Chaz Seale, 17, would normally be considered a model student. In running out of his home one morning, he grabbed what he thought was a can of soda but realized at lunch that he had grabbed a can of beer. He turned it over to his teacher who reported it to the principal of Livingston High School. According to news reports, the principal then suspended Seale under another blind and senseless application of zero tolerance rules.
In an all-too-familiar scene for those of us with kids in elementary, middle, and high schools, Seale was running late according to his mother. Such things happen. Last football season, we were watching the Bears (aka God’s Team) when my youngest son Aidan asked if he could have a root beer. I said yes and he then came in to tell me that the root beer tasted weird. It was a real beer. It happens. The Seale case reminds me of the arrest of a father who mistakenly bought his son a hard lemonade instead of a regular lemonade at a baseball game.
Principal Bakewell Barron suspended Chaz for three days and required him to attend an alternative school for two months — for an act of self-reporting. The school district is standing by the decision and said that Barron acted entirely appropriately under the governing rules of the school. The district released a statement that “The principal of Livingston High School followed appropriate LISD administrative procedures and protocol. LISD encourages any parent who is in disagreement with an administrative decision to seek relief through the appellate process as provided through Livingston ISD policies. Livingston ISD policies may be accessed through the Livingston ISD Homepage.”
I briefly tried to find those policies but could not locate them. Where ever and whatever they are, it would be entirely illogical to punish an act of self-reporting unless the school had reason to believe that the student was lying and only reporting the beer after being spotted by the teacher. There is no evidence of that in any of the news reports. I have long criticized zero tolerance policies that have led to suspensions and arrests of children (here and here and here and here and here). Here is a prior column on the subject (and here).Children have been suspended or expelled for drawing stick figures or wearing military hats or bringing Legos shaped like guns or even having Danish in the shape of a gun.
What bothers me most about these rules is how they make a mockery out of the legal process. Blind and often senseless acts (that harm children) are defended under a false veneer of legality. Justice is supposed to be blind only in removing favoritism not blind to the merits or mitigating circumstances of cases. School administrators seem to relish the notion of rules that do not require judgment or accountability — just strict liability with no defense or deliberation.
Referring families to policies (wherever they can be found) is hardly an adequate response. All rules demand interpretation and yes judgment. That obligation is particularly great in dealing with children as an educator.
It seems to me that if the student was to be punished for turning it over and doing the right thing, from the little I know, this seems wrong. I’m jusssst ornery enough, that if I were to be punished for something I did right, then I am certainly going to give them a reason to punish me. I would have drank it!!!! and apologized later. Then the punishment would have been needed. 0 tolerance is not necessarily the right way to always do things. The result, You are screwed no matter what you do.
Wow! What an exciting day at school that was. There was an UNOPENED can of beer on the premesis. Just imagine how exciting it would have been had someone actually opened it and drunk it. They might have burped!
Oh, I know that Mike. I was just responding to the question of why/how anyone would propose such a thing.
I think there is a really interesting article waiting to be written by some some enterprising journalist. I would really like to know who initiated the idea and how the idea spread and especially how supposedly educated, thoughtful professionals talked themselves into a ludicrous, damaging, embarrassing policy.
As the mother of a black son, I totally understand the policy even if I don’t always agree with it in practice. When a white boy or any female talks back to the teacher, s/he is being mischievous or disrespectful. But when a black boy does it, he is thug and he is “threatening” and the police might be called. Zero tolerance is supposed to even the playing field by applying the same sanctions to all.
” Zero tolerance is supposed to even the playing field by applying the same sanctions to all.”
I am no expert on zero tolerance. But a brief Google regarding the actual results of zero tolerance reveal two key points.
You are correct, an even playing was one of the goals and purported advantages of zero tolerance.
Unfortunately, and some would say tragically, that has not been the results of zero tolerance. Specifically, African American students, and generally minority students, are still disciplined far more often than white students.
We have sound studies that demonstrate that zero tolerance is not a solution when it comes to reasonable and fair treatment of minority students.
If only it were a good policy. It is not. On the contrary zero tolerance is part of the widely noted pipeline from the class room to prison that must be shutdown. Students deserve better. Equal protection demands better.
When it come to equitable treatment of students, zero tolerance is part of the problem.
I definitely agree with Pat Lindau.
It is always better to hide your misdeeds.
I can’t help but wonder how such an obviously bad and unfair concept gained currency and came into wide spread used in so many school systems.
The very idea of zero tolerance confirms so many of the mean spirited things people say about the educational establishment and teachers.
Both my parents spent a fair number of years as teachers. I have a real feeling for good teachers and good teaching. And I also have real frustration when administrators develop policies that damage students and force teachers to take and defend ridiculous positions.
I think there is a really interesting article waiting to be written by some some enterprising journalist. I would really like to know who initiated the idea and how the idea spread and especially how supposedly educated, thoughtful professionals talked themselves into a ludicrous, damaging, embarrassing policy.
BFM is correct. This horseshit is not on Obama. Education is one area where I believe he and Arne Duncan have done good work, taking on an industry that is about the adults, not the kids.
Nothing inspires children more than watching adults hide behind the rules while burying their heads in the sand.
Isn’t one size fits all wonderful? Thanks obama for the death of common sense decent logic solutions to anything
“Thanks obama for the death of common sense decent logic solutions to anything”
I can’t say that I am a big fan of the Obama administration for several reasons.
But my recollection is that his education department recently took on zero tolerance and suggested the policies are bad for students and education.
I am sure other readers have more information than I do and can tell us about the administrations position on zero tolerance.
I’d just like to take this moment to thank yet another school for driving home the message that people in authority absolutely can not be trusted.
And a shout out to the Supreme Court for doing the same thing.
Hell, if this were going to happen, he should have drank the beer first, then turned in the can. The results would have been the same!
And what davidm2575 said.