Erin Cox – Zero Tolerance Doesn’t Equal Ethical Wisdom

            As I begin this blog, I am reminded of a clergy person in the town where I grew up.

She was a lovely person who had dedicated her life to helping others. She was kind and lived her faith every day. If she had one flaw it is that she was perhaps the worst driver to ever be issued a license.

It was by Divine intervention that she had never hurt anyone; that, and the fact that she drove so slowly that I believe even most snails could have avoided her green, banged-up station wagon.

Whenever she got into a minor scrape, the police officers generally gave her a wink and sent her on her way. In one case, they actually blamed another driver who wasn’t remotely at fault. I guess you could call her case one of “full tolerance.” Maybe it wasn’t right, but the police officers who went to her church seemed pretty OK with their very liberal application of the law. She never received a ticket.

Enter Erin Cox

The memory above was just stirred by 17 year-old Erin Cox of North Andover, Massachusetts. She recently made national headlines for doing what she believed was the right thing.

One recent evening, Ms. Cox received a telephone call from a friend who had gotten drunk at a party. The friend, correctly so, realized she was too drunk to make it home on her own and so she asked Erin to pick her up. Unfortunately, Erin went to the party to retrieve her friend just a minute or so before the Boxford Police Department swept in and arrested every underage teen at the party. In the sweep, Ms. Cox was also arrested. Here is where the story gets interesting.

The police officer making the arrest saw that Erin Cox was sober. He understood why she was there – to help her friend – and in his report he stated that she was sober.

            It was not good enough for the high school Erin attends. Erin was captain of her volleyball team and they removed her as captain. In addition, they suspended her for five games.

            Why did they do this? Because they said they had a “zero tolerance” policy. Most everyone around the country is now asking the question: Zero tolerance for what?

            They Don’t Know

            The clergy person should have received tickets if she was in violation of the law. Her unsafe driving behavior could have caused death or serious bodily injury to someone. Running a stop sign and hitting another car (at any speed), is not a victimless crime; it is something that requires the equal treatment under the eyes of the law.

            Ms. Cox had not been drinking. She thought she was doing the right thing. Could the school have not considered that fact in a positive light?

            What is gained by punishing this young woman by removing her as team captain? Yes, the friend should have been punished as she was underage and in violation of school policies (that is, if a policy was in place). Yes, the school administrators should have told Erin that she should not have been around such a scene. We all understand that. However, is there no weight given to considering a situation for what it is? Would it not have been enough to suspend Erin for two games – or three?

            I do not like zero tolerance policies when they are used in place of ethical common sense. This helps no one. The policies teach nothing.

Clearly, I am not referring to policy prohibiting alcohol consumption or drugs around dangerous machinery or while driving; I am certainly not advocating underage drinking but what about someone who is sober who tries to help someone who has been drinking?

What about someone who take car keys away from a drunken friend about to drive?

            The question I might have of the school is this: “What is your purpose in educating students?” If it is only to “teach facts,” but to not help them make ethical or even moral decisions, what are you preparing them for in later life?

In the case of these educators and their application of policies, are they really enforcing a zero tolerance rule or are they playing it loose with a personal set of agendas based on little more than their anger and their inability to navigate ethical issues?