In the wake of the waves of violence that swept across America’s public schools in the mid-1990s, many districts across the country formulated strict “zero-tolerance” policies. Designed to thwart violence before it could occur by strictly punishing students caught bringing weaponry of any sort to a school, these movements passed quickly and with great public support. But as time has passed and the echoes of Columbine have faded, it becomes increasingly clear that these regulations may not be in the best interest of students.

Protecting students from violence and securing learning environments is of course a worthwhile goal, but it has to be understood that there is no place in this world where “one size” truly fits all.

To illustrate this point, simply take a look at the case of Taylor Hess. A student in the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD, Hess was expelled – initially for a year – for bringing a weapon to school. Did he bring a gun? A grenade? An explosive of some sort? No. Hess’ great crime was accidentally leaving a bread knife in the bed of his truck after helping his grandmother move over the weekend. This was not an incident of malice, or even one where the weapon was brought into a school building itself. The knife was unintentionally brought to the school grounds, and for this oversight, Hess was expelled, only to be reinstated after a public outcry embarrassed the Hurst-Euless-Bedford district into rethinking its punishment.

In truth, thinking is the entire problem with zero tolerance policies – or more accurately, the fact that they force a lack of thinking. Zero tolerance policies do not allow for consideration of circumstance before the application of punishment. Hess and others like him who have been overwhelmingly punished for slight infractions of school weapons policies did break a rule and deserve to be punished. But punishment for all crimes or infractions must be proportional to the severity of the misdeed.

Enshrined in the American Constitution are provisions barring cruel or unusual punishments. What word aside from cruel could be used to describe the denial of students like Hess an education simply due to unintended violations of rules written in haste? Zero tolerance policies were designed to prevent another Columbine. But is a student who leaves a bread knife in the bed of his truck in anyway equivalent to one who brings a shotgun into the school itself in order to shoot his classmates? Of course not.

So lets take a second look at the zero tolerance policies, and rewrite them to provide school districts with the flexibility they need to address situations as they occur. Just as every infraction is not the same, neither should all punishments be created equal, and any rule that forces such lack of proportionality does a disservice to the very students it was written to protect.