In recent years it has become commonplace for school systems to adopt what is known as a “zero-tolerance policy.” Originally touted as a system that would treat all infractions committed by all students equally, in practice it has often yielded quite the opposite. Zero tolerance policies require a school administrator to hand down a set punishment for a particular infraction, without the authority to utilize a lesser punishment or no punishment at all due to extenuating or unique circumstances. This was the situation encountered by an honor student Christian Philon, a twelve-year-old student at Austin Road Middle School in Stockbridge, Georgia. The boy, who maintained a straight-A average and was a dedicated athlete, was handed a ten-day mandatory suspension for presenting a counterfeit $20 bill in the school cafeteria, of which he said he had no idea the currency was fake. Nevertheless, his perfect school record was marred by the suspension, which was upheld by the school administration, despite the student and his parents insisting that they had no idea that the $20 bill was counterfeit.
Reportedly, Christian’s father had given him the money to purchase lunch, which he himself had obtained as a change from a fast-food restaurant. Both parents insist that they have no idea what a counterfeit bill looks like, would not know what to look for, and had no indication that they had unwittingly given their son fake currency. However, when the cafeteria worker tested the bill with a detecting pen, the boy was still remanded to the school administration. Naturally, the Philon family appealed the suspension, stating that their child should not be held accountable when he, nor they, did not know any better. The school insisted that the suspension should stand, because, they argued, as the boy presented the counterfeit bill, he should still pay the consequences.
This is a particularly egregious example of how a zero-tolerance policy can unwittingly cause more harm than good. Administrators who lack the ability or authority to alter sentencing for rule-breaking do not necessarily encourage the fair and equal treatment of all students, but instead encourage students to not be forthcoming when there is indeed a problem, for fear of being made to face consequences they might not deserve. In one such example, a school with a zero-tolerance policy towards knives suspended a student for several days for turning in a plastic cutlery knife he found in his backpack. The student knew the school’s policy against knives on campus and felt the best course of action would be to turn it in. Even though he did the right thing, he was still suspended for it, as the zero-tolerance policy of his school required. The only thing the child in that case learned was, the next time you have a forbidden object on your person by accident, don’t tell anyone. In this particular case, it would seem that the most obvious course of action for the administration would have been to either not punish Christian at all, or to hand down a lesser sentence. However, there was little room in the policies to allow for this.
Fortunately, for the family, the superintendent of schools, Mary Elizabeth Davis, agreed with them and overruled the ten-day suspension. Christian was allowed to return to class, but undoubtedly with a more cautious view of how he will be treated by the school administration should another problem arise in his future.
