I never quite understood this stance when it came to fights and things like that at school. It seems lazy for the most part. I mean, sure... It is probably much easier to say all parties involved in a fight get punished. And it very well may be the case where all parties involved escalated the situation into a fight.
However, it is most likely a situation where one person was the aggressor/initiator/instigator... And the other person was defending themselves. So in this case the victim is being punished as well.


Can someone help me to understand this?


Thanks,
A loving and concerned parent.

10/1/2014 7:27:58 AM

It's so people can't accuse administration of favoritism, or unequal punishments. Some people also think it supports a "get tough" attitude.

Mostly it's so they don't have to think about the problem, they can just was their hands of it and pull the mandated lever (see Pontious Pilate)

10/1/2014 7:47:19 AM

That makes sense to me. Still, seems so lazy. Not to mention it sends the wrong message.

10/1/2014 7:51:44 AM

it leads to school shootings

10/1/2014 8:13:35 AM

it just sounds good. if they've got a "zero tolerance" policy for harassment, that makes it sound like they're doing everything possible to prevent harassment in all forms.

also, it gives them a carte blanche to administer whatever punishment they want. usually the "zero-tolerance" business is not actively applied; but when they want to throw the book at somebody, they can.

but mostly, it just sounds good.

10/1/2014 11:58:17 PM

sounds like somebody who takes a sip of beer and a tiny hit off a joint and gets completely wasted

10/2/2014 12:04:19 AM

#victimblaming

#rapeculture

#checkyourprivilege

10/2/2014 12:09:02 AM

I always imagine it's conservatives who have a need for certainty and don't like nuance and ambiguity who push these kinds of zero-tolerance policies.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

10/2/2014 12:19:11 AM