Zero tolerance

[billy.pilgrim]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but memory says that the black and white, no questions asked, no circumstances considered, zero tolerance bullshit started, or came to bloom, during the disastrous reagan administration.

Could be that I'm only blaming the repubs because this idiocy seems so republican.

Whenever it started and for whatever reason, this sucks:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/us/black ... index.html

[Vrede too]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but memory says that the black and white, no questions asked, no circumstances considered, zero tolerance bullshit started, or came to bloom, during the disastrous reagan administration.

Could be that I'm only blaming the repubs because this idiocy seems so republican.

Whenever it started and for whatever reason, this sucks:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/us/black ... index.html

Yes and no. It is a con invention, though they now whine about it the loudest while blaming "liberals".

Zero-tolerance: History

The idea behind zero-tolerance policies can be traced back to the Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Act, approved in New Jersey in 1973, which has the same underlying assumptions. The ideas behind the 1973 New Jersey policy were later popularized in 1982, when a US cultural magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, published an article by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling about the broken windows theory of crime....

Narcotics

In the United States, zero tolerance, as an approach against drugs, was originally designed as a part of the War on Drugs under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ostensibly to curb the transfer of drugs at US borders. Law-enforcement was to target the drug users rather than the transporters or suppliers under the assumptions that harsh sentences and strict enforcement of personal use would reduce demand and, therefore, strike at root cause of the drug problem. The policy did not require additional laws; instead existing law was enacted with less leniency....

In schools

Zero-tolerance policies have been adopted in schools and other education venues around the world. These policies are usually promoted as preventing drug abuse, violence, and gang activity in schools. In schools, common zero-tolerance policies concern possession or use of drugs or weapons. Students and, sometimes staff, parents, and other visitors, who possess a banned item or perform any prohibited action for any reason are automatically punished. School administrators are barred from using their judgment, reducing severe punishments to be proportional to minor offenses, or considering extenuating circumstances. For example, the policies treat possession of a knife identically, regardless of whether the knife is a blunt table knife being used to eat a meal, a craft knife used in an art class, or switchblade with no reasonable practical or educational value. Consequently, these policies are sometimes derided as "zero-intelligence policies".

There is no credible evidence that zero tolerance reduces violence or drug abuse by students.

The unintended negative consequences are clearly documented and sometimes severe: school suspension and expulsion result in a number of negative outcomes for both schools and students. Although the policies are "facially neutral", minority children are the most likely to suffer the negative consequences of zero tolerance.

These policies have also resulted in embarrassing publicity for schools and have been struck down by the courts and by Departments of Education, and they have been weakened by legislatures.

Sorta yes to when this “zero tolerance bullshit started, … during the disastrous reagan administration.”
Yes to “blaming the repubs”.
Yes to Nancy/Ronnie/Daddy Shrub applying it to drugs.
Schools pretty much adopted it on their own rather than at federal urging.

Thanks for alerting us.

To: kboran@madison.k12.wi.us, board@madison.k12.wi.us, jbelmore@madison.k12.wi.us
Subject: Marlon Anderson

Dear Principal Boran, Madison Metropolitan School Board and Superintendent Belmore,

Re: An African American security guard asked a student to not call him the n-word. That request got him fired
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/us/black ... index.html

This is BS. Quoting the abusive student in a request to stop is specificity, NOT racism. This is one of the most egregious applications of zero-tolerance I have ever heard of. You have nationally shamed your school and district. You must re-hire, provide back pay for and apologize to Marlon Anderson. It is the ONLY decent and responsible thing to do.

Be better,
(Vrede too)

neoplacebo and the rest of the forum, Marlon Anderson needs you.

[O Really]

Go gettum, Neo!

[Vrede too]

Go gettum, Neo!

Throw some legal voodoo at them, O Really! Didn't you do some WI public employee law?

[Doug1943]

I don't think this is a genuine incident of 'zero tolerance'.

The 'broken windows theory' said that tolerating small incidents of social disorder -- allowing abandoned cars to remain on the street, allowing non-maintained buildings with broken windows to continue in that state, allowing turnstile-jumping on subways -- gave the message to the underclass that the authorities were not in control, and encouraged escalation from petty criminal behavior to more serious behavior. Its implementation in New York City coincided with a general drop in the crime rate, but because there was a drop elsewhere, it is not 100% obvious (to me at least) that it was one of the major causes of New York's drop.

I personally believe that this theory makes a lot of sense, and that it should be tested extensively, along with other kinds of rewards and punishments to try to restrain and alter the behavior of the underclass. Perhaps my belief is motivated in part by my general admiration of the late James Q. Wilson, one of the few social scientists I take seriously.

However, this particular incident is an example of zero intelligence, not zero tolerance -- something found all too often among educational administrators. An intelligent application of 'zero tolerance' would be: you can't use certain specified racial slurs to insult people, not even once. However, if you're quoting the word, or, for instance, reading Huckleberry Finn out loud(where the word is used), or in some other way using the word that shouldn't count. It's a kind of superstitious ignorance -- akin to belief in the magical power of words -- to think that just emitting a string of symbols, or sounds, is somehow evil. Context in these cases is everything.

I do hope this man gets his job back and that the idiot who decided to sack him is himself sacked in return.

[O Really]

However, this particular incident is an example of zero intelligence, not zero tolerance -- something found all too often among educational administrators. An intelligent application of 'zero tolerance' would be: you can't use certain specified racial slurs to insult people, not even once. However, if you're quoting the word, or, for instance, reading Huckleberry Finn out loud(where the word is used), or in some other way using the word that shouldn't count. It's a kind of superstitious ignorance -- akin to belief in the magical power of words -- to think that just emitting a string of symbols, or sounds, is somehow evil. Context in these cases is everything.

Absolutely correct.

[Vrede too]

The Wiki page describes, with citations, how even appropriate use of zero tolerance theory has been tested extensively and failed.

[O Really]

The Wiki page describes, with citations, how even appropriate use of zero tolerance theory has been tested extensively and failed.

No surprise there. The world is not suited for "zero tolerance" on anything. Nothing is absolutely yes/no black/white - except maybe alive/dead, and even that has been fuzzy sometimes.

[Doug1943]

I probably looked at that Wiki page at some point, because a few years ago I did some reading around on the 'Broken Windows' hypothesis, but I'll have another look.

The problem is, it's very difficult today to approach social issues like crime or poor educational results or unemployment or the effect of single-parent households on children from a scientific, objective point of view.

Someone who is not a professional social scientist -- like me -- has to rely on the work of professional social scientists. But I believe it's almost impossible to find people who make strong efforts to escape their own political prejudices. Of course, if I shared the political prejudices of most social scientists I would be inclined to accept their results. But my prejudices are by and large different.

Then, there is the 'replicability crisis', which overlaps with this problem. Evidently, even many non-political results obtained by social scientists have turned out not to be repeatable. And this is in addition to the statistical illiteracy among many people -- social AND medical researchers -- who are not well trained in statistics and who don't make sure they get advice from a statistician. (You're probably familiar with the work of John Ioannidis. For anyone who is not, this article in The Atlantic from about ten years ago is useful.)

And on the other hand, it may be like the work of the late Judith Rich Harris, in The Nurture Assumption. I didn't want to believe her conclusions, because they seemed so contrary to common sense and my own experience ... but I couldn't fault her data, nor did I read anything that did. (I had somewhat the same response to that chapter in The Bell Curve on race.) In all of these cases, my own experience -- which of course matches my prejudices -- leads me not to want to embrace the conclusions of the authors (the anonymous authors in the case of the Wiki article). But since the issues involved have almost no politically-neutral people looking at them, it's very hard to evaluate their work.

Anyway, thanks for the tip on the Wiki article, which I will read now.

[Vrede too]

I'm not citing the Wiki article, though it's really cleaned up its act from the earlier criticism it deserved. Rather, I'm citing its many non-anonymous scientific citations. The replication issue is achieved through the massive numbers of jurisdictions to compare over 35 years or so. Even if there's dispute at the margins, when one factors in the negatives including harsh punishments with serious impacts, I think its clear that we need a more rational approach.

[Doug1943]

I just had a quick skim of the Wiki article on the 'Broken Windows Theory', which seems to conform to what I said. I've got to go to bed now (it's nearly 1am where I live) but I'll read the Wiki article on Zero Tolerance tomorrow.

This excerpt from the 'Broken Windows' Wiki article is relevant:

Difference with "zero tolerance"

Broken windows policing is sometimes described as a "zero tolerance" policing style,[15] including in some academic studies. However, several key proponents such as Bratton and Kelling argue that there is a key difference. In 2014, they outlined a difference between "broken windows policing" and "zero tolerance":

Critics use the term "zero tolerance" in a pejorative sense to suggest that Broken Windows policing is a form of zealotry—the imposition of rigid, moralistic standards of behavior on diverse populations. It is not. Broken Windows is a highly discretionary police activity that requires careful training, guidelines, and supervision, as well as an ongoing dialogue with neighborhoods and communities to ensure that it is properly conducted

Bratton and Kelling advocate that authorities should be effective at catching minor offenders while also giving them lenient punishment. Citing fare evasion as an example, they argue that the police should attempt to catch fare evaders, and that the vast majority should be summoned to court rather than arrested and given a punishment other than jail. The goal is to deter minor offenders from committing more serious crimes in the future and reduce the prison population in the long run.

Please note that I do not want to give the appearance of believing that improving in policing is the only thing we need to do to deal with the high rate of crime in underclass-dominated neighborhoods. I'm also in general agreement with social scientists like William Julius Wilson, in such books as When Work Disappears [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Work_Disappears], and Robert Cherry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Cherry], but my most serious interest is in improving the education available to inner city children ... but that's a different topic.

[neoplacebo]

I think the concept of zero tolerance is nothing other than a fascist tactic that disregards specific and or individual circumstances. I guess you could say I have a zero tolerance policy for zero tolerance policies. I'm funny that way.

[neoplacebo]

I just had a quick skim of the Wiki article on the 'Broken Windows Theory', which seems to conform to what I said. I've got to go to bed now (it's nearly 1am where I live) but I'll read the Wiki article on Zero Tolerance tomorrow.

This excerpt from the 'Broken Windows' Wiki article is relevant:

Difference with "zero tolerance"

Broken windows policing is sometimes described as a "zero tolerance" policing style,[15] including in some academic studies. However, several key proponents such as Bratton and Kelling argue that there is a key difference. In 2014, they outlined a difference between "broken windows policing" and "zero tolerance":

Critics use the term "zero tolerance" in a pejorative sense to suggest that Broken Windows policing is a form of zealotry—the imposition of rigid, moralistic standards of behavior on diverse populations. It is not. Broken Windows is a highly discretionary police activity that requires careful training, guidelines, and supervision, as well as an ongoing dialogue with neighborhoods and communities to ensure that it is properly conducted

Bratton and Kelling advocate that authorities should be effective at catching minor offenders while also giving them lenient punishment. Citing fare evasion as an example, they argue that the police should attempt to catch fare evaders, and that the vast majority should be summoned to court rather than arrested and given a punishment other than jail. The goal is to deter minor offenders from committing more serious crimes in the future and reduce the prison population in the long run.

Please note that I do not want to give the appearance of believing that improving in policing is the only thing we need to do to deal with the high rate of crime in underclass-dominated neighborhoods. I'm also in general agreement with social scientists like William Julius Wilson, in such books as When Work Disappears [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Work_Disappears], and Robert Cherry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Cherry], but my most serious interest is in improving the education available to inner city children ... but that's a different topic.

You are correct to focus your interest on the improvement of education. Education is the key to everything, and the key to erasing what you seem to have an affinity for referring to as the underclass. Do you understand that if not for your education or inherent cognizance you, too, would easily comport with the underclass instead of assuming yourself to be an ubermensch.

[Doug1943]

We're all funny in our own ways. Especially the people who post on forums like this. Long live individual differences!

I recall one of the closing lines of George Orwell's Politics and the English Language, in which he lays out five rules for clear writing, but then concludes with a sixth rule, "Break any of these rules rather than say anything outright barbarous." [A downloadable copy of this excellent essay can be found here: https://faculty.washington.edu/rsoder/E ... nguage.pdf ]

It seems to me that all laws, rules, regulations, etc. have to be applied with common sense. So 'zero tolerance' really ought to be 0.0001% tolerance.

My perhaps-idealized image of old-fashioned policing -- as fictionalized in that ex-LA policeman's (Joseph Wambaugh) novels, The Blue Knight and The New Centurions -- demonstrated this. An 11-year-old 'stealing' apples lying on the ground in an orchard is technically in the same category as the 17-year old breaking your car window to get the laptop you foolishly left in the car, but a smart policeman will deal very differently with the two.

More generally, we have to recognize that modern society is increasingly diverse, and we need to cultivate a live-and-let-live attitude of general tolerance for behaviors,beliefs, utterances that don't actually do material harm to others.

In the case of that poor security guard who lost his job for using the N-word to warn a nasty little toe-rag not to use the N-word towards him, it's just an issue of common sense. But suppose you had a kid from a poor home environment, who perhaps didn't even know that this word was on the 'proscribed' list, and who used it. Even there, I wouldn't be in favor of expelling or formally punishing him for a first use.

As Julius Caesar would have said, De minimus non curat lex. -- the law does not take notice of trivial things. Or maybe a better translation in most cases would be "lighten up!".

[Doug1943]

You are correct to focus your interest on the improvement of education. Education is the key to everything, and the key to erasing what you seem to have an affinity for referring to as the underclass. Do you understand that if not for your education or inherent cognizance you, too, would easily comport with the underclass instead of assuming yourself to be an ubermensch.

You bet. While I certainly don't consider myself an 'ubermensch', I know that given a different social environment and a different set of genes, I would be a different person, possibly a mass murderer, or a typical member of the underclass.

By 'underclass' I don't mean 'poor'. There is a good discussion of the term in the Wiki article on the subject [ here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underclass] , an excerpt of which I'll quote here to show how I use the word:

Lawrence M. Mead defines the underclass as a group that is poor and behaviorally deficient. He describes the underclass as dysfunctional. He provides the following definition in his 1986 book, Beyond Entitlement,

The underclass is most visible in urban slum settings and is about 70 percent nonwhite, but it includes many rural and white people as well, especially in Appalachia and the South. Much of the urban underclass is made up of street hustlers, welfare families, drug addicts, and former mental patients. There are, of course, people who function well – the so-called 'deserving' or 'working poor' – and better-off people who function poorly, but in general low income and serious behavioral difficulties go together. The underclass is not large as a share of population, perhaps 9 million people, but it accounts for the lion's share of the most serious disorders in American life, especially in the cities.

Ken Auletta, often credited as the primary journalist who brought the underclass term to the forefront of the American consciousness, describes the American underclass as non-assimilated Americans, and he suggests that the underclass may be subcategorized into four distinct groups:

(1) the passive poor, usually long-term welfare recipients; (2) the hostile street criminals who terrorize most cities, and who are often school dropouts and drug addicts; (3) the hustlers, who, like street criminals, may not be poor and who earn their livelihood in an underground economy, but rarely commit violent crimes; (4) the traumatized drunks, drifters, homeless shopping-bag ladies, and released mental patients who frequently roam or collapse on city streets

Marxists use the word 'lumpenproletariat', after Marx himself described how this group in Paris were the shocktroops for Louis Napoleon's coup against the Second Republic. In countries which are racially homogenous, they are almost always aligned with the fascists, although the peculiar American situation precludes this.

(I'm going to bed now, so my replies to any further discussion will be delayed for several hours.)

[Vrede too]

Education is indeed critical, but improving it necessarily includes addressing classism and racism. Then, among people with equal education the opportunities are still superior for Whites.

Black workers endure persistent racial disparities in employment outcomes

Summary: Black workers are twice as likely to be unemployed as white workers overall (6.4% vs. 3.1%). Even black workers with a college degree are more likely to be unemployed than similarly educated white workers (3.5% vs. 2.2%). When they are employed, black workers with a college or advanced degree are more likely than their white counterparts to be underemployed when it comes to their skill level—almost 40% are in a job that typically does not require a college degree, compared with 31% of white college grads. This relatively high black unemployment and skills-based underemployment suggests that racial discrimination remains a failure of an otherwise tight labor market.

[Doug1943]

Just a quick comment: Blacks suffer from 'statistical prejudice': if you're walking along a dark street at night and hear footsteps behind you, and you turn aruond and see that it's three young Black men, you will be alarmed. If it's three young Chinese, you probably won't. You know that statistically young Black males, although not more than 5% of the population, commit more than 50% of murders, and all the political correctness in the world won't change your response. This is true despite the fact that the majority of young Black men are not violent criminals. (And there are probably a few young Chinese men who are.) This almost certainly also spills over into hiring practices. There is also no doubt outright racial prejudice that would operate regardless of social reality, although this sort of extreme, open prejudice is most often seen in societies with backward populations, such as in Africa, where ethnic/tribal differences are frequently lethal, or where the populations, while not socially backward, have long-standing histories of mutual hatred -- the Balkans are a good example. (As an almost invariable rule, ethnic/tribal diversity in a country is a huge misfortune for the peoples living there, leading to periodic mass violence. I think only the Swiss are an exception to this rule. )

And there is another factor: Affirmative Action means that a Black college graduate will not be assumed by anyone who knows the reality to be the equivalent of a white college graduate. Statistical prejudice again, but well founded. I don't know his source, but I have good reason to believe him, but one scholar stated that to get into Cornell University, if you're white you have to be in the 99th percentile of intelligence. If you're black, only in the 75 percentile.

The Russians have a saying, "You can't fool life."

I have a pretty good idea of the various beliefs and practices to which the word "racism" is used to refer, but I don't know how "classism" is used. Could you elaborate?

[neoplacebo]

Just a quick comment: Blacks suffer from 'statistical prejudice': if you're walking along a dark street at night and hear footsteps behind you, and you turn aruond and see that it's three young Black men, you will be alarmed. If it's three young Chinese, you probably won't. You know that statistically young Black males, although not more than 5% of the population, commit more than 50% of murders, and all the political correctness in the world won't change your response. This is true despite the fact that the majority of young Black men are not violent criminals. (And there are probably a few young Chinese men who are.) This almost certainly also spills over into hiring practices. There is also no doubt outright racial prejudice that would operate regardless of social reality, although this sort of extreme, open prejudice is most often seen in societies with backward populations, such as in Africa, where ethnic/tribal differences are frequently lethal, or where the populations, while not socially backward, have long-standing histories of mutual hatred -- the Balkans are a good example. (As an almost invariable rule, ethnic/tribal diversity in a country is a huge misfortune for the peoples living there, leading to periodic mass violence. I think only the Swiss are an exception to this rule. )

And there is another factor: Affirmative Action means that a Black college graduate will not be assumed by anyone who knows the reality to be the equivalent of a white college graduate. Statistical prejudice again, but well founded. I don't know his source, but I have good reason to believe him, but one scholar stated that to get into Cornell University, if you're white you have to be in the 99th percentile of intelligence. If you're black, only in the 75 percentile.

The Russians have a saying, "You can't fool life."

I have a pretty good idea of the various beliefs and practices to which the word "racism" is used to refer, but I don't know how "classism" is used. Could you elaborate?

As far as I know, Affirmative Action programs only apply to admission to educational or professional organizations or institutions and that once you're in one of them, the universal standards to be able to remain in and or advance in those positions are no different with respect to affirmative action subjects versus standard subjects. You seem to be saying that affirmative action programs by definition are substandard and that subsequent criteria for advancement in any particular field is skewed in favor of affirmative action recipients. Seems to me those programs only serve to provide opportunities to those who may not otherwise have them; their continuance in those programs or advancement or failure in those programs no longer has anything to do with affirmative action once they're in the program. At that point, everyone is equal and rises or falls according to their own ability. What could be more equitable, or competitive?

[O Really]

"...but one scholar stated that to get into Cornell University, if you're white you have to be in the 99th percentile of intelligence. If you're black, only in the 75 percentile."

That scholar would be mistaken on both counts.

[Vrede too]

Just a quick comment: Blacks suffer from 'statistical prejudice': if you're walking along a dark street at night and hear footsteps behind you, and you turn aruond and see that it's three young Black men, you will be alarmed. If it's three young Chinese, you probably won't.

If they're in a rental car I'm terrified, not so much with Blacks .

You know that statistically young Black males, although not more than 5% of the population, commit more than 50% of murders, and all the political correctness in the world won't change your response.

Actually, it's politically correct, and racist, of you to not delve further into the stats. When adjusted for age and economic status, as any middle school Stats student knows to do, youth and poverty determine criminal behavior, NOT skin color. In other words, a poor young White male is just as likely to be a criminal as a poor young Black male.

Class, Race, and Gender in Criminology and Criminal Justice: Ways of Seeing Difference
http://critcrim.org/barak.htm

This is true despite the fact that the majority of young Black men are not violent criminals. (And there are probably a few young Chinese men who are.) This almost certainly also spills over into hiring practices.

Which is by definition racist and illegal.

There is also no doubt outright racial prejudice that would operate regardless of social reality, although this sort of extreme, open prejudice is most often seen in societies with backward populations, such as in Africa, where ethnic/tribal differences are frequently lethal, or where the populations, while not socially backward, have long-standing histories of mutual hatred -- the Balkans are a good example. (As an almost invariable rule, ethnic/tribal diversity in a country is a huge misfortune for the peoples living there, leading to periodic mass violence. I think only the Swiss are an exception to this rule. )

You can cite racist anecdotes for that, but I challenge you to find any credible science backing you up.

And there is another factor: Affirmative Action means that a Black college graduate will not be assumed by anyone who knows the reality to be the equivalent of a white college graduate.

Affirmative Action has been largely dismantled. Didn't you get the memo?

Statistical prejudice again, but well founded.

"well founded" means something different to whiny racists than it does to we normal people.

I don't know his source,

CONvenient that.

but I have good reason to believe him, but one scholar stated that to get into Cornell University, if you're white you have to be in the 99th percentile of intelligence. If you're black, only in the 75 percentile.

You changed the debate. I posted about economic status AFTER graduation. Admissions is entirely different. Affirmative Action does NOT apply to the awarding of grades and degrees.

The Russians have a saying, "You can't fool life."

You tried. If you were better educated you would not have thought that you would get away with it.

I have a pretty good idea of the various beliefs and practices to which the word "racism" is used to refer, but I don't know how "classism" is used. Could you elaborate?

The quality of schools and education is directly related to the economic status of the student body. Efforts to improve education, which we both support, are hampered by this reality. Thus, we shouldn't look at education in isolation from other social factors.