[thirdheavenward]

Zero Tolerance has always been about avoiding embarassment. Perhaps it even goes back to collective guilt mistakes(*). If one is in the spirit of saying that the the real tradgedy is not that kids might die, but that kids might die HERE, then at all costs one will try to prevent kids from embarrassing the school. The school board thinks: if it becomes public that a kid in the school writes about murder, paranoid parents may think twice about going to that school, and moving to that neighborhood - and buying that house, and keeping those property values up! The administration thinks: If I want my career to advance, the last thing I want is a school with a reputation of violence under my watch! So what is the best way for a school to distance itself from a "violent" student? Detention doesn't work - that's like saying "don't worry folks, we know how to fix the kid" and then their reputation would be on the line to fix the kid. No, suspension or something equivalent is the only way for a school to disown a student. Zero Tolerance policies are policies to eliminate embarassment.

[Oztrich Boy]

Zero Tolerance has always been about avoiding embarassment.

That can't be right. The people who enforce ZT are *beyond* embarassment.

"Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."
(Solon, the Lawmaker of Athens, d. 559 BC).