WorldNetDaily Exclusive - Zero-tolerance policies victimize 'good' kids

STORY

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Zero-tolerance policies victimize 'good' kids
Parents say officials go too far, violate students' constitutional rights

by Julie Foster



Families across the U.S. are becoming increasingly frustrated with "zero-tolerance" policies in the nation's public schools.

Case in point: Parents in Sayreville, N.J., are venting their anger by suing school officials over the suspension of their son for playing "cops and robbers" on the playground during recess.

Known only as A.G., the 5-year-old kindergartner made news after he and three of his friends were suspended March 15 for three days. The boys were guilty of using their fingers as guns and shouting words like "bang" while running around in the school yard.

According to the complaint, A.G. yelled, "I have a bazooka and I'm going to shoot you."

The words were reported to the teacher by a student who stood nearby. Based on the report, A.G. and the three other students were removed from their classroom and taken to the school office where they were questioned about their conduct. Without notice to A.G.'s parents, he and his friends were suspended and sent home.

"Kids are going to be kids, and boys, especially, are going to play 'cops and robbers,'" said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute -- a nonprofit civil liberties organization representing A.G.'s parents, Scot and Cassandra Garrick.

"They can't isolate the schools and make them into little monasteries," Whitehead continued. "Schools make a fundamental mistake when they fail to distinguish between appropriate discipline and punishment."

Many parents and education observers believe schools have gone too far in attempting to enforce so-called "zero-tolerance" policies.

While A.G.'s school district claims not to have an official, written zero-tolerance policy regarding violent behavior or threats, school officials' actions are consistent with those of many other districts with such policies.

Thirteen-year-old T.J. West was suspended for violating Kansas' Derby Unified School District's zero-tolerance policy against racial harassment and intimidation when he drew a replica of the confederate flag on a scrap of paper. The flag was listed as a prohibited symbol of racial hatred.

According to the Rutherford Institute, which represented West in a lawsuit against the school district, the teen-ager had no racial motivation for drawing the flag and did not show his work to anyone who was offended.

Following a trial, the court ruled that West's First Amendment rights were not abridged by the school's policy. The decision was affirmed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colo., and the Institute says it will appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another example of the policies' effects can be found in Florida where high school sophomore Tawana Dawson was suspended for possession of a nail clipper.

Dawson, a student with a good academic record and no disciplinary problems, had lent the clipper to a friend who used the two-inch file attachment to clean underneath her nails. A school officer deemed the attachment to be a "knife blade."

The girl's suspension was unanimously overturned by the Escambia County School Board. She was only allowed to return to school, however, on "strict probation," whereby she would automatically be expelled for further discipline problems.

After a meeting with Dawson's attorney, the board eventually agreed not to treat the girl any more harshly for minor offenses than it treats other students.

In yet another New Jersey case, a 9-year-old student was suspended from school for a day and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation after mentioning to a friend his intent to "shoot" a classmate with a wad of paper.

Fourth-grader Michael Hagood planned to launch spitballs at the girl using a rubber band.

Parents of a student at Upper Elementary School contacted the school district after hearing about the plan. District officials then notified local police and suspended Hagood under the school's zero-tolerance policy. The boy was required to complete a psychological evaluation before returning to class.

Local police went to the Hagood home after midnight and questioned Michael about the "shooting" incident.

"This whole zero-tolerance mentality is totally out of control," Whitehead told WorldNetDaily. "Schools should be more flexible and shouldn't treat children like they're robots."

The sweeping policies do not prevent "the real kids that are causing the problem" from wreaking havoc in schools, he added. "Innocent children are getting punished. At a certain point, it stops making sense."

Whitehead believes there are better ways for the schools to deal with suspicious activity.

"They should have handled it with the parents," he said, referring to the Garrick case. "There has to be another way other than suspension or expulsion."

"More parents who get involved in these situations are taking their kids out of public schools and putting them in private schools," he added.

In a written statement, Scot Garrick expressed his frustration with the way his son's case was handled: "It's upsetting to think about the way my son was treated by the school simply for playing, and it has had a big effect on him. He's censoring his playtime and his imagination. It's sad to see a 6-year-old censoring himself like that."

According to Whitehead, A.G. used to love going to school, but has lost much of his enthusiasm since the suspension.

An attorney affiliated with the Rutherford Institute filed a suit on behalf of the Garricks in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey last Thursday. The complaint names the Sayreville Board of Education, Superintendent William Bauer and Wilson School Principal Georgia Baumann as defendants.

The Garricks claim their son's First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated as a result of the suspension and that the action resulted in the violation of a New Jersey law entitling him to a free and thorough public education. They are asking officials to expunge the boy's school record, removing mention of the suspension, and they also seek compensatory and punitive damages.

WorldNetDaily contacted Wilson Elementary School and was told officials have no comment on the matter. Repeated calls to the Sayreville School District's superintendent's office were not returned.

However, during an April 11 school board meeting, Board President Kevin Ciak said, "The district would not take the disciplinary actions it did with kindergarten students that were simply playing 'cops and robbers.' This was a much more serious matter."

He refused to elaborate at the time, according to the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read more articles like this one, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...

"That which binds us together is infinitely greater than that on which we disagree" - Neal Knox

I'll see you at the TFL End Of Summer Meet!
 
Hello all,

I hate to write this post, but I am going to anyway. Think hard before you flame me.

The school shootings are a good sign. Proof that our younger generation understands freedom and repression.

After thinking long and hard about "why" there are all these school shootings, I could come up with only one answer. Retaliation for being repressed.

How would YOU feel if you were forced to attend one of these scools?

What would YOU do if the goverment told you what you could and could not paint? That you can't point your finger and act the part of cowboy? That you can't own a nail clipper to maintain your hygene because its a dangerous object? That you have to undergo phsycological testing and thearapy because you wanted to fling a spitball with a rubber band?

Does the phrase "from my cold dead fingers" come to mind? Why then should we expect any less of the younger generation who are being repressed by their government?

I didn't say the shootings were a good thing to happen. I said that it appeared a good sign that not everyone is brain dead yet. If they feel they can not change the situation without violence, what option is left?

Sprig
 
I am sorry, I don't agree. If the kids were retaliating for being opressed, the least they could do is take the war to the authors and enforcers of those insane policies ("frag the brass" is the term, I believe). Instead, we are seeing mostly damage to innocent by-standers which, in turn, reinforces the stupid zero-tolerance efforts to begin with.

Homeschooling, here I come.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sprig:
The school shootings are a good sign. Proof that our younger generation understands freedom and repression.[/quote]

Give me a break! :mad: :mad: :mad:

A statement like that is nothing but contemptible.

I gotta cool down before I post something I may regret. :mad: :mad: :mad:


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Oleg Volk you addressed the 2nd question, that I never asked. I figured it would come in the replies, and it did, sooner then expected.


As I aksed, "If they feel they can not change the situation without violence, what option is left?"

And WHERE DO THEY GET IDEA or FEELING that NO OTHER OPTION besides violence is left as a viable resort?

Couldn't be the media? Who reports about the "... mostly damage to innocent by-standers which, in turn, reinforces the stupid zero-tolerance efforts to begin with."

Sprig
 
TheBluesMan,

Yea, calm down fer just a second partner.
Notice that I said the shootings were a good "sign", not an act that I thought was appropriate or good. There is a difference.

Look away from the end result for a moment. And, then do as I did and ask, "Why?"

Remember that YOU don't live in the same world. They are controlled by government employees and are being denied the rights and priviledges of adults and are being fed propaganda of the government and/or media.

How would YOU feel if you were fired from your job and had your personal file tarnished because you drew the picture of the confederate flag that happens to be in your employee handbook? (I assume that the kid had a history book with the image in it. It had better be in that kids school book or we have even bigger problems then just this.)

After this simple question is answered, we can ask the 2nd one I posted in my reply to Oleg.

To the rest of those that read this, I don't condone the school shooters solution being this method of violence. I find the actions rather cowardly infact.

However, I am trying to focus on one issue. Whether or not these shootings would have occured had the government not been overly restrictive to the actions of these persons that are on their way to being aduts in society.

Sprig
 
Having done sabotage when in 5-8 grades of the Soviet school, I would say your question is a good one. I certainly would have opted for serious damage had I known how to inflict it but had to contend myself with disabling door locks and setting up non-lethal booby traps for school admins. The primary motivation was annoying certain teachers (esp. those who also were commie functionariesm i.e. in charge of political education).

Note that I was one of the "good" kids and generally a teachers' pet...just I was selective about the teachers I befriended. I'd say, from memory, that given the skill to create lethal booby traps, I would have retired at least two of the teachers and two of the students...and, in retrospect, I still think they deserved something special for being predatory and abusive so long as they got away with it.

So, yes: if my school had a prison-like atmosphere, I would have been highly motivated to do damage. Your observation is fairly accurate. The only difference is that I do not think that terrorizing everyone is reasonable...although making life difficult or short for selected individuals would be justified.

I also think that home schooling is the best way to avoid having your kid deal with such a situation. There's more to winning than destroying the opposition: living well is the best revenge. That is why I am in America today while the former school bullies are stopping lead in Chechniya.

BTW, I do not view the tight egress control in schools as a good thing. If a kid feels threatened, they ought to have the options to call parents on a cell phone or escape bodily . If they can't...that IMO is a violation of their right to free movement aka mprisonment. As I said, home schooling keeps looking better and better all the time.
------------------
Oleg "peacemonger" Volk

http://dd-b.net/RKBA


[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited June 07, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"This whole zero-tolerance mentality is totally out of control," Whitehead told WorldNetDaily. "Schools should be more flexible and shouldn't treat children like they're robots." [/quote]

I think this is a big part of the problem. Kids are individuals and need to be treated as such. They shouldn't be "examples" for other students. Each incident should be treated separately.
This could also explain another reason for the school shootings. Many of these young "shooters" (for lack of a better term, sorry) have allegedly said before the shootings, "watch, I'm going to be famous," or something to that effect.
Maybe they are frustrated at being treated like cattle and use the shooting as a way to vent their frustrations and at the same time sy, "I am an individual."
Note that I am NOT excusing this behavior, simply offering a possible explanation of the connection between the treatment of students and some of their reactions to it. There is definitely NEVER an excuse for what these kids have done.
 
Back
Top