Five students expelled under all-inclusive weapon policy
Five Lakeville students expelled for violating school weapons policy
District 194 has a very firm zero tolerance policy to back up its all-inclusive weapons definition. The penalty for having any weapon is expulsion. The penalty for having a “dangerous weapon” is even worse. No, wait. It’s exactly the same. According to the one-two whammy of ZT and the poor definition in Lakeville’s policies, a pencil is a fingernail file is a knife is a gun and the punishment for having any of them is exactly the same.
School Weapons Policy, E-45:
Any object, device or instrument designed as a weapon or through its use is capable of threatening or producing bodily harm or which may be used to inflict self-injury including, but not limited to, any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; airguns, pellet guns; BB guns; all knives; blades, clubs; metal knuckles; numchucks; throwing stars; explosives; fireworks; mace and other propellants; stunguns; ammunition; poisons; chains; arrows; and objects that have been modified to serve as a weapon.�
A weapon is any item that is at all capable of threatening or producing bodily harm. Possession of any such item is punished with a mandatory expulsion.
In the five scenarios this school year, the weapons were found inside and outside the actual school buildings, whether in backpacks, lockers or automobiles.
�We have had what I would consider a significant number of these expulsions in a short amount of time. None of them threatened somebody with a weapon or any such thing. It was under the zero tolerance possession of a weapon,� said Tom Coughlin, director of Administrative Services.
None of the five expulsions involved an item recognized as a dangerous weapon according to federal guidelines and as director Coughlin said, none were used as weapons.
“It�s really zero tolerance for the possession as well as use or distribution of a weapon by a student. Regardless of the intent, regardless of the purpose � it doesn�t really matter,� said Coughlin. �It doesn�t matter if it is in somebody else�s vehicle that you drove to school that day. It is an absolute.�
…
�[The parents] are very surprised and dismayed at the fact that zero tolerance means what it means. Their thought is that certainly they can persuade the district, the School Board and/or the hearing officer that this was a simple mistake,� he said. �Even though they may be very aware that we have the weapons policy and that it is zero tolerance, it still doesn�t necessarily translate in their mind to the impact that zero tolerance really has.�
The parents’ attitudes are very unfortunate but also very predictable. These policies fly so hard in the face of common sense that the average sane adult will simply not grasp the insanity inherent in them until the truth is forced down their throat.
Does the article say what the offending items were? I can’t seem to find it.
“Any object capable of…threatening or producing bodily harm…”
Interesting…under this definition no student should be allowed to wear a belt or any piece of clothing that could cause harm, such as pants, skirts, socks, shoes. etc, all of which can be used to choke another or hang oneself.
Assuming MInnesota authorities don’t have the same protection against prosecution as those in the Georgia school system, I think it’s imperative parents of all Lakeville school children sue their schoolboard for putting their children at risk.
This could accomplish one of two things.
Either the authorities will recognize the stupidity of blindly following zero tolerance policies and begin using a bit of common sense in their decision making…or the only kids that should be allowed into school are those that are completely naked.
In that case, however, they will be suspended because of zero tolerance policies relating to improper dress.
WHEN IS THIS INSANITY GOING TO END?
Scott - The article doesn’t say what the items were and I cannot find this information on the school system’s site. The only thing we know for sure is that the items are not considered dangerous under federal guidelines.
What about punching, kicking, and biting? Should we not ban all hands, feet, teeth, and other potential weapons? A car or bike can be a weapon. But, I think the most dangerous weapon of all is administrative stupidity and the infringement of basic rights of individuals simply because they are of school-age. They should DEFINITELY ban brainless, cowardly, self-absorbed school officials. There’s nothing more dangerous than ZT idiocy. It robs children of decent education and instead teaches them that all people in authority are stupid. When will this end?
Maybe they could tie the students up like lobsters in the market. Oh wait…. that would be giving them the rubber bands they need to REALLY cause havoc.
I’m really concerned by a couple of points here.
First, the search policy seems quite heavy-handed and over-broad. What are they going to do if a kid refuses, and invokes his/her rghts under the US and Minnesota constitutions? Search the kid anyway — applying force? Arrest the kid for invoking a constitutional right?
And what about the comment that none of the items is generally recognized as a weapon? COuld it be that this is just an excuse to get rid of kids they don’t want around?
I think they should go raid the administrative offices. I’m sure they have pencils, scissors, and staplers. They might even have a paper cutter!
When is this insanity going to end? It will end when parents wake up and realize they are dealing with flaming a$$holes and that they don’t want their children subjected to their nonsense — that’s when it’s going to end and not until then.
It’s a wake up call, people!
The problem is that the schools are so afraid of teaching correct principles (because principles are deemed as religious ideals - and we can’t have THAT), that they choose to not address behaviors, instead shifting the focus onto objects (like rubber bands) and not focusing on the kids themselves.
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day…
Take away a kid’s rubber bands and he’ll find something else to cause damage with. Teach him not to cause damage and it doesn’t matter what objects he has in his possession. But then, that would actually require the schools to TEACH decency, and that may involve those oh-so un-PC PRINCIPLES…
Maybe a kid or two will be “offended” by being told not to hurt others. But taking away his “weapons” will not solve the problem as well as teaching him not to hurt others.
I am not saying anything profound or earth-shatteringly brilliant. Why can’t the administrators figure this simple stuff out for themselves?
Tom Coughlin, director of Administrative Services says:
“Regardless of the intent, regardless of the purpose � it doesn�t really matter. It is an absolute. THE PARENTS ARE VERY SURPRISED AND DISMAYED AT THE FACT THAT ZERO TOLERANCE MEANS WHAT IT MEANS.”
Bettina is correct, however, with the attitude portrayed above, it is obvious that “GOD HAS SPOKEN” and the implication is that any parent who doesn’t recognize that is ignorant and, therefore, their voice will be ignored.
The only solution I see is parents using the courts to overturn this stupidity.
Regarding the search policy–in other cases on this site it’s been mentioned that you don’t have a right to park your car in the school parking lot as a student, usually. It’s a privilege you are granted if you waive your fourth amendment rights. I thought recently someone commented in another thread that in some places, even if you park *near* the school to avoid losing your rights, they might still search your car anyway.
In regards to the question “when is this insanity going to end?”, I guess the answer is partially dependent on when people stop being so litigation-crazy.
Still, there is legally a difference between a policy which presumes consent of an automobile (which you are not required to bring to campus) and one’s person (which you are compelled to bring to campus).
Precinct Chair, you’re right in general, and I think, looking back, that the issue of car searches is a bit of a red herring–not sure why I brought it up now, except in the context of the fact that in school you don’t really have any fourth amendment rights at all. You can’t refuse to submit to a search, I don’t beleive.
@Michael: At my kindergarten, my teacher locked those little scissors that could not cut PAPER never mind human flesh in the bottom drawer. She then left the room leaving the sharp (This one was, I know not all of them are) paper cutter unattended, and, furthermore, with the handle in the upright position. All a kid had to do was jump to grb it, and he could have injured himself badly. Another example of the gneral intelliene of the adminitration. (It SEEMS as though the vast majory of school administrators have intellience not surpassing that of my left shoe.)
Also, the weapons were prolly like pens, paper clips ((I made a chain of those and attached them to my clothing:no one cared. I made them loop around to attach elsewhere and not hang freely, and suddenly, I was a suicide danger. No kidding.)) pencils, wooden/metal rulers, possibly metal protractors. If you try hard enough you might be able to break a layer of skin with those….