JOSEPH N. BELL -- The Bell Curve

I have this basic conflict when I struggle with the zero-tolerance --

and, more recently, the “bullying” -- policies of the Newport-Mesa School

Board. On the one hand, I am viscerally opposed to any rigid system of

alleged justice in which individual circumstances are considered -- if at

all -- only after instant punishment is delivered. And, on the other

hand, I have a good deal of respect for the majority decisions of the

local school board, which makes me wonder how the members could be so

wrongheaded on zero tolerance.

The only way I knew to resolve the conflict was to ask that question

directly, which is why I met last week for an hour and a half with School

Board President Dana Black. I came away from that session with my mind

changed on some points and not on others. But mostly I clarified some

perceptions that were either fuzzy or just plain wrong.

Although it seems a little silly, anyone challenging the board’s

recent actions in these areas feels compelled to assert up front that he

is dead set, without equivocation, against drugs, alcohol, weapons and

bullying on any school campus. And so I hereby declare myself. But

declaring oneself against evil isn’t the issue. Rather, the issue is

whether or not there are more positive than negative results from the

actions taken by the Newport-Mesa School Board to deal with these evils.

The most important point clarified for me was that Newport-Mesa isn’t

ploughing any new ground here. Both the zero-tolerance and bullying

policies are set forth in the California Education Code. The Newport-Mesa

resolutions are picked up verbatim from that code.

But setting policy is only half the story. The other -- and, perhaps,

more important -- half is how those policies are to be enforced. This is

the area in which school districts differ -- and where I have some

problems with our school board. It is also important to point out that

there are two quite different procedures being followed in Newport-Mesa

to enforce the drug, alcohol and weapons policy as opposed to the

bullying policy.

In the first instance, Black explained, the enforcement is punitive, a

consequence of the student’s actions. In the second, it empowers school

officials to support the rights of the kids by being able to tell parents

there is a problem and bringing focus to it.

She assured me that Newport-Mesa’s enforcement of the California

student behavior code (known as 4210) relating to drugs, alcohol and

firearms is not as draconian as I have described it. The parents of the

student seen violating this code are called and the student --

accompanied by a school staff person -- is immediately sent home and

suspended. If the parents request it, a hearing is held with witnesses.

If the panel conducting the hearing finds extenuating circumstances, the

student is returned to the former school. If not, the student is

transferred to another school. The decision of the hearing panel can be

appealed to the School Board. The only time this process is not followed

is if the student violates the procedure, as happened, says Black, in the

Ryan Huntsman case three years ago.

I have two problems with this. First, I question the policy of dealing

with all alleged violations by immediate suspension. This leads to the

absurdity of identical treatment for a male student with an AK47 in his

school locker and one who comes to school with a tiny pencil sharpener

shaped like a gun in his back pack. Or the woman student who turns up

drunk in a PE class and the girl who takes a sip of champagne offered

after a soccer game by the mother of a friend. School administrators

should be allowed some slack in dealing with such polar opposite

violations.

The second is the immediate transfer of students deemed to have

violated the drug and weapons code. This makes very little sense to me.

If the only intent, as Black said, is punishment, then two questions need

to be asked: Does the punishment in any manner fit the crime? And who is

being punished more, the guilty student or the student’s parents who must

adjust to this lifestyle change and the guilty party’s new fellow

students?

The First Amendment objections of Wendy Leece to the policy on

bullying are about as reasonable to me as using the same argument against

her efforts to deny students the right to study books she deems

inappropriate. My concerns in trying to codify bullying are quite

different. My first question is how on earth can we define it? But I

suppose my biggest problem is generational. When I was growing up and

during my years in the military, it never occurred to us to turn to

authority to settle personal problems. We learned, often the hard way,

how to settle them ourselves. It makes me extremely uneasy to see this

responsibility routinely turned over to third parties.

“It’s a very different world out there from the one in which you were

raised,” Black said. “Our policy in enforcing the bullying code grew out

of a long process in which parents, teachers and students were all deeply

involved. It’s intent is not punishment but intervention. We need the

rules to enable us to step in and talk to the parents and support the

kids. We recognize in all of these instances that every student in every

situation is unique.”

So we end up with earnest and thoughtful people searching for

reasonable and effective means of dealing with problems exacerbated by

random acts of violence by unstable young people with a growing access to

military-type guns. In such a climate, overreaction can be as

counterproductive as the other extreme.

My 17-year-old grandson, Trent, who is visiting this week to have a

look at colleges hereabouts, read this column over my shoulder as I wrote

it. He tells me there are similar zero-tolerance disputes in his high

school community in Boulder, Colo. He thinks the policy has helped in

controlling some of the problems it was designed for, but he too is

uneasy about the inequity of the same punishment for quite different

levels of crime. And he strongly questions the portrayal of

out-of-control schools.

If he is an example of what our public schools are producing these

days, then I can guarantee you that we’re a lot better off than we think.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.