|
November/December 2009
She had a 700-kilowatt smile. As a subject, she was utterly incapable of taking a bad photograph. And, yet, when I think of one odious incident, I think of her frown. That was when as a first grader she was suspended from school. Charge: terrorist threat. What had she done? Something childish. Once on the playground she got huffy about a childish slight. She cocked a stubby forefinger at a classmate and said, “If I had a gun, I’d shoot you.” For that she missed most of a week of school, while administrators considered what to do. They ultimately did what one ought: gently chide her for her choice of words and let her resume her schooling. How ridiculous that it took more than a lunch hour. Of course, this was in the wake of the Columbine killings, when school security was in overdrive and zero-tolerance policies were set on “overkill.” No matter that school was — and is — the safest place possible for the children of America. We saw something horrific on television and imputed horrors at one school to all. For me, our little friend, my sons’ playmate all those years ago, is the face of zero tolerance. One shudders to think how many children in America had to pay similar prices for being childish when the institutions around them were engaged in a SWAT team mentality. In Galveston a few years ago, a second grader was suspended three days for doing exactly what he should have done. His mother’s whacked-out boyfriend had put a handgun in the boy’s backpack. The child found it at school and took it to a teacher. Apparently, he should have thrown it in the bushes. Well, it is a pleasure to report that thanks to such atrocities, Texas lawmakers have said “enough.” House Bill 171 effectively ends zero-tolerance policies in Texas, requiring administrators to consider mitigating circumstances regarding incidents that previously landed students in suspension or alternative placement. As reluctant as I am to support even one more top-down order on schools from an ever-encroaching state: Hear, hear. For this we can give much credit to the media attention given the plight of Taylor Hess, a student at L.D. Bell High School in Hurst. He was expelled when a bread knife was found in his truck bed at campus. The kitchen utensil had fallen out of a sack bound for Goodwill. The student’s father fought the sanction; the case got publicity. Ultimately, the boy was at an alternative campus only a few days. My opinion: He shouldn’t have missed so much as a gym class. Last year a knife that was to serve as a haunted house prop was found under a car in a Garland ISD parking lot. The result: 32 days of placement for a student to an alternative campus. To its credit, Garland ISD now has dropped its zero-tolerance policies, devising new ways to deal with such matters. Campus fights happen. Zero tolerance will not prevent them. But such a policy might end up judging a victim of an assault just as guilty as an assailant, without working through the facts of the matter. Facts have to matter — intent, self-defense — when considering campus incidents. More harm comes from push-button discipline than any benefit derived. It’s been 10 years since Columbine. Fortunately, Texas has told the SWAT team to stand down. JOHN YOUNG is a columnist for Cox Newspapers. You can see more of his work at www.johnyoungcolumn.com. He can be reached at jyoungcolumn@gmail.com. |
