Letter to the editor -- Lance Jencks

As the history of the 1990s is written, the most famous phrase of the

era will prove to have been “zero tolerance.”

Conceived as a slogan in the war against drugs, zero tolerance has

come to mean much more in the minds of the young people toward whom it is

directed. It means as it says: “no tolerance.” No mistakes. No

forgiveness. No room for error.

When a phrase such as zero tolerance gains in a culture, its

implications extend far beyond the original intent of those who promote

it. In all language, there is a surface meaning -- the regulations as

written -- and a “subtext” -- or deeper psychological import. It is this

subtext that can migrate in malignant form to create internal mind-sets

never foreseen by the authors of the original text.

For example, shortly after zero tolerance was implemented as school

policy, a rock band was formed called Zero Tolerance. The concept of “no

tolerance” migrated from school dictums to the wider culture, with

implications much broader than originally intended.

Another example: the zero-tolerance policy in Orange County soon gave

birth to a youth gang called “Straight Edge,” which practiced its own

form of zero tolerance through physical abuse of people whose appearance,

beliefs or behavior it didn’t like.

Seen from the widest perspective, zero tolerance is a concept that

stands in direct opposition to long-held principles of western

civilization such as forgiveness, forbearance, the right to a trial

before a jury of peers, and many others. Most importantly, it stands

opposed to the founding Greek ideal of “sophron,” or moderation, which

has informed western civilization for two millennia.

When the Taliban -- following scripture that abjures graven images --

destroy an ancient Buddhist statue, they are following a policy of zero

tolerance in accordance with their own views. In short, zero tolerance is

an idea that leaves no room for compromise, mitigating circumstance or

even serious thought.

Unfortunately, after years of being taught the concept of zero

tolerance, some unstable students have internalized the message in an

inappropriate way. Faced with adolescent problems and lacking the

administrative power of adults, they have responded with a personal

vision of zero tolerance that, tragically, makes the evening news.

No parent or concerned adult will disagree with policies prohibiting

weapons, drugs or even bullying in our schools. But such policies should

be titled in reference to the subjects they address.

A drug policy, for example, could be called “Policy Regarding Drug and

Alcohol Possession On School Property,” and still retain the sanctions of

present regulation.

At its base, the phrase “zero tolerance” runs counter to the

fundamental precepts of Judeo-Christian culture.

Parents, teachers and administrators would go a long way toward

reducing tension among our youth by abandoning this slogan and returning

instead to traditional western ideas of decency, kindness, forgiveness

and, yes, tolerance.

LANCE JENCKS

Costa Mesa