More than anything else, I think zero tolerance policies are the biggest evil in society today.

They provide a cover for bureaucrats to disengage brain, common sense, and compassion.

I hope I can remember that the first question to ask any politician, or school board member or principal, is what do they think of zero tolerance policies, and how do we get rid of them?

If I were that girls parents I would be ahveing the cops charge the school officals with sexual assualt.

I find it odd in a day and age when pre schoolers are expelled for sexually assulting a teacher with a hug adn third graders are suspended for "looking" oddly at a girl, that school officals can force a 13 yr old girl to take off her clothes without ever calling in the cops or her parents.

And if thi happened in 2003 why do these child molesters still have jobs?

Why not tell these people and organizations how you feel?

Vice Principal Kerry Wilson
Principal Robert Beeman
Superintendent Mark Tregaskes
Safford, Arizona Middle School

734 11Th Street
Safford, AZ 85546
Phone Number: (928) 348-7040

http://az.localschooldirectory.com/schools_info.php/school_id/3495

Someone posted this in the reason comments section

Thanks, lujlp.

I wonder if that's the best way to pressure them to change this policy, or if it's writing to somebody at the state level. Anybody know about how the bureaucracy of schools runs in AZ?

While we are indignantly pointing at school officials, let us not forget that generally speaking, the public has been indifferent to any hiring standards for same and woefully inconsistent in insisting that students behave. Thus, we end up with the unwinnable arguments over whether minors have "rights".

Was this outrageous? Sure. Is the school required by "rights" advocates to treat everybody, stoner and valedictorian, alike? Yes. Can great students possess and sell drugs? Yes. Does OTC medication all come stamped with identification on each pill? No.

This lose/lose was set up for the school, and now they're stuck.

"Does OTC medication all come stamped with identification on each pill? No." Yes but these were ID by the principle as "400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet". The 400 Milligrams are actually prescription, purely for liability reasons. Should the school have distinguished between prescription meds, 400-mil ibuprofen is fine but oxy is not. That's never a good idea cause.

Now would we have felt different if:
1) The student searched had track marks, but still an A student?
2) Actually had a pill bottle hidden in her panties.
3) The girl caught with the illegal drugs had had crack, cocaine, etc.?

The reason schools actually stopped allowing student to carry unregistered OTC meds are two fold as explained to me by a middle school teacher. 1) With all of the weird allergies and interactions (MAOI's interact with everything) around it was a liability shield. 2) You can get high on OTC you just have to take a shit load of it, again liability shield.

Allowing adimin discretion leads to favoritism forbidding it leads to dip shit overreactions.

As far as hiring standards, how many here would be willing to work for shit pay, treated worse then the average day laborer, need a bachelors or even a masters? Teachers get the most shitty of situations so unless your really dedicated or too inept to do anything else you will leave.

"More than anything else, I think zero tolerance policies are the biggest evil in society today." I think that depends on how it's written. A zero tolerance for crack cocaine I'm fine with. If you word the whole thing badly or carelessly it will bite you in the ass. The concept of a drug free school is alluring as it is mythical. It makes life for admin much easier because they are under the assumption that with out drugs all kids would instantly bow before them in supplication. The kids life experience and personality have nothing to do with their behavior just getting high cause acting out (sarcasm).

Kids are gonna get high, if they want to and have the means to, with or without zero tolerance. Before school, in school, after school, whenever. What makes the whole scene difficult is when, for instance, I allow my child to take ibuprofen for menstrual cramps, but her school doesn't without a doctor's note. I'm not taking her to the doctor and spending a $15 co-pay for a friggin' note when I know what the problem is, and have the means to ease her pain. It makes no sense to me, except that it does to the school administration, because then their asses are covered should "something happen." Utter bullshit. However, if there's some kid in her school all doped up and running around cutting other kids with a knife or doing something similarly stupid, I sure as hell want the school authorities to be able to remove the menace and protect the other kids. YMMV

I think a "zero tolerance policy" -- which is a form of nonthink -- is beyond stupid in an institution in which kids are supposed to be taught to think. Not that they are, but this doesn't help. Oh goody, it makes life easier on administrators. Well, guess what: A day of ease isn't part of a school administrator's job.

On Wednesday, I just did another talk at Uni High, by the way. Great kids, almost all college-bound, creative writing class. I hear they got a lot out of it, and liked that I wasn't as strictly "career-directed" as the doctors, lawyers, etc. who sometimes talk at the school. (I talked about work but also philosphies behind work and life, like the notion that you don't work for the money when you're in your 20's, you work for somebody who will kick your ass, and the best person in your field you possibly can.)

Anyway, part of what I emphasized there was learning to think rationally -- and that that, and writing well, will pull you out of so many situations in life, or help you shine -- get you the job you want, etc.

I also told the kids the single best class I took in school was "Critical Thinking." It should be a required course in schools across America. Of course, teaching kids to think would have them questioning the policies of nonthink, like "Zero Tolerance."

Infantilizing kids is no way to produce responsible adults.

"I also told the kids the single best class I took in school was "Critical Thinking."t should be a required course in schools across America." I don't think one needs a critical thinking class to understand the concept. Also in these classes you can and often do pick up the teachers bias. Critical thinking can be hinted at but a broad range of experiences will actually give you the ability to use it. So while you may have enjoyed the class having been a mover and traveling to Paris had a far greater influence on your world view. You do talk more about the experiences you have lived than the course you have taken.

>This lose/lose was set up for the school, and now they're stuck.

It would not have been a lose/lose if they contacted the proper authorities (i.e. a female police officer to conduct the search). They should have done this either way, as I don't believe school officials are qualified to identify OTC or prescription meds.

As I told the kids, you don't need school to think critically. Nevertheless, I'm all for them offering a class in it. Really was the best class I took.

It's too bad that most parental units aren't into teaching critical thinking to their own offspring, isn't it? I'm doing that with my girls all the time, and it lately has been coming down to: think rationally before you speak or act, because everything you do affects someone or something else, and you'd better be prepared for the outcome. I've told #1 many times, you can think whatever you want, but it's when you open your mouth and the thoughts come out that you can find yourself in hot water, baby! o_O

"t's too bad that most parental units aren't into teaching critical thinking to their own offspring, isn't it? " You have to know something to be able to teach it properly. Besides we all have that one thing where critical thinking fails and we get passionate which is reduced by wider experiences.

"It would not have been a lose/lose if they contacted the proper authorities (i.e. a female police officer to conduct the search)." I don't think a strip search is called for unless there is the suspicion of weapons involved. I don't think the cops would have even contemplated for a second to strip search her, they may have kicked it further up the chain. Also the girl could have taken a much more sever hit if the authorities were called and they went brainless on the subject. Can you picture DEA involvement in this. Strip search may have been humiliating (not sure why, cop wants to sit there and examine at my fat furry ass he's welcome to do so) but a DEA record is a career killer.

"I think a "zero tolerance policy" -- which is a form of nonthink -- is beyond stupid in an institution in which kids are supposed to be taught to think."

Exactly. What does it teach a kid when she is forced to submit to this kind of mindless humiliation at the hands of jackbooted bureaucrats? Is that what her parents want her to learn about life? To submit like a sheep when she's being pushed around and stomped on? God, people, WAKE UP!

Another thing that just occurred to me: What does it say about a school's anti-bullying policy when the school officials are the ones doing the bullying?

...the secretary? Who are these sick perverted fucks?

I'm surprised they don't have actual protocol for this. I say this on the assumption that if they DID have proper protocol to strip search a suspected "drug hustler" that they'd have a same-sex cop called in to do it or some other professionally trained person. This was half-assed (heh).

I never would have been able to get through school without taking Motrin at regular intervals. It would just take the edge off. There's nothing worse than being an insecure middle schooler who has killer cramps and has to sit in class and try to pay attention. Schools have a right to know what's up but if someone needs to take Motrin that's b/w the student and the student's parent. These black&white policies belittle parents and demand too much information which should be private.

*Here* is the line of appropriateness.

......*HERE* is the school.

"To submit like a sheep when she's being pushed around and stomped on? " As oppose to resist and have the system steam role you. Pick your battles and when to fight them. What happened to her was wrong for many reasons but resisting or refusing could have had more serious consequences. Now the system has been caught with it's pants down, now is the time to make sure this doesn't happen again.

...thought of more.

I realize they might not have had a way to ID the pills. But they should have called the parents first and, hey, maybe have a pill identification book on hand. Or have a cop come in to help ID them. There's a huge difference b/w a student having a 400mg pill of Ibuprofen and X or an OC. Checking inside her bra for more isn't necessarily the first step that would come to my mind. If she's suspected of sketchiness keep her in sight until you have enough information to REALLY warrant a strip search.

If anyone touched my kid for any reason without first consulting me it would be really difficult for me to stay calm and not go cavemoman on their asses. (If I thought my kid WAS being shady and there was evidence my child had X or something I would consent to a professional strip search with me in the room.)

"If I thought my kid WAS being shady and there was evidence my child had X or something I would consent to a professional strip search with me in the room." This only works provided two things: 1) That the parents aren't in on it.
2) They are not those parents that think it's physically impossible for their kid to do anything wrong.

I'm still quite shocked that they did not at least call the parents in before the search. Hold her in the nurse or principles office till the parents arrive. But if she were carrying they would be forbidden by law from stopping her going to the can and flushing it. I can see both sides and neither is very pleasant.

Vlad,

I wasn't giving a suggestion for policy - simply trying to demonstrate that I am reasonable towards the idea that kids sometimes need to be dealt with in a certain way (strip search). The point was: don't touch my kid without my *knowledge*.

I agree with you that "only with parents' consent" is a bad idea!

>I don't think a strip search is called for unless there is the suspicion of weapons involved.>

Truly, I think weapons would be more obvious. Tiny little pills are easy to hide in your bra.
Trust me, I know.

Also, please note that the school >>> "prohibits possession of all drugs - "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted."

I would expect the school officials to react when a child is caught with any pills, especially when a simple note from the parent would have made it acceptable to take at the nurses office.

More than anything else, I think zero tolerance policies are the biggest evil in society today.

I am almost with you on this. There are worse evils than zero tolerance in society today (I'd say our public's lack of outrage over our government's choice to reject both decency and a U.S. tradition since the days of George Washington in favor of policies permitting torture is far more insidious.), but zero tolerance sucks. It makes no sense to me to take away discretion from the very people - judges, school administrators, and the like - that we presumably hire precisely because they can make good judgments in favor of one size fits all measures that are inevitably draconian.

Zero tolerance means zero compassion.

Zero tolerance also means that if your kid is beaten up they should not fight back even if its self-defense.

Kids should be taught to resist all molesters and creeps no matter under whose authority they act.

I don't know how the school system works down there, but I'd much prefer my daughter (if I had one) refuse until I was called than to submit in fear. Surely the "black mark" on her record, given the circumstances, won't follow her forever. Passive acceptance of all authority is not really what I want our kids to learn...particularly as more and more "PC" rules start to restrict our individual freedom.

Sorry, and I should say I would expect my son (which I do have) to do the same.

"The point was: don't touch my kid without my *knowledge*." Sorry read it wrong, without my knowledge is one thing I though you were approaching it from a consent stand point.

"Surely the "black mark" on her record, given the circumstances, won't follow her forever." If the DEA is called in (though stupid in this case no more than some of the harrasement based actions.) the mark can and very likely will be made permanent. If the school handles it it's likely to stay in school.

I think several commenters have overlooked the fact that the girl who was strip-searched was not the one with the pills.

They had every bit as much reason to believe her as the other student. Once she said she knew nothing of the pills, that should have been the end of it.

Of course, this was all 5 years ago. Probably the most traumatic part of the whole experience is the fact that the legal system is so screwed up that this issue is still alive after 5 years.

It should have gone to the local judge, who should have slapped the school upside the head, and that should have been the end of it.

"As oppose to resist and have the system steam role you. Pick your battles and when to fight them. What happened to her was wrong for many reasons but resisting or refusing could have had more serious consequences."

Are you kidding me? Put up with being strip-searched and bullied, or we'll bully you more? Oh yes, you are damn right that's a battle I would fight. I'm with moreta, "Kids should be taught to resist all molesters and creeps no matter under whose authority they act."

"Truly, I think weapons would be more obvious. Tiny little pills are easy to hide in your bra.
Trust me, I know." They would still have to strip search her, no need for the bra and underwear fidling but otherwise the actions would have been the same. Also the school maybe under the mistaken belief that drugs are as bad (and result in) weapons being in the school.

Stupidly from their perspective she was carrying a weapon. Many dealer get harsher sentences because their possession with intent to distribute gets treated as possession with intent to kill.

"Oh yes, you are damn right that's a battle I would fight." Right so from an internal school matter to a DEA case? While I agree that it should be fought a pyric(sp) serves no one. Now the school get it's ass handed to them and they will never do it again. Once DEA gets involved (nailing juvy drug dealer to role on suppliers is a hobby of their now) they may force you to submit to a strip search (under probable cause).

I never once said don't fight it but if you pick how and when to fight such battles your more effective and less likely to lose. Their action were completely unjustified. You can not fight the system with naked force you lose every time cunning gets you much further.

Let me testify!!! Being a rebellious teen, hanging out with a bunch of abandoned kids, and living in a very abusive home situation, I ran away from home for a week and stayed in a squat with some like-aged friends. Street kids. This was back in the mid 80s and I was 14 y.o. I came back to school before I ever went home, and naturally I was taken directly into the vice principal's office. She calmly told me that the school nurse was going to examine me to see if I had lost my virginity during my time away from home (!!!). I refused, and informed her that if they tried to force any physical examination on me, I would raise all colors of hell. They desisted and I went to class.

(Perhaps my lucidity and demeanor clued them in, as that was before I had even ever let a drop of beer pass my lips, let alone cock!)

Then the year later, I had a pervy math teacher give me a self-written pornographic story to read, because "he valued my criticism". Told him I was gonna raise hell too if he didn't knock this shit off right now. Funny, I was a much cooler and stronger person then than I am now.

Obviously (then) I would have told the principal and the secretary to try to rip my clothes off if they wanted to. I might get a week in detention, but they would be in a whole world of hurt of they tried. Too bad this young lady was raised to respect authority too much. Although, if the ACLU is involved, I take it that her parents are also backing her up.

And yeah, why DO these people still have their jobs?

And before any of you say it, I get how my story is not the same as potential "drug smuggling". But, even if the cops were called in, if they only found ibuprofen or nothing at all, then where is the crime anyway?

And if she was carrying X or oxy, she should be facing some criminal charges.

"I refused, and informed her that if they tried to force any physical examination on me, I would raise all colors of hell." That would have worked back then, not so much would that have worked even when I went to school let alone now. Though there is no way in hell that they would ever remotely consider a virginity test now.

Had a buddy of min who thought the cops couldn't do shit to her. Now she has a record for assaulting an officer(kicked a cop in his happy place) she now learned that she can't have any of the jobs she wants.

Right on though about the pervy math teacher and the forced OBGYN exam though. I think it's bit more invasive that strip search for drugs.

"And if she was carrying X or oxy, she should be facing some criminal charges." So her being innocent or guilty justifies the search? Your arguing the reverse of "he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything." So it's cool if they find something but wrong and horrid if the don't.

They violated due process horribly and should immediately lose their job. They would have violated due process even if they had found half a kilo of coke up her ass and a loaded Glock.

Vlad said: "And if she was carrying X or oxy, she should be facing some criminal charges." So her being innocent or guilty justifies the search? Your arguing the reverse of "he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything." So it's cool if they find something but wrong and horrid if the don't.

NO! NO! A million times NO! You totally misunderstand me. What I am saying is that there is no way the school should have done that search on their own. No fucking way. Either they 1) call in the cops and let them decide if a search is warranted, or 2) they let her go about her business unmolested (and possibly contact her parents). If the principal thought that the cops should be called, AND the cops decided that a proper search was justified (by an interview with the other student, for example), AND she was carrying illicit drugs, then she should have been booked. But there are a lot of ANDs before you get to that point.

But if the school officials knew that it was ibuprofen in the first place, they never would have gotten the cops involved anyway. Whether or not they knew what the pills were prior to the strip search is not clear from the article, however.

The whole thing stinks, and I completely agree that the principal should lose his job, and maybe even worse.

"You totally misunderstand me. What I am saying is that there is no way the school should have done that search on their own. No fucking way." I agree to some extent, curious as to your reasoning.

Had the cops been called in your case would you have submitted to them searching you?

A little context. Same situation, about 2 decades ago, when I was in 7th grade. A girl got called to principals office b/c someone said she had drugs, she said "no, I gave them to Dena". The principal, and guidance counselor (female) come and get me, take me to an office with a bathroom and say they are going to strip search me. I, of course, tell them that they are not (because I did indeed have drugs) and that they couldn't. In walks woman police officer. She did have a right to strip search me, in the presence of my female guidance counselor as an independent party, as they had a reasonable grounds to suspect I had illegal drugs on my person.

Now my school did handle it properly, they gave me a private room and a female cop - I was required to do the same things. I don't feel violated. I was more humiliated being taken out of middle school in handcuffs. However, if a child in my daughters school had drugs on them I would want the same thing to happen, and the drugs to be removed.

So, like, did this Marissa kid get strip searched, too? That's what I don't get (and I think someone else mentioned the oddity of it, too): If she wasn't, then why wasn't she? It seems completely unbalanced to catch one kid with some pills, let them point a finger at someone else and then let them go without any further incident.

I'm not planning on having children, but I do have a five year-old niece (my husband's relation, actually) that I worry about when I read things like this. I wonder if her grandparents will be careful about reading the policies of the schools she'll attend so they'll be aware of any idiotic zero tolerance policies. I know that if she's influenced by me at all that she'll follow the advice my mom gave me: "If something feels wrong, you quietly sit down and don't budge until your father or I are called. We'll figure out what's right."

Vlad said: Had the cops been called in your case would you have submitted to them searching you?

Not that this has anything to do with the impropriety of the principal's actions, but I'll answer anyway. You are a bit of a sophist, you know? :)

The answer is: depends on whether or not I was holding.

Of course, I agree with you that one cannot use the guilt or innocence of someone after the fact to justify the means of procuring the guilt or innocence (that comment by the principal was truly retarded), but you asked me about MY personal psychological process if I were in that situation, and whether or not I was guilty would definitely play a part in my behavior. I KNOW my degree of guilt, so I will gauge my actions accordingly, although my degree of guilt should not come into play in terms of the cops' actions, savvy? We were looking at the case as outsiders, where innocence should be assumed, and of course the young lady should be treated as if she were innocent, and be allowed due process. This is why the fact that it came to the point that it did is so outrageous, and why, being innocent of the "charges", I find it incredible that she submitted to such an indignity.

Because she WAS innocent, she should have resisted. The school administration never should have asked that of her, regardless if she was innocent or guilty, because who knows a priori? That is the whole concept of due process.

But now you are asking me as an "insider" what I would do. I certainly wouldn't have kicked a cop in the balls like your friend did! I can tell the difference between a jumped up minor functionnaire and the police. Not that I would have kicked anyone in the balls, unless I was attacked.

So, if I were guilty of carrying ibuprofen, I wouldn't have let it even get to calling the cops stage, let alone submit to a strip search. I would have come clean.

If I were actually carrying class A or B narcotics, I would had a Mexican standoff with the principal to see if he would really call the cops.

Assuming I was innocent, I probably would let them call the cops (if it even got to that point) and would have demanded of them that they call my parents as witnesses. I'm not a legal eagle, but I imagine that a strip search for illicit drugs of a minor by a cop without any attempt at parental notification is illegal, especially in a school environment. At the very least I would ask to know their reason for "probable cause" and whether they interview my narc colleague.

But see, this is a fuzzy area. You hear about women getting intimidated into strip searchs to get on planes all the time, abused by cops during booking, etc. I suppose the smartest thing to do, if, being innocent, my choices were to go down to the station or have the strip search with the secretary as a witness would be to submit to it with a witness. That way, she could at least be supeonaed (sp?) and testify that I was not allowed any parental contact prior to the ordeal. And then I would have raised hell, because if there is anything my parents dislike more than me it is cops and the gubmint.

But, yeah, I generally agree with you that you don't want to get the cops involved. But that still doesn't mean that you should just take any crazy shit lying down just on the off chance that they will be called.

Does all that make sense? Are you even still awake? :)

Mediocrity reigns because the society tolerates mediocrity. An education system that seeks the highest quality reinforces quality.

Since the current education system seeks the lowest quality, it will reinforce such measures as zero tolerance and the like.

Elections won't solve the problems within the public schools system, but changing the culture (the society) will and that will take time.

On a side note, the teacher who helped me start doing these talks at University High told me teachers are NOT paid poorly. She showed me that, by doing some extra studies (a course in understanding art, etc.) she can get about 60K (if I remember correctly) at the 10 year teaching mark. And remember, that's for nine months of work with various vacations.

The most important sentence you will ever teach your child:

"Do you have a warrant?"

If the answer is "Yes", the response is "I would like to speak with my attorney."

If the answer is "No", the response is "Am I under arrest?"

And if they answer no to that, the answer is "I'm outta here."

Wow. Lotsa holes in view. Gaps, that is.

What does it teach a kid when she is forced to submit to this kind of mindless humiliation at the hands of jackbooted bureaucrats? Is that what her parents want her to learn about life? To submit like a sheep when she's being pushed around and stomped on?

That's exactly what you do when you want to board an airplane.

-----

Police do not have a "right" to search anyone. Legally, that ability is called a "power", conveyed by the State, and it carries its own obligations. Police officers have no more rights than you. Yes, it often takes a court battle to point that out.

Minors do not generally have attorneys, nor can they have one appointed by the State, as they cannot sign contracts, etc., for such services. Minors must have a guardian, for whom any attorney will work.

Again: the school was "set up". People kept making rules they thought would never apply to them, forgetting the most basic principles of law entirely.

While I definitely think the strip search of absolutely absurd, policies that restrict kids from possessing prescription drugs are not. Nor are policies prohibiting kids from giving OTCs to other kids. Too, there are aspects of the situation missing from this descriptive of the situation. Not the least being that the kids involved (and there were more than the two mentioned above) thought they were being given drugs to get them high.

The zero tolerance policies you seem to be decrying, are in place because schools have been sued in a big way, because one kid gave another OTCs that caused a serious allergic reaction or contraindiction with other medications. While the strip search was flat out insane, the policies behind it are most certainly not.

I think a "zero tolerance policy" -- which is a form of nonthink -- is beyond stupid in an institution in which kids are supposed to be taught to think.

Game over! You win!

about the pay thing Amy... I can pretty much say that your pay depends greatly on where you are... and in the sticks in Arizona, it won't be good. If you have an interest in talking that whole situation, I can put you in contact with my momalady, and she can tell you all about it. Even in Phoenix where she works it is dismal, unless you are in it to go teach the rich kids. If you have decided to try and get the poor ones an edumacation to try and get them to be actual productive citizens... well, you will make much less, and deal with more.

the teacher pay issue is often the straw man, because it is a complicated issue... some places you can do well, and some not, but it is not for naught that few teachers make a real career of it anymore. The five year attrition rate for beginners is very high, especially in places where you want really good teachers. It's a paradox, but you need your best teachers in the worst areas, because the price of failure is crime, and drag on your economy. Of course, that's not the way it is... You either get really idealistic people willing to work in rougher areas... or people who aren't good enough to work anywhere else.

Back to the topic at hand... the zero tolerance policy in this case isn't the worst... did parents sign away the rights of their students to be searched in this way? the police would have required more probable cause to do something so invasive, and perhaps that's WHY they weren't called. The backpack was probably reasonable. Beyond that? On the word of another 13 yr old, who actually WAS violating the zero tolerance rule? I may be missing something, but they were not even following their own rules for this.

The kid herself was quite right to do nothing in this case... and for that level of trust, her parents and the district adminstrators should come down on the school administrators like a ton of bricks... but since the ACLU is involved, the district probably did nothing, and the parents can't afford to fight them. As usual, adults fail...