ZERO TOLERANCE IN SCHOOLS

Tough Policy Is A 'Wake Up' Call For Youth

The recent commotion over the actual implementation of Tustin Unified School
District's "zero tolerance" policy at Foothill High School requires us to
all pause a moment and think before any movement is made in the direction of
abandoning a policy that is not only working, but is also sending a required
and appropriate message to Orange County youth.

I am a 1977 graduate of Foothill High School, where my step-son is currently
a junior. Both my step-son and I wholeheartedly support the zero tolerance
policy. (At least he tells me he does. I charitably assume his view is not
prompted by his desire for a car.) Gone are those hazy days of the '70s when
FHS had a "designated smoking area" in which students, virtually all under
18, could smoke tobacco, plan weekend key parties and engage in transactions
for miscellaneous illegal substances. Also, hopefully, gone are the days
when teachers and administrators would look the other way when otherwise
high-achieving students could come back from lunch with beer on their breath
- - or worse - and this would be ignored and chalked up to letting off steam.
This is an improvement. Alcohol abuse and illegal drug use among the young
continue in a long-term downtrend. There is no need to retreat now.

It also does not appear opposition to the policy is as widespread as is
portrayed in recent news reports. With respect to what was styled
Thoreau-inspired civil disobedience by this newspaper, my hard-hitting
investigative reporting, i.e., a brief discussion with my step-son, informed
me: Several of these freedom marchers obtained hall-passes to go to the
bathroom and did not really walk out of class in courageous defiance of
authority.

Others were friends of the disciplined students.

And, the numbers reported were greatly inflated by the fact that one whole
class was permitted to leave the classroom and observe.

There is no significant uproar on campus in support of those who chose to
disobey rules with which other students are complying. Waffling liberal
members of the Tustin Unified School Board who are rethinking the policy in
search of votes should think again before abandoning a policy that is not
only morally correct but also is supported by parents and many students.

Critics of the policy contend it is too harsh. Nonsense. The policy requires
students to not use drugs or drink alcohol at school and at school
functions. This is not such a huge sacrifice. If misguided parents still
feel the need to indulge their children, they can do so on their own time,
not on public time during which the students are associating with students
whose parents may not be so broadminded.

Others contend the students did not have adequate warning. This is absurd.
All parents and students are given a handbook clearly spelling out the
policy. The policy is read to the students in class at the beginning of the
year. Moreover, there was a similar incident last year, thoroughly
documented in the Register. It is not a credible argument that even one
student at FHS does not know either that the zero tolerance policy exists or
that it is enforced. If students do not know what "zero" and "tolerance"
mean, then there are very significant problems in both the math and English
departments.

Another refrain is that enforcement of the policy somehow will ruin these
students' lives. This argument presupposes graduates from Tustin High School
do not go on to college. This is not only insulting to FHS' cross-town
rival, it is not true. Plenty of students from THS go on to fine colleges.
Many other students from both high schools first go to community college and
then transfer to a four-year school. Others never were going to go to
college in the first place.

Finally, one would think a student would try doubly hard to achieve - and
that the parent would ensure this - after being subjected to a significant
disciplinary measure, thereby demonstrating he has learned something from
the "wake up call." Perhaps a long period of parental-imposed restriction
would give the student ample time for studying and reflection.

Another comment is this somehow is even more tragic because the recent
incident involved "student leaders" who merely succumbed to "peer pressure."
If they truly were "leaders," they would not be succumbing to "peer
pressure" but would set an example by following the policy. Apparently, to
this day the students who are appealing have not been stripped of their
student body offices. Since it appears the students are not contending they
did not consume alcohol illegally at the school-sponsored event, one would
think removal from office would be the minimum consequence, concerning which
no reasonable minds could disagree.

For several years I assisted with Crime and Consequences youth program
sponsored by the Register and Judges John Watson and Gail Andler. In this
program juvenile offenders would relate life experiences to students in high
school journalism and English classes, who then would submit articles for a
competition, with the theme being the kids who found themselves in the
"system" had learned too late there really were consequences for their
actions. These FHS students, and their parents, need to learn the same lesson.