Senior government and politics and information systems major
When streaks of violence occur throughout our nation’s schools, it makes sense that we would react assertively. Images of Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook come to mind when we think about trying to create a safer environment. We blame ourselves entirely for school shootings and assaults, so we think zero tolerance toward any form of violence on school campuses is the best solution.
The idea of zero-tolerance policies, or punishing anyone who breaks a rule regardless of circumstances, is more a way for school administrators to feel better about themselves for addressing violence than a means of actually deterring violence. Though presumed to be policies that address students in only the K-12 system, recent incidents at the college level (as well as preschools, sadly) show ineffective policies can permeate educational institutions at any level.
In Anne Arundel County, a 7-year-old boy was suspended for chewing a Pop-Tart-like pastry into the shape of a gun. In Florida, a seventh-grader was arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery for hitting a friend in the head with a Tootsie Pop, and in Louisiana, a group of teenage girls were strangely suspended for singing Michael Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror” in the school cafeteria.
In August, the entire Towson University cheerleading team was suspended for hazing newcomers, an incident caused by a select number of veteran cheerleaders. In response to fraternity hazing at this university, Salisbury University and Towson, the Maryland General Assembly is considering a bill to raise the criminal fine for hazing from $500 to $5,000.
At the college level, instances of sexual assault and hazing obviously should be taken seriously, but that doesn’t mean we should look at every incident with the same level of severity. The problem with zero-tolerance policies is they treat every instance of “violence” the same way, thus erasing lines between childish play and serious crimes.
Should all members of a cheerleading squad or fraternity be punished for the acts of a few? Should throwing a lollipop at someone’s face receive the same punishment as throwing a punch?
Recent data show that zero-tolerance policies are not just ineffective in execution but also discriminatory toward minorities. According to a recent study by the U.S. Education and Justice departments, black students composed 35 percent of students who had been suspended once, 44 percent who had been suspended more than once and 36 percent who had been expelled, even though black students represent only 15 percent of those in the Civil Rights Data Collection. More than
50 percent of students who were involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or black. This study suggests the large racial disparities in suspensions and expulsions “are not explained by more frequent or more serious misbehavior by students of color.” Further, another study found “95 percent of out-of-school suspensions were for nonviolent, minor disruptions.”
The biggest downside of zero-tolerance policies is that they result in unintended consequences. According to a 2008 American Psychological Association study, school suspensions and expulsions are “moderately associated with a higher likelihood of school dropout and failure to graduate on time” and seemingly predict greater future misconduct.
Unlike zero tolerance, an individualized format of punishment for misbehavior would allow us to weigh the severity of an action rather than brashly label it an act of violence.
If this state — or any other, for that matter — wants to deter violence on its school campuses, the first step is to acknowledge that misbehavior comes in different shapes and sizes. Otherwise, we prevent ourselves (and other students) from looking at acts of serious violence as unique, dangerous cases.
Caroline Carlson is a junior government and politics and information systems major. She can be reached at ccarlsondbk@gmail.com.
