Zero Tolerance Nightmare
At Robert E. Lee High School
Here is yet another ZT nightmare from a Fairfax
County Virginia School. I get a disproportionate amount of mail from
parents of students in this one school district. Probably more than
any other school district in the nation. If I lived there I would
look into private schools and/or I would avoid living in this school
district if I had a choice and I had children. School Districts like
this poise a very real threat to the welfare of your child. Believe
me when good kids get expelled and treated like criminals for trivial
offenses by school officials who they thought of as their friends
it can be very damaging to your child's self esteem. It can make
an otherwise healthy child become extremely depressed even to the
point of considering suicide. I have seen this first hand. That is
why I say that a School District
like Fairfax County poises a very real and serious threat to your child's
welfare.
Gary's Story:
My nightmare began on Thursday, October 11th, 2001. I received a call
from my son's "Culinary Arts" instructor saying that my son
was in class with a knife. I assured the instructor that the knife in
question was just a Boy Scout camping knife that fell well within the
guidelines as being exempt from the accepted "weapon" description
but agreed to discipline my son for the minor indiscretion.
My son had been on a Boy Scout camp out the previous weekend and had
attached the knife to his key chain for use on the outing. The knife
along with my son's keys were lost in a jumble of camping gear until
the morning of the 11th when my son found them while in a rush to catch
the school bus. It appears that he forgot to remove the knife from his
belt clip key chain before heading off to school. When my son removed
his wallet from his hip pocket to check his lunch money, the key chain
with knife attached, happened to fall out of the pocket still attached
to the belt clip hanging in mid air. This is when the instructor noticed
the knife. The knife was never removed from the belt clip key chain,
the blade was never opened, and there was never any aggressive or threatening
display.
In this Culinary Arts class, my son handles food preparation blades
suitable for butchering meat. We are talking about some serious knives!
Of all the instructors my son deals with in the school system, this particular
instructor was the last I would have thought would make a big deal about
a key chain pocketknife. The instructor admonished my son, told him to
put the knife away and not to ever bring it to class again. My son complied
and stowed the key chain with knife attached in his backpack.
When the instructor called me, I agreed to take possession of the knife
and to administer what I considered reasonable punishment for what I
thought was really a pretty minor indiscretion. I told my son that he
had lost the right to have the knife in his possession for 30 days and
that he was to be restricted to his room after school for one week. As
far as I was concerned, the case was closed.
The knife in question is a Swiss Army folding pocketknife with the usual
assortment of utility blades including magnifying glass and can opener.
It does indeed have a cutting blade that measures 2.5 inches. I had explained
to my son long ago that the level of paranoia in the schools these days
is high and that he should never carry the knife to school. He agreed
and for the six years he has had this particular knife, there has never
been
an incident until now.
On Friday, October 12th, 2001 the manure hit the oscillator. The Principal
at R. E. Lee high school, Donald Thurston, called to advise me that my
son had been charged with being in possession of a weapon while on school
grounds and was being suspended for ten (10) days. I was to appear as
soon as possible to remove my son from school property.
I was at the school within 30 minutes with the knife. When I got there
I was met by the Principal and a "resource officer' who I understood
to be a Fairfax County Police Officer though he was not in uniform. I
was informed that my son had been interrogated (without my knowledge),
had signed a confession and that the charge against him was most serious.
I showed the knife to the principal and attempted to plead common sense
with him. I quoted the rule which uses the words "shall be considered
a weapon" and provides this description . "Any dirk, bowie
knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, knife having a metal blade
of three inches or longer, razor, etc . ". I made the argument,
that the knife in question should not be considered a "weapon" as
it is a common folding pocketknife with a cutting blade less than 2.5
inches in length. I also reminded the Principal that no one was threatened
in any way and that the knife was never displayed or used in an inappropriate
manner.
The rule also provides a discretionary provision that uses the wording "may
be considered a weapon". The Principal argued that under this discretionary
clause, he could determine anything to be a weapon that he chose. He
indicated with some pride that he had on one occasion considered a pair
of fingernail clippers to be a weapon.
I made the argument that when lawmakers use the word "shall",
it leaves little discretion. However, when they use the word "may",
it means, "if you have a very good reason". I agreed with the
Principal that had my son used the knife in a threatening manner, it
surely could have been considered a weapon. However, the knife in and
of itself should not be considered anymore of a threat to school safety
than a screwdriver or a can opener. I pressed the Principal for his "very
good reason". The closest I came to getting an answer was a fuzzy
statement to the effect that my son, "had a bad attitude" about
the incident.
I agreed with the Principal in general that my son had no business having
his pocketknife at school. I agreed to discipline my son in keeping with
standards acceptable to our family. However, I argued that the Principal's
10-day suspension and recommendation of expulsion was a form of cruel
and unusual punishment given the benign nature of the offense. I further
argued that if having a "bad attitude" was really the offense,
we should consider what punishment might be reasonable under the rules
for having a "bad attitude."
My arguments may as well have been made to a wall. The Principal had
already determined that my son was to immediately be suspended for
10-days and was going to forward a recommendation that my son be expelled
from the school system. I took my son home and put my thoughts in writing.
I hand delivered my written plea to the Principal just prior to the
end of the school day. At that time, the Principal provided me with a
copy of his letter advising me officially that my son had been suspended
for 10-days and was being recommended for expulsion. I was back at the
school with my written response to Principal's letter before 5pm the
same day and hand delivered it to his secretary.
That evening I discussed the situation with my son. My son informed
me that during questioning he had specifically quoted the 3-inch rule
and denied that he was in possession of a weapon. He had openly admitted
that he did indeed have his Swiss Army pocketknife on his key chain and
apologized for the lapse in judgment. However, he had objected vigorously
to accusations that he was in any way a threat to anyone and had referred
to the "weapons" charges as being "bullshit". In
his written confession he had refused to use the term "weapon" even
though he was put under significant pressure from both the Principal
and the "resource officer" to do so. Well, that explained the "bad
attitude" part.
Over the next few days I went on a letter writing campaign. I sent letters
and emails to the superintendent of schools and the school board. My
initial letter was conciliatory in nature and asked for a meeting with
the superintendent of schools. I got no response. My next letter was
a bit more forceful and clearly stated that I expected a near term resolution.
I got no response.
On October 17th I received a letter from Joanne Poe of the Office of
Hearings and legal Issues setting a date of October 26th for the disciplinary
hearing. I responded in writing with a plea for reason. My letter stated
our point of view on the matter and asked that the school system consider
some reasonable alternative to the path we were on. I received no response.
On October 18th, I had a preliminary telephone conversation with the
law firm of William Reichardt and Associates. I still held out hope for
a reasonable outcome but thought it best to begin inquiries just in case
it turned out we needed legal representation. On advice from William
Reichardt and Associates, I sent yet another letter to Joanne Poe of
the Office of Hearings and Legal Issues requesting copies of any materials
that might be presented as "evidence" against my son. I did
receive a telephone response to this letter and was told that I could
pick up the package at the Burkholder Building, which I did on October
19th, 2001.
Some of the material was clearly intended to make my son fit some sort
of "profile". It was clear from the material submitted that
the intent was not to determine guilt or innocence, but was intended
to paint a negative impression of my son based on a volume of circumstantial
evidence. After examining the "evidence package" I wrote yet
another letter to Joanne Poe of the Office of Hearings and Legal Issues.
I argued that much of what was in the package was not relevant to the
question at hand and clearly moved that much of the evidence in the package
be suppressed based on relevance. I received no response to this letter.
As the date of the hearing approached, I offered them what I thought
was a most reasonable compromise to end the issue. When again I received
no response, it finally dawned on me that they were going to ignore me
and do whatever it is that they do. On October 22nd, 2001, I hired an
attorney and released my story to the press.
We initially contacted the law firm of William Reichardt and Associates.
I had a meeting with them to discuss our case but was told that they
were so booked up that they could not represent my son at the hearing
scheduled for Friday, October 26th, 2001. As Reichardt and Associates
specializes in this particular branch of legal practice, I started to
worry a bit. They referred me to an independent attorney named Gerard
S. Rugel who we retained to handle the case.
Two days before the disciplinary hearing, on October 24th I was "informed" of
a "manifestation hearing" to be conducted at my son's high
school by "the IEP Team". I was informed that my attendance
was optional and it was indicated that that there was really no good
reason for me to attend. It seems that someone had read my son's file
and realized that some years ago he had been "diagnosed" by
an un-named school system employee as being ADHD and emotionally disturbed.
Our family had objected to what we considered an erroneous diagnosis
and had long ago refused to participate in the "special education" program.
However, our attorney considered this to be an ace in the hole as it
is much harder for the school system to expel a kid that is emotionally
disturbed
than just an average kid who refuses to complete assignments. I was not
in favor of using this approach at first; still holding onto the naïve
expectation that reason would prevail. However, the attorney made it
real clear that if we did not play this card, we would likely loose and
my kid would be expelled. I was shocked, but agreed to play the card.
My son, our attorney Gerard Rugel and myself attended the "manifestation
hearing" on October 24th. I think that our arrival came as a bit
of a surprise as there was a lot of hustle going on around us and the
meeting was 30 minutes late getting started. It was explained that the
purpose of the meeting was to determine if Charles' disagreeable behavior
was in any way related to his "diagnosed" condition. After
listening to a bunch of psychological mumbo-jumbo I was handed a "report" which
was obviously a draft that had been prepared sometime prior to the "manifestation
hearing" which stated that Charles' behavior was a manifestation
of his condition. Whatever that condition may be.
In addition to declaring my son to have manifested some un-explained
condition, the report went on to describe a number of related behaviors
most of which are not supported by any evidence. In fact the report was
so inflammatory, that I responded to the "IEP Committee" in
writing to take exception to many of their assertions and put the record
straight. There was no response to my letter.
However, according to my attorney, we had won a small victory. He told
me after the "manifestation hearing" that it would now be very
difficult for the school system to expel my son. I remember thinking
to myself that if only my son was a drooling lunatic, they probably never
would have brought the charges. It was hard for my son and I to think
of this as any kind of victory.
Two days later, on October 26th, 2001, exactly 10-days into the 10-day
suspension, we showed up for the disciplinary hearing at the Burkholder
Building in Fairfax, VA. Parents that I had discussed our case with had
warned me that I should pray we not get David Weisman as the hearings
officer as he was known to be a "hanging judge". Sure enough,
our hearings officer was David Weisman. On the other side of the table
were the Principal, Donald Thurston and my son's Culinary Arts Instructor,
Ian Ale. Rounding out the group were two other employee's of the school
system whose names I do not remember. Myself, my son and our attorney
Gerard Rugel represented our side of the table.
I had earlier requested and received a "redacted copy" of
the "evidence" that would be used against my son. I had the
opportunity to read the letter Mr. Ian Ale had written giving his side
of the incident. Much of Mr. Ale's report describes the conversation
he and I had by phone the day of the original incident. I cannot imagine
how two people involved in the same conversation could have two so opposing
recollections of a discussion.
I do not want to accuse Mr. Ale of "doctoring" his report,
but I can say with certainty that his recollection of the conversation
he had with me by phone is inaccurate. My recollection of the call was
that it was cordial, that I apologized for causing him any grief and
assured him that Charles would be properly punished. At the end of the
call, I recall the two of us agreeing that this was a minor incident
and I thanked him for not
making a big deal about it.
I had also reviewed material in the "evidence package" that
related to our family's struggle to get Charles out of the "special
education" program some years earlier. Some rather hostile letters
I had written the school counselors were now considered "evidence" against
my son in a hearing concerning a "weapons charge". There was
also an undated letter, not on letterhead in the package from my son's
English teacher, Gloria Borden, where she accuses my son of being part
of some sort of terrorist conspiracy based on the content of an "autobiography" he
wrote as a class assignment. I read my son's paper and considered it
in keeping with the assignment though poorly written and based on a political
viewpoint that is currently out of style. At best his paper was a "C" effort
but certainly should not have been judged as a threat to anyone.
So it looked like they were going to try to reinforce a case that would
not stand up on its own merits by piling on every minor transgression
my son or my family had ever committed. I had discussed the "evidence
package" with my attorney and was advised that under their unique
rules of evidence, they were allowed to make a decision based on whatever
evidence they chose to consider or not to consider. To a layman, it appears
that they can decide how they want to find, and then select that evidence
which supports the finding.
The most damaging evidence against my son was when Mr. Ale said that
Charles was "playing with the knife" and that he had said, "I
never leave home without it". My son says that this testimony is
untrue. It's my son's word against the word of the instructor. The hearings
board decided that the testimony of the teacher was authoritative. I
can say with certainty that the "playing with it" and "never
leave home without it" references were never brought up in the phone
conversation I had with Mr. Ale. If they had been, the room restriction
would have been increased from one to four weeks.
On the positive side, I was able to press the Principal in front of
the hearing board on that all-important issue of "if you have a
very good reason". I was still aghast that so much time, money and
manpower had been expended over a kid with a kid's pocketknife and really
wanted to know why it had gone this far. The Principal was the key. He
could have given my son a stern dressing down, sent him home to me for
reasonable discipline and been done with it. It never needed to be escalated
to this point. The answer blew me away. My son knew the rule, quoted
it and asked for protection under the rule. Mr. Thurston considered this
to be "mouthing off" and "disrespectful of authority".
He clearly stated such in the hearing and that this was his reason for
escalating the issue.
I walked out of the hearing figuring that based on the evidence it was
a tie. We had made Mr. Thurston look incompetent for bringing the charge
in the first place. However, the testimony of Mr. Ale was damaging and
would be impossible to challenge. My attorney was very congratulatory
over my "if you have a very good reason" questioning of the
Principal. He indicated that we had succeeded in making the charges look
frivolous. He told me that there was now no way my son would be expelled
and that what they would do is uphold the 10-day suspension and move
him to another school.
Wait a minute. This is what you call winning a case? I still held out
hope for an acquittal, incident record expunged, reinstatement and an
apology from the Principal.
I got a heads up call from David Weisman on October 29th, 2001. At this
point my son had missed 12 days of school. Weisman tells me that the
decision was about to come down and he is fishing for where my threshold
of pain is. It is obvious from his tone that there will be no acquittal,
no reinstatement and no formal apology. He volunteered that he agrees
the charges never should have been escalated. However, he says that Charles'
defiance of authority cannot be tolerated and that the 10-day suspension
had to be upheld. He goes on to say it would not be in Charles' best
interest
to return to his neighborhood high school.
So it's a classic case of "catch 22". If you confess and admit
that you are in possession of a weapon we are going to suspend you for
10 days and expel you. However, if you refuse to confess and admit that
you are in possession of a weapon we will consider you in defiance of
authority and will suspend you for 10 days and expel you.
I am heart broken. My son is devastated. We have lost. I put my arguments
in writing to Dr. Weisman. I succeeded in negotiating placement at a
high school that is not clear across the county and is not surrounded
by barbed wire. I succeeded in getting the "wording" of the
final decree to never mention the word "weapon" and to clearly
indicate that no one was threatened or harmed in any way. But the final
result is unsatisfactory. My son was obviously found guilty the moment
the Principal brought the charge. The hearing, with its pomp and circumstance
was a "show trial" to pay lip service to "due process".
Since this incident, I have spoken with many parents whose families
have been impacted by events similar to what we when through. There is
the kid who got expelled for having a squirt gun, the kid who got expelled
for having a laser pointer and the poor kid who got expelled because
he happened to be nearby when some baby oil got spilled on the floor
as prank. Many of these parents have expressed their amazement that we "won" against
the school system. They seem to think it some sort of minor miracle that
my son did not get expelled. It's funny, but my son and I do not feel
like winners.
We have lived in the same home for over 16 years. My son went to school
with the same kids since kindergarten. My son now goes to a school where
he is a stranger. He is so distraught over the incident that I suspect
he will fail his senior year of high school. This is an average kid who
scored 1160 on his SATs and has never been a serious disciplinary problem
at home or in school. His few tangles with authority have been minor
ones associated with his rather satirical, "Louie Anderson" style
sense of humor.
This incident has had a significant impact on my family both financially
and emotionally. It has caused us to loose faith in the school system
we once supported without question. My son has been seriously violated
by a system that seems to be out of control and lacking in accountability.
He is now burdened by the righteous indignation of the persecuted. As
his father, I was impotent in my attempts to protect him from the abuse
of a disciplinary system that seems not to follow a recognizable code
of ethical behavior. And it was all such a waste and so unnecessary.
Sincerely,
Gary
October 12, 2001
Mr. Donald Thurston, Principal
Robert E. Lee High School
6450 Franconia Road
Springfield, VA 22150
Dear Mr. Thurston:
I am in receipt of your letter dated today regarding your decision to
suspend and recommend the expulsion of my son, Charles R. Hendershot.
This issue is being blown way out of proportion to the realities of the
situation. I contend that Charles has been punished in a manner appropriate
to the transgression already and that this action on your part is unwarranted
and unnecessary.
Points to consider:
- This was an accident; he simply forgot to remove the knife from his
key chain after his Boy Scout camp out the previous weekend.
- We are
talking about a Swiss Army style pocketknife that fits on a key chain,
not a
stiletto or a switchblade. This is not a "fighting
knife" by even the most paranoid of standards.
- There is a clear
absence of malice and the knife was never displayed in an aggressive
or threatening manner.
- Continuing on this course of action will force
me to put the rule on trial. The interpretation and application of
the rule do not pass the
reasonable person common sense test in this case.
I would point out that within Regulation 2610.15P, on page 7, item
5 Weapons Violations, section "a", subpart 2, a knife type weapon
is described as "Any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic
knife, knife having a metal blade of three inches or longer, razor, etc … ".
The longest blade on the knife in question is 2.5 inches long. Even
by your own regulations, the knife in question should not be considered
a weapon.
From where I stand, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. You
could if you chose to do so, write this incident off as just another
insignificant blip on the radar screen. Your decision to seek this disciplinary
action is unjustified by any reasonable standard. For some reason that
I do not fully understand, you have chosen to make an example out of
my son.
Sincerely,
Gary G. Hendershot
|
