Logic should outweigh offense

     Rules are established to maintain order, promote safety and ensure the well being of the population. There comes a time, however, when these rules can cause more harm than good.
     The idea of having “zero tolerance” laws, in theory, is to set a uniform code that all must obey, no matter who, what, when, where or how a rule is broken.
     On the surface, this practice may seem to be a way of showing no prejudice, but once this criteria is observed with closer detail, one must realize that as humans we make mistakes—which sometimes get us in trouble with the law or ruling authorities.
     Some of these statutes have intruded into some of the primary facets of our everyday lives.
     For instance, students now run a risk of being sent to an alternative school for showing affection with their friends.
     Recently, two young women at Euless Junior High School were given detention for hugging each other. Although hugging is not listed as an offense, hugging falls under “exhibiting inappropriate familiarity,” according to Helen Williams, district spokeswoman.
     The district countered allegations that the girls were not suspended because of the hugging incident by saying that the two had been sent to detention because they had argued with teachers.
     However, earlier in the week, Principal David Robbins had reportedly said their hug was like “a sexual encounter.”
     Should the slogan “Hugs not drugs” be changed because students run the risk of getting into trouble for either one?
     In a time of school shootings and rampant violence, acts such as hugging should not be held to the same standards as shoving and kicking—as they are in the Hurst-Euless-Bedford schools.
     To add insult to injury, a top student at Diamond Hill-Jarvis was harmed by the very tool she keeps faith in to protect her. Veronica Rios, ranked first in her senior class, was assigned to an alternative school because a can of pepper spray was found in her bag during a routine check at the school.
     Rios, who works at the Stockyards during the evenings, was on her way to study for an advanced placement test when she was caught with the item.
     A non-lethal weapon such as this warrants attention from school officials, but automatically inferring that the student was meaning harm by carrying this item defeats the purpose of due process.
     This incident is a matter of laziness. Not on Rios’ part, but on the district’s. She should have been given time to appeal this decision and not be forced to miss her advanced classes because of a simple one-time petty offense.
     A 1995 Texas Safe Schools Act allows for principals to choose the length of the punishment for the offenses.
     Then again, it may require some effort from school administrators to learn some insight into the student’s situation and not just treat them as a case number.

w