[yan]

I'm not saying they're a good idea, but countering an anecdote with another isn't a very good way to affirm your point. I doubt letting everyone go who tries to shoplift a book from the library in hopes of them becoming characters more fit for a movie plot will do much good either.

That said, you still received my up-vote since it made me think more of zero-tolerance policies and reading books in general. I remember reading a story on the Kindle's popularity with women. A lot of women it interviewed said they enjoyed the literary anonymity the Kindle afforded them in public places, as they generally didn't feel comfortable reading romance and pulp novels in public places like the subway.

The article felt to be in similar vein; someone discovers something that catches their eye but feels shame in seeking it out. I guess what we really need to test are programs that expose youth to a wide variety of material and the freedom and anonymity to pursue those interests :).

[tc]

The problem with zero-tolerance is that it too often equates to zero-thought. It drives out space for humans to exercise good judgment. And since rules often replace judgment, I think they should be evaluated in the same way we evaluate judgment -- how do the rules fare at their worst [1]?

In any case, I edited to make the anecdotal nature clear. Better?

[1] It feels somehow more 'scientific' to point out that some rule works 99.9% of the time, and to thereby dismiss anecdotes as non-evidence (not that zero-tolerance even comes close to meeting this standard). But if a rule unjustly destroys the lives of 0.1% of people who interface with it, I still consider that a lousy rule.

[yan]

You're totally right. Now that I think about it, zero-tolerance always equates to zero-thought, as the point of zero-tolerance to create a shortcut through judgment and rules.

[ryne]

Zero-tolerance, in schools anyway, is zero-thought for the administration and principles, having to deal with the grey cases, setting exceptions when they're education administrators not lawyers. I doubt a student who did a similar action (stealing and returning a library book) would perceive themselves as morally wrong even with a zero-tolerance policy in place on 'stealing'.

[jacquesm]

I think it's just fine, it exactly shows what's wrong with 0 tolerance.

One day driving along Hwy 17, rural Ontario I picked up a kid, about 17 years old. We talked for a while and it turned out that he'd been suspended/kicked out from school for some small time nonsense under the 0 tolerance policy.

He'd been well on his way to be a Canadian hockey player, #1 player in his school. Because of his 'example function' he was expelled. He was looking to find work in construction.

Now, arguably being a hockey player is not the same as being a judge, but it's a damn sight better from an income perspective than being a labourer. And it would have gotten him to finish his school, instead of hitch-hiking cross country to chase the buck.