While looking at articles on the New York Times website for a blog topic, I stumbled across one that was particularly intriguing. In Newark, Delaware six-year old Zachary Christie was suspended for 45 days after bringing a Cub Scout camping utensil to school. The device was part spoon, part fork, and part knife. There is a zero-tolerance policy for weapons in the Christina School District, where Zachary attends. However the policy applies to any student, even first graders like Zachary. The article focused on the idea that there must be greater discretion by schools regarding this policy. It makes sense that schools are taking extra precautions against violence, but to me it seems ridiculous that such a young boy is being punished for something he did not possibly intend.
These extra strict policies are in part the way school districts are reacting to events like the Colombine/Virginia Tech shootings. But it seems like, in Zachary's case, things were taken too far. I find this a perfect example of when an event triggers laws or rules to occur. The previous shootings resulted in stricter weapons policies, but these will eventually be changed due to problems that occur like Zachary's.
It is important to recognize the fact that as improvements are made on laws, people obtain a better moral understanding of what is right and wrong. What do you think about Zachary and his school's weapons policy? How can this improve society in the future?
I agree with you and I think that they are taking this issue too far. When a six year old boy does something like this, he should not be punished the same way as someone who is cognitive of the fact that what they are doing is wrong. On the news yesterday they were focusing a lot on this story, and on the bottom of the screen they flashed the question "when is zero tolerence too much?" I think it's really important to examine this idea in the context of this issue.
ReplyDelete