Zero tolerance policies are policies that severely punish any violation of a rule, regardless of the particular circumstances of each case. At their core, zero tolerance policies standardize school punishment, instead of relying on individual evaluation of an incident. For example, a student who points a finger gun at another student as a joke may be punished the same as a student who makes a legitimate threat towards a student, if they both fall under the same policy of zero tolerance. This leads zero tolerance policies to be harmful for students and punish them unfairly. A zero tolerance policy might require a school to expel any student who gets into a fight, even if that student was fighting in self-defense or to defend a friend. Zero tolerance has led to students being suspended or expelled for holding up three fingers in a school photo, having a clear plastic toy gun in a backpack, or even doing the right thing such as recording a teacher using a racial slur or disarming a school shooter and saving other people’s lives.
These policies are unfair, violate student rights, and don’t make schools safer. By treating all cases the same, without room for context, schools ensure that real roots of problems remain unaddressed. In one study, a task force reviewed 10 years of research on the effects of zero tolerance policies in middle schools and secondary schools. The task force concluded that zero tolerance policies not only fail to make schools safer or more effective in handling student behavior, but they actually increase instances of troubled behavior and dropout rates. Students that are punished for minor infractions can feel unwelcome in their own schools, which are violating their right to due process. Overbearing policing and punishment in schools is just one of the many ways that the public school system in America has begun to feel like an inherently carceral institution, where punishment is prioritized over context and understanding a situation.
Students deserve fair treatment in schools during all situations, and school administrators should make an effort to treat all infractions with individual care, rather than dishing out predetermined punishments for any violation. Zero Tolerance policies are harmful to students, and they do not belong in schools. In the following webpage, the National Youth Rights Association explains zero tolerance policies, the harms they have on students, and various stories where students were unfairly punished under these policies.
Table of Contents
- Types of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools
- Common School Punishments for Violations of Zero Tolerance Policies
- Harms of Zero Tolerance Policies on Students
- Research and Studies on the Effects of Zero Tolerance Policies
- Cases and Stories of Unfair Punishment Resulting from Zero Tolerance Policies
The National Youth Rights Association
If you’re interested in Youth Rights, consider volunteering with us. We are always looking for new members and would love to have you on board. If you have a personal story to share, of how you have been unfairly treated at school from a zero tolerance policy, or about a general youth rights violation, consider sending us an email at nyra@youthrights.org. We’d love to help get your story out to the world.
Types of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools
Weapon possession – One of the most well known forms of zero tolerance policy involves weapons. Under these policies, students can face automatic suspension, expulsion, or law enforcement referral for bringing a weapon to school or having one on school grounds. In some schools, the rule is applied broadly enough that it can include not only firearms or knives, but also items loosely interpreted as weapons, such as tools, replicas, or objects used in a threatening way. The defining feature is that punishment is meant to be automatic or near-automatic, with little room for context, intent, age, or actual risk.
Drug possession – Many zero tolerance systems apply to possession of drugs or controlled substances. These policies often impose severe consequences for bringing illegal drugs onto campus, but they may also be applied to prescription medication, cannabis-related items, or substances the student did not intend to distribute or even use at school. In the strictest versions, the school treats all possession the same way regardless of quantity, purpose, or circumstance. This means a student carrying a small amount or a medication-related item may face penalties similar to a student accused of more serious drug conduct.
Alcohol possession – Schools often use zero tolerance rules for alcohol as well. A student found carrying alcohol, appearing intoxicated, or being connected to alcohol on campus may face suspension, expulsion, extracurricular bans, or disciplinary placement. In some cases, even very minor involvement, such as holding a container or being near other students using alcohol, can trigger the policy. These rules are often justified in the name of safety, but their harshness comes from how little they account for context or individual circumstances.
Violence and Physical Fighting – Another major category involves violence, fighting, or physical altercations. Under zero tolerance approaches, students may be punished automatically for any physical conflict, even when one student was acting in self-defense or played only a minimal role. These policies may not distinguish well between an aggressor and a student who reacted under pressure, panic, or threat. As a result, a student who was trying to protect themselves can still be treated as equally guilty simply because they were involved in a fight.
Threats and Intimidation – Schools may also apply zero tolerance rules to threats, intimidation, or threatening language. These policies are intended to address serious safety concerns, but they can be written or enforced broadly enough to cover jokes, sarcasm, inside jokes without context, immature comments, or statements made in frustration without serious intent. In those situations, the school may respond as though all threatening-sounding speech presents the same level of danger, even when the circumstances are obviously different. The zero tolerance feature is the refusal to meaningfully separate actual danger from impulsive or context-dependent speech.
Bullying and Harassment – Many schools have adopted zero tolerance language around bullying and harassment. While bullying is a real problem, these policies can become overly rigid when they treat every accusation as requiring a severe punishment without careful inquiry into context, repetition, age, relationship dynamics, or misunderstandings. In some schools, harsh discipline may be imposed for conduct that is serious, but also for peer conflict that may not fit the full meaning of bullying. The problem is not that schools address bullying, but that zero tolerance can turn a broad range of student conflict into automatic punishment.
Sexual Misconduct – Zero tolerance approaches are also used for sexual conduct or sexual misconduct. These can include policies on sexual harassment, unwanted touching, consensual sexual activity on campus, or inappropriate jokes or language. In some schools, students may face serious consequences under a zero tolerance framework even where the situation is ambiguous, immature, or lacking in predatory intent. Because sexuality, boundaries, and adolescent behavior are often complex, rigid disciplinary rules in this area can sweep together very different kinds of conduct under one punitive response.
Profanity and “Disrespect” – Some schools apply zero tolerance discipline to profanity, rude language, or perceived disrespect toward staff. This can include cursing, tone of voice, arguing with a teacher, refusing to comply immediately, or speaking in a way that staff interpret as defiant. These policies are especially concerning because terms like “disrespect” and “defiance” are often vague and subjective. That vagueness gives schools wide discretion to punish ordinary adolescent frustration, emotional distress, or disagreement as if it were a serious disciplinary threat. These policies also give teachers and administrators a free pass to act however they want towards students, often being disrespectful themselves and getting away with it if the students attempt to resist or oppose this.
Defiance and Insubordination – Closely related are zero tolerance policies for defiance, insubordination, or refusal to obey authority. A student may be punished for not following directions, walking away, talking back, or resisting school rules in ways that administrators interpret as noncompliant. The problem is that these categories can be extremely broad and can easily include behavior rooted in disability, trauma, anxiety, confusion, or normal adolescent resistance. Under a rigid zero tolerance approach, the school may focus on enforcing obedience rather than understanding why the student reacted the way they did.
Dress Code and Appearance – Although they are sometimes less formally called zero tolerance, some schools enforce dress code and appearance rules in a zero tolerance manner. Students may be removed from class, sent home, suspended, or repeatedly disciplined for violating rules about clothing, hair, accessories, hats, makeup, or body presentation. These policies become zero tolerance in effect when they leave little room for practicality, student dignity, cultural expression, religious needs, gender identity, or proportionality. The student is punished not because they caused harm, but because their appearance did not conform exactly to the school’s rules.
Cell phone Bans and Device Possession – Many schools have strict zero tolerance approaches to phones, earbuds, smartwatches, or other devices. A student may have a device confiscated, lose privileges, receive detention, or face suspension simply for possessing or using it in a prohibited area or at a prohibited time. Some schools escalate quickly after repeated violations, creating a structure where a basic modern object becomes the trigger for serious discipline. These policies are especially harsh when they fail to consider why the student had the device out, such as family emergencies, medical needs, or confusion about the rules.
Tardiness and Truancy – Some zero tolerance models apply to attendance-related issues, including tardiness, skipping class, or repeated absences. A student who is frequently late or misses school may face escalating punishments, court referrals, loss of privileges, or exclusionary discipline. These policies can be especially harmful because attendance problems are often tied to issues like transportation, family instability, bullying, mental health struggles, disability, or unsafe home conditions. Under a zero tolerance mindset, the school may punish the symptom instead of addressing the reason the student is struggling to attend.
Gang-related Expression – Schools sometimes enforce zero tolerance rules against suspected gang involvement or gang-related symbols. This can include clothing colors, hand signs, drawings, language, or social associations that staff interpret as gang-related. These policies can become especially problematic when the school relies on suspicion, stereotypes, or broad symbolism rather than clear evidence of harmful behavior. Students may be disciplined based on perceived image or association rather than actual misconduct, especially in schools where administrators are highly focused on visible control and order.
Toy Weapons and Look-alike Objects – In some schools, zero tolerance weapon rules are applied to toy guns, costume accessories, drawings of weapons, finger-gun gestures, or everyday objects interpreted as weapon-like. These cases often become examples of how rigid policy can override common sense. The school may defend the punishment by saying it must apply the rule uniformly, even when there was no real threat. This is one of the clearest examples of how zero tolerance can produce absurd or disproportionate outcomes because the policy leaves no room for intent or context.
Prescription Medication and Medical-Item – Schools sometimes use zero tolerance discipline for students possessing medication, inhalers, over-the-counter medicine, or related items without following formal school procedures. Even when the student had a genuine health-related reason, they may face punishment simply because the rules for storage or documentation were not followed exactly. These policies become especially harsh when they punish students for trying to manage health needs instead of treating the matter as a medical and administrative issue.
Cheating and Academic Dishonesty – Some schools take a zero tolerance approach to plagiarism, cheating, unauthorized collaboration, or use of prohibited materials during tests. A student may receive an automatic zero, course failure, suspension, or other major punishment without much consideration of developmental level, misunderstanding, pressure, or whether the conduct was intentional. This is especially relevant in the age of AI, where students’ work may be accused of being written by AI, despite this not actually occurring. While academic integrity matters, these policies become zero tolerance when they collapse very different forms of misconduct into the same automatic penalty.
Social Media and Off-campus Speech – Schools increasingly discipline students for social media posts, off-campus speech, or online behavior that they believe affects the school environment. A zero tolerance approach here can mean punishing students for posts, jokes, arguments, or expressions made away from school, sometimes without carefully distinguishing real threats from crude, immature, or emotionally charged speech. These policies raise especially serious concerns because they extend school punishment into broader student life and can blur the line between school discipline and control over ordinary expression.
Political Activity and Protest-Related Behavior – Schools may apply zero tolerance discipline to walkouts, protests, sit-ins, classroom disruptions, or unauthorized demonstrations. Students may face suspension or other serious penalties simply for participating in collective action or political expression that school officials view as disorderly. These policies become especially troubling when they treat peaceful protest the same way they would treat dangerous misconduct, because the goal becomes preserving institutional control rather than balancing order with student rights.
Catch-all “Disruption” Policies – Perhaps the broadest type of zero tolerance policy is the catch-all rule against “disruption,” “disturbance,” or conduct that interferes with school operations. These rules can be used to punish a huge range of behavior, from emotional outbursts to student protest to ordinary conflict. Because the term is often vague, it gives administrators wide power to impose harsh discipline whenever they feel challenged or inconvenienced. In practice, this can turn zero tolerance into a general approach to school control rather than a response to a narrow category of serious misconduct. Along with this, some states actually criminalize “disturbing school” as a status offense, allowing for juvenile court interventions into a student’s life for extremely vague behavior.
Common School Punishments for Violations of Zero Tolerance Policies
Out of School Suspension – One of the most common punishments under zero tolerance policies is out-of-school suspension. A student may be removed from school for a set number of days, sometimes immediately and with little investigation before the punishment begins. In a zero tolerance system, suspension often functions as the default response once a rule has technically been triggered, even if the conduct was minor, accidental, or highly context-dependent. The result is that students can lose instructional time very quickly, sometimes over behavior that might have been handled more proportionally in another system.
In School Suspension – Some schools use in-school suspension as a zero tolerance punishment, especially when they want to keep the student on campus while still excluding them from normal classes. The student may be placed in a separate room for the entire day, given packets of work, and prevented from participating in ordinary classroom activities. While less severe than being sent home, in-school suspension can still function as exclusion, especially when it is imposed automatically and repeatedly.
Long Term Suspension – Beyond short suspensions, many zero tolerance policies lead to long-term suspension, where the student is removed from school for weeks or even months. This is especially common in cases involving alleged weapons, fighting, threats, drugs, or repeated rule violations. Long-term suspension is more severe because it does not just interrupt school briefly. It can break the student’s academic momentum, separate them from teachers and peers, and make returning to school much harder.
Expulsion – Expulsion is one of the harshest punishments associated with zero tolerance policies. A student may be removed from the school entirely for the rest of the semester, the school year, or sometimes permanently. In zero tolerance systems, expulsion is often tied to weapon possession, serious fights, drug incidents, or other categories that schools define as requiring mandatory removal. Even when later review softens the punishment, the possibility of expulsion shows how quickly rigid disciplinary systems can escalate consequences.
Alternative School or Disciplinary Campus – Instead of allowing a student to remain at their current school, zero tolerance policies often result in reassignment to an alternative education setting, disciplinary campus, or special behavioral program. These placements are usually presented as a continuation of education, but they often separate students from their normal school community and can carry a strong stigma. In practice, this punishment can feel like a partial expulsion, because the student is removed from the mainstream environment and placed somewhere defined by discipline rather than belonging.
Detention – Detention is often used for lower-level zero tolerance enforcement, especially for repeated minor violations such as tardiness, dress code infractions, disrespect, or unauthorized device use. A student may be required to stay before school, after school, or during lunch under supervision. On its own, detention may seem less severe than suspension, but in rigid systems it can still reflect the same underlying mindset of automatic punishment rather than individualized response.
Isolation Rooms or Isolation Booths – A more restrictive punishment sometimes used under zero tolerance systems is isolation, where a student is placed alone in a room, cubicle, or booth away from peers. This may be called internal exclusion, reset, reflection, or another softer-sounding name, but the experience can be highly punitive. In schools with very rigid discipline systems, students may spend long stretches in these settings for relatively minor conduct, effectively being removed from normal school life without a formal suspension.
Loss of Extracurricular Participation – Students disciplined under zero tolerance policies may also lose access to sports, clubs, performances, field trips, dances, leadership positions, or graduation activities. This can happen even when the original conduct had nothing to do with the extracurricular activity itself. The punishment becomes broader than academic discipline and reaches into the student’s social life, interests, and opportunities for connection and achievement.
Removal from Regular Class or Schedule – Another common punishment is being pulled out of a particular class, teacher’s room, or school schedule entirely. This may happen after a fight, threat allegation, defiance incident, or repeated “disruptive” behavior. In some cases, the student is not formally suspended from school, but is still excluded from the normal educational environment in a way that marks them as a problem and limits their access to instruction.
Law Enforcement Referral – Zero tolerance policies often increase the likelihood that students will be referred to school police, local police, or juvenile authorities. This can happen in cases involving drugs, fights, threats, weapon allegations, or even behavior that could have been handled internally under a less punitive model. Once law enforcement becomes involved, the punishment moves beyond school discipline and begins to carry criminal or quasi-criminal consequences.
Court Referral or Juvenile Complaint – In more serious or highly formalized cases, schools may refer students to juvenile court or file complaints that trigger court involvement. This is one of the clearest ways zero tolerance can contribute to school-to-court or school-to-prison pipeline dynamics. The student is no longer simply facing school discipline, but is being pushed into a legal system that may leave a much longer-lasting mark on their life. This is especially common in states where “disturbing school” is a status offense for minors.
Automatic Grade Penalties or Assignment Failure – Some zero tolerance systems impose academic punishments in addition to disciplinary ones. A student may receive a zero on an assignment, fail a course, lose credit, or become ineligible for makeup work after a disciplinary incident. This is especially common in cases involving cheating, classroom removal, suspension-related absences, or rigid attendance rules. The punishment then affects not only behavior records but academic standing directly. For example, a school in New York State had a policy of reducing a student’s grade to a maximum of 75 if the student had been suspended for disciplinary reasons.
Mandatory Psychological Evaluation or Behavioral Assessment – In some cases, zero tolerance responses include requiring the student to undergo a psychological evaluation, threat assessment, or behavioral screening before being allowed back into school. This is especially common when a school interprets something as a threat, even if the underlying conduct was childish, impulsive, or non-serious. While evaluation can sometimes be appropriate, it can also become part of a punitive process when it is imposed automatically and without much regard for proportionality.
Restriction from Campus Spaces or Events – A student may be barred from certain school areas, common spaces, lunchrooms, assemblies, ceremonies, or special events as part of a zero tolerance response. Sometimes this is framed as a safety or order measure, but in practice it can become another layer of exclusion. The student remains enrolled, but with reduced access to the ordinary spaces and experiences that make up school life.
Probation Style Behavior Contracts – Some schools respond to zero tolerance incidents by placing students on strict behavioral contracts with detailed conditions for remaining in school. These may include heightened monitoring, mandatory check-ins, no-contact orders, or immediate removal for any further infraction. While this can appear more flexible than outright expulsion, it can also function as a highly punitive probation system where the student remains under constant threat of harsher punishment.
Escalating Punishment for Repeated Minor Infractions – Zero tolerance systems often build in escalation, where repeated low-level behavior leads to increasingly severe consequences. A student may begin with detention, then move to suspension, then alternative placement, simply because the policy treats repeated noncompliance as requiring automatic intensification. This means even relatively minor behavior can eventually trigger major punishment once the disciplinary ladder has been climbed.
Harms of Zero Tolerance Policies on Students
Punishing students without meaningful context – One of the most basic harms of zero tolerance policies is that they often punish students without seriously considering context, intent, age, or the actual level of danger involved. A student may be treated the same whether they made a joke, forgot an item in a backpack, acted in panic, or posed a real threat. This can lead to deeply unfair outcomes because the policy is built to prioritize rule enforcement over judgment. When schools stop asking what actually happened and why, discipline becomes less about justice and more about automatic punishment.
Punishing victims and students acting in self-defense – Zero tolerance policies can also harm students by erasing the difference between aggression and self-defense. In many schools, once a fight occurs, everyone involved may be punished regardless of who started it. That means students who were attacked first, cornered, or trying to protect themselves can still face suspension or expulsion. This sends a damaging message that being victimized does not necessarily protect you from punishment, and that the school may care more about technical involvement in a fight than about fairness.
Encouraging fear instead of safety – Although zero tolerance policies are often justified as safety measures, they can create an environment based more on fear than on actual safety. Students may become afraid of making mistakes, handling emergencies imperfectly, or being caught near the wrong situation at the wrong time. A school climate built around automatic punishment can make students feel that the institution is watching for reasons to discipline them rather than trying to protect and guide them. That can weaken trust in the school and make students feel less secure, not more.
Hindering Education – A major harm of zero tolerance policies is that they often remove students from the learning environment through suspensions, expulsions, alternative placements, or other exclusionary punishments. Even short removals can disrupt education, but repeated or severe punishments can push students much further behind academically. Once a student is separated from class, assignments, teachers, and daily routines, it becomes harder to keep up, harder to stay motivated, and harder to feel connected to school at all.
Damaging Students’ Mental Health – Harsh disciplinary responses can also harm students emotionally. Being suspended, expelled, publicly labeled as dangerous, or treated as a serious offender can create shame, anxiety, anger, humiliation, and hopelessness. This can be especially damaging for younger students, who may not fully understand why they are being punished so severely. Even when the punishment is later reversed or criticized, the emotional harm may already have been done.
Teaching students that fairness does not matter – Zero tolerance policies often teach a disturbing lesson: that fairness, proportionality, and common sense may not matter once a rule has been technically triggered. Students may learn that adults in authority will punish first and ask questions later, or perhaps not at all. That can damage students’ faith in institutions and authority figures. Instead of seeing school rules as something connected to justice and safety, they may come to see them as arbitrary weapons that can be used against anyone.
Criminalizing ordinary childhood and adolescent behavior – Another harm is that zero tolerance policies can transform immature, impulsive, or silly behavior into something treated like a serious offense. Children and teenagers naturally make mistakes, test boundaries, make edgy jokes, and act without thinking. A healthy school system should respond in a way that teaches and corrects. Zero tolerance instead often treats these behaviors as if they belong in the same category as serious violence or deliberate wrongdoing, which can make normal developmental behavior seem criminal.
Encouraging school-to-prison pipeline dynamics – Zero tolerance policies can contribute to a broader pattern in which students are pushed out of school and into harsher systems of discipline and surveillance. When schools rely heavily on suspensions, expulsions, police referrals, or court involvement, students may become entangled with the justice system at young ages. Even when a case never goes beyond the school level, repeated exclusion and punitive treatment can place a student on a much harsher life path than a more constructive response would have.
Disproportionately harming marginalized students – In practice, zero tolerance policies often fall hardest on students who are already more vulnerable, including Black students, disabled students, LGBTQ students, students with trauma, and students from unstable or heavily policed communities. Broad rules about defiance, disruption, threats, or dress can be enforced unevenly, even when written in neutral language. As a result, zero tolerance may magnify existing inequality by making certain students more likely to be removed, criminalized, or labeled as problems.
Punishing disability-related behavior – Students with disabilities may be especially harmed when schools apply rigid discipline without understanding the role of disability, sensory overload, impulsivity, emotional dysregulation, communication differences, or unmet support needs. Behavior that should prompt accommodation, evaluation, or intervention may instead trigger suspension or expulsion. In these situations, zero tolerance substitutes punishment for support and can make school even less accessible to the students who most need understanding and services.
Discouraging students from reporting threats or mistakes – Rigid punishment can also make students less likely to come forward when something goes wrong. If students believe that touching a weapon to disarm someone, reporting something late, making a foolish joke, or being connected to a situation in any way could get them punished too, they may stay silent. This is one of the major paradoxes of zero tolerance: a policy intended to deter danger can sometimes discourage students from helping prevent it because they fear being swept into the punishment themselves.
Creating humiliation and public stigma – A harsh disciplinary response can mark a student publicly in ways that are hard to undo. Being suspended, escorted out, discussed by teachers, or labeled as violent or threatening can create stigma among peers and staff. Other students may see them differently, teachers may become more suspicious, and the student may feel permanently embarrassed. Even when the original incident was minor or misunderstood, the social consequences of the punishment can be lasting.
Escalating conflict instead of resolving it – Harsh punishment does not always reduce conflict. In some cases, it can intensify it. A student who feels wronged may become angrier, more alienated, and less cooperative. Families may become more adversarial toward the school. Peers may see the punishment as unjust and lose respect for school authority. Instead of calming a situation, zero tolerance can sometimes harden it into a deeper conflict with longer-lasting consequences.
Failing to distinguish danger from harmless conduct – A major weakness of zero tolerance is that it can collapse very different situations into one category. A toy, a finger gesture, a misunderstood comment, a Cub Scout utensil, or a reaction in self-defense can all be treated as if they belong to the same category as real violence or deliberate threats. This failure to distinguish levels of risk harms students because it replaces judgment with overreaction. It can also weaken the credibility of school discipline by making it seem detached from reality.
Long-term harm to life opportunities – Suspensions, expulsions, disciplinary records, lost instructional time, and school instability can all affect a student’s future opportunities. A student who misses major portions of school may see grades fall, lose access to extracurriculars, struggle with graduation, or face setbacks in college and job opportunities. Even one severe punishment can have ripple effects that extend well beyond the original incident. The harm is not limited to the moment of discipline; it can alter the student’s path long afterward.
Replacing human judgment with institutional rigidity – At its core, one of the greatest harms of zero tolerance is that it substitutes rigid policy for thoughtful human judgment. Schools are full of complicated situations involving children and teenagers, and those situations often require adults to weigh maturity, context, danger, motive, fear, disability, and fairness. Zero tolerance policies reduce the space for that judgment. When institutions stop trusting adults to think carefully and instead require near-automatic punishment, students are the ones who bear the cost.
Research and Studies on the Effects of Zero Tolerance Policies
Research on zero tolerance policies has been strikingly consistent for years: these policies do not appear to deliver the benefits their supporters often promise, and they can create serious harms for students. The American Psychological Association’s Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded that zero tolerance policies have not been shown to improve school safety or school climate, and that they may actually worsen outcomes by increasing suspension and expulsion without addressing the causes of student behavior.
One of the clearest harms identified in the research is lost educational opportunity. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported that excessive exclusionary discipline causes students to miss class time and is associated with lower classroom engagement, grade retention, dropping out, and later involvement with the juvenile justice system. The Learning Policy Institute likewise summarizes the research as showing that suspensions and expulsions are ineffective at improving safety or deterring misbehavior, in part because they do not teach replacement skills or address underlying problems.
Research also shows that zero tolerance policies can push students toward the school-to-prison pipeline. The APA report warned that zero tolerance may negatively affect the relationship between education and juvenile justice, and later reviews have continued to describe exclusionary discipline as a mechanism that increases the likelihood of justice-system contact rather than preventing later harm. A 2023 review in JAMA Pediatrics similarly notes that exclusionary discipline expanded in the wake of zero tolerance and is tied to negative mental health and justice-related outcomes.
Another major theme in the literature is that zero tolerance policies often produce disproportionate harm. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that students of color, students with disabilities, and especially students who fall into both categories often bear the harshest discipline burdens. Reviews of zero tolerance have also emphasized that these policies do not fall evenly across student populations and instead magnify existing inequalities in schooling.
Researchers have also criticized zero tolerance for undermining the use of judgment, proportionality, and developmental understanding. The APA task force argued that these policies remove discretion and often fail to distinguish between serious threats and less dangerous, context-dependent behavior. A widely cited study in the Juvenile & Family Court Journal similarly concluded that zero tolerance contributed to increased out-of-school suspensions and recommended moving away from automatic exclusion in favor of more individualized, constructive approaches.
Overall, the research literature does not support the idea that zero tolerance is a particularly effective way to create safe, fair schools. Instead, the strongest findings point to harms such as lost instruction, academic decline, disconnection from school, increased justice-system involvement, and disproportionate punishment of already vulnerable students. Across government reports, psychological research, and policy reviews, the broad conclusion is that zero tolerance tends to impose high costs on students without clear evidence of matching safety benefits.
Cases and Stories of Unfair Punishment Resulting from Zero Tolerance Policies
Recently, NYRA interviewed several students from Cincinnati about youth rights violations they have experienced in their lives. You can watch the full interview here:
One of their stories perfectly illustrates the harms of zero tolerance policies. In Gabe Nerys’ story, he described a situation where this bully at his school was constantly harassing him and his friends. Eventually, one of Gabe’s friends stepped up to confront the bully, to which the bully punched Gabe’s friend first. They began fighting, and because of the altercation, Gabe’s friend and the bully were both suspended and punished equally by the school. The friend was doing nothing wrong, and was simply confronting a bully then defending himself when he was attacked, however, under the zero tolerance policy he was seen as just as bad as the bully for being part of the fight. This is just one of the many instances of how zero tolerance policies ignore the context of situations, and unfairly punish students.
Ben (UK); Placed In Isolation for Half the School Year for Minor Infractions — In Yorkshire, a former student identified only as “Ben” told the BBC that his school placed him in an isolation booth away from the classroom for more than half an academic year under a zero-tolerance behaviour system. The story drew attention because the punishment was not a brief response to one extreme incident, but a prolonged form of internal exclusion that effectively removed him from ordinary school life for months. In discussion of the same BBC reporting, parents and students said children at the school were being sent into internal exclusion for things like an untucked shirt, talking in class, asking to use the toilet, not having a blazer, or asking to open a window. That context made Ben’s experience seem less like an isolated disciplinary response and more like the product of a rigid zero-tolerance system in which minor rule violations could lead to severe, educationally damaging punishment.
11 Year Old Lansing Student; Disarming a Potential Shooter — In Michigan, a mother told local reporters that her 11-year-old son was expelled after taking a loaded gun away from a classmate at Dwight Rich School of the Arts. According to her account, he disarmed and disassembled the weapon, threw away the bullets, and only later told an adult. The boy’s mother said he had never been in trouble before and believed he was trying to protect other students, but the school still expelled him. The story drew wide attention because it seemed like one of the clearest illustrations of zero tolerance punishing a child not for bringing a weapon to school, but for handling a dangerous situation in a way administrators later judged procedurally wrong.
Mary Walton; Recording a Teacher Using Racial Slurs — At Glendale High School in Springfield, Missouri, 15-year-old Mary Walton found herself in the middle of a controversy after she recorded part of a geometry-class exchange in which a teacher repeatedly used a racial slur. ABC News reported that the video was 56 seconds long and showed the teacher insisting that he could say the N-word, even after a student warned him that using it could cost him his job. Mary, who had recorded the incident, was punished—suspended for three days under the school’s zero tolerance electronic-device policy. ABC reported that Mary’s mother and attorney said she had shared the video with her mother, a friend, and one of the students in the clip, but that she had not posted it on social media herself. Even so, the school suspended her, citing privacy concerns and rules on inappropriate device use. Her attorney argued that the punishment sent a chilling message to other students that documenting wrongdoing could get them in trouble too, and her mother said the district should apologize and remove the suspension from her record. This instance is just one reason why not just zero tolerance policies should be removed, but also how phone bans threaten student safety.
Zachary Christie; Bringing a Cup Scout Utensil — In Delaware, 6-year-old Zachary Christie brought a Cub Scout camping utensil to school after becoming excited about joining the Scouts. The tool combined a spoon, fork, and knife, and Zachary said he wanted to use it at lunch. School officials treated the utensil as a weapon under the district’s zero tolerance policy and suspended him, with reports at the time saying he also faced placement in an alternative program. CBS described the case as one of the clearest examples of zero tolerance overriding common sense: a first grader with a Cub Scout utensil was treated as if he had brought a dangerous weapon to school.
Dontadrian Bruce; Holding up Three Fingers — In Mississippi, 15-year-old Dontadrian Bruce was photographed by his biology teacher after building a DNA model out of Legos. In the picture, he held up three fingers, which he said represented his football jersey number. School officials instead treated the gesture as a gang sign and suspended him for 21 days, with an “indefinite suspension” recommendation and possible expulsion. Suspension Stories, quoting TakePart, reported that none of the surrounding facts seemed to matter: Bruce had strong grades, no prior discipline history, and said he had no idea the gesture was associated with a gang. The case became a classic example of zero tolerance because the punishment flowed from a rigid interpretation of a hand gesture rather than any real evidence that he had posed a danger at school.
L.J, Waterbury Student; Wrote a Horror Story — In Waterbury, Connecticut, an honors student identified in court papers as L.J. was suspended for 10 days and then transferred out of his specialized high school program after submitting a fictional horror story for an AP English assignment. CT Insider reported that the story, titled “The Spike,” was written for class, but administrators interpreted it as a violent threat. The paper also reported that the district required a mental health evaluation before he could return, and that the evaluation found no evidence he posed a risk of violence. A judge later ruled that the district had improperly removed him and effectively imposed an expulsion without following the required legal process. The story became a powerful example of zero-tolerance thinking punishing a student over fictional writing even after officials conceded he was not actually a threat.
James Tate; Prom Invitation — At Shelton High School in Connecticut, James Tate and two friends tried to outdo each other in a friendly contest to come up with the most creative prom invitation. Tate used large cardboard letters outside the school entrance to ask a classmate to prom, and although she said yes, the school punished him with a one-day in-school suspension and banned him from attending the prom. CBS reported that school officials defended the punishment as part of a policy imposing strict consequences for students who got into trouble at school after April 1. The case drew national and even international attention because the punishment seemed wildly disproportionate to what was, in effect, a creative but harmless promposal.
East Central High School Protest Participants — In San Antonio, students who walked out of East Central High School to join anti-ICE demonstrations were hit with harsh school punishments even though the protests were described as largely peaceful. The San Antonio Express-News reported that East Central ISD suspended about 30 students, and that some students were also temporarily barred from extracurricular activities. Student advocates said some of the punishments went even further, with reports that seniors were told they could not attend prom or walk the stage at graduation. The case became an example of how zero-tolerance discipline can escalate a political walkout into broad punishment that reaches far beyond the original absence itself.
Stories of Students Being Punished for Gun Related Gestures, Despite No Harm Being Caused
Pennsylvania Kindergartner; a Bubble Gun Comment — In 2013, a 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl was suspended after telling another student she was going to shoot her with a pink bubble gun that blew soapy bubbles. Reuters reported that the punishment initially lasted 10 days before being reduced, and ABC News reported that the child was also ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation during the suspension. The family protested the punishment and sought to clear her record. The case became widely discussed because the child had not brought an actual weapon to school; she was punished over a remark about a toy bubble gun under a school culture shaped by zero tolerance thinking.
Joshua Welch; “Pop Tart Gun” — In Maryland, 7-year-old Joshua Welch was suspended after chewing his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun and pretending to shoot it. The incident led to a two-day suspension and years of legal and public controversy. CBS reported that a hearing examiner later recommended upholding the suspension, while later local reporting said the case was not fully resolved until years afterward. Joshua’s case became nationally symbolic because the punishment was imposed on a second grader for shaping food into the form of a weapon, showing how zero tolerance logic could turn childish play into a formal weapons offense.
5 Year Old Colorado Girl; Bringing a Bubble Gun — In Colorado, a 5-year-old girl was suspended after bringing a clear plastic bubble-blowing toy gun to school. The case drew coverage because the object was a bubble toy, not a real firearm, yet the school still imposed formal discipline. The story fit the familiar zero tolerance pattern: once the item was categorized as gun-related, the school responded with punishment first rather than context.
Samuel Burgos; Toy Gun — In Florida, Samuel Burgos was only a second grader when a toy gun was found in his backpack after a weekend of playing outside with his brother. His parents said he did not realize it was still there, and later reporting said the toy no longer worked. Even so, Broward County’s zero tolerance rules treated it as a weapon, and Samuel was expelled for nearly a year. CBS reported that he missed almost 11 months of regular schooling before the superintendent eventually reversed the expulsion, and that his parents said the ordeal set him back both emotionally and academically. Samuel’s case became one of the best-known examples of how zero tolerance policies could treat a small child with a toy as if he had committed a serious weapons offense.
Nathan Entingh; Finger Gun Gesture — In Ohio, 10-year-old Nathan Entingh was suspended for three days after he pointed his finger like a gun and pretended to shoot at a classmate. Time reported that the school classified his finger as a “level 2 lookalike firearm” under its zero tolerance gun-play policy. His father said the other student did not even see the gesture and that no one felt threatened, but the school still imposed the suspension. The case drew attention because it showed just how far some schools were willing to extend zero tolerance logic: even a child’s hand gesture could be treated as if it were a weapon.
Stories of Students Being Punished For Self Defense During Fights
Brooklynn Gianfrancesco — In Katy ISD in Texas, a classroom assault captured on video sparked public outrage after both students were suspended even though one appeared to be the victim. The Houston Chronicle reported that 15-year-old Brooklynn Gianfrancesco was attacked by a male student, suffered a concussion, and was still suspended for “disorderly conduct” under a policy that punishes both students involved in a fight unless there was no avenue of escape. Later coverage said parents came to school board meetings demanding that the district add a clearer self-defense exception. The case became a modern example of how zero tolerance approaches to fighting can punish victims alongside aggressors.
Madill High School Student — In Madill, Oklahoma, a bathroom fight led to a student being suspended for the rest of the school year. KXII reported that the boy’s father said his son had been threatened beforehand by a larger student, had already been dealing with bullying, and was only fighting back after the other student attacked him. Even with that explanation, the school still imposed a severe suspension. The story became another example of how zero tolerance-style discipline can throw self-defense and aggression into the same category, leaving the student who says they were protecting themselves punished right alongside the attacker.
Santa Rosa High School Student — In Santa Rosa, California, a teenage girl was suspended after a school fight even though her parents said she had been defending herself from bullies from another school. NBC Bay Area’s report framed the dispute as a case in which the family believed the school punished a student who was trying to protect herself rather than focusing on the students who initiated the confrontation. The case fits the same broader pattern seen in other self-defense stories: once a student is physically involved in a fight, schools may still impose discipline even when the family argues the student was attacked first.
