Posted on 10/18/2009 1:16:49 PM PDT by AmericaTalks
Three stories in the news this week pointed out the lunacy of what has become known as "zero tolerance".
In the first case, a 6-year-old boy was suspended and threatened with reform school because he brought a camping utensil to school. Zachary Christie, a first-grader at Downes Elementary School in Newark, Del., was so proud of the spoon-fork-knife combination gift that he wanted to show it off and use it to eat his lunch. He was by all accounts a good student, who sometimes wore suits to school because he took his education seriously. He was also a Cub Scout.
The school clearly overreacted. At best the school officials should have taken the "weapon" away from the boy and promised to return it to him at the end of the day. They should have explained that bringing such a tool to school is not allowed. And they should have left it at that. Instead, they chose to make an example of this fine young man. It was only after the story went national, and a huge uproar ensued, that the officials relented.
In the second case of zero tolerance gone wild, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout was suspended because he had a knife in a survival kit locked in his car. It was a gift from his grandfather, a police chief in a nearby town. He did not bring the knife into the school. Initially Matthew Whalen was suspended for five days. But the superintendent of the Troy, N.Y. school district tacked on an additional 15 days after a hearing. The superintendent, George J. Goodwin, 55, said in a written statement that his district "has an established policy of zero tolerance with respect to the possession of weapons of any kind on school property or in school buildings." He refuses to budge on the suspension, despite the young man's excellent academic and behavioral record. The suspension could affect Whalen's record at West Point, as the military academy considers his moral and ethical fiber. Goodwin should lose his job over this dumb decision.
The third case of zero tolerance revolves around radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his thwarted attempt at purchasing the St. Louis Rams.
False allegations of racism on the part of Limbaugh prompted by unsubstantiated quotes attributed to him and milked by race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton derailed his bid to become a minority stakeholder in the Rams. His potential business partners panicked, and the liberal NFL itself, clearly not wanting any problems from the players union, caved.
Zero tolerance for conservative thought on the part of football.
Limbaugh should take legal action, as he was the victim of character assassination. All involved in this fiasco need to pay dearly for this abomination.
And these idiots Jackson and Sharpton should be put in their place once and for all. Jackson is not only a race baiter, he is a racist who referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman. Sharpton, who has made a living out of shooting his mouth off, was brought to task by Limbaugh in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which Limbaugh pointed out that Sharpton was responsible for the 1991 Crown Heights riot ... and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot." What Sharpton and Jackson need is a liberal dose of "shut up" and a lawsuit resulting in punitive damages would go a long way to achieve that.
There should be zero tolerance for zero tolerance.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.americatalks.com.
Fathers need to kick the living shite out of PC clowns like these. It might well deter other moronic decisions. Sooner or later Americans have to take a stand against the radical left, or just be run over and buried.
The names of these clown administrators and the schools involved?? Perhaps a few million e-mails, telephone calls, etc would make them, a bit more “tolerant” the next time. Especially if they know they are being watched, very, very closely. And how about a few lawsuits, just to see if they can be financially destroyed! The left tried this tactic against Palin. Why should we not do the same! These horses behinds do this nonsense, flex their PC muscles, because they always get away with it. Maybe a good brass knuckle shot and a broken nose would make them think a bit the next time.
Zero tolerance is a product of risk averse administrators and a very litigious society. A reasonable policy could be crafted that looks at the entire situation. Administrators would have to exercice judgment however. Trial lawyers are the enforcement arm of the DNC. Rats will not set reasonable constraints on lawsuits because of the large amounts of campaign money from trial lawyers. Now we have victims, innocent kids who made silly errors in judgment. The book is thrown at them possibly stigmatizing them for many years. What benefit occurs because of this harsh treatment? Are schools any safer?
One way to deal with this is to show the (usually spineless) administrators that legal actions can come from either side.
In my day, a visit to the principal’s office and an explanation of what you were up to would suffice. That scout should have been given a medal for actually being prepared by having those locked items in a locked car. This is sheer idiocy and makes the administrators look like impotent little weenies that are hamstrung by liberals’ stupidity.
While I’m at it, let’s ban pencils. After all, they can put an eye out, ya know.
"Zero tolerance" came about because leftists claimed that the fact that blacks were being disciplined more than whites proved that school administrators were racist. Administrators responded by taking all discretion out of the process of handing out punishment for various infractions. Now a cub scout with a spork gets the same punishment as a thug with a switchblade. It's bad for the students but better for the administrators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.