million, and the total number of expulsions reached 87,000. What is zero tolerance supposed to do? What does it really do? Zero tolerance policies are supposed to make American schools safer places to learn. Zero tolerance towards things like violence and drugs is supposed to drive the point home and thus reduce dangerous criminal behavior by keeping trouble out. However, the result of these policies is that students have often been wrongly and unfairly punished for minor offenses, such as unknowingly bringing toenail clippers or butter knives to school. Many debates have been spawned over these kinds of non-discretionary policies, especially when students are expelled or suspended for minor offenses or unknowing actions. In many cases, African American and Latino children bear the brunt of this policy, especially since zero tolerance policies are more likely to exist in predominately African American and Latino school districts. Further, when these students are punished more often, they tend to be suspended for more discretionary offences like “defiance of authority.” Is zero tolerance a bad policy? The way it is used, yes. This policy eliminates students, by liberally making use of suspensions and expulsions. This rigid approach is also racially biased; African American and Latino students are subjected to more severe punishments for less severe offenses. Zero tolerance policies are ineffective because they eliminate students instead of correcting certain behavior; as a result punished students have less educational opportunities. How can a zero tolerance policy affect my rights as a student? Zero tolerance policies have been linked to the violation of student rights throughout the country. One such example came in February 1999, when a Ewing, New Jersey high school freshman dozed off in class. His teacher became suspicious and demanded that he go down to the nurse’s office to get his eyes and pulse checked for drugs. When the boy refused, the principal suspended him, citing a zero tolerance policy about drugs in school. Although the boy submitted to the test in the end, his case, with little evidence and no due process, demonstrates a violation of student rights triggered by zero tolerance policies. There is a history of Supreme Court cases concerning civil rights in school. In 1969 the court ruled that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of expression when they enter the school building (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969). Two 1975 Supreme Court decisions extended due process rights to students accused of breaking school rules. However, the Supreme Court has also upheld the right of school administrators to conduct searches and seizures. In a 1985 case, the Court ruled that a student could be searched if there is reasonable suspicion that the student broke a law or school rule. (New Jersey v T.L.O., 1985.) The decision gave administrators more leeway than police when searching students. While police have to show probable cause, administrators need nothing more than suspicion, which is often based on hearsay. Web Links: |
|
