Editor’s note: Part of a continuing series of student roundtables hosted by The South Brunswick Post on a variety of issues.
By: Matthew Armstrong
My how times have changed.
In the good old days, that are not really that old or necessarily that good, games, threats, flirtations and even fights on the playground were a common part of growing up — a right of passage as students developed their social skills.
But those days are long gone.
Schools across the nation have been adopting zero-tolerance policies in the wake last year’s tragic shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. These policies are meant to deter students from violent or unruly behavior by issuing strict punishment for any such behavior.
Though in response to several controversial incidents involving this policy of absolutes, some students at South Brunswick High School say this policy is being taken too far and is unfair to the students.
Last month, a fourth-grader at the Upper Elementary School in the West Windsor-Plainsboro school district was suspended for “threatening” to shoot a classmate with a rubber band and a wad of paper. The fourth-grader was suspended from school for a day, questioned by police and had to undergo a psychological evaluation.
In Sayreville last month, four kindergarten students were suspended from school for playing cops and robbers on the playground during recess. By pretending their fingers were guns, the game was determined an act of violence and the students were suspended.
Similar incidents around the nation have been met with harsh punishments under the zero-tolerance policy. A student in Florida was suspended for bringing nail clippers to school. Seven students in Indiana were expelled for two years for getting into a fight. Many incidents labeled as sexual harassment have led to suspensions for students as young as 6 years old.
While ultimately these policies seek to protect students from incidents like Columbine and the March incident in which a first-grader in Flint, Mich., shot and killed a classmate, many students feel these policies infringe on students’ rights and their ability to grow, develop and learn.
“Growing up is about trial and error,” said Tamy-Fee Meneide, a junior who took part in the roundtable discussion with the editorial staff of The South Brunswick Post.
Students argue that the zero-tolerance policy is flawed inherently in different ways. On one hand, the zero-tolerance policy holds young children to the same rules of adult society, with sexual harassment codes of conduct. On the other hand, it doesn’t afford them the same leeway in regards to freedom of speech.
“You make a mistake and hopefully you learn from it and don’t do it again, but zero-tolerance just tries to scare kids. Fear does not equal respect,” said sophomore Maria Legre.
The students say school is supposed to prepare them to be adults, but zero-tolerance policies judge minors more harshly than adults.
“If they were going to have zero-tolerance for everyone they’d have to throw everyone in jail,” said sophomore Monica Mangual.
“The punishment has to fit the crime,” said Tamy-Fee.
Students said it is unfair that a colloquial threat made in jest or frustration, can lead to such harsh punishments. They said that the more experienced teachers and staff can recognize these comments as harmless. But, with so many new teachers in the school, the students fear that they will get in trouble for a meaningless comment or gesture.
“If you are mad and you say you are going to hurt someone, they punish you for something you might do. They can’t just react so quickly without thoroughly looking at the situation,” said Monica.
Students said that schools have overstepped their bounds in disciplining students and should defer more to parents.
“My parents are strict, but my teachers are 10 times stricter than them,” said Swati Bagaria, a sophomore.
“I’m moving out of my house in September,” said Kelly Zimmermann, a senior. “I’m getting in the habit of paying bills; setting standards for myself to be independent. My parents treat me like an adult. I work a lot. But then I come here and I’m treated like a child.”
The students said that the rules of zero-tolerance are being enforced unfairly. They said one problem is the haphazard way the policy is enforced.
“They always hassle the boys more than girls,” said Maria.
“I hate the way they stereotype kids as good and bad,” said Tamy-Fee. “I’m sorry, but they always pick on the black people.”
A possible racial bias has been brought up in many of the recent zero-tolerance policy infractions.
In the case in Decatur, Ill., after seven students were expelled for two years for fighting, the Rev. Jesse Jackson led a protest to reduce the punishment on the grounds that these black students were punished more severely than white students that had been in fights earlier in the year. The expulsions were subsequently reduced to nine months.
In West-Windsor, a fourth-grader was suspended for threatening to “shoot” a classmate with a rubberband and a wad of paper. The father of the boy said that the district’s actions were based in part on the fact that his son is black — a charge that has been denied by district officials.
The parents of the West Windsor boy received an offer of free legal services from the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit legal firm that has taken on a number of zero-tolerance cases throughout the country.
John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, who has been handling cases nationwide involving zero-tolerance policies for about three years, said they force school officials to defend themselves after punishing a child for conduct that is not illegal or disruptive, and take away the power of teachers and principals to exercise discretion and common sense.
“The problem with zero-tolerance policies is that they don’t go into intent,” he said.
Under such policies, Mr. Whitehead said school officials “don’t exercise any discretion, they simply report the incident to the police.”
According to literature provided by the Rutherford Institute, the incidents of violence in schools and illegal possession of drugs and guns have motivated communities to “get tough” on offenders. Most zero- tolerance policies have been enacted by local school boards in an effort to demonstrate to the public that board members are serious about improving school discipline, according to the institute.
But such policies, the institute says, often have the unintended effect of depriving children of constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, privacy and fundamental due process.
Students at South Brunswick High School argue that the zero-tolerance policy will not prevent tragedy in the schools from happening again and that meanwhile they are forced to suffer.
“What happened in Columbine was a terrible thing, but I don’t see why every student age 4 to 18 should be punished for what a couple kids in our generation did,” said Maria.
Students argued that rather than calling the police or issuing an absolute punishment for every misdeed, they should use some common sense and judge each case individually.
“I think there should be graduated tolerance,” said Swati. “If you throw one punch you shouldn’t be kicked out of school. Have punishments for a first offense, second offense. Weapons are what the zero-tolerance policy should be for. I mean that’s why it came about.”