Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado. Heath High School, West Paducah, Kentucky. Westside Middle School, Jonesboro, Arkansas. Zero tolerance policies were adopted in these schools and around the country in response to tragic school shooting events. Under zero tolerance, students are suspended, expelled, or referred to juvenile authorities or some combination thereof for specified offenses. Zero tolerance policies punish students harshly regardless of the severity of the infraction, the existence of mitigating circumstances, or the context in which the conduct occurred. School shootings have garnered an extraordinary amount of attention not only because of the violence but also because they happened in schools, places that are supposed to be safe. While tragic, school shootings are unique events considering the number of schools that operate daily without incident. Yet, the policies that have developed in the wake of these acts have been misguided, especially as applied to childhood conduct. Kiera Wilmot is a prime example of this misguided application of these policies and the potential for irrevocable harm.
Kiera, a sixteen-year-old African-American high school honor student in Florida, decided to conduct a science experiment that her teacher had not approved. Mixing household cleaner and aluminum foil in an eight-ounce water bottle, Kiera’s experiment caused a popping sound no louder than a firecracker and some smoke. No one was harmed, and no property was damaged. Yet, she was expelled under the school’s zero tolerance policy. She was charged with possession of or discharging of a firearm and possession of a destructive device, charges that would have required her to be tried as an adult and not a juvenile. This inquisitive, bright student was in jeopardy of being convicted of a felony and subsequently disenfranchised for the childhood crime of curiosity. Kiera would have been denied the right to vote before she reached the age of majority and become a fully enfranchised citizen.
Zero tolerance policies construe all conduct the same regardless of the context. The inquisitive sixteen-year-old who endeavors to conduct a science experiment or the eleven-year-old child who is arrested for drawing a violent stick figure are both treated the same. Each of these students faced a harsh school-related disciplinary sanction under zero tolerance—suspension or expulsion—and was referred to the criminal justice system. Not only do the policies fail to distinguish between the severity of offenses, but they have also had a disproportionate impact on students of color and students with disabilities, like the seven-year-old special needs child who was arrested for throwing a tantrum while decorating an Easter egg. In the short-term, students that are punished under zero tolerance policies are being denied an education, because being suspended or expelled requires that students be removed from the school setting thereby causing them to miss out on classroom instruction. But that is not all. Students that are suspended or expelled are also at a “greater risk” of dropping out of school altogether. Moreover, these students have an increased risk for “future incarceration.” In the long term, because “future incarceration” or contact with the juvenile justice system is an increased risk, zero tolerance policies are a contributing factor to the disenfranchisement of these students, and a denial of their full citizenship.