Conn-structuve Criticisms: Zero Tolerance for Zero-Tolerance Dorm Damage Policy

I recently got an e-mail from my SGA representative. At the NESCAC summit, Hamilton College revealed that they have switched to a zero-tolerance policy for dorm damage. According to my rep, “[the] program worked like crazy, they went from $100,000 in dorm damages to under $30,000.” Now, people on the Student Government Association are considering implementing a similar policy. Essentially, as my SGA rep put it, “if you vandalize and get caught then you are expelled unless you turn yourself in then you get put on probation [sic].” I want to stress that I have never done anything resulting in dorm damages, and never plan to; however, I think this is a terrible idea.

Picture a student who gets angry and punches out a window. Now picture a student who slips and accidentally puts his hand through a window. If Connecticut College had a zero-tolerance policy, both of these students would receive the same punishment. It sounds crazy. Even under zero-tolerance, there is no way both people would receive the same punishment, right? Wrong. Zero tolerance means exactly that; there is zero tolerance – no exceptions. Did anybody go to a high school with a zero-tolerance drug policy? There have been cases of students expelled, even strip-searched, for bringing Advil to school.

Every case of dorm damages is going to be different, and every case should be treated as such. Is saving a bit of money really worth ruining someone’s college career? I don’t think so. These policies are an excuse not to think. It doesn’t matter what the circumstances are, the punishment is always the same. The very concept of zero tolerance goes against the core of a liberal arts education—critical thinking and understanding. Using a zero-tolerance policy is like clipping your nails with a chainsaw. Yeah, it could work, but there’s a good chance you’re going to take off a few fingers. •

[mc4wp_form id="5878"]