ZERO TOLERANCE RULES ARE SIMPLY DRACONIAN

The Tustin school board, harshly criticized for a "zero-tolerance" policy
that could have resulted in the transfer of several Foothill High School
students accused of drinking at an off-campus school leadership event, is
receiving additional criticism for announcing on Tuesday that it would
punish the students, but not transfer them.

The board can't seem to win.

After the student leaders were accused of running afoul of the rules and
news spread that involuntary transfers of the students were imminent,
critics - rightly argued that zero-tolerance rules put the letter of the
law over its spirit and make no distinctions between serious violations and
lesser ones.

Now that the board has relented, restricting eight students' leadership
roles (the ninth was exonerated) but leaving them at Foothill High, others
have argued that the board is inconsistent. Board members cited an "extreme
circumstances" clause in the zero-tolerance policy that allows them to
circumvent the transfer requirement.

Parents of students who faced involuntary transfers in the past wonder why
these ill-defined circumstances didn't apply when their children faced the
ZT rules. They argue that the policy as implemented amounts to zero
tolerance for some students' actions, but a degree of tolerance for the
infractions committed by others.

That's a good point.

But the answer isn't consistency at all costs, if it means punishing the
latest batch of rule-breakers too harshly simply because others before them
have been treated unfairly also. The answer is to amend or eliminate the
misguided zero-tolerance approach.

Proponents of zero tolerance say that some infractions are so bad that
violators must face swift and severe punishment. Only by understanding that
there's no wiggle room, zero tolerance for wrong behavior, will others
learn to obey the rules.

That sounds good in theory. No one wants students showing up to school
drunk or high on drugs, harassing fellow students or bringing knives or
guns to school. But by eliminating distinctions and outlawing flexibility,
such policies can be unfair, excessive and counterproductive.

In the Foothill High case, the school board appears to have done correct
thing: impose serious punishments for an apparent violation of school rules
without sending these students to a continuation school for one case of bad
judgment. Having made a Solomonic decision, the board should stand firm
against parents' demands that the suspensions be purged from student records.

But the way to avoid these problems in the future, to keep from imposing
unduly harsh punishments or applying such rules inconsistently, is to put
an end to the zero-tolerance nonsense. One-size-fits-all rules need to be
replaced by ones that allow flexibility, sound judgment and compassion,
that measure the severity and circumstances of the crime when meting out a
punishment.

Tustin is correct to examine its zer0tolerance policy at the Oct. 11 school
board meeting. Other districts that have similar policies should follow suit.