SETTLING A CASE

Flaws In Application Of Zero Tolerance Policy Brought To Light In

It has been easy lately to attack zero-tolerance policies used by school
systems as a deterrent to alcohol, weapons and drugs. Critics of the
policies have cited some outrageous examples, and the nation's many school
systems - boards, teachers and principals - unfortunately gave credence to
the critics with some outrageous decisions. In most cases, zero tolerance
meant automatic expulsion for any student carrying a weapon or using or
possessing alcohol and drugs on school grounds. Flaws in the policies were
overlooked for the broader public good of preventing harm to students and
making schools as safe as possible.

Problems with the policies, however, soon became apparent. In Knox County,
the case of Dustin Seal, a Powell High School student expelled almost five
years ago, centered on the the issue of intent.

Last week, Seal settled his case with the Knox County Board of Education
that upheld his expulsion after a friend's knife was found in the glove
compartment of his car at a high school football game in November 1996.

Seal's willingness to waive his privacy rights to reveal the sum of the
settlement - $30,000 - is commendable. He said he wanted Knox Countians to
know the details of the settlement "so that they can judge for themselves
whether the actions taken against me were appropriate. ..."

Seal took his case to federal court, where, to the school board's surprise,
Judge James Jarvis in 1999 criticized the board for disregarding evidence
that Seal did not know about the knife and set a trial date to determine
how much money the student should receive. The board appealed, and the 6th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld Jarvis in part but
returned the case to Knoxville so the school system could present more
evidence or go to trial.

The settlement ended the case without any firm conclusion. Seal and his
attorney, Tommy Hindman, believe they won the case. They certainly can feel
that way based on the appellate court's ruling and, as Hindman noted,
because attorneys elsewhere can focus on the intent of students accused of
violating zero-tolerance policies.

The county spent more than $60,000 on the case. County attorneys said they
settled to avoid the possibility of a costly trial that they believe they
could have won. The zero-tolerance policy took a hard blow, and its future
application is worth the school board's attention.

The whole matter could have ended earlier. Seal said the money was not the
issue. "I'd rather have just finished school, graduated with my class and
went to college," he said last week.

The lessons from this are that intent and due process must be considered in
cases involving expulsion under zero-tolerance policies, that even the most
rigid policies mandated for the general good will have limitations and that
each case must be decided on its own merits.