![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
akirluI suspect the seductive appeal of "Zero Tolerance" policies is that they sound so damn' macho. Just let the words roll off your tongue: Zero Tolerance. ZEE-row TALL-erance. Hoo boy. It's right up there with 'Extreme Prejudice' and 'Collateral Damage' in the Boy's Own Guide to Blood-chilling Euphemisms. It's the sort of proclamation you might expect to hear from Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson, right before they blow you away. With a very big gun. It's tough talk, (presumed to be) backed by tough actions, it brooks no nonsense, it has an erection as big as Cleveland and as hard as a titanium calculus final. This is Srs Bzns. Republican candidates love to be all up in our faces with Zero Tolerance and Three Strikes and similar posturing blowhard-i-har-har, the more so the closer election time draws.
Hmm. Surely this should serve as a strong warning to rational persons who don't happen to be a Republican running for office?
The problem with zero tolerance policies, generally speaking, is that in order to be meaningful, they must be followed automatically, and without exception. That's what 'zero tolerance' means, after all. But because of the purely mechanical enforcement that this requires, such policies allow no room for nuance, discrimination, judgement, or second chances. They tolerate no shades of gray. It's all pour encourager les autres. Does the violation fit within the rule of the law? Okay, then, hammer comes down. This leads to school children getting expelled for forgetting they had left a cake knife in their backpack from an unrelated event. Or for having a plastic picnic knives to spread the peanut butter onto their crackers. Because a knife is a knife is a knife, and that is grounds for expulsion for the first offense. Policies that force stupid outcomes in edge cases where their wording is insufficiently nuanced are stupid policies.
But like I say, zero tolerance policies must be enforced across the board, in every case, or they have no meaning. Otherwise you undermine not only the force of the policy itself, but also your own authority in making and enforcing any other policies. This is why any organization should think long and hard before instituting any kind of zero tolerance policy, because once you have one, woe betide you if you start making exceptions. If you find yourself faced with an uncomfortable edge case, you suck it up and enforce the policy anyway and revisit your policy when there are no cases before you. If you formulate a more lenient or nuanced policy and decide to apply it to old cases retroactively, then that, too, must be done for everyone. Otherwise you'll just be accused of favoritism and situational ethics. And with some justice.
Hmm. Surely this should serve as a strong warning to rational persons who don't happen to be a Republican running for office?
The problem with zero tolerance policies, generally speaking, is that in order to be meaningful, they must be followed automatically, and without exception. That's what 'zero tolerance' means, after all. But because of the purely mechanical enforcement that this requires, such policies allow no room for nuance, discrimination, judgement, or second chances. They tolerate no shades of gray. It's all pour encourager les autres. Does the violation fit within the rule of the law? Okay, then, hammer comes down. This leads to school children getting expelled for forgetting they had left a cake knife in their backpack from an unrelated event. Or for having a plastic picnic knives to spread the peanut butter onto their crackers. Because a knife is a knife is a knife, and that is grounds for expulsion for the first offense. Policies that force stupid outcomes in edge cases where their wording is insufficiently nuanced are stupid policies.
But like I say, zero tolerance policies must be enforced across the board, in every case, or they have no meaning. Otherwise you undermine not only the force of the policy itself, but also your own authority in making and enforcing any other policies. This is why any organization should think long and hard before instituting any kind of zero tolerance policy, because once you have one, woe betide you if you start making exceptions. If you find yourself faced with an uncomfortable edge case, you suck it up and enforce the policy anyway and revisit your policy when there are no cases before you. If you formulate a more lenient or nuanced policy and decide to apply it to old cases retroactively, then that, too, must be done for everyone. Otherwise you'll just be accused of favoritism and situational ethics. And with some justice.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}