The Rev. Jesse Jackson often takes on worthy causes, such as when he negotiates the release of an American held captive. Lately, however, his judgment appears clouded over his cause du jour: the expulsions of six black youths who engaged in a nasty brawl at a school football game in September.
Once Jackson trained the media spotlight on Decatur, Ill., Gov. George Ryan brokered a compromise: Instead of a two-year suspension without alternative schooling, the school board suspended the boys for one year with alternative schooling. While it is arguable that the school district's initial punishment was too severe, the recent release of the videotape underscored the fairness of the negotiated deal.Because public schools are charged to teach, they must also be empowered to maintain a safe school environment. That's where Jackson is short-changing the youths in this case. Nothing is gained by rescuing young people from the responsibilities and consequences of their actions. These are hard lessons, but they're best learned in youth when the stakes aren't so high. Society has far more egregious punishments for adults who elect to live outside society's rules and expectations.
Beyond that, to portray six young men who engaged in a violent and dangerous fight in the high school bleachers as martyrs is preposterous. To intimate, as Jackson has, that these school expulsions are on par with civil rights struggles in Selma and Birmingham is insulting.
Once a more appropriate punishment was meted out, Jackson should have accompanied the young men to their alternative school placements, wished them well and slipped out of town with his dignity intact. But there was no graceful exit. Jackson's organization instead filed a lawsuit against the school district alleging it wrongly released private student records. The lawsuit seeks $30 million in damages. The schools filed their own lawsuit, aimed at pushing Jackson's protests further way from schools.
The core of this issue is a "zero-tolerance" school policy. Zero tolerance is an outgrowth of the federal Safe Schools Act, which states have codified. Simply put, the policy bans drugs, alcohol, weapons (real or fake), violence or sexual misconduct in schools. Those who violate the rules are subject to harsh punishments, including expulsion.
Does zero-tolerance go too far? Perhaps. While the concept of zero-tolerance is sound, federal law can tie the hands of local school administrators. Under the federal statute, a student who brings a weapon to school is subject to a suspension from school and possible expulsion. Although the law enable the superintendent or his or her designee to amend the penalty, the law gives little discretion to school-level administrators. That's why schools suspend children who bring fake guns to school; why some have even suspended students for taking over-the-counter medications.
There is some merit to uniform punishment because it helps ensure one violator is treated no different than another. On the other hand, disciplinary policies should not be so prescriptive that school administrators cannot tailor the punishment to an offense. One size does not fit all.
But in a day and age where school massacres can and do occur, schools need every tool at their disposal to enhance safety for students and employees. Zero-tolerance isn't the ideal answer, and seemingly some amendments could be fashioned to make it more user friendly.
In today's uncertain world, it's better to err on the side of caution, particularly when young lives are at stake.