TRI In The News
Zero Justice
From Fredericksburg.com
Original article available here
AN ORGANIZATION needs rules, but it also must have a head and a heart with which to apply them. That's what was missing in Spotsylvania schools' handling of Andrew Mikel II's infraction of his school's code of conduct. Now, his case is being heard by the Virginia Supreme Court.
Young Andrew, then 14, got bored at lunch one day last December at Spotsylvania High School and did what young men have been doing for eons: He took what was close at hand (a plastic tube from a pen), inserted small projectiles (plastic pellets), and shot them at some of his fellows.
In years gone by, this would have been punished with a rap on the knuckles, time in detention, a call to parents, or an uncomfortable 10 minutes in the office of a glowering principal. But not in 21st-century America, in which zero tolerance policies remove both wisdom and measured responses from a principal's playbook.
Andrew, an honor student, was suspended for the rest of the school year. Worse, he was charged with "possessing a weapon" and "violent criminal conduct," ordered to take anger-management classes and participate in a "diversion" program.
His father appealed the punishment, first through the school system, and then to the Spotsylvania Circuit Court. There, Judge Joseph J. Ellis was limited to determining whether the School Board exceeded its authority, acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or abused its discretion. It did not, the judge ruled, although he said he might have acted differently had the punishment been up to him: "I will concede it was arguably harsh and more than I might have done, but that is not the test," he said.
Now, Andrew's case is being argued before the Virginia Supreme Court by Rutherford Institute attorney Rita Dunaway. Were Andrew's actions "criminal"? Were the pellets "weapons"? Ms. Dunaway told the court that the school's punishment was "excessively punitive and violated the constitutional guarantee to due process of law." No word yet on when the court will rule.
Certainly there must be discipline in schools. But discipline meted out without reference to context, intent, and impact is not wise discipline. Andrew was being "foolish"--his father says he realizes that now. His "weapon" of choice--a pellet weighing 0.2 grams--indicates that his intent was not to harm others. But the impact of the disciplinary action imposed by the schools on Andrew's life could be profound: He has already been booted from JROTC, and his future education and vocational plans could be marred--all because a boyish prank was characterized as criminal.
Zero tolerance policies may help ease administrative decisions regarding discipline, but do they promote justice? Generally, the answer is no.
