Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
(Update, Sunday, 11/22/09: No vindication. The Lansingburgh Board of Education affirmed Whalen's suspension. Whalen's parents plan to appeal to the state. Read more here.)
(Update, Monday, 10/19/09: The Whalens have hired an attorney.)
(Update, Friday, 10/16/09: Superintendent George Goodwin digs in; Whalens plan to sue.)
Things worked out more or less fine for Zachary Christie, the Delaware first-grader who fell afoul of his school district's mindless, insipid "zero-tolerance" policy when the young Cub Scout brought a camping tool to his school.
But a 17-year-old Lansingburgh, NY, student faces "a rough road ahead" with his high school's stubborn, robotic administrators and -- perhaps -- the by-the-book bureaucrats in charge of admissions at West Point.
As I noted earlier, Matthew Whalen was suspended under his school's mindless, insipid "zero-tolerance" policy for having a two-inch knife in a survival kit the Eagle Scout kept locked up in his car. According to Fox News:
As a 17-year-old Eagle Scout continues to wait out a one-month suspension from his upstate New York high school for having a 2-inch pocketknife locked in a survival kit in his car, the U.S. Military Academy says the missed school days could pose a big problem when it reviews his application.
Pressure is mounting on a Troy, N.Y., school board to overrule Matthew Whalen's suspension from Lansingburgh High School, which was issued because of a zero-tolerance policy that is facing increasing opposition from parents and education advocates.
...
On Wednesday, West Point's director of admissions told Foxnews.com that Whalen's suspension alone wouldn't be a "show-stopper" and "didn't appear to be a big issue" for the youth, though it will appear on his record as the military academy considers his moral and ethical fiber."My concern would be, how does this impact on his academics?" said Col. Deborah McDonald, the academy's head of admissions. "Because 20 (school) days is a long time to be suspended."
But the Lansingburgh School District is not budging. A person reached at the home of a school board member referred all calls to the superintendent, who told a local newspaper he thinks the punishment was "appropriate and fair," and that it was necessary for the district to enforce its zero-tolerance policy evenly.
"Sometimes young people do things they may not see as serious," Superintendent George Goodwin told the Albany Times-Union. "We look at any possession of any type of knife as serious."
The lede on the story is somewhat misleading. The suspension "could pose a big problem," not because of the actual offense but rather because Whalen will miss a full month's worth of work that he will not be allowed to make up. Be that as it may, Matthew Whalen's life will be a lot more difficult in the coming months because of this dumb flap.
In other circumstances, the headline on this post might be "They can give you a gun and a badge, but they can't give you good judgment." But the police -- in this case, young Whalen's grandfather -- have displayed a great deal of common sense.
“I understand policies — I enforce them myself — but there’s common sense and I feel that common sense wasn’t used here,” Hoosick Falls Police Chief Robert Whalen told the Troy (NY) Record News. The elder Whalen said he was particularly “irked” at the additional 15-day suspension that administrators piled on top of the original five days that assistant principal Frank Macri had given. “I’m ashamed of Lansingburgh for taking it that far.”
Goodwin, the school district superintendent, told the Albany Times-Union "he is open to the possibility of contacting West Point to ensure that the incident does not affect Whalen's chances of admission."
Not good enough. What's the use of eyes if you refuse to see? What's the use of ears if you don't listen? And what's the use of a brain if you don't think? Instead of using sound judgment, school district officials are closing ranks and insist on defending the indefensible.
"In the past 200 years, America's gotten by just fine without zero tolerance," young Whalen said. "Why do New York state schools have to have it?"
Why do any schools have it? Set clear rules and apply good judgment fairly. Punish the guilty and admonish those guilty of little more than minor transgressions. Use your intelligence, for goodness sake. And if you lack intelligence, you shouldn't be in the "education" business or earning your living on the backs of the taxpayer.
Update: If Matthew Whalen doesn't get into West Point, it will be on his merits and not because George Goodwin is a soulless bureaucratic automaton. According to Albany's WTEN News (via the Washington Times's Water Cooler blog):
The military academy he's wanted to attend since first grade has told Matthew not to worry.
"The Director of Admissions at West Point called and told me that this would be a non-issue for my application there," Matthew says. That's no guarantee that he'll be accepted, but Matthew says it's an assurance that the suspension won't be the reason he doesn't get into the school.
A note about soulless bureaucratic automaton George Goodwin, the superintendent of Lansingburgh School District. The best that might be said of Mr. Goodwin is he only wants to do what's best for the staff, teachers and students under his supervision. The Albany Times-Union story to which I linked above paraphrases Goodwin explaining "the district has to equally enforce its zero-tolerance policy, even for students like Whalen who don't have any past record of misbehavior." And there is Goodwin's quote about what young people may or may not take seriously.
We're talking about a two-inch knife. I carry one from time to time. My father has kept one in his pocket for 25 years. It comes in handy for all sorts of things. A weapon isn't one of them. In fact, New York state law doesn't consider a knife like that to be a weapon.
So the knife is harmless and Whelan wasn't even carrying it. No police officer would arrest Whelan for carrying that knife. No reasonable person would consider Whelan's knife to be threatening or a risk to school safety. Which leads us to the conclusion that Lansingburgh's policy is unreasonable and Goodwin is not a reasonable man.
I don't care what Goodwin's intentions were or what his rationale may be. I don't care if he's a good man, or a caring husband or father -- I don't even know if he is married or has children. But I can see that such a man has no business overseeing schools in the public trust. Let him find gainful employment in the private sector. The bureaucracy is just as idiotic, only more limited in the harm it can do.
Comments
I am in complete agreement
I am in complete agreement with you, Ben. But, it is not just schools in the USA that appear to have "CRITICALLY STUPID" as a job requirement for administrators:
"Carol Hill (a school employee in the cafeteria) dragged four boys away from seven-year-old Chloe after discovering they had tied her up and were beating her with a skipping rope."
The school employee later saw the mom of the girl that was beaten, and said she was sorry about what had happened to her child, only to find out the school never reported it to the parents. Of course, at that point the mom insisted on the cafeteria lady telling her the rest of the story, (wouldn't you?)
When admin. staff at Great Tey Primary School, near Colchester in Essex, discovered what she had done, she was accused of breaching pupil confidentiality, suspended, then fired.
The parents have yanked their two kids out of the school. The school stands behind their decision, but is "reviewing their policies".
"Critically Stupid" appears to be a condition infecting school administrators everywhere!
http://tr.im/BOur
"Critically Stupid"?
More like criminally stupid. And people wonder why homeschooling has gone from a fringe activity to ... well, not so fringe.
Who wants to submit their children to a government schooling regime that without warning and in defiance of all common sense can label:
... and, as we see here, potentially ruin the bright, patriotic future of an Eagle Scout who has a pocket knife in his car that is the size of your pinkie. And, mind you, it all goes down on your "permanent record."
Every parent who believes "well ... that could never happen in my school district" should think again. The breadth of this madness proves its part of the system, and not as aberrational as one might like to believe.
Zero Tolerance
It's worth pointing out, however, that while in this case "zero tolerance" is clearly stupid, there are very many cases where it is not. A little light went on over my head when I read Whalen's grandfather said, "I understand policies — I enforce them myself...." What you here call "common sense" can also be read as an invitation to employ favoritism, bigotry, prejudice, and flawed intuition in the application of law enforcement. Zero tolerance policies are, in part, an attempt to prevent unbalanced and unfair enforcement of law or policy. As long as administrators or officers are given some leeway, there will be abuses.
Re: Zero Tolerance
Schools should have clear rules about what is and isn't appropriate to bring to school, transparent disciplinary policies and clear lines of accountability. But what you're objecting to, Chris, is a very old problem. If you're looking for perfection in applying rules, forget it. Of course there will be abuses. No getting around that. There needs to be a process that lets parents appeal and not get railroaded. The remedy for injustice is not more injustice, especially when we know that zero-tolerance policies create these situations and simply don't serve the purpose they were intended to serve.
I'm even willing to give leeway to soulless bureaucratic automatons like George Goodwin if they're willing to use the sense that God gave a goat. That is to say, I'm willing to accept errors if there is meaningful accountability for those errors on both sides. I expect parents to be responsible for their kids. I expect schools to maintain discipline in parents' absence. The solution to the Zachary Christie case was obvious: Take away the camping tool, call the parents, explain the issue, extract a promise that it will never happen again. The solution was not 45-days in reform school with juvenile delinquents.
The solution in the Matthew Whalen case was obvious, too. As I understand it, he was willing to accept the five-day suspension. But the administration twisted the knife with the additional 15 days because nobody had the wit or intelligence to distinguish between an Eagle Scout and national guardsman with a tiny knife locked in his car and some D-average punk with a butterfly knife. The punishment is unfair and unbalanced -- the very opposite of what you say zero tolerance policies are supposed to be.
Agreed but Not
I agree with you in a lot of ways and I'm not personally big on the whole zero tolerance concept, but I also appreciate that such policies are, at least in part, designed to remove the requirement of anyone's applying their sense, goat-level or not. We can all remember, probably, cases where a figure of authority played favorites and let someone off the hook for some bad or dangerous behavior, from female drivers getting out of speeding tickets to teens driving drunk but allowed to skate because their dad's a detective in the local precinct.
So on the one hand we're looking at insanely stupid problems like the one we have here, and on the other we're looking at a different set of stupidity. In this case the punishment is unfair and unbalanced, but that doesn't meant there aren't plenty of cases where it works as intended.
I agree that there needs to be accountability up and down the line. But I imagine that's what we're setting up here: By bringing this case to the wider public, particularly in the community affected by this, some measure of accountability is being brought to the administrators involved.
Not agreed, pretty much at all
Chris,
You are giving the real
collegehigh-school try to defending mindless zero tolerance policies, but it's not very convincing. Probably because you're "not personally big on the whole zero tolerance concept." So why keep trying?Why is this a good thing? You favor policies where good sense is tossed aside for blanket policies that by definition cannot sensibly cover many situations? Sure, there are situations where a principal might play favorites with a star football player caught with a butterfly knife in his car. Though I'd argue such situations would be more rare because not every school administrator would be so lenient. Under mindless zero-tolerance policies, everyone is roped into a draconian policy that extends to cover not only dangerous weapons but harmless camping utensils.
This, you say, is fine because "that doesn't meant there aren't plenty of cases where it works as intended." Well, great googly moogly. We could arrest every Arab-looking guy trying to enter this country, and while that would be unfair, that wouldn't mean "there aren't plenty of cases where it works [to stem terrorist plots] as intended." Extreme? Of course. But it makes the point.
Here, let's look at this as a simple moral question. What's worse: The chance that a bad seed has a father who's a cop or is an indispensable star athlete and might get lenient treatment — even when he knows bringing a butterfly knife to school is against the rules? Or that an Eagle Scout with aims to attend West Point and serve his country must be treated unfairly — and potentially have his future ruined because he didn't know having a two-inch pocket knife in the trunk of his car was a catastrophic breach of rules applied with no common sense?
Doesn't seem like a hard call to me. I'd rather deal with the hypotheticals of lenient treatment for the "connected" — and hold administrators' feet to the fire over that — than watch an obviously great kid wonder if his long-planned future is in jeopardy.
Keep Some Stuff in Mind
I guess you're right that I can't really get behind my devil's advocate defense here because I don't believe in zero tolerance policies. However, I recognize that they are an attempt to address a real problem. It's not hypothetical, this problem of star athletes getting privileged treatment, or there just being favoritism in general. Even within the Boy Scouts. I gave up on getting my Eagle when I saw another Scout's Eagle being hustled through the approval process so he could get under the wire before his 18th birthday, even though his project was half-assed and some of his merit badges requirements were, let's say, less than optimally fulfilled.
I tried to avoid coming up with hypothetical cases of favoritism (or bigotry) because I felt that was a straw man argument; and I'm sure we can all come up with real-life examples of our own.
Speaking of straw man arguments, your "Arab male detention policy" is exactly that. A zero tolerance policy against just living your life is different from one that is applied to actual actions. A friend of mine was arrested recently for carrying a common sheetrock tool onto the New York City subway; the arresting officer decided it qualified as a gravity knife. Which it probably does, actually. While the law is plainly overbroad, and the arresting officer probably a jerk, in this particular case I blame my friend for stupidly carrying something he should've known would cause a problem. (He was initially stopped for fare beating, which is usually just a summons. The story's actually kind of complicated but I don't want to get into all the abstruse details.) Heck, I don't even carry my Swiss Army knife any more because I got tired of dealing with all the places I couldn't bring it (including, somewhat ironically, the Statue of Liberty).
These laws may be stupid but the solution isn't to break them and then watch as your life is wrecked in slow motion. The solution is to change the rules properly. This is something Boy Scouts learn as part of the Citizenship merit badges, by the way. An Eagle Scout should know better.
Anyway, this isn't going to wreck his life, not by a long shot. West Point's already said they don't care if he was suspended except for how the days off might affect his grades, and I doubt that the time off is really going to hurt him that badly. If he's West Point material already, a month of missed school is unlikely to knock him out of the running.
Re: Some Stuff to Keep In Mind
Evidently, state law gives school officials more discretion and latitude in these cases than the Lansingburgh administration is letting on. And state law clearly doesn't consider the knife that Whalen had locked up to be a weapon. I would note, too, that the Whalens originally hadn't planned to sue. Goodwin's intransigence forced their hand. If I haven't been clear enough, I don't think Goodwin has any business in his position and if I were a resident of Troy I would be sorely tempted to run for school board just to fire his soulless bureaucratic automaton ass.
Well, the guy does sound
Well, the guy does sound like a hosehead. I'm not sure where everyone lower down in the comments got the idea he's a liberal aside from the fact that he works in education. In my experience, school administrators aren't liberals, they're incompetents who couldn't make a living at a real job. But then I'm from New York City where that kind of thing is encouraged.
School administrators also tend to be the kind of people who say "my hands are tied". They like to blame the rules. It's a pain in the ass because you can't really argue with a rulebook. Scouts teach -- in the Citizenship badges, as I said -- that you should work to change laws and rules through proper channels, but, man, that's hard. Takes a lot of time and energy for very small incremental changes. Most people can't be bothered with that stuff, which is why politicians survive as long as they do. They're like lizards in the desert that can live on a few drops of water a year while decent mammals die in a couple of days.
All I was trying to get at was that zero tolerance is a solution to a problem. It's not necessarily the best solution, but "let's allow administrators to use their common sense" isn't such a great one, either.
Point not made
Dr. Zaius, you are being a bit lazy here.
I think the point Chris is trying to make is that for every one Whalen, there are X (where X is much larger than 1) rule-breakers who get caught and appropriately punished. In your example, the reverse would likely be true, unless you are hypothesizing that most Arabs are terrorists* which I'm sure you are not.
To be completely rigorous, we should look at the percentage of zero-tolerance cases that fit the Whalen mold versus the percentage that fit the Klebold and Harris (the Columbine kids) mold. I have a feeling that what we have here is similar to what I come across in business a lot: we spend 90% of our time dealing with problems that impact the bottom line by less than 10%. Not to belittle the injustice imparted on Whalen, but a lot of people are expending a lot of energy to protest a problem that may not be that great in the grand scheme of things. I don't know, maybe I'm too comfortably removed from it - the kid could have his life affected quite a bit I suppose. Meh.
*Though the Arab saleslady who came to sell me printers today could terrorize me any day. ;)
Comparing apples to mass-murderers
I think you make a very good point, K. (And I took the liberty of correcting the spelling of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris's names.) But I don't think I would use the Columbine shooters in a comparison. I would instead try to compare Whalen's troubles to those of students who were expelled for carrying knives that would clearly fall under the category of a dangerous or illegal weapon. And I'm not sure we have that data. This study for the American Psychological Association, for example, concludes that zero-tolerance policies likely do more harm than good. But it offers lots of anecdotes and few numbers to support its conclusions.
Moreover, I don't think I would compare Whalan's troubles to other well-publicized cases of students being caught with firearms on campus. (See here and here, for example.) But we know that these zero-tolerance rules stem from requirements under the federal Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, so at least we have some data for that. The Education Department keeps track of the number of kids expelled from schools for gun possession. The ED's Web site is a pain to navigate and extract data from, but I found this site, which focuses specifically on national school violence stats. There we find a table published by the ED in 2007 that details Expulsions for Firearms Violations at School, for the 2003-04 school year. The total for 2003-4 was 2,156. That represented a slight increase over the previous school year. Alas, I can find no such table for other weapons, such as knives.
I should point out that the site also includes an article titled, Do We Need Zero Tolerance? that comes down firmly on the side of the negative. It, too, is light on numbers.
I wrote a long piece on school violence back in 1995 that included a ton of data, thanks to a couple of fruitful days spent plumbing the files of the National School Safety Center in Westlake Village. The NSSC periodically publishes a summary of school safety research. Perusing the latest (PDF), I can find none of the data you're looking for.
That said, you could surmise from my posts and comments that I don't think we need quantitative data to conclude these policies are mindless and insipid. And it should go without saying that I don't believe we need a federal Gun-Free Schools Act to make sure that kids who bring guns to school are kicked out and sent to juvie.
Hard Numbers
I sincerely doubt the statistics exist to support either Zero Tolerance or the Common Sense Approach. There are plenty of anecdotes to go around on both sides, though.
In a discussion on the law years ago a friend of mine pointed out that just because you can imagine a few black and white cases where the law gets it egregiously wrong doesn't mean there aren't many, many cases involving shades of gray. And the law may get those right. It behooves anyone making an argument for or against to have explored those.
More on that Eagle Scout 'zero tolerance,' zero sense case
According to Bruce McQuain at Q&O, New York doesn't consider its zero tolerance policy to actually be absolute, and leaves some discretion to administrators. And neither does the state of New York consider having a 2-inch knife locked away in one's trunk a violation of the sensible rule of not bringing weapons to school.
So it appears the draconian application of the "zero tolerance" policy is even more indefensible. The superintendent, not merely content to have the kid suspended for five days, (an injustice in itself) tacked on 15 more days. Why? He felt doing so was "appropriate and fair" and in the interest of applying its zero-tolerance policy evenly. Translation: The superintendent was not willing to risk taking a little heat for applying a rule with the discretion the state allows. So he sacrificed the future of this kid to cover his own ass.
I like McQ's suggestion for the next step in the disciplinary process:
The irony, of course, is that the superintendent is taking more heat for being a mindless, senseless government drone than he would have taken for using the mushy gray matter between his ears.
Its worse that that
I suspect the Super is just another angry Liberal that hates the scouts and is taking it out on the eagle scout.
RE: It's worse than that
Now, Ron. You're just kidding right? This case is bad enough without festooning it with the liberal label.
it wasnt obvious?
I guess I should have put a smiley on that.
just poking fun at myself. all the long posts I thought it would be funny to jaut thow in a gernade.
ill remember the smiley next time.
Yes. Remember the smiley
Or even the wink ... ;-)
My bad. Funny, though.
its hard...
...on a smartphone.
When are we gonna get a mobile version of IM?
George Goodwin Lansingburgh Central
Yes Godwin is a typical liberal bureaucrat.
Remember the children floating face down in the canals of New Orleans after Katrina? The people responsible for this (government workers like Goodwin) will be the same people responsible for your family's health care.
Haha
That's even funnier than Ron's joke. You should register.
Zero Intelligence
Avoidance of favoritism toward star athletes could be part of the zero intelligence policy, but it's more likely something else: there are already racial/ethnic disparities in suspensions and expulsions. If you take "weapons" violations on a case-by-case basis, the disparities might well grow, and the claim will be made that they are a result of racism. Therefore, many administrators favor an absolutely rigid policy that does not open them up to such charges. Like it or not, that's the main reason.
Superintendent Goodwin must hold a doctorate in education. It is impossible that anyone that stupid and incompetent could be without one.
Deja Vu
A similar thing happened to me in high school. But with my drill team prop around this time last year when I was a senior in high school. I wanted to go to the merchant marine academy, so this is like deja vu.
Its amazing that school officials can begin to justify this punishment. Luckily, I was able to go back to school and it didn't jeopardize my admission to the Merchant Marine. I hope they come to their senses and reinstate him. But I think as long as he keeps West Point in the loop they will be understanding and he will be fine. It may help him actually, setting him apart from that crowd -- it did for me -- to look at the bright side.
I can understand that they are trying to protect students, but they do not have to take the humanity and common sense out of laws.
I changed the zero-tolerance law in my state; maybe he can do the same.
RE: Deja Vu
Anonymous, I would like to hear more about your story and the state where you helped get the law changed. You can e-mail me at b.boychuk.3 (AT) gmail.com. Thanks.