ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES : A FINAL FEW WORDS....
( From Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi ) 

Having listed many of my concerns and observations about ZTP in my previous blog , along with a posted comment to Paul Cronin's " Signs Of The Times " article , I received the following reply. This I felt was a personal attack on me rather than an attempt to endorse the merits of this new flagship approach to tackle bad behaviour at the bridge tables. Certainly , his reply was not in keeping with the spirit of ZT , given the extent of negativity contained in his remarks.

paul croninMarch 6th, 2014 at 5:43 pm

It is not news that you are opposed to Zero Tolerance, JHG, and your recent blog on same is more to be pitied than scorned. What would be actually helpful is your providing some real cases where ZT has done the harm to which you constantly refer. But somehow I don’t think you’re going to do that. Your call for “less tolerance” or “measured tolerance” is ……….interesting………would you make the same call in instances of pedophilia, ethnic cleansing, or torturing people? If not, then how can the concept of Zero Tolerance be “totally flawed”? You always make me think of the line from Hamlet “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”. But, given that the primary penalty for a ZT infraction is 1/4 of a board subtracted from your score, perhaps I should be thinking instead of “Much Ado About Nothing”.

Well , given that this much revered ZTP aims to crack down up negative comments ,  on which on a second transgression requires offenders to be barred from future competitions , I can't help but wonder whether the punishment is in far excess of the crime. The problem in this instance  is being able to distinguish negative comments from sharp constructive criticism seemingly justified in certain circumstances. 
However , my main concern is the subjectivity and potential bias of the director , which raises questions as to whether his/her judgement is going to be fair and impartial. Given that particular circumstances of the alleged incident are not going to be taken into account with regards to possible mitigating factors ,  ZT certainly appears to have its flaws.
Anyway , Paul asks whether or not I had any examples of failed ZT policies,  which as it happens are numerous whenever one reviews its impact in schools. Consequently , I would like all those who are interested in this debate to read the following article lifted from the net.    

Zero Tolerance = Zero Common Sense = Zero Justice

This page is devoted to challenging and exposing primary and secondary school administrators' mindlessly inflexible enforcement of so-called "zero-tolerance" policies, which dictate that all infractions -- however minor or inadvertent -- against certain regulations will be punished as major offenses.
Don't get me wrong -- I understand the desire to make a strong statement against drugs, weapons, and harassment in schools. I can even understand it when school administrators reserve for themselves the right to punish infractions according to their own discretion and judgement, after taking into account the individual circumstances of each particular case -- even though the violations may sometimes appear to be minor, or merely technical.
What I can't understand is when school administrators deny themselves such discretion, and refuse to take into account the particular circumstances of each case -- elevating "zero-tolerance" into a rigid and absolute standard that is more important than teaching and learning, and also more important than common sense and justice.
This intentional self-lobotomization on the part of school administrators, this deliberate choice to turn themselves into mindlessly inflexible bureaucrat-droids, has produced results that would be pathetically ludicrous -- except that it's no laughing matter when innocent children, who have no criminal or malicious intent, have their learning disrupted by long expulsions, or are labelled as "drug-smugglers", "weapons-carriers", or "sexual harassers" in semi-permanent academic records that may be shown to law-enforcement officials or potential employers.
Apparently some bureaucrats feel that the highest purpose of educational policy is to produce a maze of rules and regulations in the spirit of "CYA", a code which will prescribe administrators' minutest decisions -- and so allow them to fend off all legal or political second-guessing by pointing out that their actions were dictated by, and were in full conformance with, sub-section §547862(b)(xcvii) sub-paragraph ±37½ clause 97-D. Well, I have news for these so-called "educators": taxpayers pay their salaries in order for them to make wise decisions in the furtherance of learning (remember "learning"?), not to be automatons with well-shielded rear ends. When administrators (or school boards) bind their own hands in this way with rigid and inflexible codes, what they're really saying is that they have no confidence in their own ability to do the job that the public expects them to do (to make good decisions based at least partly on the particular details of each individual matter) -- in which case they should perhaps consider going into some other line of work.

[7/99 note: This page was originally written in 2/98, but nothing that has happened since then has caused me to change my mind. The zero-tolerance policies which have caused so many problems -- and held up so many school authorities to national and international ridicule and derision, not to mention lawsuits -- have never been those which prohibit actual firearms; and in any case, the way to prevent crime in schools is not to expell 10-year-olds whose parents happen to have packed a butter knife in their lunchbox, but rather for adults to be perceptively aware and responsive to the conditions of individual students.]

This next page is very much under construction; it was pretty much dormant for a year and half, but I have started working on it again, and hope to regularly add brief summaries and/or links to media accounts of some of the more ridiculous and sad cases that have gained public attention, and also links to various commentaries and discussions on "zero tolerance" extremism in primary and secondary education. I will also include on this page any thoughtful comments (they may be vehement, but must be reasoned) that I receive at the e-mail addresszerotoleqzerojust@crossmyt.com. (Please feel free to copy the small image at left for use on your own web-page.)

Links

(This page contains numerous links that are only checked and updated once every several months or so, so that most of the time there will probably be at least a few bad, outdated links to external sites.)

 A few noteworthy articles:

• Phi Delta Kappan Jan. 1999 "The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools?" by Russ Skiba and Reece Peterson (Good academic overview article)

Quote: "Test cases of school district zero tolerance policies reported in the media from 1988 to 1993 did involve difficult judgments about the severity of the punishment, but they were also clearly concerned with weapons and drugs [...] Over time, however, increasingly broad interpretations of zero tolerance have resulted in a near epidemic of suspensions and expulsions for seemingly trivial events."

• Chicago Sun-Times May 17, 1998: "Fad For `Zero Tolerance' Is Leaving A Moral Void", by Neil Steinberg (good practical philosophical analysis, in response to incident in which student was expelled for firing paper clip with a rubber band)

Quote: "When did using your judgment go out of style? Why are people frantically trying to abandon what slim responsibility they possess in favor of rigid rules and procedures? What is wrong with letting individual educators decide on a case-by-case basis? If we trust them so little that we need rules for all they do, then they shouldn't be left alone with kids in the first place." 

So yes , I still remain unconvinced that " zero " tolerance is right , preferring instead a much more flexible common sense policy , where the focus is to train directors to use their discretion wisely , freeing themselves , as far as humanly possible , from questionable subjective interpretations and bias. The above quote says it all.