Hacker News Reader

Comment by sidewndr46 | Hacker News Reader

The public school I went to was worse. If you were attacked by one of those disruptive kids you'd be suspended for starting a fight.

View on HN

My middle school was like this. They had a "zero tolerance" policy on fights, which meant if you were in one, you were supposed to get suspended.

In reality, it did not actually work this way. I did get into at least one fight where administration got involved, and they let me off the hook. (Neither of us got suspended, in fact.) In my own view, I 'started' that fight although I did not 'instigate' it, not that the difference matters much. Some kid in line for PE kept kicking the back of my shoes, and after the fourth or fifth time, I started punching him.

That's because of "zero-tolerance" policies, which never made any sense.

I always say the best way to solve Zero Tolerance policies is to threaten to replace the management with a minimum wage box-checker. If we aren't getting any discretion or thought why pay more for it? You would see quite the shift from acting like lazy ass-covering automatons.

This comes up a lot, but similar to people complaining about wikipedia reverting their edits, no one seems to even care if it is on balance a good policy or not. They're too caught up in their own injustice.

Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, I don't know but I have to at least consider that a few innocent kids getting suspended unfairly for being attacked might be worth it if it prevents more attacks that escalate further.

You could even argue the opposite, that if you're going to get suspended for being attacked you might as well try to bite their ear off and go down fighting, but no one does, they just focus on the innocent kid getting suspended.

So when you get jumped in a hallway, a concussion so hard you black out, multiple broken ribs from being kicked while on the ground & then you wake up in a hospital with no memory of the event, you should consider that it is OK you got suspended for getting your ass beat?

A good example of my point. So you don't even care if the policy helps other kids avoid that same fate, it's just a point of principle to you and you're happy to see them go to hospital with concussion?

It's hard to guess why you've interpreted their comment as being "happy to see them go to hospital with concussion".

But I would suggest that in a debate over whether or not it's a good idea to punish children who are innocent (e.g. being attacked in a one-sided "fight"), the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are benefits to the approach, not on others to demonstrate that punishing innocent kids, or people in general, isn't a bad idea.

An injust policy is not a good policy by definition. There is a reason "better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent should suffer" is an axiom. To do otherwise utterly fucks with incentives and promotes selfishness in the worst of ways. Why bother being honest if it is no protection? Do whatever the fuck you can get away with and maximize the personal advantage. That is a recipe for breakdown. Injustice has a way of creating a "karmic backlash" of reputations which is less than precise. Not through any cosmic force but that in a world with billions of agents actions begetting reactions. It goes beyond classic vigilantism and into reputations in general. Letting the Mai Lai Massacre go unpunished certainly contributed to Vietnam Veterans branded baby-killers.

On another note I highly suspect residual trauma is a reason for teachers having issues with parents, and schools with willingness to fund. The tree remembers and assumes the worst of teachers based upon their own experience.

> a few innocent kids getting suspended unfairly for being attacked might be worth it if it prevents more attacks that escalate further

What is it with education that makes people so willing to internalize well known Fascist values?

Acceptance of that thought is common; of collective punishment is common; blatant repression is advocated everywhere. If you take the values of a common school and try to apply them to adults, you will get either punched away or arrested.

> a few innocent kids getting suspended unfairly for being attacked might be worth it if it prevents more attacks that escalate further.

Kids being unfairly punished for being attacked encourages more attacks, though, especially if it is punishing all participants regardless of role in a manner that is less of a punishment for the kind of people who would be inclined to attack and more of a punishment to those who would not.

It also might discourage reporting.

Huh.

I categorically oppose "zero tolerance". It removes judgement, ignores context. It's a strategy for bureaucrats to absolve themselves of responsibilty.

But I actually don't know if it's better, worse, or indifferent. If it proves a net win, I might change my stance.

Please share if you find any such research. Thanks.

I would be astounded if a strategy that "removes judgement, ignores context" can be effective in a world of people who may be dealt injustices and have complicated circumstances. Seems completely antithetical to improving trust and social cohesion, which are important for a healthy society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com