Religion poll a waste of paper

Originally published in The Gateway, 9th October 2008

There’s an election going on at the moment. No—not the Obama/McCain one, and not even the Canadian one that you probably know less about, but affects you more. This one went on with almost no warning and, in the end, will have no positive effect at all.

Perhaps by now you’ve seen a certain campus group’s posters asking you to vote on whether you believe in God. By setting up a booth in CAB, and later SUB, they hope to accomplish what the SU has failed at for far too long—getting students to vote. However, one must immediately question several things regarding this concept.

Firstly, you have to ponder the purpose of performing a poll like this yourself instead of hiring a polling company. You would think that a statistically significant poll would be more valuable—but perhaps empirical evidence is a bit too foreign to some believers.

If you want a hint at their results, see if they line up with a Canada Press poll from this past year that found that 23 per cent of Canadians don’t believe in a God, and 36 per cent of Canadians under 25 were non-believers. In a university campus environment, the latter group is quite prevalent.

Next, with polls like these, one has to wonder how the terms have been defined. It’s unclear what they’re talking about when they mention “God.”

Traditionally, big-G God refers to that guy-in-the-sky that Jews, Muslims, and Christians believe in. But some people believe that there’s some universal spirit or force running through the universe, and they call that god.

Others believe in a deity that started the universe and let it go like a wind-up watch. So what definition are they going with?

Then there’s the strangeness of hinging the metaphysical existence of anything on popularity. Humans often believe pretty crazy things. For example, people have believed the earth was the back of a turtle, while others believed that the Milky Way was fluid squirted from a goddess’s breast. So to run a mock election on belief in God makes me wonder what they hope to prove.

There are a countless number of things that the majority of humanity has previously believed without any empirical evidence that later turned out to be false—the earth being flat, the earth being the centre of the universe, the sun being the centre of the universe, humans being utterly disconnected from the rest of the animal kingdom, the existence of witches, and that masturbation will cause hairy palms.

So to ask whether the majority believes in a supernatural being doesn’t lend anything to its existence—we may as well ask if people believe in the Higgs boson. Without doing actual science, we’ll never know an answer about either.

Some will claim that science can’t know everything, and that God can’t be found in a test tube. Well, he can’t be found in a student group-sponsored poll either. And rather than getting their group more believers, they may inadvertently expose how many unbelievers there are on this campus.

Alberta is often seen as the most conservative Christian province in Canada, and election day will demonstrate why. However, when the 2001 census shows that upwards of 25 per cent of Albertans claim “no religion,” second only to British Columbia, there’s clearly more going on than meets the eye.

So take charge, fellow heathens, heretics, humanists, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and skeptics: you are not alone.

There’s no ‘God’ in graduation

Originally published in The Gateway, 16th September 2008

Upon the gruelling end of a 4-5-6 or even 7 year journey, students embark across a stage for the chance to experience their high school graduation on steroids. This event is known as convocation, and despite the movement toward inclusiveness and tolerance, this is one stage that keeps the flame of intolerance burning bright.

When new graduates cross the stage at their convocation, they are presented with a charge by the University’s Chancellor. He issues an Admission where he states: “I charge you to use them [the powers, rights, and privileges of University degrees] for the glory of God.” It is commonly understood that big-G God here is some variant of the monotheistic Abrahamic God (or the one Jews, Christians and Muslims live in fear of).

A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests that around 36% of Canadians under 25 do not believe in a god. This means that when the Chancellor issues his charge, he is denying the existence of students who disagree with the idea of living in fear of a deity. He also offends the sense of the majority who believe that a public institution should have no stance on religious issues. This is the idea of separation of church and state, or secularism, that founded the United States, but is exemplified by Canada’s modern governments.

Upon hearing about this issue from several of its members, the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics drafted a letter which was sent to the President’s Office on July 14. Hope for a quick move to inclusiveness was dashed when nearly a month later we received a brief response stating their office had heard of the issue earlier and decided against doing anything. We were disappointed to hear that this University wishes to remain in its dark-aged roots, however, seeing as we received no reason for their decision not to change the charge, we requested the minutes from the meeting where they decided this. Continuing to drag its feet, the President’s Office has decided this is an issue that requires a FOIPP request.

Now, almost two month’s after the UAAA made a request to make our convocation more tolerant of the diversity of all students, we still don’t have an official reason why the President’s Office won’t respect our wishes. We also have over a hundred signatures of students who are outraged by this break in secular values and the separation of church and state. Finally, we have a Facebook group for people to get more information about this issue. We have had tremendous support not just from atheists and humanists but from students, alumni, and faculty of diverse backgrounds, including people who deeply believe in God but who support the separation of Church and state and recognize that this is a public, not private, university.

This push is also not without precedence. The University of Calgary’s admission is to grant degrees to those who have "earned" them and give them the "rights and privileges, powers and responsibilities pertaining to those degrees."  The University of Toronto secularized its convocation several years ago as well. Cleary the U of A can look to be as progressive as the U of T and U of C.

Many will assume this is a frivolous attempt to push militant atheism. However, we are not requesting the charge to say "use your glory to disprove god and vilify religion", we just want to feel welcome in a ceremony we have all equally earned. Further, members of our group do not wish to define "god" in some way that it makes them happy as some would suggest. We do not arbitrarily interpret words differently to get through the day. Interpreting an F on your transcript as "Fantastic" doesn’t make it so. The University’s charge comes from the charge from Oxford University, which has a clearly Christian foundation.

It shouldn’t be unreasonable for a group of students who pay upwards of $25,000 to get a degree to ask to be included in a celebration of their achievements. The President’s disregard for our wishes is abhorrent and intolerant.  We stand united for a secular convocation at the University of Alberta.

By the end of the school year, we’d managed to win a concession from the university and the convocation charge was changed.

Every few weeks I get a new comment, typically a self-entitled engineer who feels like calling me names on the Internet. But the latest comment was something new.

Someone dug up a smaller American ceremony that was developed in 1970 and is simply called The Order of the Engineer.

The US obligation states (PDF) in secular (and dare I say humanist) terms:

OBLIGATION OF THE ENGINEER

I AM AN ENGINEER,
IN MY PROFESSION I TAKE DEEP PRIDE.

TO IT I OWE SOLEMN OBLIGATIONS.

SINCE THE STONE AGE,
HUMAN PROGRESS HAS BEEN SPURRED BY THE ENGINEERING GENIUS.

ENGINEERS HAVE MADE USABLE,
NATURE’S VAST RESOURCES OF MATERIAL AND ENERGY FOR HUMANITY’S BENEFIT.

ENGINEERS HAVE VITALIZED
AND TURNED TO PRACTICAL USE THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENCE
AND THE MEANS OF TECHNOLOGY.

WERE IT NOT FOR THIS HERITAGE OF ACCUMULATED EXPERIENCE, MY EFFORTS WOULD BE FEEBLE.

AS AN ENGINEER,
I PLEDGE TO PRACTICE INTEGRITY AND FAIR DEALING, TOLERANCE, AND RESPECT
AND TO UPHOLD DEVOTION
TO THE STANDARDS AND THE DIGNITY OF MY PROFESSION, CONSCIOUS ALWAYS
THAT MY SKILL CARRIES WITH IT
THE OBLIGATION TO SERVE HUMANITY
BY MAKING THE BEST USE OF EARTH’S PRECIOUS WEALTH.

AS AN ENGINEER,
I SHALL PARTICIPATE IN NONE BUT HONEST ENTERPRISES.

WHEN NEEDED,
MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE
SHALL BE GIVEN WITHOUT RESERVATION FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.

IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY
AND IN FIDELITY TO MY PROFESSION, I SHALL GIVE THE UTMOST.

It seems like in the case of the Robertson screw, the Americans couldn’t import the Canadian invention due to copyright claims. But unlike the Phillips screw, this time the Americans improved upon the original Idea. From their website they even seem to have toned down the creepy cultish vibe that the Iron Ring ceremony gives off.

Were I a practising engineer, I might consider travelling to Seattle to attend their next ceremony.

It’s worth noting that the Canadian rings are also made of stainless steel now too since the iron wears down to quickly.

This first essay, on the Young Offender’s Act, received a perfect 10/10, but on re-reading it, I am quite disappointed in my fallacious 15-year old mind. First the essay, then my comments.

The Canadian Young Offenders Act
By Ian Bush?eld October 18, 2001

The Young Offenders Act (YOA), which came into effect in April of 1984, was designed to deal with crimes committed by people aged 12 to 17. Ideally it provides for the special needs of youths, as well as protects society and the victims. The act, however, does not run ideally. But for the most part it satisfactorily deals with teenaged criminals.

The ?rst ineffective part of the Act is that it fails to have any effect on people under the age of 12. The former Juvenile Delinquents Act used ages of 11 and 18, but this is still not young enough. Children at age 8 (and in some cases younger) are more than well aware of their actions. They are just as responsible for their actions as older youths. In the video “Old Enough To Hurt” a situation was portrayed where Kim, age 11, was a participant in a murder-robbery. The other culprits at the scene were all charged with partaking in a crime, Kim however, as responsible as the rest, was released to his parents
custody with nothing less than a slap on the wrist. How will he learn the error of his wrongdoings without proper and due punishment? There is a high probability that Kim will re-offend, so why is it he gets no punishment what so ever? The act requires an amendment to deal with younger offenders. Why not leave it to a judge to decide whether or not a person involved in a crime is responsible for his/her actions? But with the current system Kim gets away free, without any counselling or punishment for him to learn from and the Act has also failed to protect society.

In the case of M., an angered teenager shot and killed both his mother and sister. He was tried in youth court, as the Crown’s request for the trial to be transferred to adult court was denied, and given 3 years in jail. In adult court he would have doubtlessly received life imprisonment. The reason for this was that the judge believed that M. could be treated therapeutically in counselling sessions provided by youth correctional facilities. It is beyond any doubt that in this case the Y.O.A. has failed terribly. Society is at danger with a person like this receiving so little punishment for such atrocities. What is basically being told to criminals like this is that the Y.O.A. punishment system is a joke and that crimes go unpunished towards youths in this country. Instances like this are appalling and demand changes be made to the current system.

The last problem seen about the Y.O.A. is that it deems that the media is forbidden to release any information as soon as a youth is involved. In a recent vicious murder in South Calgary, a teenager killed his own mother. Do people in the surrounding neighbourhoods have a right to know if their children were playing with this murderer? Apparently not, according to the Y.O.A. Also with this case, the name of the mother had been released in early morning, before they suspected the youth, and once the son had been taken into custody all information on the case was banned from the media. One would think that once the name had been announced on television that it wouldn’t matter anymore and you wouldn’t need to prohibit it from being used again. As well, friends of the deceased or accused have no way of ?nding out what happened, do they as well have no right to know what happened. It’s too bad though that even though our Charter of Rights and Freedoms promises us open media that we are forbidden to hear certain, information through the presses and news releases.

As you can tell, there are several major dysfunctions with the Y.O.A. that need severe political revision. It was a good concept and has many valuable parts that are quite effective, but the truth of the matter is that without reworking the act will continually fail to protect the needs of youths, society and the victims of the crimes committed. We must strive to enact changes to the Y.O.A. or suffer the consequences of unpunished criminals believing they can do and get away with anything.

Some context: I grew up in Southern Alberta and an earlier essay I penned (I think it was in grade 9) was about how I would vote for the Reform Party because Albertans didn’t have an effective voice in Ottawa during the Chretien majority eras (one could argue they still don’t under the current regime). My predisposition then was toward small-c conservative thinking, evidenced here by my references to due punishments and the rights of victims. It’s quite disappointing to see myself dismiss counselling and youth correctional facilities in favour of some retributive punishment of a teenager. The evidence is quite strong now that such thinking only leads to hardened lifelong criminals.

But perhaps I’m most disappointed by my contradictory statements. Take the previous example, of the teenager being sentenced to counselling, compared to the very previous paragraph which ends asking “why not leave it to a judge to decide whether or not a person in a crime is responsible for his/her actions?” Even at 15-years old, I should have been able to spot the blatant contradiction between granting judicial freedom and demanding harsher punishment. It’s as though I was willing to let judges make decisions only when they agreed with my preconceived notions (a very conservative way of thinking).

Similarly, my thesis statement in the first paragraph calls the act satisfactory but not ideal, while the concluding paragraph decries “several major dysfunctions” with the act and that “without reworking [it] will continually fail to protect the needs of youths, society, and the victims of the crimes.” Either the act is okay, or its a total toss. Obviously, I can change my mind while writing an essay, but generally you would think I would go back and revise my introduction in light of my revised thinking. Of course, this is merely evidence that I tended to write my essays in a single draft since apparently such issues went unpunished by my teachers.

At the very least, I recognized the importance of press freedom in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The other essays I dug up (all from Social 10) are position papers on Louis Riel and Canada-US relations and a research report on “The Great War of the Air” during World War I. I’ll try to get to posting a couple of them in the next few days.

Alberta’s education laws haven’t been updated in decades and given last year’s slow resolution of bring secular schooling to Morinville, it’s long overdue. Yet the proposed act is drawing criticism on all sides.

The Catholic School Trustees Association fears that this is the first step to destroying their century-long privilege. Specifically, the act will allow the government to force secular and Catholic schools to share space when necessary and to amalgamate school boards.

Meanwhile, homeschoolers rallied 1500 people for a protest because they don’t want to have to teach they’re children to obey the Alberta Human Rights Act (seriously).  To placate these religious homeschooling extremists, the education minister caved and “offered an amendment on Monday to the preamble of the bill, recognizing parents’ right to raise their children within their ethical and religious traditions.” This was not enough to satisfy those who believe we can simply put two words like parents and rights together and suddenly have a codified law.

Nevertheless, the Alberta Liberal Party (who are the fourth party in terms of the number of candidates nominated) is skeptical of the government and fears it will further surrender to the Religious Right.

Kent Hehr, MLA for Calgary Buffalo, asked the education minister , Tom Lukaszuk, whether the province would soon provide “public funding of a school of Scientology or Druids or a school for witches and Wiccans?” Lukaszuk parroted the standard lines of “choice in education” in response.

Hehr pressed further asking if Lukaszuk was “comfortable with parents teaching that homosexuality is a sin or that evolution is not real?” Sadly, the education minister either dodged the question at best or admitted that parents have a right to poison the minds of their children.

Please, listen to the answer. I am comfortable with the fact that parents have the right of teaching their children and passing on their family values, their religious beliefs, and their morality. This is what we do as parents. Whether my daughter comes from a public school or whether she stays at home all day long, I still take responsibility for teaching her what is right and what is wrong, so that aspect has nothing to do with homeschooling. That is what we all as parents have the primary right to do, and we continue doing that.

Choice in education is a smokescreen for wasting money on inefficient two-tiered school systems. Alberta (and BC) currently grant ridiculous amounts of money to private schools, which can discriminate in enrolment and hiring under this absurd system. Furthermore, the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemned the separate school system in Alberta, Saksatchewan, and Ontario as discriminatory and called for the ending of separated school funding.

It will be interesting to see if the majority of Albertans (represented by neither the Homeschoolers or Catholic schools Associations) will stand up for secular, adequately funded education. Hell, it will be interesting alone to see if any party is that brave – the Alberta Party already missed that boat with their platform [pdf].

First, the Vancouver Sun mistakenly takes the view that science and Christian lobby groups deserve equal weight when presenting research. Their article titled “Research mixed on whether parents should be banned from spanking” does a solid job of presenting the scientific evidence of the harms of corporal punishment of children, but then goes and quotes the homophobic Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (at least it identifies it as a Christian right group spun off of Focus on the Family) who want the right to beat their kids. It’s telling that the following day this article was republished on the Ottawa Citizen under the more accurate title, “Time for parents to disarm.”

Next, we have a good news-bad news story, also from the Vancouver Sun. The good news is that the Delta school board has kicked religious proselytizers out of its classrooms, while the bad news is that many volunteer evangelicals remain in schools across the province – including in Kitsilano Secondary School (near my home). The BC school act makes it explicitly clear that our schools are to be secular, so any move from volunteering to preaching will hopefully be rooted by our teachers and school administrators.

Finally, the British Humanist Association has highlighted some research undertaken by the Guardian which showed that publicly funded faith schools are discriminating against poor students.  This research is quite relevant in Canada where several provinces provide funding to private schools (BC and Alberta) and others provide full funding to separate Catholic school boards (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario). It would be interesting to do a similar study here to try to prove if such systemic discrimination exists here as well.

Basically, NPA trustees Ken Denike and Sophia Woo have been caught red-handed in videos lying to the Christian Social Concern Fellowship that Vancouver has no anti-homophobia policy, when in fact one was passed in 2004. They’ve also been trotting out the “parent’s rights” arguments, long used by the Christian Right who want the right to continue to keep their children as ignorant and biggoted as themselves.

Vancouver’s LGBTQ community isn’t taking this one lying down.

On Monday evening, the first Vancouver School Board meeting was held and a resolution was put forward calling on the VSB to reaffirm its support for the policy and to censure trutees Denike and Woo. The resolution passed with the strong Vision-COPE majority but the crowd was split between pro- and anti-gay protesters.

There is now a Facebook call for people to send letters to Denike, Woo, and VSB chair Patti Bacchus, calling for the NPA trustees to resign. Please consider sending this message (or a modified version) to the emails listed below.

Dear Trustees Woo and Denike,

You have failed in your position within the Vancouver School Board. You have infracted and abused your powers and position, and have tried to spread hate within our society.

-You have made many students feel unsafe and uncomfortable within their schools.
-Publicly disagreed with the ‘Anti Homophobia Policies’ that were put in place by VSB (2004)
-Accused the ‘Out in Schools’ program for showing pornographic images.
-Are closely related and in support with the Parents Voice Committee, Who are known for their Anti-Homosexual campaigns.

I do not support your actions and views on this issue. The messages you and your groups are spreading are inhumane and dishonest. I do not want people in my city to feel unsafe or unwanted, Vancouver is meant to be a city that accepts differences and respects culture and diversity.

Because of these actions you have taken, I am asking you to resign from your position as Trustee as you have failed to protect all the students within the school board.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Dear Christy Clark, Premier and MLA,
I am writing this message in the interest of protecting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth in the province of British Columbia.
Recently calls have come from across the province for an explicit provincial policy to offer protection for all students from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These calls have come from the British Columbia Teachers Federation, the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver School Board, the Representative of Children and Youth, and grassroots activists meeting with the Minister of Education through the Purple Letter Campaign. These calls have come as a result of a year of highly publicized youth suicides across North America, including several in Canada. While this is not a new issue, attention is being paid that was not in the past.
In Canada research done by EGALE recently noted that this homophobia and transphobia are pandemic in our schools. 70% of all participating students, LGBT and non-LGBT, reported hearing expressions such as “that’s so gay” every day in school and almost half (48%) reported hearing remarks such as “faggot,” “lezbo,” and “dyke” every day in school. More than one in five (21%) LGBT students reported being physically harassed or assaulted due to their sexual orientation.
Recently Quebec introduced legislation titled "Plan d’action gouvernemental de lutte contre l’homophobie" which includes explicit policies, funding for anti-homophobia initiatives and a provincial research chair on homophobia. In Ontario the government has introduced legislation calling for explicit policies, enforcement and the creation of support networks within schools through Gay Straight Alliances or similarly themed clubs.
Where British Columbia was once on the forefront of protecting youth, we are now lagging behind other provinces.

Struggling students in British Columbia need explicit protections now to prevent tragedy from striking in our province. I would like to know where you stand on creating an explicit provincial plan on ending bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity and how you plan to work with your colleagues in government and opposition to make sure it is done quickly.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Ian Bushfield

Well I actually got a response today from one of her staffers.

Thank you for your email regarding bullying in schools. We appreciate the time you have taken to share your concerns.

It is regrettable to hear when any young person takes their own life. Bullying is a terrible phenomenon and the province recognizes that something must be done about it. We understand that LGTB students face many challenges which can be dramatically compounded due to bullying and discrimination. No student should feel that they are unsafe or the target of harassment and abuse due to their sexual orientation or identity.

Premier Christy Clark has been very out spoken about the unacceptable nature of bullying. One of her most important accomplishments was helping to bring the Pink Shirt Day anti-bullying campaign to BC. The Premier has also been vocal very recently about the need for action on this issue. Our government remains committed to making sure that we bring in anti-bullying policies and anti-bullying actions at schools all across British Columbia. We want our schools to be a safe haven for our students, not a place of fear and intimidation and there is more to come from this government in this regard.

We have shared your input and the information you have sent us with the Honourable George Abbott, Minister of Education, so he, too, can review your feedback. Please be assured your comments will be included in any related discussions.

Again, thank you for writing. It was good to hear from you.

It’s good but will be better when it’s backed by real action. I hope whatever legislation or action gets introduced will recognize the unique challenges faced by the LGBTQ community and will seek to combat homophobic bullying with a multi-pronged approach.

But the busy life won’t end this afternoon.

This weekend I will be one of the Vancouver-Point Grey delegates to the BC NDP’s 50th Anniversary Convention. I won’t be live-blogging it, but I will try to tweet updates. There’s a federal leadership townhall on Saturday from 4:30-6 PM, so those tweets will be under #ndpldr while general convention tweets will be under #bcndp50. I’ll try to make it to one of Brian Topp’s meet-and-greets at The Lion’s Pub (either Friday or Saturday night) and we’ll see if I can find any other leaders.

After the convention I will have my corrections and then holiday parties begin. Then I head to Alberta for Christmas, but will be back in Vancouver by New Years.

In other words, I will try to get some blogging in next week, but otherwise it might be quiet around here until January.

Rick Mercer’s viral rant on teen suicides (see below) has been viewed nearly half a million times in a mere week.

This morning on the radio, Mercer discussed the video with local indie rock station The Peak, and admitted he was overwhelmed with the unexpected – and positive – response.

He was also asked about what more we should be doing. Mercer is a comedian and actor and tells The Peak that he was lucky enough not to be bullied in school. He suggests that student’s need to stand up against bullying, even if they aren’t directly involved – something he failed at in schools.

He also suggests that some people have told him that Zero Tolerance policies have been effective in their schools.

Zero tolerance policies are an interesting case. In general progressives oppose heavy-handed retributive justice and argue that these punishments fail as a deterrent for future crimes. But when it comes to disadvantaged children in schools – ethnic minorities, the disabled, GLBTQQ, the poor, etc. – we are sometimes sympathetic to the same arguments that we need to come down hard on the bullies to deter future harassment.

Zero tolerance is typically proposed to signal a school or a district’s attitude that certain actions are intolerable. If a student violates the rules, there is no appeal and the student immediately receives a maximal punishment, often suspensions or expulsion. It has been used for everything from bullying, weapons, and drugs, to cell phone usage.

While bullying and violence in school are certainly inexcusable, it is always necessary to test the claims and arguments of a policy against reality. For zero tolerance, one review from Indiana University concludes in the title that there is zero evidence [pdf].

Despite the controversies that it has created in school districts throughout the country, zero tolerance continues to be a widely used response to school disruption and violence. This paper explores the history, philosophy, and effectiveness of zero tolerance school disciplinary strategies. Growing out of Reagan-Bush era drug enforcement policy, zero tolerance discipline attempts to send a message by punishing both major and minor incidents severely. Analysis of a representative range of zero tolerance suspensions and expulsions suggests that controversial applications of the policy are not idiosyncratic, but may be inherent in zero tolerance philosophy. There is as yet little evidence that the strategies typically associated with zero tolerance contribute to improved student behavior or overall school safety. Research on the effectiveness of school security measures is extremely sparse, while data on suspension and expulsion raise serious concerns about both the equity and effectiveness of school exclusion as an educational intervention. Community reaction has led some districts to adopt alternatives to zero tolerance, stressing a graduated system matching offenses and consequences, and preventive strategies, including bullying prevention, early identification, and improved classroom management. Building a research base on these alternatives is critical, in order to assist schools in developing more effective, less intrusive methods for school discipline. [emphasis added]

A 2008 review [pdf] from the American Psychological Association concludes the same, also arguing that there are better approaches than zero-tolerance.

Although there can be no dispute that schools must do all that can be done to ensure the safety of learning environments, controversy has arisen about the use of zero tolerance policies and procedures to achieve those aims. In response to that controversy, and to assess the extent to which current practice benefits students and schools, the American Psychological Association convened a task force to evaluate the evidence and to make appropriate recommendations regarding zero tolerance policies and practices. An extensive review of the literature found that, despite a 20-year history of implementation, there are surprisingly few data that could directly test the assumptions of a zero tolerance approach to school discipline, and the data that are available tend to contradict those assumptions. Moreover, zero tolerance policies may negatively affect the relationship of education with juvenile justice and appear to conflict to some degree with current best knowledge concerning adolescent development. To address the needs of schools for discipline that can maintain school safety while maximizing student opportunity to learn, the report offers recommendations for both reforming zero tolerance where its implementation is necessary and for alternative practice to replace zero tolerance where a more appropriate approach is indicated. [emphasis mine]

The second report is definitely worth a read. It points out that zero tolerance policies can threaten minorities and the persons with disabilities with unreasonable punishments due to existing stereotypes and misunderstandings. It also presents evidence contradicting most intuitive assumptions about zero tolerance. It concludes with good advice for all policy-makers.

Under an evidence-based paradigm, it is incumbent upon both researchers and practitioners proposing new educational and psychological interventions to demonstrate, through a rigorous research design, the beneficial effects or positive outcomes of those practices. In the same way, we would argue that the critical lens of evidence-based evaluation should be turned on existing policy, to ensure that current practices are truly of benefit to the students and schools who are the recipients of those procedures. This is
especially true when, as is the case with zero tolerance, the procedure is controversial and poses some degree of risk (e.g., lost educational opportunity for those removed from school).

I believe the same fears that act on conservatives who support mandatory minimum sentencing and the federal government’s tough dumb on crime legislation act on parents and educators who worry about the most vulnerable members of our society. It is natural to want to seek retribution against those who would endanger our children. But just like organic foods, natural isn’t necessarily better and is often more costly.

The key message is that in our zest to create strong anti-bullying policies, we must ensure they are effective. To implement ineffective policy is to simply waste money. We must be mindful of our emotions: using them to inform our goals without clouding our reason. Let’s stick with the evidence.