Zero Tolerance Research Paper
The School-to-Prison Pipeline Historical civil rights movements have fought against major problems of racism, such as slavery and segregation; however, racism has taken on many different forms in present day society. Although segregation and racial profiling no longer legally exist in America’s K-12 public school system, minority students now find themselves at risk of facing racial profiling inside the classroom. When being treated for misbehavior at school, oftentimes African American students face disproportionate odds of the severity of punishment mandated compared to students of white descent. According to Deborah N. Archer, professor of law at New York Law School, “African American students represented only 17% of public school
…show more content…
Skiba (Skiba). The zero tolerance policy first gained recognition in 1986 as the title of a drug impoundment program in San Diego led by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez. In 1988, zero tolerance was established as a national model and its power brought any suspect passing through customs with the slightest trace of drugs to federal court (Skiba). After its emergence, the concept of “zero tolerance” was transferred to many other unsolved issues of America’s society at the time, school violence being one. In 1989, public school districts in California, Kentucky, and New York authorized expulsion in the event of drug possession, gang activity, and fighting. Later, in 1994, the policies spread across American school districts and the Clinton Administration even signed the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, a form of this policy that raises controversy due to its manipulation and lengthening of the definition to prohibit “any instrument that may be used as a weapon,” (Skiba). According to a report by Youth United for Change and the Advancement project, Robert, an 11 year old African American boy was “arrested, suspended, …show more content…
Although many claim that the zero tolerance disciplinary policies violate the constitutional rights of students, U.S. courts remain submissive toward the jurisdiction schools have to enforce disciplinary action (Aull IV). Even though African American students who are suspended or expelled as a result of the zero tolerance policy have the constitutional right to the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection), it is difficult to challenge the discriminatory action due to the zero tolerance policy’s defined motive against misbehavior at school (Aull IV). The American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force addressed five common assumptions about the zero tolerance policy, consisting of points stating “School violence is at a crisis level and increasing, thus necessitating forceful, no-nonsense strategies for violence prevention; through the mandated punishment for certain offenses, zero tolerance increases the consistency of school discipline and thereby the clarity of disciplinary message to students; removal of students who violate school rules will create a school climate more conductive to learning for those who remain; the swift and certain punishments of zero tolerance have a deterrent effect upon students, thus improving overall student behavior and discipline; and lastly, parents
Skiba (Skiba). The zero tolerance policy first gained recognition in 1986 as the title of a drug impoundment program in San Diego led by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez. In 1988, zero tolerance was established as a national model and its power brought any suspect passing through customs with the slightest trace of drugs to federal court (Skiba). After its emergence, the concept of “zero tolerance” was transferred to many other unsolved issues of America’s society at the time, school violence being one. In 1989, public school districts in California, Kentucky, and New York authorized expulsion in the event of drug possession, gang activity, and fighting. Later, in 1994, the policies spread across American school districts and the Clinton Administration even signed the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, a form of this policy that raises controversy due to its manipulation and lengthening of the definition to prohibit “any instrument that may be used as a weapon,” (Skiba). According to a report by Youth United for Change and the Advancement project, Robert, an 11 year old African American boy was “arrested, suspended, …show more content…
Although many claim that the zero tolerance disciplinary policies violate the constitutional rights of students, U.S. courts remain submissive toward the jurisdiction schools have to enforce disciplinary action (Aull IV). Even though African American students who are suspended or expelled as a result of the zero tolerance policy have the constitutional right to the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection), it is difficult to challenge the discriminatory action due to the zero tolerance policy’s defined motive against misbehavior at school (Aull IV). The American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force addressed five common assumptions about the zero tolerance policy, consisting of points stating “School violence is at a crisis level and increasing, thus necessitating forceful, no-nonsense strategies for violence prevention; through the mandated punishment for certain offenses, zero tolerance increases the consistency of school discipline and thereby the clarity of disciplinary message to students; removal of students who violate school rules will create a school climate more conductive to learning for those who remain; the swift and certain punishments of zero tolerance have a deterrent effect upon students, thus improving overall student behavior and discipline; and lastly, parents