# data[].attributes.body
A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a strict enforcement of regulations and bans against behaviors or the possession of items undesirable by schools. This policy was originated in 1986 after the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act. It was passed by congress as a response to the War on Drugs and declared it unconstitutional in the United States. This policy was created to punish any individual who possess a banned item for any reason done in ignorance, by accident, or under extenuating circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
Dustin Seal, a high school student in Tennessee, was expelled based on a zero tolerance policy when his friend's knife was found in his car's glove compartment without him knowing it was there. He took action against the board, saying that the board expelled him without considering if he knew the knife was in his car or not and not presenting any evidence that it was there. He took it to the federal courts, claiming that the school board of education and the administration had violated his right due to process under the fourteen amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
The district court concluded that the board and Superintendent Morgan were entitled to a summary judgement (which is when one or both parties agree to go without trail because they have evidence that will let them win the case) on Seal's fourteenth amendment claim.
(meaning that when, Seal stated that he knew his friend had a knife in his car because his friend ex-girlfriend boyfriend was following them  throughout the night which is why his friend had the knife with them to feel protected, he practically stated he knew the knife was in his car which gave the board permission to present his statement to the judge and rule that Seal knew about where the knife was hidden along.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on this case, school boards should be more careful about applying the zero tolerance policy into there own school's policy without first taking all the measures and facts of the particular case. Schools need to carefully examine the nature of the offense and how it was committed instead of blaming students without fully examining the case and finding evidence to back up their statement.
"Schools need to make sure that
punishment for violations of such policies is not imposed in a knee-jerk way, without a proper consideration of
the student, the violation, and the surrounding facts and circumstances" (Smith 13).

# data[].attributes.body
- administrators are taking the zero tolerance out of hand
- expelling students with clean records just because they brought nail clippers or something so small
- no common sense
- always involving the law, instead of trying to figure it out by themselves first

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Back to School: Zero tolerance makes discipline more severe, involves the courts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Remember the 10-year-old expelled last school year from Dible Elementary School in Penn Hills for taking a paintball gun to show-and-tell?

# data[].attributes.body
08/28/17
As S.G. was walking away from school another student ran at them and pushed them. What pursued was seen as a fight, but actually was S.G. engaging in self defense. Due to the "zero-tolerance" policy, both students were expelled. The case went up to the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that just because someone participates in a fight does not give the school grounds to automatically expel them.

# data[].attributes.body
Due to the Supreme Court of Georgia ruling that participating in a fight does not serve as a reason to have immediate punishment the "zero tolerance" policy schools in Georgia are going to have to make changes. They now have to investigate the reasoning behind the fighting AND determine if self defense was involved. Furthermore, schools will not be able to rely on the "zero tolerance" policy to shove the issues of the students aside. They will have to take the time to help the students involved in the altercation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Last week, in Henry v. S.G., the Supreme Court of Georgia placed a significant dent in the logic of zero tolerance discipline. The case involved a fight between two high school students. In typical fashion, Locust Grove High School automatically suspended both students. After all, there was a video of the fight and both students were involved. "The [school] hearing officer found S.G. guilty of violating the rules with which she was charged 'for being involved in a fight on the school grounds.'"

The problem is that the video strongly indicates that one of the students was the victim. S.G. was chased down by another student and then tried to avoid the fight, going so far as to hold her hands up and walk away. But after she walked away, the other student lunged at her and the fight ensued.

The Georgia Supreme Court found that being a participant to a fight is not enough alone to justify an expulsion. The Court hung its analysis on the fact that a Georgia statute grants individuals the right to use self-defense and that the state board of education has also previously recognized self-defense as an affirmative defense in discipline proceedings. Readers might recall a similar case in Florida involving a student who "stood her ground" after exiting the school bus.

The troubling part of these cases is how heavily they rest on these statutory rights of self defense. In the absence of these statutes, a school might theoretically determine that self-defense is not tolerated. Significant precedent regarding school's discretion would support the schools.

As I argue in Ending Zero Tolerance, some zero tolerance policies are constitutionally irrational and should be struck down on that basis. Of course, when a statutory rationale exists, avoiding constitutional questions is appropriate. One might, however, read these statutory cases as implicitly bolstering the irrationality of zero tolerance. These state legislatures have recognized the impropriety of punishing those who may very well be victims. It is not that the state wants people to fight back, but that punishing them under these circumstances defies logic. The aggressor and the defender are simply not comparable in terms of culpability (assuming the defender does not use the occasion to overreact).

The Minnesota Supreme Court took a step toward this approach last year when it held that a student's intent in a weapons case matters. The student had accidentally left a knife in his backpack that he used for cutting twine on the farm over the weekend. The Court held that this accidental possession of a weapon did not amount to a "willful violation" of school rules.

Together, these cases confirm two points emphasized in my book. First, students seeking to challenge expulsions and suspension generally stand a better chance in state courts than federal courts. Unlike federal courts, these state cases involve courts taking the issues very seriously and trying to reach a decision that respects student rights. Second, courts can and must play a role in student discipline cases. They are the last line of defense for students. Many schools are still willing to hand out what the most extreme forms of punishment that, without courts, will go unchecked.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/education_law/2017/09/georgia-supreme-court-strikes-down-schools-zero-tolerance-discipline.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education Law Prof Blog - Georgia Supreme Court Places Limit on Zero Tolerance Discipline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, in Henry v. S.G., the Supreme Court of Georgia placed a significant dent in the logic of zero tolerance discipline. The case involved a fight between two high school students. In typical fashion, Locust Grove High School automatically suspended both students. After all, there was a video of...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On May 1, 2017, the ACLU of Georgia and the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in Henry County Board of Education v. S.G., in support of Plaintiff "S.G." S.G. is a high school student who was provoked into fighting a classmate on school grounds and defended herself under Georgia law. The Henry County Board of Education expelled S.G. from school for fighting on school grounds without giving her the opportunity to assert a defense for her actions.

The State Board of Education agreed with the school's determination, but the Superior Court reversed, finding that S.G. was justified in using force because she acted in self-defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision because the school board did not properly apply self-defense standards when expelling S.G. for fighting on school grounds.

Henry County Board of Education has petitioned the Supreme Court of Georgia to overturn the Court of Appeals decision so that S.B., and other students who are defending themselves in school, would not have the option of claiming self-defense when they are provoked.

The ACLU of Georgia supports S.G. because children, especially children of color, in Georgia public schools are at risk of losing their constitutional right to education because of the rote application of zero tolerance policies. These policies deprive students of a meaningful disciplinary hearing in violation of their constitutional right to due process. Children must be allowed to exercise their right to raise affirmative defenses in their disciplinary hearings to protect their right to education.

The other organizations that signed onto the ACLU's amicus brief in support of S.G. include Gwinnett SToPP and the Georgia Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ACLU of Georgia and the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in Henry County Board of Education v. S.G., in support of Plaintiff "S.G." S.G. is a high school student who was provoked into fighting a classmate on school grounds and defended herself under Georgia law.

# data[].attributes.body
The concept of the zero tolerance policies had changes throughout the years. It was first introduced to the school's environment in the 1980's. A couple years later, schools began to discontinue the use of zero-tolerance policies and school districts across the U.S began to implement their own zero-tolerance procedures. It was then changed and became stricter when the shooting of the Columbine High School happened in April 20, 1999. Due to this tragical event, schools had no other option, but to limit student's privileges and improving school's security and camera systems. Later on, the Educate America Act planed to improve the students behavior by setting eight goals for schools to reach by the 2000's. This procedures included police dogs sniffing belongings, taking away lockers, and putting metal detector machines. Nowadays, some rules are still being enforced like bringing transparent backpacks to school areas as well as metal detectors.

# data[].attributes.body
American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. (n.d.). Henry county board of education v. S.G. ACLU of Georgia. Retrieved September 27, 2021, from https://acluga.org/henry-county-board-of-education-v-s-g-2/

Black, D. (2017, September 5). Georgia supreme court places limit on zero tolerance discipline. Education Law Prof Blog. https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/education_law/2017/09/georgia-supreme-court-strikes-down-schools-zero-tolerance-discipline.html

Henry county board of education v. S.G. (n.d.). FindLaw. Retrieved September 27, 2021, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-supreme-court/1872167.html

[Two stick figures in a fighting stance]. (n.d.). Harvard University Police Department. https://www.hupd.harvard.edu/safety-and-self-defense-classes

# data[].attributes.body
Grant, T. (2006, August 31). Back to SCHOOL: Zero tolerance Makes discipline more severe, involves the courts. Gazette. Retrieved September 29, 2021, from https://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2006/08/31/Back-to-School-Zero-tolerance-makes-discipline-more-severe-involves-the-courts/stories/200608310439.
Lewis, L. (n.d.). Student suspension for possession of contraband in student ... Retrieved September 29, 2021, from https://adams.law.ou.edu/olr/articles/vol57/vol574/lewis574.pdf.
FindLaw's United States Sixth Circuit case and opinions. Findlaw. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2021, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1204088.html.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sqK5FJes7o