New York Times Against "Zero Tolerance"?
J
November 11, 2009
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in today's
New York Times on "zero tolerance" policies:
Looking back at the "zero tolerance" policy for school misconduct that the
Congress adopted in 1994, the New York Times opines today that it was a
"reasonable step" at the time. But it now says that this policy "has been
disastrous for young people," and cites many problems attendant to its
implementation. The editorial makes sense.
Regrettably, the New York Times did not pronounce against the problems
inherent in all "zero tolerance" policies. For example, on April 25, 2002,
an editorial in the New York Times criticized the bishops for not making
good on their "zero tolerance" proposal for dealing with cases of priestly
sexual abuse. Referring to newly announced strictures, the Times said,
"Unfortunately, these recommendations stopped short of a zero-tolerance
policy for all abusive priests, an issue on which there appears to have been
strenuous disagreement."
The problem with all "zero tolerance" policies is twofold: their absolutist
language and their universal application. By definition, they never allow
for nuance, for mitigating circumstances, or shades of gray. Just as there
is a difference between a student who knifes a classmate and one who bullies
an overweight kid, there is a difference between a rapist and a fondler. But
in the eyes of "zero tolerance," all four offenders should at least be
banished.
The New York Times should now write an editorial criticizing the adoption of
all institutional "zero tolerance" policies. It should not matter whether
the institution is educational, religious, financial, journalistic, etc.
What should matter is the nature of the policy itself.
Copyright � 1997-2009 by Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
*Material from this website may be reprinted and disseminated with
accompanying attribution
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
haiku jones
So, how many episodes of a priest having sex with children
would you allow before cracking down? Round numbers will do.
Haiku Jones
jcon
Let me examine by own beliefs here...
- I *don't* believe a student should be kicked out of
school for getting caught smoking pot one time.
-I *do* believe someone shouldn't be a priest (or teacher
or daycare worker) if they've "fondled" the sexual
organs of children one time.
Bill apparently sees a logical inconsistency with
these two views. I do not.
-jc
> The New York Times should now write an editorial criticizing the adoption of
> all institutional "zero tolerance" policies. It should not matter whether
> the institution is educational, religious, financial, journalistic, etc.
> What should matter is the nature of the policy itself.
>
> Copyright © 1997-2009 by Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
> *Material from this website may be reprinted and disseminated with
> accompanying attribution
>
> --
> J Young
Syd M.
'Zero Tolerance' is for lazy administrators who don't want to do a lot
of deciding.
PDW
Jimbo
>
> November 11, 2009
>
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in today's
> New York Times on "zero tolerance" policies:
>
> Looking back at the "zero tolerance" policy for school misconduct that the
> Congress adopted in 1994, the New York Times opines today that it was a
> "reasonable step" at the time. But it now says that this policy "has been
> disastrous for young people," and cites many problems attendant to its
> implementation. The editorial makes sense.
>
On the opposite side fo the coin, the Catholic Church's failure to
have a zero tolerance policy against its pedophile priests was very
disastrous to young people.
�R.L.Measures
<2d1c306f-51e5-4d91...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, haiku
jones <575j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 9:57=A0am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > NEW YORK TIMES AGAINST "ZERO TOLERANCE"?
> >
> > November 11, 2009
> >
> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in today'=
> s
> > New York Times on "zero tolerance" policies:
> >
> > Looking back at the "zero tolerance" policy for school misconduct that th=
> e
> > Congress adopted in 1994, the New York Times opines today that it was a
> > "reasonable step" at the time. But it now says that this policy "has been
> > disastrous for young people," and cites many problems attendant to its
> > implementation. The editorial makes sense.
> >
> > Regrettably, the New York Times did not pronounce against the problems
> > inherent in all "zero tolerance" policies. For example, on April 25, 2002=
> ,
> > an editorial in the New York Times criticized the bishops for not making
> > good on their "zero tolerance" proposal for dealing with cases of priestl=
> y
> > sexual abuse. Referring to newly announced strictures, the Times said,
> > "Unfortunately, these recommendations stopped short of a zero-tolerance
> > policy for all abusive priests, an issue on which there appears to have b=
> een
> > strenuous disagreement."
> >
> > The problem with all "zero tolerance" policies is twofold: their absoluti=
> st
> > language and their universal application. By definition, they never allow
> > for nuance, for mitigating circumstances, or shades of gray. Just as ther=
> e
> > is a difference between a student who knifes a classmate and one who bull=
> ies
> > an overweight kid, there is a difference between a rapist and a fondler. =
> But
> > in the eyes of "zero tolerance," all four offenders should at least be
> > banished.
> >
> > The New York Times should now write an editorial criticizing the adoption=
> of
> > all institutional "zero tolerance" policies. It should not matter whether
> > the institution is educational, religious, financial, journalistic, etc.
> > What should matter is the nature of the policy itself.
> >
> > Copyright =A9 1997-2009 by Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights=
> .
> > *Material from this website may be reprinted and disseminated with
> > accompanying attribution
> >
> > --
> > J Young
> > Jvisi...@live.com
>
> So, how many episodes of a priest having sex with children
> would you allow before cracking down? Round numbers will do.
>
** The NT says to forgive 70 x 7 times or 490 times. However, experts
on pedophilia tell us that there has never been a case of a pedophile who
decided to stop diddling children.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<d367950b-6373-47fd...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Jimbo
<ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 11:57=A0am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > NEW YORK TIMES AGAINST "ZERO TOLERANCE"?
> >
> > November 11, 2009
> >
> > Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in today'=
> s
> > New York Times on "zero tolerance" policies:
> >
> > Looking back at the "zero tolerance" policy for school misconduct that th=
> e
> > Congress adopted in 1994, the New York Times opines today that it was a
> > "reasonable step" at the time. But it now says that this policy "has been
> > disastrous for young people," and cites many problems attendant to its
> > implementation. The editorial makes sense.
> >
>
>
> On the opposite side fo the coin, the Catholic Church's failure to
> have a zero tolerance policy against its pedophile priests was very
> disastrous to young people.
� Good point, and in the end it's lengthy tolerance of its pedophile
priests substantially questioned the church's claim to be authorized by
God to teach the world about ethics and morals.