No tolerance, no logic

Six-year-old Zachary Christie has been suspended from a Newark, Delaware elementary school for bringing his camping utensil to the lunchroom, the New York Times reported Oct. 11. The school said Zachary’s utensil, which can serve as a knife, fork and spoon, violated their zero-tolerance policy on weapons. Zachary, who brought the knife to school out of excitement for joining the Cub Scouts, now faces 45 days in a district reform school while his family appeals his punishment.

Strict school violence policies have been cropping up in response to tragedies like the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings. Zero-tolerance anti-weapon rules that leave little room for teachers’ individual discretion are favoured because they avoid the possibility of bias or discrimination.

Reducing violence in schools is a valuable objective and zero-tolerance policies can be effective. However, it’s important to establish a reasonable definition of the term “weapon.” In a classroom, lunchboxes or pencils could be just as harmful as a camping utensil given the possessor’s intent to harm.

It’s unlikely this six-year-old had malicious intentions. It would’ve been more appropriate to confiscate the utensil for the day and give Zachary a warning.

Blanket policies run into trouble when they fail to leave room for nuance, such as a child’s age or the size of their “weapon.” Airplanes have established reasonable guidelines to control what’s appropriate on board, and schools should follow suit.

It’s disappointing teachers have no discretion in enforcing anti-violence policies in schools with the zero-tolerance approach. Although it’s important to avoid discrimination in evaluating infractions, schools should put faith in the teachers they hire to be unbiased.

Developing a written code of conduct relating to weapons in the classroom would allow for more discretion than zero-tolerance while setting out clear parameters. Much of the legal system is built on reasonable judgment, and if it’s good enough for federal law, it should be good enough for an elementary school classroom.

Symbolic excision of violence from schools is beneficial, but sending Zachary to reform school is a step too far. It seems more likely to hinder than help his development.

Suspending a six-year-old won’t solve larger issues that lead to tragedies like campus shootings. Taking action on school violence is important, but sending an innocent Cub Scout to reform school misses the mark.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content