Malcom Gladwell had a short piece recently about the stupidity of zero-tolerance policies. Though it's not the main point of this entry, I can't help commenting on several aspects of the article. The attention-getter that bookends the piece is the story of a young man who tried to poison his tutor at Cambridge, was given what seems today like a light punishment of probation by the University, and grew up to be...Robert Oppenheimer! Now it's a messy argument to get into whether or not it's a good thing for the world that this gentle punishment allowed him to become the father of the atomic bomb, and I'm not going to argue either way. But the images brought to mind by his name, for me at least, take away from the intended effect of thinking 'wow, it's a good thing they let him off!'
Then there's this part:
A Tennessee study found that after zero-tolerance programs were adopted by the state's public schools the frequency of targeted offenses soared: the firm and unambiguous punishments weren't deterring bad behavior at all. Is that really a surprise? If you're a teen-ager, the announcement that an act will be sternly punished doesn't always sink in, and it isn't always obvious when you're doing the thing you aren't supposed to be doing. Why? Because you're a teen-ager.
That doesn't explain why the frequency of offenses rose under the policy. It sounds more like they were rebelling against the policy than ignoring it, though it's hard to know without more details.
But my main point will take fewer words: it's funny to me that 'tolerance' and 'zero tolerance' are simultaneously watchwords in our culture. Everyone agrees that tolerance is a good thing, except when someone has done something wrong, and then zero tolerance is appropriate, because clearly tolerance is not what we need. It's not necessarily a contradiction, but it's surprising that advocates of zero tolerance didn't choose a more inviting name for the approach, like 'Zero Problems' or 'Lots of Justice.'
Comments (3)
speaking of language, my exchange today with the NYTimes (not the first) might interest you. I still think I'm right, what do you think?
09/07/2006 11:48 AM
To:
Subject Error: in Article
Dear Mr. Calame,
I wanted to direct your attention to (what I believe is) an important error in Ben Schott's Op Chart "Five Years of Consequence." In August 2006 it is noted that the Homeland Security Threat level reached "red" when in fact I do not believe that the national threat level has EVER exceeded orange. It
was only the aviation threat level that was red.
Sincerely,
(JV)
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Political Science
(some big) State University
>12:07 PM
Dear (J),
Thanks for writing. I have sent your message to the appropriate editor in the Op-Ed department.
Sincerely,
Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
>4:32 PM
Jonah,
Below is the explanation from the author.
Sincerely,
Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
Note: The public editor's opinions are his own and do not represent those of The New York Times.
----
The Homeland Security line says "highest state" i.e. The highest state that
was reached. Red was reached for a while in August 2006, but the chart does
not claim that it was the national level, merely the highest level.I think
people would be interested to know that red was reached, and why.
Clearly, there is an inherent ambiguity in the DHS threat levels, since
certain areas (like NYC) operate at different levels. The footnote (to deal
with precisely this issue) says "Homeland Security level varies by area, for
details see www.dhs.gov".
I hope this helps,
Ben
September 7, 2006 4:42 PM
I suppose it depends on whether semantically you accept that "Homeland Security Dept. threat level" can refer to regional or aviation levels and not just national ones. It is odd that in his response he talked about regional levels but not aviation levels. Did the NYC level reach red, or was it only the aviation level?
In either case, you have a point that the singular "threat level" makes it sound like it is referring to only one datum, one level, which could only be the national one. But he did cover himself in the footnote at least for regional differences, so at worst it seems like an ambiguity or a lack of clarity, and not an inaccuracy.
September 8, 2006 4:56 PM
look its just another example of inaccuracy at the nytimes - hardly surprising for them. they tell whatever story they want to regardless of the facts...the implication is you can see in the chart that bush's approval rating is collapsing in 2006, and concurrently the threat level is ratched up to the highest ever - but it did not happen!
September 8, 2006 6:05 PM