Zero tolerance

While the phrase is not found in the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, it essentially means harsh penalties for bringing a weapon onto school grounds. According to the California Department of Education’s Web site, the law required expulsion of one calendar year for any student bringing a firearm to school, and referral of the student to law enforcement. The California Legislature amended Education Code section 48915 (c) to fulfill the federal mandate. California law also included a requirement of mandatory suspension and recommendation for expulsion for students who:
     • Possess, sell or otherwise furnish a firearm
     • Brandish a knife at another person
     • Sell a controlled substance, except for the first offense of less than one ounce of marijuana
     • Commit or attempting to commit a sexual assault or sexual battery
     • Possess an explosive

Across the country though, Zero Tolerance policies have come under fire for meting out punishment that doesn’t "fit the crime." As the Los Angeles Times reported in March 1998: a 13-year-old girl was suspended because a drug-sniffing dog found Advil (the headache medicine) in her backpack. Or how about the 10-year-old girl who faced expulsion because she borrowed her mom’s lunch sack, which contained a steak knife (that mom used to cut her daily apple).

The California Department of Education’s site has a very informative page on the law with its origins, reactions to the law and resources for further research. Many of the other Web sites listed toward the bottom of this page also provide analysis and resources related to this issue.

The National Association of Elementary School Principals defends Zero Tolerance, though the group admits it’s not a perfect solution.

The California State PTA offers ideas for alternatives to Zero Tolerance.

The National Mental Health Association opposes the policy, click here to read the organization’s position.

Return to Juvenile Justice mainpage