To whom this might concern
Due to internet research, news of the expulsion of a fourteen-year old female student at your Middle School came to my attention. Ostensibly, she had the misfortune of succumbing to the “Zero Tolerance Endeavor” of your administration. If I err, please correct me, but I venture to say that she had a prescription for a medication, which regulated and acted as a remedy for her diagnosed ovarian disease. This, once provided, should have served the purpose of exculpation; the girl had the right to have her own medication present and she did not posses illegal substances. However, this is not the case. Contrarily, your school expelled her from your institution with no source of remediation and zero chance at explanation. Notwithstanding the school rule which states that all medications must be held by the administration, this is ridiculously unjust and leads to a negative Utilitarian calculation. Out of this calculation, the problem should be remedied as soon as possible; preferably with readmission accompanying an apology to the girl and her family for such indignity and distress.
Foremost, I disagree with your Zero Tolerance initiative on moral utilitarian grounds, because it ostensibly leads to unnecessary and somewhat problematic consequences. I fully understand the fundamental desire for a school to maintain some type of order and control over the students; it is therefore reasonable that administrators or teachers want child-protection and the prevention of drug proliferation on campus. According to your policy, all drugs—even prescription drugs, must be held in stasis at some administrative office; this is a quagmire unto itself. Why would the students and parents entrust their medicines to school officials? In many instances, this policy leads to a troublesome Principle of Double Effect, in which the desired consequences occur alongside unwanted, negative ones. In light of this situation, one may bring up a particular case in which the system has been easily abused. In a Michigan school district, the Zero Tolerance policy was the same as yours insomuch that medicines were required to stay at the administration’s fingertips. As a result, students were injured through refusal to give them their medication when in need, due to the Principle or other administrators illegall use of said medications without their permission (Ann Arbor News). Examples like this above are one of many—not isolated instances in a sea of good feelings. Furthermore, the Zero Tolerance policy is nothing more than an excuse for the administration to exact control over its students, while allowing serious potential abuses. Furthermore, this principle in question was neither expelled from the institution nor fired. He rather went on a type of leave with “care.” Schools punish students expulsion, an extremely serious affair, no matter the situation and for accidentally and innocently carrying legal, valid medications in their possession. Administrators, on the other hand, get off scot-free with little more than a sojourn in rehab. I imply not that this is the case in your administration, but only that it can occur; when complimenting the already pernicious problem of school abuse, these powers over the students should not be a reality. Abuse runs rampant as the bureaucracy and its powers increase and more control over others comes to pass. As Jefferson would say: “The government which governs least, governs best.”
Related to the concept of limited involvement, Zero Tolerance negative consequences fly into the airspace of responsibility. As a result of their existence, irresponsibility and infantile characteristics are nurtured instead of the opposite traits. As an additional utility point, responsibility should be given to a student who is under pediatric care to take his own medicine at required times given that these medications are checked, documented, and validated. In a manner of speaking, one might accomplish this endeavour through self-regulation of legal drugs, which builds more character than does the omnipresent “big-brother” hovering over the students’ shoulders like a monolithic Jiminy Cricket. Instead of being coddled and having all trust removed, the students need to take responsibility for their own property and actions, but in a limited form. These students, whom you govern, are neither stupid nor criminals, but are rational, autonomous human beings with real emotions and happiness requirements. This girl did nothing wrong. She was in possession of legal materials issue to her by a trained physician and accepted by her parents, who are her legal guardians, not you. These people should be treated like people and given responsibility—the responsibility to have and utilize their own prescriptions.
Utilitarian calculations go into the red even more when administrations wantonly punish all students under one all-encompassing doctrine that strips them of any respect and responsibility. These punishments not only send a poor message, they are completely ineffective in operation. Instead of helping them, as administrations ostensively help their own, as shown in the above Michigan case, the students are the victums. In contrast to better understanding the students or to alleviating their problems by working with them, students are inconspicuously, gingerly cast asunder. According to Dr. Robert F. Goodmann, “Research and practical experience have taught us that, especially where young children are concerned, punishment alone is never the most effective strategy for promoting change. The best policies are those included in a comprehensive approach.” In this respect, treating your students like little babies with harsh, ridiculous penalties and immediate, unwavering expulsion for obtuse, innocent mistakes is inane. Such treatments not only unjustly punish those who make mistakes non-maliciously, they produce negative attitudes toward the administration, as is pointed out in “Zero Tolerance or Zero Common sense,” by author Phyllis Schlafly. In the article, the author explicated, “Zero tolerance is not protecting us from terrorists or criminals. It is making good kids disrespect school authorities.” If you treat students like dangerous monkies in a cage, you will simply get dangerous monkies in a cage, not well-behaved, respectable students.
Utility also hurts students on a rights-based level. Moreover, by physically confiscating the medicines, the schools are harming individuals and parents by violating the right to property. These drugs, like it or not, are not the property of the school, but of the individuals to whom they are prescribed or the parents’. Either the students or the parents possess these materials—not the school, and the school has no right to their private property, especially property which is key to their health. Medicines are not hats and shirts or things that the school government could find offensive—they are critical necessities that ought not to be in the hands of foreign bureaucracy, but at the fingertips of responsibility-encouraged students. In any case, the Zero Tolerance policy should be second to the desires of the parents of the children—parents who are the legal guardians and care-givers. They ought have the say in who keeps their own children’s medications, not you.
More importantly, one must look at the consequences of expulsion due to Zero Tolerance regulations from the utilitarian concept of necessity. Are they worth it, or do they ignore Utilitarian realities and increase unhappiness fruitlessly? Most ironically, Zero Tolerance policies are a travesty, and yours is no exception. In the opinion of recent August 2000 research, Skibia has concluded that the level of crime prevention and safety incurred by Zero Tolerance is largely a myth; it does not exist (Sanchez, Mark). Your policy is nonsense insomuch that its deterrent and preventative qualities are useless. These Zero Tolerance notions are in action, yet they accomplish nothing but needless unhappiness—a gross violation of the Utility Principle. Zero Tolerance bears a strong resemblance to Capital punishment, which also has little to no social-protection benefit over differential-severity imprisonment. In fact, much like in the Capital Punishment cases, alternative punishments do exist and allow students to stay in school where they belong, not out of school on expulsion and suspension. These alternatives are by far preferable to ZT in light of the frightening, unwanted “double effect” consequences.
According to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, “A spiraling effect exists in that youths out of school are more likely to get involved in physical fights and to carry weapons, smoke, use alcohol, marijuana and cocaine, engage in sexual intercourse, [and] have poor eating habits (Robin F. Goodman, Ph.D). Additionally, the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights claims that “the fear driven ZT policies with mandatory expulsion may be responsible for the increase in suspensions from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 million by 1997 (Robin F. Goodman, Ph.D). If anything, one should take into account the effect on the minds of the students and their general health. In the opinion of the National Mental Health Association, Zero Tolerance is also wrong, for it does not jive with the original intention of the program—the punishment of serious, malicious offenses. Instead of being beneficial, the methodology becomes dangerous to student health. Quite rightly, the NMHA believes “the harshness and broadness of current zero tolerance policies not only result in many young children being labeled [falsely] delinquents or criminals, but also result in lost educational opportunities for youth, which studies show have long-term negative consequences for both the child and society as a whole” (
www.nmha.org).
It seems quite hilarious that a school as strict and caring” as yours would allow for such an ironic twist. One must face the fact that expelling this child, as well as any others (especially this child, since she did little to nothing wrong) is disastrous and unnecessary. The problems and hand ought to have remedy through a less abrasive effort calibrated for caution, not rashness. In short, we see that Zero Tolerance expulsion and suspension are ethically counterproductive in terms of student health and rights, and they increase delinquency, disease, drug use, and crime. Now, sir, take a moment to contemplate what negative actions your policy will beget. Imagine what might happen to this young girl once you destroy her life through this black mark on her record and injury to her educational career. Will she become a faceless statistic? Yes. This seems like an excellent policy, do you not agree, Mr. Administrator?
