Zero Tolerance Policies in Public Schools

Education:

The Intolerance of Zero Tolerance

Zero Tolerance Policies in Public Schools

One has only to turn on the television, log onto the Internet, or glance at a newspaper to see that violence is everywhere in our society. The nightly news is dominated by one act of depravity after another: murders, rapes, and violent assaults, among others. Hate crimes send shockwaves through seemingly peaceful communities. A cross is burned in a field, a Jewish cemetery is ransacked, the tombstones broken and covered with swastikas, a gay college student is crucified on a fence, left to die by his homophobic classmates, and a Black man is dragged behind a speeding car. Such horrific incidents seem almost commonplace. Mutual intolerance of one group for another breeds hatred and cruelty. People today appear quick to anger and even quicker to react...violently. Stabbings and shootings and bloody assaults are as frequent as fights on the playground. Young children wrestle with each other over he gets to go first down the slide. They punch and kick and call each other names. An unusually severe reaction to a common childhood situation, but it is nevertheless ordinary enough. Little boys and little girls are thick-skinned enough, or so many believe. The blows may hurt, but as the old saying goes, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Or can they? So often, little more than careless words are at the heart of so many terrible, and violent incidents. Many self-proclaimed experts claim that by suppressing these inflammatory words we can rein in our society's seemingly uncontrollable passion for violence. Public schools across the country have enacted so-called "Zero Tolerance" policies, policies that severely punish children for the use of offensive or threatening language, and physical force. But is punishing a little boy for screaming out "I'm going to kill you" really the answer? Are these common, everyday expressions really the cause of all the terrible brutality that plagues modern-day America? In determining the effectiveness of these Zero Tolerance measures it might first be useful to take a look at what are the real causes of violent behavior in our society.

Antisocial behavior can take many forms. In mild cases, it may manifest itself as an inability to work well with others, a penchant for hurtful criticism, a love of carping argument, or in the form of loud and disruptive behavior. In the most severe cases, however, antisocial behavior can run the gamut of criminal and socially unacceptable conduct. The antisocial individual might commit acts of wanton violence - assault, rape, arson, or destruction of property. In the very worst instances, the antisocial individual may even become a killer. As antisocial behavior, particularly in these most serious and aggravated forms, is a danger to society as a whole, it is important to understand the conditions that give rise to such behavior. The antisocial individual is typically not born. He or she is made. Except in those cases where actual physical neurological damage, congenital or otherwise, is a prevailing factor, antisocial behavior usually develops as a psychological response to various external stimuli. The individual's environment is of key importance. A dysfunctional home life, maltreatment by authority figures, and most significantly in the case of this study - rejection by one's peers or gender group are all primary factors in the development of the antisocial personality.

It is a natural human desire to wish to be a part of the group. Human beings are social creatures. Paleontological, archeological, and anthropological evidence all indicate that humans have always lived in social groups of various sizes. Our closest relatives among the primates are also social animals. Human men and women, like monkeys and chimps in the wild, typically join together in order to accomplish the tasks necessary for physical survival. However, the group or band is more than simply a source of physical helpmates, it provides its members with mental and emotional support as well. Individuals within the group rely on each other for advice, and companionship. The various members of the group help one another to deal with the emotional side of existence. A man can rely on his wife for emotional support in the case of the death of his father or mother. A woman can count on her close friends to give moral support in the even that she loses her job. A child looks to his or her parents for protection when he or she fears the monsters that hide in the gloom of the bedroom closet. Yet, human beings seek the attention of their fellow human beings in more than just cases of personal difficulty. The group also offers its members praise and encouragement in recognition of their individual achievements. A husband congratulates his wife on a promotion. A mother builds up her son's confidence, enabling him to propose to the girl of his choice. A child looks for the cheers of his or her friends and classmates when he or she makes the winning kick in kickball.

Social individuals at heart, we humans crave, we demand the attention of those other individuals who make up our world.

Unfortunately, not every individual feels this sense of belonging. Everyone feel like an outsider at some point, but this is usually only a passing phase. It may last a few moments, or a few hours, or it may last days or weeks, but it eventually passes. There are, however, people for whom this feeling of not belonging never goes away. They have been, or believe themselves to have been, completely and utterly rejected by the group to which they belong or to which they hope to belong: the child who is constantly criticized by his or her peers, the gay adolescent who is shunned by the other boys, and the teenager who is ostracized for some perceived deviation from the youthful social norm. Any one of these events, especially if repeated over and over again over time, can lead to an individual's feeling, and eventually believing, that he or she has been completely rejected by the group. Pushed out to the sidelines, the individual schemes for ways in which to rejoin the group. Reincorporation into one's peer or gender group is often possible, but many times it is not. The rejected child or adolescent moves further and further outside the realm of his age mates and fellow students. And as he or she becomes more and more isolated, there grows up within himself or herself a feeling resentment; a need to attract the attention of the group in whatever way he or she can.

A study by Lewis M. Lewin, Betsy Davis, and Hyman Hops that was published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology in1999 tracked 314 Third through Fifth Grade students (163 boys and 151 girls) in a Northwestern city for a period of six or seven years - that is until they had reached either the Ninth or Tenth Grades - for the purpose of attempting to determine whether it was possible to predict adolescent antisocial behavior based upon certain childhood criteria. The participants in the study may be described as follows:

The resultant grade distribution of the childhood sample consisted of approximately 20% second-grade, 35% third-grade, 15% fourth-grade, and 30% fifth-grade students. Demographically, the gender composition of the childhood sample was 47% female and 53% male, with participants ranging in age from 7 to 10 years. The sample consisted primarily of children from two-parent families (66% biological, 15% stepparent), with 15% of children from single-parent families and 4% from other family structures. Parent educational level was primarily high school level (65%) for mothers, with 35% reporting college level attainment. For fathers, 55% reported high school level educational attainment, and 45% reported attending college. Occupational status was primarily at the unskilled-semiskilled level for mothers (56%), with 33% of mothers reporting occupations at the skilled-clerical level and 11% reporting occupations at minor-major professional levels. For fathers, 40% reported unskilled-semiskilled occupational levels, 31% reported skilled-clerical levels, and 29% reported minor-major professional levels.... The ethnic distribution was static from childhood into adolescence, that is, 92% of the participants were Caucasian, 3% Hispanic, 3% American Indian, and 2% other. (Lewin, Davis, and Hops, 1999, 7-8)

Evaluations were based upon subject self-analysis, peer analysis, teacher analysis, and direct observation in the classroom. In terms of peer likeability, children were rated as Likeable, Aggressive, and Withdrawn. High school age antisocial behavior was then defined in response to the following four criteria:

1. The participant's own responses to a modified version of the Jesser and Jesser General Deviance Scale (1977)

2. Participant contact with authority figures (Police, Courts, etc.).

3. Structured interviews using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children (K-SADS; Orvashel, Puigantich, (Chambers, Tabrizi, & Johnson, 1982)

4. Ratings made by the participants' mothers on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). (Lewin, Davis, and Hops, 1999, 12-13)

Based upon the studies done, it was discovered that there were significant differences in the causes of antisocial behavior between boys and girls. For the girls, poor academic performance proved to be the most significant warning sign for later delinquent behavior. However, in the case of the boys, it was peer rejection that proved most important.

Of the 26 male adolescents who displayed high levels of antisocial adolescent behavior, 38% were rejected by their peers in elementary school....Likewise, of the 24 male children identified as being rejected by their peers in elementary school, 40% went on to display high levels of adolescent delinquent behavior. (Lewin, Davis, and Hops, 1999, 18) strong adverse reaction to peer rejection was taken as a sign of the subject's having a very high sensitivity level. A high sensitivity level combined with an inclination toward aggressive behavior is the most common cause of physically violent behavior. Individuals demonstrating this combination of behavior are far more likely to resort to physical violence as a means of assuaging their feelings of anger and rejection. Aggressive behavior can be further broken down into two distinct categories: Fighting and Nonviolent Disruptive Behavior. Children rejected by their peers who exhibited aggression in both these categories were highly likely to be classed as extremely sensitive; extreme sensitivity being a red flag for strong antisocial behavior.

Further corroborating the ideas of Lewin, Davis, Hops' study was another by Robert F. Marcus entitled, "A Gender-Linked Exploratory Factor Analysis of Antisocial Behavior in Young Adolescents," that was published in the journal Adolescence in 1999.

The participants were 72 males and 91 females in grades 6, 7, and 8 of a metropolitan middle school. Approximately 88% lived in two-parent households, 79% of mothers and 78% of fathers were college graduates; 80% of the adolescents were Caucasian, and 74% of the mothers worked outside the home. (Marcus, 1999, 36)

The study was conducted by way of a survey administered in the classroom. The survey asked respondents whether they had ever committed one or more of a variety of offenses deemed delinquent, including theft of money, public drunkenness, cutting class, assaulting someone, starting fires, and so forth. Respondents were also asked to record the frequency with which they had committed the offenses. Like the case study by Lewin et al., Marcus's study supported the idea that there are distinct differences in juvenile delinquent behavior in regard to gender. Boys were found to be far more inclined toward physical violence, but also, very significantly, their delinquent activities were discovered to be much more restricted in nature in terms of individual preference and predilection.

The factor structure of antisocial behavior for males was different from that of females in that all of the factors showed greater specialization. In addition, the factor accounting for the greatest variance was not violence, as was the case for females, but stealing/drugs/alcohol or stealing/drug sales. Among males the factors were more coherent and limited. For example, stealing/drug sales involved various kinds of theft and the sale of drugs while alcohol offenses involved driving drunk, drunkenness in public, and cutting class. The violence factor included attacking others to hurt them, using force to get things from others, and other violent behaviors, but violence was not associated with alcohol, drugs, or stealing. In other words, the males who were violent were not the same ones who were stealing and using drugs. (Marcus, 1999, 44)

While providing powerful evidence in favor of very distinct differences between male and female behavior, the Marcus study does not, however, address the causes that underlie these antisocial behaviors.

The British psychologist Hans Eysenck, in contrast, outlines four major biological factors that play key roles in the evolution of the antisocial personality. His studies of 1977 and 1997 emphasize the subject's temperament as opposed to his or her experiences of socialization. Psychoticism, Neuroticism, Extroversion, and the "Lie Factor" describe temperaments that are linked to antisocial conduct. Most significant of all is psychoticism, with the other three playing only secondary roles. (Kemp and Center, 2000, 224) An individual with a strongly psychotic bent will likely develop strongly antisocial tendencies especially if his personality is further affected by any of the other factors. The L (Lie) Factor is a measure of the antisocial personality's deviation from the social norm more than it is a gauge of how frequently or grossly the individual lies. While not actually included in Eysenck's categorizations, it is derived directly from his theories and studies. (Kemp and Center, 2000, 224) Kemp and Center's study, "Troubled Children Grown Up: Antisocial Behavior in Young Criminals," is an examination of the validity of Eysenck's ideas as applied to young adult criminals. As such it is useful in coming up with a biological hypothesis for the emergence of antisocial behavior.

Participating in Kemp and Center's study were 107 paroled prisoners - all male and 98% African-American. The overwhelming preponderance of African-Americans was an artifact of the study's being conducted in a large metropolitan area.

Participants were aged 19 to 30, with a mean age of 25.7.

Three instruments were administered to the participants, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R) (H.J. Eysenck & S.B.G. Eysenck, 1993), the Basic Adlerian Scales for Interpersonal Success-Adult (BASIS-A) (Wheeler, Kern, & Curlette, 1993), and an adapted form of the National Youth Survey (NYS) (Elliott, Ageton, Huizinga, Knowles, & Canter, 1983)....The instruments used in the study served separate and complimentary functions. The EPQ-R provided a temperate profile....The BASIS -- A provided data on participants' perception of their socialization....[And] The NYS provided a retrospective account of the participants' juvenile behavior. (Kemp and Center, 2000, 227-228)

Significantly, the NYS tests that Kemp and Center administered to the participants, afford us a window onto the youthful socialization of these adult criminals. In line with Lewin, Davis, and Hops' study, Kemp and Center's NYS tests reveal that an overall average of 35% of participants scored above the norm on aggression. (Kemp and Center, 2000, 224) This would fit well with the idea that a significant number of antisocial individuals were poorly socialized as juveniles. However, the study is somewhat handicapped by the fact that these were not real-time measurements, but rather measurements based upon the recollections of the participants, in many cases, years after the fact. Not only is there the risk of faulty memories, but there is no way of evaluating the opinions of others. It is certainly possible that participant's had overly negative or overly rosy memories of their own past based on their later experiences, or of even that they altered the responses to suit the what they believed to be the expectations of researchers delving into the criminal mind. Yet this study, together with the two previous studies, certainly makes an excellent case for peer and gender rejection's being at the core of much antisocial behavior.

But these are not the only forms of rejection that can damage a child. Children raised in broken homes are for more susceptible to becoming criminals than those raised in two parent households. This is especially so of those neighborhoods that have been stricken by the blight of poverty. Growing up in a single-parent household, the child's world is incomplete.

He does not receive the attention or the guidance that he deserves. Psychologically, he believes that has been rejected by his society, by what he views as society in early childhood - his family. The missing parent leaves a void that must be filled.

In early childhood, the child experiences parental neglect or abandonment in different combinations of fatherlessness, the absence of a mother's love, parental fighting and domestic violence, lack of parental supervision and discipline, outright rejection, parental abuse and neglect, or parents who commit crimes.

In the mid-childhood years, the child is drawn to embryonic gangs of aggressive children who are rejected by their peers and who seek out other alienated children; they fail in school, lose interest in education, and begin to run wild.

In the early teenage years, the embryonic gang of grade school changes into a gang of tough, exploitative teenagers who gradually become better at committing crimes. (Fagan, 1998)

As in the case of peer and gender rejection, the sense of a lack of belonging that the single parent child feels is sublimated into other less desirable channels. The gang takes the place of the missing parent, and soon fulfills all of the normal functions of the family unit albeit in reverse fashion. The ethical and moral examples of the missing father or mother have their replacements in the strict code of the gang. Criminal behavior is regarded as valuable, and even desirable.

Still, the simmering feelings of resentment felt by the excluded of our society cannot possibly explain all of the gross violence and viciously antisocial behavior that we hear of each and every day. A child is sexually abused by a Catholic priest. A teenaged gunman opens fire in a Colorado school. A twelve-year-old boy rapes and kills a six-year-old. These are but a few of the recent headlines that paint a shocking picture of American society. We are a culture in turmoil; a culture beset by depravity and violence. It is hard enough to raise a child today without reading stories such as these, but harder still when, in the name of entertainment; our children and we are bombarded with such images on a daily basis. For who can turn on a television or go to a movie without witnessing some offensive scene? Explicit sex and wanton violence are as freely available on video as they are in print and on the Internet.

Those who should be setting good examples only encourage the trend toward greater disregard for ethical standards. Authority figures behave inappropriately, heroes tote guns, rock stars sing of sex and violence - and media moguls cry freedom of speech when confronted with the consequences. But is it our right to speak freely when that speech encourages a disregard for the rights of others? Should sex and violence be "advertised" in the media just because it sells? Obscenity in the media is not an issue to be taken lightly. Our safety and our children's safety are more important than the pocketbooks and stock portfolios of a handful of big time executives.

Children are subjected to hundreds of hours of obscene programming every year. Many lack proper adult guidance and supervision, and learn instead to imitate the morally reprehensible acts they see. In today's world of working parents, a clean and safe environment is more than ever a necessity for our children. If the media won't assume the responsibility for reform then the government must.

Many critics compare television to a mind-altering drug. While the medium has been greatly abused, it still has great potential that has not yet been realized." (ArtsReformation.com) Unfortunately, most television producers are far more concerned with ratings than they are with the quality of the programs they produce. Ratings translate into dollars, and sadly those dollars seem most easily earned through the medium of sensational programming. It is a sad fact, but sex and violence sells. Even sadder is the fact that such obscenity appeals most of all to young people - the television producer's most desired demographic. Young people are most likely to spend their disposable income thus making them the most profitable targets for advertisers. (ArtsReformation.com) Today's youth has become so accustomed to the high-speed flow of the average television production that a continuous stream of sensory stimulation has become essential to hold their attention. Producers and writers continually push the envelope. What was obscene yesterday is acceptable today. "- happens," exclaimed actor Mark Harmon's character on the CBS drama Chicago Hope, and another barrier was broken in the realm of decency. (Bauder, The Washington Post) The four-letter expletive is defended on the grounds that is a reflection of the true, everyday use of language, that is was quite fitting and appropriate to the tone of the scene. Yet, Chicago Hope Executive Producer Henry Bromell's own words speak to the real heart of the problem - "It's nothing I haven't tried a couple of times before, except this time, I won." (Bauder, The Washington Post) Yes he won. He won the ongoing battle between the almighty dollar and the network censors, but what of the rights of society and of the viewer?

While inappropriate behavior can have many causes, there is no doubt that the frequency of violence on television is a major factor in the problem. Children exposed vicariously to obscene brutality through the medium of television are prone to acting out their fantasies.

The American Psychological Association 3 reviewed the evidence and concluded that television violence accounts for about 10% of kids' aggressive behavior. Is that a big effect? It is about as big an effect as the link between smoking and cancer. Most people who smoke don't get cancer. Most children who watch television do not act violently. My mother is 75 and has been smoking for 60 years. She is healthier than the proverbial horse, but even she acknowledges that smoking is bad for people's health (it just doesn't apply to her). It's about time the television and motion picture industries get on the same wavelength as my mother."

Garbarino, Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine)

These acts of violence include not only murder, but also rape, other forms of sexual assault, assault and aggravated assault, and robbery. In 1996, juvenile offenders accounted for more than 40% of all instances of serious violent crime (all the above except for simple assault), and some 30% of the perpetrators of all violent crimes were juveniles. (Snyder and Sickmund. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report)

That these inappropriate behaviors are influenced by the images seen on television, in video games, and in other media is not in doubt. The typical American child watches an average of twenty-eight hours of television a week. By the time this child has reached the age of eighteen, he will have witnessed some 16,000 television murders and 200,000 sundry acts of violence. (Psychiatric Effects of Media Violence, American Psychiatric Association)

Particularly susceptible are those in the impressionable pre-adolescent age group. From an extremely young age, children begin to model behaviors. Imitating the actions of others is the way children learn how to behave.

This learned behavior may be positive or negative, appropriate or inappropriate depending upon its inspiration. Adults instruct children in all of their habits both good and bad. In the absence of and adults guiding presence, television, and as they grow older - other media as well - comes to act as a sort of surrogate teacher. Such images form and color their opinions of the world around them producing what is often a distorted view of reality.

Individuals with greater exposure to media violence see the world as a dark and sinister place. Television programs present a narrow view of the world, and the world they present is violent. Thus, people who watch a lot of television are more likely than those who watch less to see the world as being violent and overestimate their chance of being involved in violence."

Psychiatric Effects of Media Violence, American Psychiatric Association)

Shockingly, the world that children see on television and in a host of other media is even more violent than that which is offered for the entertainment of adults. Children's programming is fifty to sixty times more violent than adult prime time fare with some children's cartoons averaging as many as eighty violent acts in a single hour. (Psychiatric Effects of Media Violence, American Psychiatric Association) What's more, seventy-three percent of the perpetrators of these violent acts are in no way held culpable for their actions. (Psychiatric Effects of Media Violence, American Psychiatric Association) Time was when movies and books, as a matter of course, ensured that the villain was apprehended and paid his debt to society. Good triumphed over evil. Anti-social acts were punished. However, in much of today's media, these moral precepts are simply ignored. In the words of film critic and PBS Commentator, Michael Medved, "most Hollywood movies bash religion, marriage and family values, glorify violence against women, and in general show a deplorable lack of principle." (Laundry, Movies, Same Thing. The Ethnic Spectacle.) Children learn to despise what were once considered to be normal, healthy values. Violence is seen as the normal way of behaving. Obscene acts - rapes and sexual assaults - are viewed as the natural expression of human passions. Children and adults are desensitized to the sufferings of others.

Indeed, physical and sexual violence come to seem so natural and ever present that brutality becomes the natural response for a person so conditioned. (Psychiatric Effects of Media Violence, American Psychiatric Association)

This is not merely to say that such influences create a world-view of a society peopled with murderous thugs and sexual deviants. Rather, repeated exposure to such violent and obscene images provokes a violent response even when a real threat is lacking. The child who watches a television or movie "anti-hero" pull out a gun in a petty argument is learning an inappropriate response to a situation. Rock and film stars, many of whom are touted as teen idols, use foul language, and dress and act in what would normally be considered to be an obscene and offensive manner. Perhaps the worst of the recent offenders is MTV's The Osbournes. In this "reality series," cameras are allowed into the home of an aging rock star and his family. The show is replete with crude language and off-color comments and gestures. While the Osbournes are indeed a family unit, the picture of family life that they present is hardly the most desirable. Vulgarity for vulgarity's sake, lewdness and physical violence i.e. The throwing of objects in anger, all contribute to a picture of family life that is not suitable for impressionable youngsters. And what is worse, the cache of Ozzy Osbourne's rock star status only enhances the desire of children to imitate the actions of him and his family. Once again, counterculture and anti-social behavior are presented as desirable, indeed as the norm.

But entertainment programming, games, and videos, are not the only offenders. Even television news has succumbed to the lure of the sensational. Scenes of graphic horror, and sexual scandal are given pride of place in today's newscasts. In the name of ratings and dollars, the nightly news has become More than society's messenger, more than a mirror of reality, the electronic communication media collect and concentrate the planet's woes and deliver them into our living rooms each night. The seventy- five percent of Americans who watch TV news regularly are subjected to a substantial nightly dose of catastrophe. And, in the news, the blood is real.

Klite, Rocky Mountain Media Watch)

The constant depiction of gory events, of sexual scandals involving politicians and celebrities, the graphic reportage of disasters creates a sense within our children that these are the realities of the world. Violence and sexual assault seem to threaten every doorstep. Persons in positions of trust regularly betray that trust, flout common notions of decency, and have their perverse behavior explored in graphic detail and recounted ad nauseam on what purport to be television "news magazines." Youngsters learn the lesson that inappropriate behavior pays its rewards both in terms of personal finance and in fame, for so often is notoriety confused with fame. Take again the case of Ozzy Osborne, as described by a New York Times editorialist: