Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zero Tolerance
Moral Dilemma
2
Mr. Quayle, an elementary school principal has a tough decision to make. He must
decide on how to proceed with a fourth grade student (James) who is seen as a nice student, who
The moral dilemma is whether or not Mr. Quayle should adhere to the district’s zero tolerance
policy for weapons or keep this matter quiet and work with James and his family.
Values in Play
Autonomy– Regarding the James and the issue with the gun, Mr. Quayle wishes he were
in a position to handle the situation on a school level and not have to invoke the zero tolerance
policy. “It was hard to imagine him (James) as anything other than a nice fourth grade boy”
(Strike, Haller, and Soltis, 2005, p. 184). This is what makes the decision that Mr. Quayle has to
Confidentiality– Only Mr. Quayle, principal and Ms. Hesston, James’s teacher are aware
of the situation. By keeping it confidential and not alerting the police and by not following
through with the discipline that bringing a gun to school calls for, would Mr. Quayle be making a
sound ethical decision? “Unless he could handle it discreetly and privately and persuade Ms.
Hesston, who seemed sympathetic, to keep it quiet for James’s sake” (Strike, Haller, and Soltis,
p. 185).
Justice– Most school systems have a centralized discipline matrix in place. Despite the
fact that James seems like a harmless student, does Mr. Quayle have the right to treat him
differently than any other student who might bring a gun to school? Are there circumstances in
place that would prevent the school system from invoking the zero tolerance policy? That
certainly is not Mr. Quayle’s decision to make. In order to be fair and just, it is his responsibility
3
as a school leader to turn this matter over to the appropriate authorities in the school system and
Principles in Play
Concern for the well-being of others– Although there is a zero tolerance policy on
weapons that appears to be set in stone, it is clear that Mr. Quayle is concerned for what this
situation will do to James and his family. He is playing out the best possible way to handle this
without doing too much damage to “a nice fourth grade boy” (p. 184). He is clearly a principal
who sees past what is written in what would be his district’s code of conduct.
Willing Compliance with the Law– Despite the fact that Mr. Quayle would like to handle
this matter internally, he understands that he does not have the flexibility to usurp the district’s
policy, “ignoring the gun was illegal” (p. 185). With he and Ms. Hesston as the only adults who
know about the gun, Mr. Quayle can take a chance by not involving the law. However, one thing
that was not brought up was whether or not any students know about the gun. It’s been my
experience that if a student brings a weapon to school, at least one or two students know about it.
Impartiality; objectivity– Should Mr. Quayle have the capacity to look at each weapons
case subjectively? Principals can get into situations where they give certain allowances for
students who exhibit exemplar behavior. Exhibiting this type of behavior, however, does not
mean that a student is not capable of making a poor decision with regards to weapons. Mr.
Quayle is in a difficult, yet not so difficult situation. He has to adhere to the zero tolerance
policy, but those above him have the final say as to whether or not James is expelled or faces
other consequences. He can be sympathetic to James and his family, but his line has to be a hard
one.
Adhering to the Zero Tolerance Policy - By adhering to the zero tolerance policy, Mr.
Quayle, the school, and the district send a strong message to students and the community that
bringing weapons to school is unacceptable. Will this do damage to James, who felt like this was
his way of getting school bullies to leave him alone? It’s quite possible that it may. Being
expelled from school and isolated from everyone during school hours can be damaging to
anyone; let alone a fourth grader. However, this also opens the district’s eyes to a couple of
serious problems: 1. a serious bullying problem and 2. the ability of a fourth grader to acquire a
dangerous weapon. Holding James accountable and enforcing the zero tolerance policy is s
Handle the matter internally- Given that Mr. Quayle and Ms. Hesston are the only two
adults who know about this matter, Mr. Quayle could elect to deal with this matter internally.
Although James’s parents would certainly appreciate Mr. Quayle’s generosity in giving James a
break by not enforcing the policy, how does Mr. Quayle handle the next student that brings a gun
to school? Does he totally ignore the policy and begin to look at students on a case by case basis
There are several ethical paradigms that I could take in deciding on how to proceed in
settling this matter. The Ethic of Justice and Kantianism are the vehicles that I will utilize in
Theory Explanation
Shapiro & Stefkovich (2001) and Staratt (1994) state, “The ethic of justice demands that
the claims of the institution serve both the common good and the rights of individuals in the
school.” When utilizing the Ethic of Justice, one takes the institution into account over the
individual. The ideal is that what is best for the institution is what’s best for the individual.
5
Kantianism, named for German Philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is rooted in the
fact that it is, “Our duty to do what is right” (Strike & Soltis).
Resolution
In utilizing Kant’s theory to resolve this matter, the ethical thing to do would be to
enforce the zero tolerance policy. The justification is that it is our duty as school administrators
to do what is right for the school. This can and often means that an individual suffers a harsh
consequence, but we must look at the bigger picture; our responsibility to protect the entire
student body. According to Strike & Soltis (pp. 14-18), Kant also says that “prior to acting, we
should ask whether what we are about to do would be a good model for a rule for other people to
follow.” I think this in itself provides a blue print on how to deal with matters in which a student
brings a gun to school. Everyone administrator should follow the same protocol which would be
In taking the Ethics of Justice into consideration, the decision to invoke the zero tolerance
policy is the fair and ethical thing to do. James’s decision to bring a gun to school, despite the
fact that he is a “good fourth grade boy” was a conscience decision that he made. For making
such a decision, he has to suffer the consequences. Granted, many administrators tend to take
personal relationships with students into consideration when dealing with them on discipline
matters; however, right is right and wrong is wrong. Based on the Ethics of Justice, Mr. Quayle
must invoke the zero tolerance policy; it is the ethical thing to do.
Ethical Objections
The following personal ethics might come under attack with regards to my decision to
• Concern for the well-being of others– One might argue that I did not take the fact
that James was being bullied and that he is a “good kid” into consideration.
However, “good kids” are capable of making poor choices. When they do, they
have to suffer the consequences.
6
• Benevolence: doing good – In the eyes of some, James might have been doing a
“good thing” by standing up to the bullies. When we look at his brining a weapon
to school on a larger scale, not punishing him the full extent sends the wrong
message to James and to the other students. James did not “do good.”
When utilizing ethical reasoning to make decisions that greatly impact others, you still
struggle to do what is right. As human beings, we have feelings and emotions and it is not
always easy to satisfy our feelings and make sound decisions. Having the basis of a theory
doesn’t necessary give you a blue print to follow, but a guideline in which you can use to make
Works Cited
Shapiro & Stefkovich (2001), Starratt (1994). Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in
Education. Retrieved February 18, 2009.
Strike, K.A., Haller, E.J & Soltis, J.F. (2005). The Ethics of School Administration. New York,
Strike, Haller, & Soltis. Demonstration Case: A Clash Between Rights and Fairness. Retrieved