From CNN comes a story of a 12 year old who was arrested for writing on her desk at school. Obviously, this calls for some "expert" analysis.
But I thought zero tolerance came about because the people entrusted with our children could not be trusted to use common sense and so must be prohibited from using common sense. One does not have to use common sense, or even be capable of conscious thought to apply zero tolerance. A computer could be programmed to do it.
But once you start allowing people to use common sense some of the time, you might have some renegades who will actually start using it all the time. Then it's not really zero tolerance anymore, is it? Then it's just... well... common sense.
Whether those involved are capable of using common sense (in the way that most reasonable people would) is, I admit, a legitimate question--the implications of which go well beyond a simple blog post. I will also admit that it is a challenge for anyone to be fair and consistent in dealing with a diverse range of situations. I understand why zero tolerance is appealing, and perhaps in some extreme cases desirable as a "second best" solution.
But some people are capable of using common sense. They should be put in positions where they can use it. Those who are incapable of using common sense should not be in those positions.
A good litmus test would be to ask whether they support zero tolerance policies.
Afterthought: I'm sure the expert who founded a consulting company would be happy to sell you his version of common sense for a fee.
Kenneth Trump, a security expert who founded the National School Safety and Security Services consulting firm, said ... zero tolerance policies can work if "common sense is applied."
But I thought zero tolerance came about because the people entrusted with our children could not be trusted to use common sense and so must be prohibited from using common sense. One does not have to use common sense, or even be capable of conscious thought to apply zero tolerance. A computer could be programmed to do it.
But once you start allowing people to use common sense some of the time, you might have some renegades who will actually start using it all the time. Then it's not really zero tolerance anymore, is it? Then it's just... well... common sense.
Whether those involved are capable of using common sense (in the way that most reasonable people would) is, I admit, a legitimate question--the implications of which go well beyond a simple blog post. I will also admit that it is a challenge for anyone to be fair and consistent in dealing with a diverse range of situations. I understand why zero tolerance is appealing, and perhaps in some extreme cases desirable as a "second best" solution.
But some people are capable of using common sense. They should be put in positions where they can use it. Those who are incapable of using common sense should not be in those positions.
A good litmus test would be to ask whether they support zero tolerance policies.
Afterthought: I'm sure the expert who founded a consulting company would be happy to sell you his version of common sense for a fee.
Hi, B.J. -- I liked this article enough to share it on Buzz. Are you able to track those postings?
I had not tried Buzz until today when you wrote this. I'll give it a shot. Thanks!