Zero Tolerance in Palos Verdes

The story rocked the local news like an IED. Little toy soldiers with little plastic guns worn by little boys were declared verboten at a grammar school graduation. The boys at the Cornerstone school were ordered by Principal Denise Leonard to remove the toy soldiers, or cut off the plastic micro-guns, or be held in contempt of the district Zero Tolerance Weapon's policy. Leonard “directed students to not place images of weapons on student-created mortarboards to be used in the promotion ceremony,” according to a PVUSD statement.

Letters to the editor and to the school superintendent accused the principal of violating the student’s free speech, of misguided pedagogy and of an anti-military bias -- not to mention petty behavior.

In my opinion, the free speech argument holds no water. The US Supreme Court ruled this week that students have limited first amendment rights. In a 5-4 decision, the Supremes held that speech promoting illegal drug use (“Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” in this case) may be regarded as “disruptive” to school life, as defined by the Supreme Court in Tinker (1969). However, in my opinion and that of Justice Thomas, the Tinker decision granting free speech rights to minor students was ill advised, has led to a multitude of court case and to “cultural disarray flowing from the schools into society.”

Justice Clarence Thomas attached to the Roberts’ majority decision an essay on the decline and fall of American public education. (see www.supremecourtus.gov )

Thomas showed that from the beginning of the Republic “the schools’ role was most certainly in loco parentis, in that they and parents broadly agreed on what made an adolescent grow into a good person.” Today parents are spending thousands on private schools “to have what American schools had from 1859 to 1959--some basic measure of the Three Ds: decorum, decency and diligence; self-control as a higher common value than out-of-control.”

In a surprising statement about the “Bong” decision, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: “Students will test the limits of acceptable behavior in myriad ways better known to schoolteachers than to judges; school officials need a degree of flexible authority to respond to disciplinary challenges; and the law has always considered the relationship between teachers and students special. Under these circumstances, the more detailed the Court's supervision becomes, the more likely its law will engender further disputes among teachers and students. Consequently, larger numbers of those disputes will likely make their way from the schoolhouse to the courthouse. Yet no one wishes to substitute courts for school boards, or to turn the judge's chambers into the principal's office.”

Thus, I stand behind the Cornerstone principal’s authority to make decisions about the behavior of students under her jurisdiction, including their speech and other forms of expression. That still leaves, however, the questions of pedagogy, bias and good sense.

My friend Dr. Dave Young wrote to the Superintendent to explain that the decision to treat the weapon on a toy soldier the same as an actual weapon not allowed under the zero tolerance for weapons on campus is bad pedagogy.

“We want, I believe, to teach children the ability to discriminate between examples of desired and undesired behaviors. We want them to learn the difference between the legal and criminal use of weapons. This decision does exactly the opposite. It not only fails to teach the difference between people engaged in the pro-social use of them (police and soldiers) from anti-social use (criminals and terrorists), but it actually implies that they are the same. This is appallingly poor teaching.”

Dr. Young continues: “Not to distinguish between representations of weapons and actual weapons also undermines the development of critical thinking skills. A toy soldier is simply not a weapon, and to argue that it is makes one look foolish.”

Finally Dr. Young asks about the motivation behind the ruling: “Did this decision inadvertently disrespect those who have died for our freedoms? Did the decision reflect either a conscious or unconscious anti-military bias?”

These are legitimate questions that the School Board and administration should address.

The argument that the zero-tolerance policy made her do it is specious at best. PVUSD Board Policy BP 5131.7 Students Weapons and Dangerous Instruments: The Board of Education desires students and staff to be free from the fear and danger presented by firearms and other weapons. The Board therefore prohibits any person other than authorized law enforcement or security personnel from possessing weapons, imitation firearms, or dangerous instruments of any kind in school buildings, on school grounds or buses, or at a school-related or school-sponsored activity away from school.

I’ve heard it said that while the toy soldiers are not covered by the policy, that they can create a hostile environment. Give me a break!

Finally, the Zero Tolerance approach in schools is harmful. A report from Harvard University (Opportunities Suspended: The Devastating Consequences of Zero Tolerance and School Discipline) illustrates that “Zero Tolerance is unfair, is contrary to the developmental needs of children, denies children educational opportunities, and often results in the criminalization of children. Even the common schoolyard scuffle has become a target, regardless of severity and circumstances.” Another report Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence of the Indiana Education Policy Center states: “There is as yet little evidence that the strategies typically associated with zero tolerance contribute to improved student behavior or overall school safety.”

It is understandable that school boards and principals strive to be cautious about anything that could be thought to contribute to a hostile environment. In our litigious society is would be fiscally irresponsible to do otherwise. But it is even more important to teach the truth and to instill in students a sense of thankfulness and respect for the military and police who protect our lives, sometimes through the rightful use of fire-arms.