ABA Opposes 'Zero Tolerance' in Schools

S A N   D I E G O, Feb. 20 -- The leadership of the American Bar Associationvoted Monday to recommend ending "zero tolerance" schooldiscipline policies and stopping the government's use of secretevidence in most immigration cases.

The zero tolerance policies — which can mandate expulsion or referral to a juvenile or criminal court "without regard to the circumstances or nature of the offense or the student's history" — are unfair and inappropriate for many children, advocates said.

"Zero tolerance has become a one-size-fits-all solution to all the problems that schools confront," said a report accompanying the resolution adopted by the policy-making House of Delegates of the 400,000-member lawyers' organization. "It has redefinedstudents as criminals, with unfortunate consequences."

The ABA resolution, approved without a roll call vote on the closing day of the group's winter meeting, has no legal effect, but advocates hope it will prompt schools to re-evaluate such policies maintained by many of the nation's approximately 14,000 schooldistricts. The policies typically cover weapons, drugs or violencein school.

Those who oppose zero tolerance say the rules have gone too far and often "criminalize" students.

One example in the ABA report: A 12-year-old referred toLouisiana police for telling classmates in the lunch line, "I'mgoing to get you," if they ate all the potatoes before it was histurn.

Supporters of zero tolerance rules say they help keep schools safe, and that parents and law enforcement generally support them.

Recommends Changes in Immigration Law

The ABA's House of Delegates also agreed to several recommendations for changing immigration law. Again, the ABA positions — these also taken without a recorded vote — have no legal bearing, but the organization is likely to back them up with lobbying efforts in Congress.

The group approved recommending changes to a 1996 anti-terrorismlaw that has made it far easier for the Immigration andNaturalization Service to use secret evidence against noncitizens.The INS typically has done so in cases of suspected terrorism,citing the potential damage to national security if the evidencebecame public.