Prevent the rise of "zero tolerance" policies

Lusitania

Donor
Why don't parents fight back against their kids being wrongly suspended and/or expelled?
Because the people most affected by these policies have the least power. They are poorer and in many cases not registered to vote. Tberefore their political influence is several limited by those who are advocating these zero tolerances.
 

Tovarich

Banned
What PODs could prevent institutions such as police and schools from adopting "zero tolerance" policies?

I'm going off the deep end a bit here, and it'd need a pre-1900 POD, but how about if whichever Greek bloke it was who 'invented' zero never does that?
 
I'm going off the deep end a bit here, and it'd need a pre-1900 POD, but how about if whichever Greek bloke it was who 'invented' zero never does that?
Didn't the concept of zero originally came from India?

Well anyway the Maya got it independently so I don't think that will work.
 

Tovarich

Banned
Didn't the concept of zero originally came from India?

Well anyway the Maya got it independently so I don't think that will work.

Ah well :(

(I'm not really that sad, most of my stabs-in-the-dark won't work, but every now & then I score)
 
Why don't parents fight back against their kids being wrongly suspended and/or expelled?
Because Dad was working long hours as was Mom . And they did not have the money to fight the government or the will . They had lost too many freedoms as it was like there right to wear a seat belt or not , having the government take there cars and homes if they had made a mistake .
 

Tovarich

Banned
Why don't parents fight back against their kids being wrongly suspended and/or expelled?

Some parents do. I did, when necessary.

I had two advantages over most parents, though:

1) I was raised by a County Councillor (body responsible for education) and picked up by osmosis the correct approach to conflict with County institutions.

2) In my adult life I worked for Social Services (provision of the same local govt tier as Education, so a very similar culture regarding provision to service users and interaction with the general public.)

Those were enormous advantages in any dispute with my children's schools (not that there were too many, btw) simply because I could dominate proceedings quite easily whilst my opponent would be still taken aback that I was far better informed than a resident of the Gascoigne Estate was supposed to be.)

Basically, I got lucky twice.

Parents and their children should not have to rely on luck, though.
 
Last edited:
Also interesting to me is how politicians, parents, and boards of education expect students to obey policies that they didn't obey growing up.
 
Just throwing it out there, but maybe the 'nanny state' has something to do with it? Communites used to self police to an extent which meant petty crooks and young dickhead thugs regularly got caught and punished with a kick up the arse. but that has sort of gone as the government has taken over welfare, policing and the like, so in order to deter crime because the chances of caught are less the penalties are harsher.

Not a very well thought out idea I know, but its a bit of a vibe I think. Maybe?
 
Just throwing it out there, but maybe the 'nanny state' has something to do with it? Communites used to self police to an extent which meant petty crooks and young dickhead thugs regularly got caught and punished with a kick up the arse. but that has sort of gone as the government has taken over welfare, policing and the like, so in order to deter crime because the chances of caught are less the penalties are harsher.

Not a very well thought out idea I know, but its a bit of a vibe I think. Maybe?
It is more of a case of the rise in "Bedroom Communities" in the suburbs where people don't know their neighbors too well replacing small towns and close knit city neighborhoods.
Because of this people in the suburbs are more willing to let the authorities in Law Enforcement and Schools take care of other people's children who get in trouble.
 
The origin of "zero tolerance" is at least in part due to the perception that when authority figures have the discretion to use common sense to decide whether an act should be punished, that discretion is often used in a discriminatory manner.

Let's say a little white girl, with no history of behaviour problems, brings a steak knife to school with her lunch from home, which includes a piece of tough meat where it can be understood as common sense that the knife was intended to cut the meat and not another student. So the teacher or principal doesn't punish the student, but merely tell her and her parents that metal knives aren't allowed, and in the future she should bring food that doesn't require one for her lunch.

Then, a few months later, a black boy known to be aggressive accidentally drops a pocket knife out of his pants at recess. There is at least circumstantial evidence that he may have been planning to use it to cut someone or at least threaten to. He gets suspended for three days. Then his mother complains, "Oh, but that little white girl who had a knife in school a few months ago didn't get suspended.... Are you treating my boy differently because he's black? Or because he's a boy?" Never mind that the behavioural and circumstantial context is different....

Zero tolerance is a "cover your ass" method to prevent accusations of discrimination. While the situation I wrote up is fictional, it's all too close to reality....
 
How do we prevent the rise of zero-tolerance policies...
... by ensuring all those who oppose freedom and tolerance are mercilessly crushed.:)

(sorry, I know the OP had a specific use of the phrase in mind, but I couldn't resist the oxymoronic generalization).
 

Lusitania

Donor
The origin of "zero tolerance" is at least in part due to the perception that when authority figures have the discretion to use common sense to decide whether an act should be punished, that discretion is often used in a discriminatory manner.

Let's say a little white girl, with no history of behaviour problems, brings a steak knife to school with her lunch from home, which includes a piece of tough meat where it can be understood as common sense that the knife was intended to cut the meat and not another student. So the teacher or principal doesn't punish the student, but merely tell her and her parents that metal knives aren't allowed, and in the future she should bring food that doesn't require one for her lunch.

Then, a few months later, a black boy known to be aggressive accidentally drops a pocket knife out of his pants at recess. There is at least circumstantial evidence that he may have been planning to use it to cut someone or at least threaten to. He gets suspended for three days. Then his mother complains, "Oh, but that little white girl who had a knife in school a few months ago didn't get suspended.... Are you treating my boy differently because he's black? Or because he's a boy?" Never mind that the behavioural and circumstantial context is different....

Zero tolerance is a "cover your ass" method to prevent accusations of discrimination. While the situation I wrote up is fictional, it's all too close to reality....
Yes it is all too real. But on the other hand we also get the type of “white” people who because of their social status and race get away with murder or reckless actions that a non white would not. Could we ever see a black kid successfully use the defense the 16 year old in Texas used that he was too privileged to understand the seriousness of his actions? Or better this week a Caucasian Woman was caught speeding while with blood alcohol of twice the limit. She tried to argue with the police officer he should let her off because she was white thoroughbred girl.

So yes we have zero tolerance because government and society in majority of cases does not give a crap about what is causing the child to act out. What mental, family, societal or economic circumstance child is facing and how to help instead of banishing.
 
Last edited:
Yes it is all too real. But on the other hand we also get the type of “white” people who because of their social status and race get away with murder or reckless actions that a non white would not. Could we ever see a black kid successfully use the defense the 16 year old in Texas used that he was too privileged to understand the seriousness of his actions? Or better this week a Caucasian Woman was caught speeding while with blood alcohol of twice the limit. She tried to argue with the police officer he should let her off because she was white thoroughbred girl.

So yes we have zero tolerance because government and society in majority of cases does not give a crap about what is causing the child to act out. What mental, family, societal or economic circumstance child is facing and how to help instead of banishing.
Actually I think there's only has been Zero Tolerance it's just that the children are not being taught that today by their parents neighbors and others. To me when I was in school the thought of taking a knife to school was unheard of I just could not believe or think for a minute that I could do something and get away with it. In spite of all going against the grain there are kinds that zero tolerances or needed. They do need to be more on a individual basis versus blanket use. But there's some people who just don't believe the law or rules reply applies to them. And some people are not going to be salvageable I hate to put it in those terms but ask call most anyone of the Baby Boomers the earlier the more likely they're going to tell you they would never dream of stabbing your teacher taking a gun to school it wasn't even something that you were taught by your parents it was just there and schools were allowed to dish out punishment that most parents then did not go to defend my
poor little baby I said a horrible childhood they would never do something like that. If anything there is less poverty and there was in the 60s in the 70s and the things like you just get a slap on the wrist and nothing happens do not work in today's world there needs to be a code of conduct so to speak when you're in an institution whether it's work or school or prison. Starting again regarding they should be teaching the children this is acceptable this is not but everybody screams about whole individual rights excetera well what about the rights of the people who have to be around these jerks and assholes don't they have any rights.
 
Actually I think there's only has been Zero Tolerance it's just that the children are not being taught that today by their parents neighbors and others. To me when I was in school the thought of taking a knife to school was unheard of I just could not believe or think for a minute that I could do something and get away with it. In spite of all going against the grain there are kinds that zero tolerances or needed. They do need to be more on a individual basis versus blanket use. But there's some people who just don't believe the law or rules reply applies to them. And some people are not going to be salvageable I hate to put it in those terms but ask call most anyone of the Baby Boomers the earlier the more likely they're going to tell you they would never dream of stabbing your teacher taking a gun to school it wasn't even something that you were taught by your parents it was just there and schools were allowed to dish out punishment that most parents then did not go to defend my
poor little baby I said a horrible childhood they would never do something like that. If anything there is less poverty and there was in the 60s in the 70s and the things like you just get a slap on the wrist and nothing happens do not work in today's world there needs to be a code of conduct so to speak when you're in an institution whether it's work or school or prison. Starting again regarding they should be teaching the children this is acceptable this is not but everybody screams about whole individual rights excetera well what about the rights of the people who have to be around these jerks and assholes don't they have any rights.

I think you misunderstand what "zero tolerance" is. It means the authorities have no discretion except to impose punishment on *all* rule-breakers, even when the violation was minor, accidental, or not the person's fault. (Example: A little girl in Washington state was suspended for bringing beer to school, even though her own mother admitted to packing it in her lunch by mistake. At that time that particular brand of beer had a very similar can design to Pepsi - seeing the two side by side, it was obviously possible to mistake one for the other.)

There was a time when school authorities were allowed to use their discretion in these kinds of cases.
 
I think you misunderstand what "zero tolerance" is. It means the authorities have no discretion except to impose punishment on *all* rule-breakers, even when the violation was minor, accidental, or not the person's fault. (Example: A little girl in Washington state was suspended for bringing beer to school, even though her own mother admitted to packing it in her lunch by mistake. At that time that particular brand of beer had a very similar can design to Pepsi - seeing the two side by side, it was obviously possible to mistake one for the other.)

There was a time when school authorities were allowed to use their discretion in these kinds of cases.

It's been my (long) experience that zero-tolerance policies come about largely out of laziness. It takes work to exercise discretion and judgment; far easier for a given administration to simply treat all cases the same.
 
Top