One-size-fits-all zero-tolerance policies aimed at protecting students (of all ages) in our nation’s schools are simply stupid if the policy sponsors don’t lacquer them with generous coats of common sense.

 

Gaping sinkholes have begun appearing inside our school zones, especially around the neighborhoods of sound decision-making logic and sage wisdom.

 

Love affairs between arrogance and ego, as they always do, have intensified the fascination with mental masturbation and attendant cluelessness among school boards, operational administrators, and knee-jerk politicians.

 

Contrary to what the Catholic nuns told me as a child, physical masturbation does NOT cause blindness. However, I’ve learned over the years that the mental kind DOES. And, at the rate this country is “doing it,” aggregate blindness will soon overtake all of us.

 

Not thinking has become America’s intellectual autobahn leading straight to a mythical land where blissful simplicity reigns supreme. And, we had better find an off-ramp… FAST!

 

I’m not going to bore you with a litany of the “stupid” stuff our elected officials, inept school board members, and other school administrators do with regularity.

 

First, the list would be too long. Second, I don’t have enough room, or time, to list all of the applicable evidence to back it up.

 

Delaware has the good fortune to be the second smallest state in the nation, a fact that tends to shield us from too much scorn when it comes to doing stupid stuff.

 

In fact, some people not from the East Coast—and even some that are—think Delaware is in Southeastern Pennsylvania (just north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge as one astute Californian put it).

 

The point is that this nonsense is proliferating all over the country. However, Delaware, in its perpetual endeavors NOT to be outdone, finally made it to the BIG time.

 

The New York Times—I told you it was BIG time—published an article about a 6-year-old 1^st grader’s impending expulsion over his alleged violation of a zero-tolerance policy regarding dangerous weapons.

 

I’m not going to rehash it here. Here it is. I’m not even attacking zero-tolerance philosophy, just the mindless way some public administrative drones apply it.

 

Fortunately, this case ended well for the child. The school board, THIS time, decided to revise its policy relevant to 1^st and 2^nd graders, thus reinstating the child into his regular school and schedule.

 

Some people seemed to think it was because of the presence of the national press and its inherent knack for transforming local dummies into national dummies in a matter of seconds!

 

I discount it as the main reason, though. Un-checked arrogance and ego are not afraid of press coverage, good or bad, national or otherwise. They just circle the wagons and wait out the storm.

 

But something else, also unprecedented, happened the night of the vote. Some 300 people in the guise of parents, grandparents, and friends (all armed with implied pitchforks and torches) stormed the meeting hall.

 

They shed a lot of light on the situation and their message was crystal clear: ENOUGH of this nonsense!

 

A couple of other recent gems include the suspension of a 3^rd grade boy for violating a school district’s zero-tolerance policy regarding drug possession and delivery.

 

The boy gave a classmate a cough drop to help her stop coughing. That’s right! A genuine, Walgreens-brand licorice-flavored cough drop.

 

Instant alarms! WHOOOOP! WHOOOOP! BWANG! BWANG! BWANG! RED ALERT! Zero Tolerance Policy violation. No thinking, just mindless reaction all the while blaming it all on a mandated zero-tolerance policy. “We have no choice; it’s the LAW.”

 

But, this one didn’t make the national press. Just a handful of flabbergasted parents showed up, and without pitchforks and torches. Sadly, stupidity won that night.

 

The list of these silly incidents rambles onward, ad nauseam, involving mostly public school administrators. But just to show my impartiality, here’s one from the annals of the private schools.

 

The little girl was “four and three quarters” years old. And, she was quite emphatic about it, too. But it didn’t matter; her school principal threatened to expel her.

 

Even worse, it happened just as she was about to graduate… from PRE-KINDERGARTEN to KINDERGARTEN! What a bummer.

 

Her crime? SEXUAL HARASSMENT! Not against a classmate, but against a teacher… Her FEMALE teacher! How in God’s name; I’m sure you’re asking; does a “four and three-quarters” year old little girl sexually harass a grown woman?

 

Well, it seems the teacher was busy talking to another child when this… this common criminal tried to get her attention by tapping her on her backside. And, after asking the child, TWICE to stop it, the teacher reported the child to the principal.

 

You can’t make this stuff up! And here’s the best part. The principal, upon “due deliberation,” decided to get both the child’s and her parents’ attention by sending them an intent to expel letter dependent upon the outcome of a “hearing” on sexual harassment charges.

 

Unlike public schools, private schools enjoy far greater latitude when dealing with stupidity relative to its teachers, administrators, and whenever needed, its students.

 

Luckily, once the board found out about it, they voted UNANIMOUSLY, “upon due deliberation,” to fire both: teacher and principal.

 

As I stated above, private schools can do this for cause. Not so in public schools. The legal maneuverings would be endless and costly. At minimum, legal fees alone would provide comfortable retirement funds for a couple of attorneys.

 

Please understand that I recognize the need for zero-tolerance policies, but only under clearly definable circumstances and NEVER as a substitute for clear, logical thinking on the part of administrators.

 

We can achieve safety AND apply common sense at the same time. But not if we continually fail to understand the crux of the problem.

 

Today, the number one reason for school administrators readily adopting so many zero-tolerance policies is fear of litigation. According to the ABA (American Bar Association), we have a licensed attorney for every 300-citizens.

 

Personally, I think this ratio is too large. The above ratio includes every living human being in this country. Let’s toss out the kids and others who do not need legal services: about a third of the population.

 

As such, the ratio is probably closer to 1:200 (one attorney for every 200 people). The country is crawling with attorneys in search of fees. And worse, they’ve wrestled control of the nation’s courtrooms from the judges.

 

People have lost confidence in this country’s judicial process. In Delaware, Superior Court judges earn a tad shy of $169,000 a year. They’re supposed to be in charge relative to courtroom procedures. But it doesn’t seem so in many cases.

 

Instead, they permit attorneys to run wild by representing some clients with questionable reasons for suing other people. The term, FRIVOLOUS, seems to have lost its meaning.

 

Although much of the frivolity gets thrown out, the initial ridiculousness of the matter gets plastered, in banner style, across the pages of the country’s newspapers and TV screens.

 

Legally, we seem headed for hell in a hand basket clutched in the fists of legal extremists. People don’t want to “take a chance on losing.” So we end up with one-size-fits-all justice.

 

And we ALL lose when we refuse to recognize the critical difference between expelling a 14-year-old, with a history of violence, for bringing an eight-inch blade to school and a 6-year-old bringing a Boy Scout penknife to school with the sole motivation of eating his pudding with the spoon.

 

So, until the judges reestablish their courtroom authority to rule on a case-by-case basis, and school authorities cease hiding behind zero-tolerance policies as a way of NOT thinking, the loonies will remain in charge.

 

Finally—but certainly no less critical—we also have to relearn the differences involving policy-making statements, operational rules of compliance, and managerial discretion.

 

Policy must be broad enough in scope to make it possible for operational managers to manage. It does not cover minute detail. And operational managers have to be intelligent enough to examine circumstantial detail and decide if someone has violated policy.

 

As long as policy positions are constitutionally sound and operational managers consistently apply them, the courts will follow suit.

 

What we seem to be doing now, however, is using erroneous or non-existent facts to reach false conclusions based on perfectly flawed logic. As such, we have to rely on mistakes in logic to have even a random chance of arriving at correct conclusions.

 

More to the effective point, we’re peeing into a headwind hoping that dumb luck will keep us dry. We have to stop it.

 

Firing people for incompetence is NOT legally discriminatory. But, it’s hard to do when you base promotions purely on a seniority status aimed at pacifying a long-standing “It’s MY turn” mentality.

 

Joe Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. You may comment on his column by clicking here.