TIME TO MAKE THE CASE FOR ZERO TOLERANCE AGAIN

We've always supported the Newport-Mesa Unified School District's
zero-tolerance policy toward drugs, weapons and alcohol.

It's tough and effective, and to date we've seen no real evidence to
suggest either the district or we should abandon that support.

But around the county, and even the nation, that's not necessarily
the case anymore.

Recent published reports show some districts have taken a different
tack. Many have opted to relax the standards considerably or, in some
cases, gut the policies altogether.

Their reasoning is the fairness of zero tolerance. Many districts
believe the policy is too sweeping, too broad and too draconian.

So what is the truth.

Newport-Mesa officials cite drastic decreases in alcohol and drug
abuse since the zero-tolerance policy was enacted in the early 1990s.
That it is an effective deterrent is hardly debatable.

But is it fair.

We think it may be time for the district to make that case again.

Newport-Mesa has never hesitated to stand by its tough rule.

In 1996, eight members of the Estancia High School soccer team were
transferred out of the school after admitting to drinking alcohol at
an athletic event in Santa Barbara. Trustees have even seen their own
children snared by the policy and, of course, there was the
well-publicized case of Corona del Mar student Ryan Huntsman, who
became a zero-tolerance casualty after police found a marijuana pipe
in his car and notified school officials.

We've all heard the other horror stories. A Cub Scout suspended for
accidentally bringing his scout knife to school. A prom night turned
into a nightmare because a parent decided to share champagne with
young students. Medicated cough drops forbidden, and a sixth-grader
sent home for a month because she brought in an Exacto blade for an
art project. Another reportedly transferred because of a nail file.

Clearly, if there is a flaw in zero tolerance, it is the broad scope
of the policy itself.

Does it make punishment too easy and convenient for school officials.

Does the punishment fit the crime.

Should one mistake by a teenager have consequences that could very
well affect his or her entire life.

Should violations of drug, alcohol and weapons policies instead by
dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Should there instead be a two-or three-strikes policy, much like
those that apply to adults.

Maybe the answer to all those questions is no.

Regardless, if the district does indeed believe in the effectiveness
of its zero-tolerance policy, it's not asking too much to open up the
debate, answer all the questions and make the case to the public once
again.

Let's start the discussions now.