The leftist move to ban everyone in the world from having anything at all has lead to many things: gun control movements, anti-weapons laws, and most “innocently:” zero-tolerance policies.
Various institutions have undertaken zero tolerance policies, for example, in the military, in the workplace, and in schools, in an effort to eliminate various kinds of illegal behavior like harassment and in our case, weapons. And in the interest of full disclosure, I often support strict interpretations of policies and laws in order to decrease crime. But the question here has to be: if there is no risk, damage, intent, or even RISK of harm, need we really punish? What goals would punishing the innocent/inculpable accomplish?
Zachary’s offense? Taking a camping utensil that can serve as a knife, fork and spoon to school. He was so excited about recently joining the Cub Scouts that he wanted to use it at lunch. School officials concluded that he had violated their zero-tolerance policy on weapons, and Zachary was suspended and now faces 45 days in the district’s reform school.
…
“Zachary wears a suit and tie some days to school by his own choice because he takes school so seriously,” said Debbie Christie, Zachary’s mother, who started a Web site,helpzachary.com, in hopes of recruiting supporters to pressure the local school board at its next open meeting on Tuesday.
(Source)
At a time when we are dealing with public education problems in cities because of violence, discrimination, and hate-filled teens raised by incapable parents, why are school administrators spending time expelling, appealing, and even discussing a child whose admiration for his school leads him to wear a suit and tie!
It a policy leads to absurd results, then clearly its usefulness has reached its max. Even zero-tolerance can’t be so strict and politically correct to destroy such a young child’s faith in his own education.
Cub Scout, Good Student, and now Expellee. Ridiculous.
