Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4, APRIL 6, 2009, THE ISLANDER
D
BILIIC
M
Opinions
Teaching school children to live in a Totalitarian Society
Publisher's Statement
THE ISLANDER (USPS 002430), A
member of the Georgia Press Association
and Glynn County’s only weekly newspa
per is published 51 weeks a year for $20
per year in Glynn County and $22 per
year in the United States outside Glynn
County by Permar Publications, Inc.,
3596 Darien Hwy. Suite 6, Brunswick,
GA 31525. Periodicals postage paid at
Brunswick, GA.
Contents of The Islander, including
advertising, may not he reprinted or
reproduced in any form without written
permission of the publishers. POSTMAS
TER send address change to The Islander,
P.O. Box 20539, St. Simons Island, GA
31522.
Publication Deadline
Publication Date:
Every Monday
Deadline: Thursdays, 12 PM for
ads and news copy for the
following Monday’s edition.
Holiday Schedule
On Monday Post Office holidays,
The Islander is printed on the
Friday before.
2009 Post Office Holidays
Thursday, January 1 - New Year's Day
Monday, January 19 - MLK Birthday
Monday, February 16 - Presidents Day
Monday, May 25 - Memorial Day
Saturday, July 4 - Independence Day
Monday, September 7 - Labor Day
Monday, October 12 - Columbus Day
Wednesday, November 11 - Veterans Day
Thursday, November 26 - Thanksgiving Day
Friday, December 25 - Christmas Day
Holiday Deadline: Wednesdays,
12 PM for ads and news copy for
the following Monday’s edition.
Mission Statement: to publish the
truth without fear or favor.
Established 1972
Matthew J. Permar - Publisher
Elise J. Permar - Publisher 1972-2003
Gertrude Bradshaw - Co-Editor 1972-1991
Managing Editor &
Advertising Manager
Pamela P. Shierling
912-265-9654
Production Manager
Sarah Banks Long
Church News
Patty Gibson - 912-638-8844
Sports
Jake Harrison
Contributors
Dave Barry, Clark Gillespie MD,
Sonny Doehring, Roland Willis,
Diane Bowen MD
Phone Numbers
912-265-9654 • Fax - 912-265-3699
entail: ssislander@bellsouth.net
www.theislanderonline.com
Award Winning Newspaper
1975
1980
1985
1976
1981
1992
fiuAi'c
1977
1982
1999
1978
1983
2002
1979
1984
2008
Under the guise of protecting and
controlling young people, school offi
cials have adopted draconian zero toler
ance policies, which punish all offenses
severely, no matter how minor. In fact,
under the present system of manda
tory punishment, an elementary school
student is punished in the same way
that an adult high school senior is
punished. And a student who actually
intends to harm others is treated the
same as one who breaks the rules acci
dentally. Students are labeled as "drug
dealers" and "weapon wielders" due to
purely accidental circumstances and
are punished for actions that hardly
qualify as transgressions of the rules,
let alone dangerous crimes.
School systems began adopting these
tough codes after Congress passed the
1994 Gun-Free Schools Act, which
required a one-year expulsion for any
child bringing a firearm or bomb to
school. Zero tolerance rules in many
states also cover fighting, drug or alco
hol use and gang activity, as well as
relatively minor offenses such as pos
sessing over-the-counter medications
and disrespect of authority. Nearly
all American public schools have zero
tolerance policies for firearms or other
"weapons," and most have such policies
for drugs and alcohol.
In the wake of the Columbine school
shootings, nervous legislators and
school boards further tightened their
zero tolerance policies, creating what
some critics call a national intolerance
for childish behavior. In some jurisdic
tions, carrying cough drops, wearing
black lipstick or dying your hair blue
are expellable offenses. As Time maga
zine reports, "by definition zero toler
ance erases distinctions among student
offense. Hence the national crackdown
on Alka-Seltzer." At least 20 children
in four states have been suspended
from school for possession of the fizzy
tablets in violation of zero tolerance
drug policies.
These one-strike-and-you're-out pol
icies have been heavily criticized by
such professional organizations as the
National Association of School Psy
chologists: "[Rjesearch indicates that,
as implemented, zero tolerance policies
are ineffective in the long run and are
related to a number of negative con
sequences, including increased rates
of school drop out and discriminatory
application of school discipline prac
tices."
Despite mounting criticism, zero tol
erance policies have proliferated, creat
ing a vortex that sucks in otherwise
innocent children. The public school
crime blotter is teeming with exam
ples. For instance, Tawana Dawson, a
15-year-old African-American student
at Pensacola High School in Florida,
was expelled for the 1999-2000 school
year for possession of a "weapon" in
violation of the school's zero tolerance
policy. The weapon in question was a
nail clipper with a 2-inch metal nail
file.
In Columbus, Ohio, a second-grader
was suspended for drawing a paper
By John W. Whiteheod
gun, cutting it out and pointing it at
classmates. A 12-year-old Florida boy
was handcuffed and jailed after he
stomped in a puddle, splashing class
mates. A 13-year-old boy in Manassas,
Virginia, who accepted a Certs breath
mint from a classmate, was suspended
and required to attend drug-aware
ness classes. Jewish youths in several
schools were suspended for wearing
the Star of David, which was some
times used as a symbol of gang mem
bership.
Incidents like these have made
zero tolerance policies the subject of
great debate and even ridicule. What
has become apparent, however, is the
fact that zero tolerance policies fail
to decrease the number of students
bringing weapons to school, victims of
violent crime and students trying alco
hol, cigarettes and other illegal drugs.
As Russell Skiba, an educational psy
chology professor at Indiana Univer
sity, observed: "[W]e end up punishing
honor students to send a message to
bad kids. But the data indicate that the
bad kids are not getting the message."
Some zero tolerance cases have
made their way into the courts, but
the judiciary has done little to rectify
what most people would consider to
be miscarriages of justice. A common
pattern that has emerged in many
zero tolerance cases is the judiciary's
tendency to allow school bureaucracy
to triumph over common sense and the
Bill of Rights. Three cases in particular
come to mind.
The first case involves a young kin-
dergartner from Sayreville, New Jer
sey, who was suspended for engaging
in a make-believe game of cops and
robbers on the school playground (he
used his finger as a pretend gun).
While the school district claimed to
have no official written policy mandat
ing "zero tolerance" of violent behavior
or threats, the actions by the Sayre
ville school officials were consistent
with those of many other school dis
tricts that have adopted such blanket
policies. A lawsuit seeking to have the
suspension expunged from the boy's
school record made its way through the
courts-all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court, in fact, only to be dismissed at
every turn.
The second case involves a teenager
who was arrested for violating a zero
tolerance policy against food consump
tion by eating a french fry in a Wash
ington, D.C., metro. The case eventu
ally reached the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia, where Justice
John Roberts was presiding prior to
his appointment to the U.S. Supreme
Corut. In handing down a ruling in
Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro,
Judge Roberts stated that "[n]o one is
very happy about the events that led
to this litigation." Ansche Hedgepeth,
he recounted, "was arrested, searched,
and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were
removed, and she was transported in
the windowless rear compartment of a
police vehicle to a juvenile processing
center, where she was booked, finger
printed, and detained until released to
her mother some three hours later-all
for eating a single french fry in a Metro-
rail station. The child was frightened,
embarrassed, and crying throughout
the ordeal." Despite his ability to rec
ognize the harshness of her treatment,
Roberts ruled that Ansche's constitu
tional rights had not been violated in
any way.
The last case, and one which the
U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed
to hear, involves a 13-year-old honor
student, Savanna Redding, who was
subjected to a horrific strip-search
by school officials who suspected the
eighth grader of bringing ibuprofen to
school. School officials at Safford High
School in Arizona "asked me to pull out
my bra and move it from side to side,"
Redding said. "They made me open my
legs and pull out my underwear." But
no pills were found.
Unfortunately, Redding's case is not
an isolated incident. Students through
out the country in urban, suburban
and rural schools are being subjected to
similar searches in the so-called quest
to make the schools safer and drug-
free. Indeed, there has been a move in
Congress in recent years to legitimize
strip searches in schools by teachers
and other school staff.
The impact of these draconian zero
tolerance policies on our young peo
ple cannot be understated: it renders
them woefully ignorant of the rights
they intrinsically possess as American
citizens. What's more, they grow up
believing that they have no true rights
and government authorities have total
power and can violate constitutional
rights whenever they see fit. In other
words, the schools are teaching our
young people how to be obedient sub
jects in a totalitarian society.
Constitutional attorney and author John
W. Whitehead is founder and president of
The Rutherford Institute. He can be con
tacted atjohnw@rutherford.org. □
St. jameS
BAY
CARRABELLE, FLORIDA
FREE ROUND of Golf!
South Georgia’s favorite
getaway on the bay, just
45 minutes from Tallahassee.
Your coupon for a free round
at: www.stjamesbay.com