LESS THAN ZERO

Three Orange County school districts are rethinking their zero tolerance
policies, under which anyone caught with drugs, drug paraphernalia or
alcohol - in school or away from school in non-school hours - is either
moved to another campus or suspended.

Recent court decisions are pushing school districts in that direction, but
the policy itself begs a skeptical eye. It's a good thing that
Newport-Mesa, Tustin and Laguna Beach school districts are taking a second
look.

Zero tolerance allows for little evaluation of circumstances or
explanations, nor does it encourage weighing punishments that might more
proportionately fit the transgression at hand.

While in some cases, of course, such a policy may serve a needed purpose,
it is its generalization to all students at all schools that makes zero sense.

Its defenders sum it up this way: "There are other reasons you can be
expelled, such as being unruly or cheating," says Lance Izumi, co-director
of the Pacific Research Institute's Center for Innovation in Education.
"None of those other violations requires a criminal conviction. If someone
can be expelled for those other behaviors, then why not for drug possession?"

A different view came from Gilbert Geis, professor emeritus of criminology
at the University of California, Irvine. "Anything so categorical on
something like student behavior is going to get you into trouble sooner or
later," he told us. "It's inflexible and applied to something that's a good
deal more fluid. You end up applying a rule that really doesn't fit
everything and you end up looking foolish and arbitrary. The trouble
becomes that when you apply it to specific cases, you can get a ridiculous
result. It's much too heavy-handed and inflexible in terms of what it's
trying to do."

And this is what the schools are finding out, particularly by the time the
cases reach the courtroom.

For instance, Superior Court Judge Robert E. Thomas characterized as cruel
and unusual punishment Newport-Mesa's transfer of Corona del Mar senior
Ryan Huntsman, given what he was accused of. Mr. Huntsman was driving
off-campus when he was pulled over by police for a noisy radio. After a
search, the officer allegedly found a marijuana pipe, but didn't charge him
with the offense, instead informing school officials.

There are more examples of how wide the range of activity is - with similar
outcomes. In 1997, Nicholas Heath was suspended from La Veta Elementary
School in Orange Unified for bringing to show-and-tell a concoction of
dirt, leaf juice, Kool-Aid - and two drops of wine. "Bringing alcohol to
campus is a suspendible offense, period," explained district spokesperson
Jan Fukai at the time.

In contrast, last October, three Foothill High School students were caught
allegedly smoking marijuana at the school. After a court appeal was
rejected, in January they were transferred to Tustin High School.

As the Register reported Sunday, schools imposing zero-tolerance policies
increasingly are finding themselves in court as defendants in lawsuits
brought by suspended or transferred students. Under the zero-tolerance
policy, accused students usually are given a hearing before a panel set up
by the school district. But no hearing is held in a court of law, leading
students to claim that their right to due process has been violated.

This is not to say drug or alcohol use is to be condoned and some parents
might want their children to attend a school where such a policy exists.

In some ways it all goes back to something of an old drumbeat for us - if
parents had more choice in where they could send their children, this
particular policy might be a distinguishing characteristic for some schools.

But as it stands, the policy is applied broad-brush to a system that
doesn't seem to see individuals, but only objects for discipline.