Let there be no mistake: the one thing I have no tolerance for is a lack of tolerance.
Especially with regard to kids.
Here’s a headline from a few weeks back, from CNN: Girl’s arrest for doodling raises concerns about zero tolerance.
Yeah. Ya think?
Some people believe the threat of a big punishment deters bad behavior; those people are what are known as “ignorant about the facts.” And while they’d love to argue the merits of punishment, the significant problems with it are not a matter of debate; they’re a matter of science.
They’re also a matter of history, enshrined in our very own Constitution. (Prohibition much, anyone?)
Zero-tolerance advocates maintain that absolute, black-and-white consistency is the only way to ensure compliance with a rule/law/code. They claim that intermittent enforcement of a rule can have the opposite effect from what’s intended.
And they’re right.
In theory.
But when cops are being called into classrooms to arrest kids for doodling, we’re no longer dealing with theory. We’re no longer dealing with doodling anymore, either, and the zero-tolerance advocates who doubt that are displaying a behavior that experts call “missing the big picture.” Meanwhile, what students are learning is this: our school is run by fascist fudgesticks who aren’t willing to pay enough attention to students to discriminate between poor judgment and intentional malfeasance.
This is where the tried-and-true-and-tested-and-validated principles of operant conditioning kick in. Students (predictably) experience frustration, resentment, anger, and humiliation. And a feeling that social scientists sometimes refer to as “feelings of subversion” or “a desire for revenge.” Not about being punished for doodling, mind you, but for being treated so poorly.
Now, raise your hand if you believe that a policy that floods adolescents (who, generally speaking, haven’t yet developed self-control) with a desire to commit sabotage would qualify for what one might call, “a good idea.”
Thought not.
This is why zero-tolerance does not ever work. This conclusion is based on common logic and a principle known amongst academics as, “not rocket science.”
Anecdotaly, I witnessed the effects of this type of thinking in college: Philadelphia police came down hard on underage drinking in the early ’90′s, and as a result, the University of Pennsylvania lost several of its bars, including a popular hangout right in the middle of campus.
Maybe the powers-that-be thought we were simply going to stop drinking? In cases like this, zero-tolerance policies are based on what parents call, “wishful thinking.”
Instead, drinking moved off campus. Until someone decided to make the punishment for underage drinking exorbitant. That’s when students discovered that drugs like LSD, ‘shrooms, and ecstasy were easier to conceal and no more risky than beer.
Despite some trumpeting of the positive impact of Philly’s zero-tolerance alcohol policy on alcohol-related arrests (see “missing the big picture”), the problem didn’t go away. It actually worsened.
That’s what Denis Leary calls, “having one’s head up one’s ass.”
Zero tolerance: someone needs to slap a zero tolerance policy on that.
 | Enjoy this blog? Listen to my new podcast, Beyond Social. |
I'm Jason. I make people shine. My mission is to help 1 million people tell their stories better. 
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree with you with regard to how these issues are being handled with children. They are still in the learning mode and these types of experiences could scar them for life. This is an over-reaction. We are losing good teaching and coaching moments that will guide them into becoming responsible adults.
However, I am strong believer in zero tolerance in the “adult” world — for harassment, for violence, etc.
Hope Elle recovers quickly.
“Zero tolerance” is translated as either “always” (as in “we’ll always punish this behavior”) or “never” (as in “never do this”).
Two words in the English language that should automatically trip the alarms are “always” and “never.”
You’ve also introduced another element with this posting. Many of the claims by businesses and schools of being innovative, creative, encouraging, supportive, etc., are undermined by the reality of a punitive environment. “If you don’t do X, these will be the consequences.” In an innovating, creative, supportive environment, you should hear “If you don’t do X, we’ll take a look at another way to attack the problem.” It’s part of the reason that people don’t really fear failure; they fear blame.
How many decisions — in the classroom, in the office, in the home — are made to avoid blame?
@Penina—My issue with zero-tolerance is that inevitably, good people get ground up by them. Zero tolerance would work if you could draw a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable… but despite being able to clearly identify the extreme cases, those middle cases where the line would go get muddled, and good people tend to live in the middle. ZT policies are not only arbitrary and difficult to enforce in that middle ground, but they’re also polarizing: someone who gets nailed for what is universally regarded as a minor infraction still has to wear that scarlet letter. I grew up being taught “it would be better to set 100 criminals free than to knowingly incarcerate 1 innocent person.” To be successful, we need to accept a certain level of badness to ensure good people have the space to take risks and push boundaries… and we can’t do that in a ZT world.
@Ed—Amen.
Zero tolerance rules are made by people with zero backbone and intellect. Every situation is different but they don’t have the guts or brainpower to make better decisions.
@Thomas—It’s amazing, isn’t it, how reasonable people will speak absolutely only against absolutism, while absolute people speak absolutely only about reason.