The "End Zero Tolerance Policies" conundrum...

ThatRobGuy said:

...but if it accurately does identify problematic behavior, and one group happens to be disproportionately impacted by that, does that mean it's not a valid policy?

Or does that simply mean that policies (even if they're effective in what they're set up to do) aren't valid if they produce an inequality of outcome?


Like I noted before, if we were trying to crack down on drunk driving, and a zero tolerance policy was working to correct that issue by yanking the drivers license of anyone caught doing it, if someone raises a red flag and says "this policy is problematic because group A is getting more impacted than group B" (even if it's because group A was engaging in the behavior more frequently), does that mean the policy is bad?

What's the intent of the policy? It it to identify as many of the people as possible engaging in the concerning behavior? Or is it to address only some of it and let a lot of it slide to ensure an equitable outcome across demographic groups?

I can't imagine anyone would want that sort of mindset applied if we were talking about things like sexual harassment, assault, or robbery.

Click to expand...

But if zero tolerance policies was leading to people being arrested for open cans of Coke, and there was no discernable decrease in drunk driving, it might be grounds to question it.

Belk said:

What are you basing your claim that it is not discriminatory upon? Did you have some data or was it just what you felt was correct?

Click to expand...

Definitions of words. I said it's extremely unlikely that racism is the cause. I was referring to racial discrimination.

In regards to punishment (that's what suspensions are....punishment) the biases of the faculty are removed from the process. It's a zero tolerance policy....so, for example, the number of days someone is suspended for fighting was determined before any fights broke out.

The information that sticks in my memory was an NPR report but this should suffice to start.

Zero tolerance laws increase suspension rates for black students

Click to expand...

The article claims that ztps have led to worse outcomes for black students....but I didn't see the part where it claims that it's because of racial discrimination. In fact, I went through a second time and it definitely doesn't claim that racism or racial discrimination is the reason black students are getting suspended 3-4 times as often as white students.

Think about it for a moment....a black student and a white student both get caught fighting in school. Let's imagine that the teacher, or principal, is racist against black students or favors white students. They still have to give them both the same suspension....they cannot give the black student more days suspended and the white student less.

This is the problem with assuming that the existence of a racial disparity somehow proves the existence of systemic/institutional racism. It doesn't. What's worse is it suggests that for years now, "researchers" have been incorrectly identifying the cause of the problem (the problem being the high punishment rates of black students) as racism or racial bias in education.

Personally, I never bought into the idea that so many of our teachers just happened to be racist.

ThatRobGuy said:

...but if it accurately does identify problematic behavior, and one group happens to be disproportionately impacted by that, does that mean it's not a valid policy?

Or does that simply mean that policies (even if they're effective in what they're set up to do) aren't valid if they produce an inequality of outcome?


Like I noted before, if we were trying to crack down on drunk driving, and a zero tolerance policy was working to correct that issue by yanking the drivers license of anyone caught doing it, if someone raises a red flag and says "this policy is problematic because group A is getting more impacted than group B" (even if it's because group A was engaging in the behavior more frequently), does that mean the policy is bad?

What's the intent of the policy? It it to identify as many of the people as possible engaging in the concerning behavior? Or is it to address only some of it and let a lot of it slide to ensure an equitable outcome across demographic groups?

I can't imagine anyone would want that sort of mindset applied if we were talking about things like sexual harassment, assault, or robbery.

Click to expand...

What if it is not applied evenly but instead is more often used to punish POC. Would you consider that to be an issue with the policy or at least it's implementation?

Ana the Ist said:

Definitions of words. I said it's extremely unlikely that racism is the cause. I was referring to racial discrimination.

In regards to punishment (that's what suspensions are....punishment) the biases of the faculty are removed from the process.

Click to expand...

In the ideal form biases might be removed from the process. From what I understand that is not the case in practice.

Ana the Ist said:

It's a zero tolerance policy....so, for example, the number of days someone is suspended for fighting was determined before any fights broke out.

Ana the Ist said:

The article claims that ztps have led to worse outcomes for black students....but I didn't see the part where it claims that it's because of racial discrimination. In fact, I went through a second time and it definitely doesn't claim that racism or racial discrimination is the reason black students are getting suspended 3-4 times as often as white students.

Click to expand...

Is it your claim that students of color are creating issues at 3 - 4 times the rate of white students?

I will point out that it does talk about disparities in discipline by race though it is only a brief mention.

Recent data released by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights also point to persistent disparities by race in the use of school discipline.

Click to expand...

Ana the Ist said:

Think about it for a moment....a black student and a white student both get caught fighting in school. Let's imagine that the teacher, or principal, is racist against black students or favors white students. They still have to give them both the same suspension....they cannot give the black student more days suspended and the white student less.

Click to expand...

What do you feel this proves? Is it possible that black students are subjected to the consequences more then white students even if the punishment is for a set amount of time?

This is the problem with assuming that the existence of a racial disparity somehow proves the existence of systemic/institutional racism. It doesn't. What's worse is it suggests that for years now, "researchers" have been incorrectly identifying the cause of the problem (the problem being the high punishment rates of black students) as racism or racial bias in education.

Personally, I never bought into the idea that so many of our teachers just happened to be racist.

Click to expand...

Has it ever occurred to you that the bias might be there but not amount to outright racism? I see this consistently in these threads. It is as if there is a false dichotomy where people have to be goose stepping Nazis or else the problem does not exist. We are talking about systemic racism and bias. Not that teachers must be racists.

Belk said:

We are talking about systemic racism and bias. Not that teachers must be racists.

Click to expand...

Well here’s where you’re going to run into to problems with the very people who say, “even if racism is a ‘problem’, it doesn’t follow that the system is racist”...
Systemic racism is that which you have to totally come out of the system, (at least intellectually, if one is capable), or go elsewhere to live for a year, if you’re going to make any headway.

Belk said:

In the ideal form biases might be removed from the process.

Click to expand...

In regards to punishment....sure. I don't think I'd call it idealistic though, I'd call it draconian.

Given that the majority of those calling for an end to ztps would probably refer to themselves as left-wing, liberal, or progressive...I find their argument for more nuance and subjectivity in the process to be rather ironic.

Whenever I get into one of these social justice discussions with them, they frequently bring up racial sentencing disparities as evidence of systemic racism. These disparities are a fair bit more complicated than some schoolkids' transgressions....but the sentences themselves reflect a judge typically trying to weigh the unique circumstances of a case and render a sentence they think is appropriate.

Then researchers come along, gather up all the sentences, and suggest that all the judges and DAs are racist because a black man gets 10 months on average for simple assault while a white man gets 7 months.

Those same people from the political left inevitably complain that everyone should get the same punishment for the "same crime".

Yet here, when it comes to getting suspended from school....the same punishment for the same "crime" isn't good enough either.

From what I understand that is not the case in practice.

Click to expand...

At what point do you think bias enters the process?

Has it ever occurred to you that the bias might be there but not amount to outright racism?

Click to expand...

Absolutely...you mean like "little Johnny reminds the teacher of her nephew" so she has a tendency to go easy on him?

I see this consistently in these threads. It is as if there is a false dichotomy where people have to be goose stepping Nazis or else the problem does not exist. We are talking about systemic racism and bias. Not that teachers must be racists.

Click to expand...

You've lost me here....where does the systemic racism exist if not in the racial biases of the faculty? How is that systemic racism expressed so that it affects outcomes across racial lines?

It's not in the zero tolerance policy itself....I'm certain that those policies don't include any language expressing different treatment according to race.

Since you seem to be willing to discuss this in good faith, let me ask you a question....

Do you think there's a decent chance the difference in outcomes isn't related to racism or racial bias in any way that's significant? Or do you think the explanation has to have something to do with racism or racial bias?

Ana the Ist said:

In regards to punishment....sure. I don't think I'd call it idealistic though, I'd call it draconian.

Click to expand...

I would agree.

Ana the Ist said:

Given that the majority of those calling for an end to ztps would probably refer to themselves as left-wing, liberal, or progressive...I find their argument for more nuance and subjectivity in the process to be rather ironic.

Click to expand...

We are all human with our own foibles after all.

Ana the Ist said:

Whenever I get into one of these social justice discussions with them, they frequently bring up racial sentencing disparities as evidence of systemic racism. These disparities are a fair bit more complicated than some schoolkids' transgressions....but the sentences themselves reflect a judge typically trying to weigh the unique circumstances of a case and render a sentence they think is appropriate.

Then researchers come along, gather up all the sentences, and suggest that all the judges and DAs are racist because a black man gets 10 months on average for simple assault while a white man gets 7 months.

Click to expand...

There it is again. You admit it is possible for them to have bias without being racist further down. I have not heard any claims that judges and the DA are racists, just that African Americans get the short end of the stick as far as the justice system goes.

Ana the Ist said:

Those same people from the political left inevitably complain that everyone should get the same punishment for the "same crime".

Click to expand...

Not I. I think mandatory minimums are an issue and that we should give judges greater discretion.

Ana the Ist said:

Yet here, when it comes to getting suspended from school....the same punishment for the same "crime" isn't good enough either.



At what point do you think bias enters the process?

Click to expand...

I can't make claims of certainty but my guess would be at multiple points in the process. It is pretty much inevitable where humans are concerned.

Ana the Ist said:

Absolutely...you mean like "little Johnny reminds the teacher of her nephew" so she has a tendency to go easy on him?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Or the famous study of resumes that had "black" names so they tended to get passed over.

Ana the Ist said:

You've lost me here....where does the systemic racism exist if not in the racial biases of the faculty? How is that systemic racism expressed so that it affects outcomes across racial lines?

Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that the bias of the faculty is a large part of the equation. I do not claim knowledge but my thinking is that it is in several factors that are not totally under human control.

Ana the Ist said:

It's not in the zero tolerance policy itself....I'm certain that those policies don't include any language expressing different treatment according to race.

Click to expand...

Agreed. As I said I think the polices are written in good faith. It is just their execution which is problematic and the racial aspect is less of an issue to my mind then the idiotic outcomes that are sometimes proscribed.

Ana the Ist said:

Since you seem to be willing to discuss this in good faith, let me ask you a question....

Do you think there's a decent chance the difference in outcomes isn't related to racism or racial bias in any way that's significant? Or do you think the explanation has to have something to do with racism or racial bias?

Click to expand...

As with most things I think it is a combination. I think the different outcomes have multiple different causes and racial bias is one of them. To what degree I can only guess but given the statistics I have a hard time believing students of color act up at 3 to 4 times the rates of white students. Do I think that they DO act up more? Definitely. In my experience from my school in the poor backwaters of Washington kids from lower income families will have a higher incidence of disciplinary problems and POC have lower incomes on average.

Belk said:

I would agree.

Click to expand...

Taaa-daaaa!

Feels like magic when we agree Belk

We are all human with our own foibles after all.

Click to expand...

Taaaa-daaa! There it is again.

There it is again. You admit it is possible for them to have bias without being racist further down. I have not heard any claims that judges and the DA are racists, just that African Americans get the short end of the stick as far as the justice system goes.

Click to expand...

Firstly, yeah...of course it's possible. That's a possibility that exists in reality. Did it feel like I was denying that at some point?

I'm not sure what you think the difference between these two things is though....

1. Racial bias that influences someone's behavior, particularly how they treat others.
2. Racist behavior.

In my mind, it's the same thing. The only difference might be how consciously aware of their motives the racist person is.

As for "the system is racist" and not the judges and DAs....

What does that mean? In my mind, the way I see it, the legal system is laws and people. That's all it consists of. Folks like you and me, and even the majority of people calling the justice system racist.....we all basically agree that racism was removed from the laws. Jim Crow is over. There's no real law that looks at a racial group as less than any other.

That leaves the people lol. When someone says that the justice system is racist....and they use sentencing as an example, they're saying that the lawyers and judges are racist. They're saying those people are making decisions and judging people based on race.

If you insist that you don't mean it that way.....then I'm really curious about what you mean lol. I've always taken it that way.

I can't make claims of certainty but my guess would be at multiple points in the process.

Click to expand...

I don't need certainty. I'd be happy with a purely hypothetical scenario.

Exactly. Or the famous study of resumes that had "black" names so they tended to get passed over.

Click to expand...

Sure...except that's not really about outcomes.

I would hazard a guess that the bias of the faculty is a large part of the equation. I do not claim knowledge but my thinking is that it is in several factors that are not totally under human control.

Click to expand...

How though? Can you just make up an example?



Agreed. As I said I think the polices are written in good faith. It is just their execution which is problematic and the racial aspect is less of an issue to my mind then the idiotic outcomes that are sometimes proscribed.

As with most things I think it is a combination. I think the different outcomes have multiple different causes and racial bias is one of them. To what degree I can only guess but given the statistics I have a hard time believing students of color act up at 3 to 4 times the rates of white students. Do I think that they DO act up more? Definitely. In my experience from my school in the poor backwaters of Washington kids from lower income families will have a higher incidence of disciplinary problems and POC have lower incomes on average.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing...there's so many factors that might cause someone to act up. It's hard to even list them all...and we could easily research a lot of them.

The researchers don't do that though. They suggest it's racism and shut the book.

Let's assume for a moment that the cause isn't related to racism. We can shift policies, change rules, and train faculty till we're blue in the face....it won't work unless we can correctly identify the cause.

Ana the Ist said:

Taaa-daaaa!

Feels like magic when we agree Belk



Taaaa-daaa! There it is again.

Click to expand...

It is not that rare. Certainly we agree quite a bit in the CREVO section.

Ana the Ist said:

Firstly, yeah...of course it's possible. That's a possibility that exists in reality. Did it feel like I was denying that at some point?

I'm not sure what you think the difference between these two things is though....

1. Racial bias that influences someone's behavior, particularly how they treat others.
2. Racist behavior.

In my mind, it's the same thing. The only difference might be how consciously aware of their motives the racist person is.

Click to expand...

It is the difference between "I feel uncomfortable around POC because I don't know how to act." and "Let's lynch someone". Exaggerated for effect obviously.

I guess to my mind the biggest difference is the first group is likely willing to learn to reduce their bias will the second group embraces theirs.

Ana the Ist said:

As for "the system is racist" and not the judges and DAs....

What does that mean? In my mind, the way I see it, the legal system is laws and people. That's all it consists of. Folks like you and me, and even the majority of people calling the justice system racist.....we all basically agree that racism was removed from the laws. Jim Crow is over. There's no real law that looks at a racial group as less than any other.

That leaves the people lol. When someone says that the justice system is racist....and they use sentencing as an example, they're saying that the lawyers and judges are racist. They're saying those people are making decisions and judging people based on race.

If you insist that you don't mean it that way.....then I'm really curious about what you mean lol. I've always taken it that way.

Click to expand...

Systemic racism is the racism that is built into the system. It really does not focus on race but it has the same outcome. For example with the justice system POC are much more likely to be poor and lack the resources to hire adequate legal counsel. As a result they tend to get worse sentences and are much more likely to plea bargain. Hence they are much more likely to have outlier sentences without the judge or DA needing to show bias (Though I would think that does happens).

Ana the Ist said:

I don't need certainty. I'd be happy with a purely hypothetical scenario.

Click to expand...

Good. I admit while I have had some training in this area I still lack expertise.

Ana the Ist said:

Sure...except that's not really about outcomes.

Click to expand...

It is to the black people who don't get hired.

Ana the Ist said:

How though? Can you just make up an example?

Click to expand...

If the example of the justice system above does not work for you let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Ana the Ist said:

Here's the thing...there's so many factors that might cause someone to act up. It's hard to even list them all...and we could easily research a lot of them.

The researchers don't do that though. They suggest it's racism and shut the book.

Click to expand...

I don't find that likely given the methodical nature of researchers. They might not be certain it is racism but the have a lot of data pointing that direction.

Ana the Ist said:

Let's assume for a moment that the cause isn't related to racism. We can shift policies, change rules, and train faculty till we're blue in the face....it won't work unless we can correctly identify the cause.

Click to expand...

Certainly it makes it much harder to craft a viable solution if you do not have the correct root cause. The question I have is how do we know we have an incorrect root cause? I find the likely hood that racial bias dispersed along with the Jim Crow area somewhat fantastic.

ThatRobGuy said:

Sure, if there was some data suggesting that out of two groups, both, per captita, were engaging in the same level of fighting/threats/etc... but one group, per capita, was getting punished for it at a way higher rate, then the "why?" question would certainly need to be asked.

As it currently stands, the number breakdown among students (for engaging in certain types of behavior)

• In 2017, non-Hispanic black students reported the highest rates of being in a physical fight within the past year, followed by their Hispanic and non-Hispanic white peers, at 33 percent, 26 percent, and 21 percent, respectively.

If one of the things that invoked a "zero tolerance" suspension/expulsion was a physical fight, and one group is engaging in physical fights at a rate that's > 50% higher (in terms of percentage comparisons), I would expect that group to be impacted more by zero-tolerance policies.

Click to expand...

If the break down is 33% to 21% why is there a three fold increase (Going by Ana the Ist's numbers, I have not looked it up) in ZTP being applied to the first group?

hedrick said:

I believe zero tolerance was done for bullying, not just guns. However I also agree that it’s a bad idea. I think it’s from the same era as fixed sentences, which has also proven a bad idea.

Click to expand...

It could be that the way it was implemented was heavy-handed. It should be used to try to reduce violence and bullying in schools, not to punish perceived impropriety.

ThatRobGuy said:

I'd have to look at their numbers and see what circumstances they're taking into account.

The stats I was providing only applied to people having reported being in a fight in the last year. Other ZTP measures that take into account things like verbal threats, I haven't looked up the stats for (nor am I sure if those stats are even available)

Click to expand...

Indeed. It would be interesting to see the numbers.