There’s any number of stories of zero tolerance policies run amok. Perhaps you’ve heard one or two. Like children suspended or expelled from school for bringing an aspirin or antihistamine because the school has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to students having drugs on school premises. Or a young boy who gets the same treatment because he gave a girl in class an unwanted peck on the cheek and his school has a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment.
In our society’s desire to right all wrongs, sometimes we go a little overboard. Sometimes we go a lot overboard. One of the problems with zero tolerance policies is they leave no room for exceptions. A child who has bad allergies or hayfever and who needs to take antihistamines to help would be an obvious exception. Or, the young boy who gives a classmate a peck on the cheek and then gets expelled. Does his behavior really rise to the level where expulsion is warranted? Wouldn’t a better solution be to sit him down and explain to him that what he did isn’t appropriate — even if he happens to have a crush on the girl.
The problem with zero tolerance policies is pretty simple: Whatever issue they’re meant to address, saying “we’re not going to tolerate _______ ” isn’t really a solution at all. Real solutions address the heart, or underlying issues, of a problem. Saying there will be zero tolerance for drugs in school won’t get rid of drugs in school. But it will make children who have legitimate reasons for taking medication to school into rule-breakers. And it may get them disciplined, suspended or expelled. Exactly how does this solve the “drug problem”?
It seems to me that these kinds of policies are an over-reaction. Just like the whole anti-doping hysteria in professional cycling seems to be a gross over-reaction to the scandal last year, where a lab in France leaked results of some “research” conducted on urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France. Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t it seem like the emphasis on catching the cheats in professional cycling this year is because the UCI and the French lab, among others, want to prove they weren’t just out to get Lance Armstrong?
A number of riders, including Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich — two of the top contenders in this year’s race, weren’t even allowed to start this year’s tour. Not because they had tested positive for any banned substances, but because they were linked to the “Operation Puerto” investigation in Spain. The Tour de France, in effect, is saying that it has a zero tolerance policy for doping. Isn’t it strange that very little has been heard about Operation Puerto since the beginning of the tour?
The gross over-reaction and unprofessional conduct of the UCI, the French lab, and even the Phonak cycling team in the ongoing Floyd Landis affair seems to be yet another manifestation of a zero tolerance policy that’s way out of control.
For every problem that a zero tolerance approach is supposed to solve, there are new problems created. Frequently the new problems are worse than the problem the policies are trying to correct. Isn’t it about time that common sense ruled the day? Before we vilify people as cheaters or punish people for “breaking the rules”, shouldn’t they be allowed due process? Or are we a country that promotes the ideal of “innocent until proved guilty” but practices “guilty until proved innocent”?
I think the solution to zero tolerance is pretty simple: we should have zero tolerance for zero tolerance.
