Zero Tolerance or Zero Thought

All right, well, good morning, Greg, and hello to all of our listeners. We appreciate the continued support from those of you who've been checking out the Patreon site and sharing The Human Behavior Podcast with friends. That helps us out a lot, and giving us the reviews and feedback that you have. So, we do appreciate that and want to get that right off the bat here today.

Today's topic is going to be about zero-tolerance policies. The reason we are having this is we had a brief Patreon discussion about it, and our thoughts were, "Well, we could probably do an entire podcast on it." Then one of our Patreon members, their first comment was, "You should do an entire podcast on this!" Which is what we kind of knew going into it, but there's a lot to unpack with it.

The reason we are talking about this is because we have a bunch of different examples of how a zero-tolerance policy is implemented, and it has horrible, catastrophic third-order effects. There are reasons why people want zero-tolerance policies where their intent might be great and might make sense, but when it comes to policy-level stuff, you are not going to ever know completely how it is going to work. You can plan for some of these things.

So, I want to get into that and answer a few questions about why, as humans, we come up with these things in the first place, and what their actual effects are. We have a bunch of different stories, and I will put links in some of the episode details. For the Patreon members, I will put links to all this stuff in a post so you can check it out.

But there was one that I wanted to start with, Greg, and it came out of Chicago. There was a shooting at a high school in the Pilsen neighborhood, if anyone is familiar with that area – Benito Juarez High School. I actually had a buddy I grew up with whose mom taught there. The response to it was because there was this kind of shooting, and typically in those situations, it is more like a gang-type thing, not like a school attack. In the sense of a school shooting, it is a shooting that takes place on school grounds.

Basically, the gist of it is there were problems. The Chicago Public School administrators, teachers, [and] principal were not divulging information to the police for their investigation. What they were saying was that, "Well, this kind of violates our policy on what we can and cannot share, and we are not allowed to give this. We have to protect the students." The police are sitting there going, "Look, we have an ongoing investigation. We need this information." So, the Chicago Public School folks were like, "Hey, you have to talk to our legal department."

There was sort of this seemingly misinterpreted or ambiguous policy where they are only allowed to share certain things with the police in emergent situations, like a shooting, an active shooter incident, or something. So, it was unclear as to now this is just an investigation into something that was connected because everyone involved were current and former members of the school.

So, fast forward, what happens? It hampers the investigation. They do not end up making arrests until, I think, a couple of months later. In the meantime, one of the people they did arrest was involved in another shooting. In the meantime, this slows things down. It is tough for prosecution, and then now you are going to trial, and the defense is going to sit there and say, "Well, wait a minute. Why didn't you investigate this further? Why didn't you press charges sooner? Because maybe you didn't have such a great case, or what's going on?" So, it really makes the situation worse.

In that case, they had this sort of zero-tolerance policy in place. It is a great one; you can read the story, I will put the link in there, because it shows all kinds of different bureaucratic things that happen in any major metropolitan area between public school systems, police, advocacy groups, lack of oversight, or after-action review. When these incidents happen, it is just, "We are going to make this policy, and then you are expected to adhere to the policy because that policy, or 'here it says it right here, we can point to it on the wall,' that is what it is." Most of our listeners know this, it is just not that simple sometimes.

So, that is kind of the big one that everyone can jump into and read about if they want, Greg. I want to throw it to you because I have been talking for a few minutes. But I want to throw it to you to kind of get the conversation started about zero-tolerance policies. I know you have some other great examples that we are going to talk about throughout here. I have a few questions that I eventually want to get to: Basically, why do we create these zero-tolerance policies? What is the intent? Do they work? And what are the effects of these policies? What do they lead to, at a sociological, societal level, in terms of handling these things? We do not need to answer those right up front right now; we will get to them. But I want to throw it to you first, Greg.

Again, five minutes? I have written an entire page of notes on what you said. So, folks, good morning! Brian is using the Tommy Boy defense: "The guarantee is on the box." I like that. I also see the irony in the superintendent and the school administrator saying, "We have to protect the students," after two students were shot and two were killed from a 16-year-old doing it. The irony is quite thick on this one.

Yeah.

So, the simple answer is that the Chief of Police and their representative told the school administrator and their Safety and Security people that the emergency of this shooting warranted their cooperation immediately. In fact, what happened, it was so many high-ranking fights back and forth that it stretched out over two months. Then, even to the point of the Chicago police saying, "Hey, look, the prosecutor is, as a matter of fact, saying we are going to charge these guys with obstruction of justice," and that is ridiculous. Even the attorney for the 16-year-old who did it – the 16-year-old who had been kicked out of Benito Juarez Community Academy, then fatally shoots two and wounds two others in December of 2022 – now this is stretched to 2024; this just was adjudicated last month. So, the kid's attorney even asked, "Hey, listen, if he did it, why did it take two months to arrest?" Well, now we know.

The idea is that the policy became more important than helping police identify the shooter. As Brian said, it created a cascading effect that not only cast a pall over the shooting and the school and the community's recovery from the shooting, but the subsequent arrest of the kid. Then, it felt as though it was a weak case. It was not a weak case at all. There were a number of witnesses that saw the shooting, there were videotapes of the shooting, there were all these other things that were going on. But the mere fact that the number one cork, the stopper that was in the flow, was the school going, "Well, we are not sure if we can do [that]." There are so many protections for schools, and specifically when a school thinks that there is dangerous intent, they can go so much more broadly than merely reasonable suspicion or probable cause allows a regular officer to go on the street, Brian.

This is one that is emblematic of why we do not have, or why you and I personally, I should say, do not support zero-tolerance policies. Now, we know that they still exist, and we know that there are some around, and I have horror stories about some that I personally witnessed. But this one just typifies what could go horribly wrong. Brian, you have to remember, what do you think the families of those dead kids or shot kids thought when they knew what was going on and this kid was still out in the community? Do you understand what I am trying to say? Here we have this infighting that is raising to the level of charges, and it is on the news every night. That had to be just horrific.

So, zero-tolerance policies are big in schools, especially. You have them in all different areas, but especially when it comes to school safety, or they are trying to keep kids safe and prevent school shootings. So, you have to have certain measures in place, which I get.

So, the first question is, why do we have these policies? The intent is, of course, that we want to make the school safer. That is what we are trying to do with this. We have to handle things in a certain manner, and certain behavior is not going to be tolerated. In fact, there is zero tolerance. But when you do that, it really oversimplifies the issue, in my opinion. What it does is it takes away any sort of discretion that someone locally on the ground can make and have. That is a big problem because that is actually the opposite of how our legal system works.

I mean, the point of our legal system is, yes, you have clearly defined laws or statutes or policies, but the application of those and the interpretation of those are based on the specific circumstances of that case. So, there are going to be commonalities for all of them, and then they are going to have their own unique elements. It is up to those people on the ground to say, "Well, this is how we should apply this in this situation," because that allows for the lowest level of decision-making. It allows for that discretion to take into account a number of factors. But the second you throw that zero tolerance, "Well, you just did something and technically it violates this, so we are going to apply this law to you that was never meant to be applied to you in this situation." And to me, it is like zero-tolerance policies are lazy.

I have to correct you. You did say we do not have any zero-tolerance policy; we do not support that. We have a zero-tolerance policy on drug testing for... we will never tolerate any drug test. We do not tolerate drug testing at this organization. No, we do not take that lightly, by the way. But does that kind of make sense to you, Greg? It takes away the power of those on the ground. Those people who know the ground truth the best. Are they always going to be right? No. But are they going to be right more than they are wrong? Typically, as long as you have a well-thought-out plan and policy and they know how to implement it. Because once you just write something down and it is a checklist, and it is like, "Well, they did this. Okay, well, then this has to happen." Okay, so cool. I just turn my brain off. Why do you just have a [ __ ] robot do my job? Because where is the human in the loop in this? Do you understand?

And human-in-the-loop is an incredible distinction, plus there is empathy and compassion. The law is written with it. The law is not blind. Justice is not blind when it comes to individuals and their antics. Sometimes people make silly mistakes, and we have to be able to walk that back.

I will give you an example of how ludicrous it is. Go to any store or any restaurant, and you will see a sign that says, "Absolutely no dogs allowed." And then below it, what does it always say? "Well, except for service dogs." Okay, well, then, wait a minute! Do you get what I am trying to say? What you are doing, you are walking back in. I could go on because there are so many of these. "Because you cannot do this!" "Yeah, but in this instance, that is okay." Well, then do not have it in the first place! Because what happened is the knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident created such a maelstrom that everybody wanted to jump on board and go, "Well, we will never tolerate this again," without clear heads thinking through what some of the after-effects would be.

I will give you a very brief story, and then one that specifically targets yours. So, I remember pulling over a car – traffic infraction, but that usually leads to bigger things. The stop was on Eight Mile, just off of Davison in Detroit. I walk up to a car, and you can smell some weed. The kid had a little "stone," they called it back in the day, with a little one-hit. He was doing it on his way home from work, and he was coming from one job going to another job. Michigan was zero-tolerance back then: zero marijuana, zero narcotic paraphernalia. Go directly to jail, do not pass go. The kid had a car seat in the back. I asked him about that. He is a young father. Mom is at home with the kids; she has also got a job. They have to do the handoff before he goes back later.

Brian, it was a horror story, and I am going to hook this kid, do you get what I am trying to say? From misdemeanor possession of narcotic paraphernalia and marijuana. So, what happened? Somehow gravity, entropy occurred, and the stone went up on a building near the site, and the weed fell out, and we called it "Windy City" back in the day, where it blew under the car, and it was unrecoverable. So, lesson learned. The kid was not a gosh darn dangerous felon. Nothing happened.

Now, fast forward 20 years. I make a traffic stop as part of a drug team here in Colorado, and it is three kids, and they are partying their [ __ ] off. They were going to the Air Force Academy, and the kids were from the Air Force Academy. They knew what the standards are there, knew that they are going to be pilots, knew that they are going to do this, and it is their first year there. They are up there, and they have more dope in the car, I think the dope weighed more than the car. So, the incident was then – I had to take that another zero-tolerance situation. I had to take that and measure that against what I had done before in my career and said, "You know, this is unsafe at any speed. I have to tell somebody about this." So, that is a different standard.

Somebody right now is going to go, "Oh, you dichotomous [ __ ], I cannot believe that you did that." No, there is one situation that these kids were out of control, and they needed to be reined in, and there were a whole bunch of other policies that they discredited, that they had sworn to. That is a completely different situation than this poor guy that was coming back. If you can wrap your mind around my decision-making, that was because I did not feel that zero tolerance could be applicable in both situations equally. So, I was on the ground going, "Okay, what do I do in these situations?" Now, the law is very clear, both people go to jail, both people have the situation. I just did not feel that way.

One more quick one. So, you have Madison, Wisconsin, and you have a security guard, an officer, that is working for the schools, a private contractor that is working for the Madison School District, and his name is Marlon Anderson. What happens is a kid uses the N-word because Marlon happens to be Black in the hallways. Marlon stops him and says, in his response, "Hey, it is very disrespectful for you to use that word," and says the same word that the kid uses back to the kid and says, "It is disrespectful, it is hurtful, please do not do that anymore." And they wrap up Marlon, the security guard, and they fire him from his job for using it because it is expressly written in the policy of the school that no one shall, and this is the punishment when somebody uses it. So, Brian, now I have created a teeter-totter, and now you have unequally weighted things on both sides of it, and one kid is sitting up in the air going, "Hey, what the [ __ ]?" I mean, think about how silly that feels.

And someone will also come in and say, "Well, you chose based on whatever reason to enforce these laws in a different manner for this group than you did for this group, so you are biased against that." It is like, "No," which that is not a ridiculous argument. I am not saying that that has not happened. Yes, that has absolutely happened, especially in the history of our country before, where certain people were prosecuted more than others. And it is a brutal, ugly, horrible, awful thing. Yes, and it still permeates in some places. It is just not what it used to be.

But the thing is, when you do not allow for that, you are taking – you are actually, my biggest problem with all these, is it is like you are dumbing everyone down. You are making us all dumber. You are saying, "Well, you cannot make that decision, Greg. You need to get higher approval," or, "We have to do this, and I am going to come in and we are going to show you exactly how to do your job and what situations these work for." But the problem is, it is not how real life is. The law has to be cut and dried, it has to be explicit and say, "This is what it means." But the interpretation and the application of it, there is complexity in it. Like you just gave an example of two completely different situations, but with the same law. How can you tell me it is applied differently? Like, those are the same thing. It is like, "Well, no, it is not."

I mean, exactly!

Well, and there is no better way to look at it than even like the criminal justice system and how we apply different sentencing. When they did minimum sentencing standards, it is like, "Okay, so you just took someone, and their first offense for whatever this is, because it was crack cocaine and not regular powdered cocaine, and someone when they were writing the law did not do the math correctly. Now, that has a higher punishment literally from a clerical error in computation, and now that is in law, but this is what you have to do." It is like, "What the [ __ ]?"

You are taking away the basic human ability, what has kept society together for as long as humans have been around, was this individual way of assessing a situation. Having the learned folks apply things and go, "Well, based on what we know from the past, this is what is codified in a law, and this is what tradition is, and this is how we should apply it because we do not just expel someone right away from society. We go, 'Okay, we have to give him a chance.'" Now, if the severity of the situation or the crime is enough, then yeah, we say, "Hey, you have to go. You are [ __ ] done, dude. You cannot do that!"

Exactly.

And this is my biggest overwhelming problem with any type of zero-tolerance policy. You brought a great one right there of a school policy of what someone said. There are different HR policies, there is criminal justice, and just so we are clear, we talked about recording this podcast, so I spent a significant amount of time trying to look for examples where zero-tolerance policies are effective. I had a hard time because every time — and maybe it was just not giving the right type of Google prompts — but I am looking in there going, "When is this...?" I kept, I tried so many different searches, and it all popped up, everything that popped up was, "Another example of zero-tolerance policy gone wrong." So, it is like, "Why do we have this?"

My biggest thing is, there is plenty of evidence, you can go look through there. There are people [who have] done meta-analyses. I will have all the links, especially for our Patreon members, of just all of this evidence showing that, "Well, these really do not work." And then not just in like school settings, but in HR type settings. Which is kind of like what you gave an example of, yes, it took place in a school, but that would have been the same if it was a workplace or something like that.

But, why is this need, why do we have this desire to do that? Where does this come from, Greg? I am just kind of asking your opinion on the matter on why we do this societally, or why lawmakers and policy makers go, "Well, we are just going to," and why do people demand that type of response?

Well, and I would say that is a great question, first of all. But I would say there are layers to the answer. So, anytime that you hear "Jude's Law," (inside joke), "Marian's Law," this type of thing, when people name something, that shows that, yeah, we understand somebody died and you were hurt and it was horrible. But anytime we personalize the law, we stand in the face of these type of zero-tolerance policies that "you must do this" or "you shall do that."

Now, some of them refer [to] the greater good. For example, if you are going to be a teacher of junior high school kids, you should have a security clearance or whatever. Now, that is fine. That is not zero tolerance, that is a policy that you could logically look at and go, "Oh, I see the reason for that." But then, saying something "my way or the highway," are you doing it for the right reasons? If somebody demonstrates intent, there are already laws against that. For example, bringing a gun on a campus, whether there is a sign or not, that is a law. So, the person cannot say, "I did not know that it was illegal to carry a shotgun into a shopping center," or those type of things, right?

So, what happens is, we think that the more laws are on the books, that we can hold it up and go, "Look what I did during my tenure! The people asked for it, and I did it!" And guess what? Sometimes it is just ludicrous. We humans think, "Well, that makes me feel better because I can point to the guarantee on the box." Do you get what I am trying to say? And hold that thing up.

So, all of the speed limits and different signage, when you become a cop, you learn stuff you never knew. Like, if you wondered how many feet and how many signs and "no parking" and "soft shoulder" and all that other stuff, all that is regulated very specific. Once you start getting into that, you understand that we are a litigious society, and we are a society of written standards and policies and rules. So, this is just another example, Brian, of that overzealous thing, saying, "One sign is good, let's put five!" And it is not true. You will have a link on… folks, there is scientific experiment after experiment and legal scholars writing in about it. And that is how Brian and I started the argument is saying, "Hey, what do the legal scholars think? What do the other people think?" And just like Scared Straight, zero tolerance does not work. It was really, really hard to find any instance where there was a positive feedback from it. As a matter of fact, all of the instances I found were negative.

Yeah, there are plenty of examples of negative ones. To me, it is just, it is really, and my biggest problem with anytime you do that, it is just an oversimplification of a protocol, procedure, or policy. We are just, "Okay, well, here is the thing we can point to." But really, like you said, the zero-tolerance stuff is something that is obvious. Like, you do not need to have a rule at your workplace saying, "No smoking crack in the break room." That is, we have a zero… I mean, you do not. It becomes, it becomes obvious and apparent.

My biggest problem with all of these is you take away any sort of discretionary way of applying policy and procedure. Everyone is scared of that. We are scared of that at scale, but we all want to do it individually. So, we want to micromanage how things are going to happen and what books are in the school. Like, we cannot even figure out the best way to educate children. We have not even crossed that, we have not checked that box yet. But we are already saying, "Here is what you should be teaching them," or, "Here is what you should." It is like, "Well, wait, we do not even, we have not even agreed on how the best way of going about doing this is, let alone the specifics of this subject and this thing."

But what I am getting at is, we have this, as humans, we do not like to be – individually, we hate being micromanaged. Everyone, like, "Just let me do my job!" How many times, like, "Dude, I have this boss, I have to go to, I have to report." Everyone complains about their process at their work or things that they are micromanaged, and they cannot ever do it, and they get [ __ ] from their boss. Everyone hates that [ __ ] yet when it comes to these policies, people demand it, "Well, we [need] zero tolerance! We cannot do this!" It is like, "All right, man." Those two ways of thinking, they conflict with one another. It is like, you have to allow a certain amount of leeway and a certain amount of discretionary ability to you, as long as you have oversight, then it is okay.

I mean, you can go to government, especially like military examples, where they put down, "All right, hey, we are going to allow lower-level units to have more discretion about how they spend training money or what equipment they buy," or something like this. So, you did not have to go through the long process, and it is faster acquisition, it is faster this. Well, it is just like the PPP loans or something. What happens when you just allow that to occur? Is there going to be fraud, waste, and abuse? Yes, because if you do not put in the oversight of it, if you do not put in these limiting factors, then that is the issue. But no one wants to go through the details of what that is because it is complex and it is tough, and those are tough calls.

So, it is like, I always just see it sort of as a sort of dichotomous way that humans are, right? We hate it personally, individually, but societally, we know we need to sort of give up some of our freedoms or agencies to live in a society. You have to. There is always a balance between security and safety and civil liberty. That is constantly in flux. The more laws we have, well, the less freedoms we have. And so, it is one of these things that I just, anytime I see something zero tolerance, it is like it is like a little, I get like a little jab in the stomach. I get the cortisol drop, like, "God, why are you doing that?" Just, you know, you say you want to invest in your people and you want to nurture them and get them better, but yet you restrict them to these specific policies that they have no control over. Well, then you are not investing in your people, you are not putting trust in your people. Do you understand what I am saying?

That is the biggest thing too, out of like the HR examples for the private sector workplace. It is like, "Look, these zero-tolerance policies do not work. What works is having open communication, understanding of the application of policies, teamwork, building trust in your people with leadership." If you have that, you do not need a zero-tolerance policy because some of the things are already implied. I mean, they just, they bother me.

I counter with a parallel argument that there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and that is because learned people sat down and said, "Man, we have to fix this." And there are Colorado Revised Statutes, for example, for the law, and "revised" means that we went back and looked at these, and these are better laws than those were. It is not knee-jerk, and it is not a quick reaction from it. It is where people took time.

Look, I say this a lot when we are in person to other people: Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) was legal in the '60s because there were no laws against it, and people built it. Until somebody came together and said, "Wow, there are a lot more deadly and detrimental effects of this," and then they had an enacting. So, what has to happen is, people, "Look, if the if the dike is leaking, you have to stick a finger," okay, I get that. But those knee-jerk stop-gap methods have to become corrected and codified over time with research, with research and diligence. And we are not doing that. We are saying, "Okay, well, this place has a lot of gun violence, well, we have to have a ShotSpotter," and they changed their name, by the way. "And this school has this, so we have to build a bigger wall and a bigger fence and a bigger this. And then let's add dogs, and then let's add dogs with bees in their mouth." That is the exact thinking that got us here with this discussion on zero tolerance.

And listen, to me, if you are hearing my voice, we are not saying that all zero tolerance is wrong. We are saying that we are really, really trying to find one or two policies that save stuff. And when somebody is going to counter, it is always school shootings. Somebody is going to counter, "Well, we saved the school shooting." There was just a caper where the FBI had been following a guy January, February, March, and just arresting him because he was going to go in and shoot up a concert. He wanted to start a race war before elections, all this other stuff. And when you read through that thing, that needed to happen. We need to do that. But there was no zero-tolerance policy in there. What it was, is this nutcase was making threats and this stuff, so the investigation led to this other. That is called due process, and due process trumps all those other things. When policies trump logic, we have a problem. We have a big problem because then it takes due process out of the equation, and now we can no longer see a situation clearly.

That is like, "Let's only enact laws after a school shooting." Oh, wait a minute, we know there is going to be another school shooting, we know there is going to be another Pulse Nightclub shooting. It is just a matter of how we are as a society. So, if we are going to enact and do research, now is the time. No better time than the present. And there are things out there that are so dichotomous, like a school policy on the message on your clothing, or the one that I saw about Morgan Stanley, you know those, right? Here, what you have is you have somebody's idea of future. "Well, listen, I am imposing this restriction on you because I think it might cause something in the future." Well, wait a minute, okay, I am all for predictive analysis, but I cannot charge you for a crime you have not committed. And so, yeah, assuming that I am seeing this crime set up. The Morgan Stanley one, Brian, now that was nine years ago, I think, if I am correct. But the idea is, it was not for trading violations or client complaints. What happened is their biggest private wealth brokers, the big producers that they had at Morgan Stanley, were engaging in personal conduct. And according to the people that invoked the zero tolerance, that their misbehavior off-duty was probably going to spill over at work, so he better [ __ ] it in the bud now by creating this. And what they did is they did not have a tangible, look, it is cause and effect, but you have to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause. You have to have demonstrations of intent.

I cannot say that, "Hey, we are going to put an intersection here because one day this city is going to expand, so we are going to put lights here and safety now, because in 27 years some kid is going to be skateboarding, and he might hit his head." You do not do that, that is not how we work. So, there is a balance, again, back to the teeter-totter, back and forth, there is a balance, and that balance is always precarious. And if we are going to write it down and put it on a sign, Brian, we should be more diligent in the research.

Yeah, and I think it is, I think this is ultimately lazy. That is what it is. When you just say, "This is what we are going to..." it means, "I do not want to take the time to go through this." Because even with like different military examples for different requirements for certain things, there is, "Here are the requirements, but you can get a waiver if you do not meet those requirements." It is like, "Well, why?" Because that is someone then taking the time to go, "What is it about your unique situation on why you should still be allowed here or able to do this job, even though you do not meet this requirement, or you did something before in your past?" And you investigate it, you look at it, and then you give a thumbs up or thumbs down. And you are not going to be right 100% of the time. But no one is ever right 100% of the time.

But the idea is, you have a process in there to go, "Well, this is an exception." There are exceptions to certain rules, and as there should be. I mean, you cannot have this cut-and-dry way of doing it. And it is just, I think it is, it is just lazy. And this is the effect it has: then it permeates society and within an organization, and then we just get lazy with everything. And we just go, "Well, I do not want to deal with this. There is all this pressure societally to handle this problem or whatever, so we will just say this is the zero-tolerance policy." It is like, "Well, you are going to screw someone over, and you are going to screw someone over pretty bad. And then sometimes they are probably going to come back and sue you, and you are going to lose out in the long run." You are just like, it is the dumbing down of us as humans.

Yep. And the Liam Morrison case at Nichols Middle School is a perfect example of this. So, you cannot choose when you are going to impose a very strict violation like that, and this goes right back to, are both of those dope cases the same? So, he goes to school at Nichols Middle School in Massachusetts, wearing the "There Are Only Two Genders" shirt. And the school says, "Take it off." And he says, "I am not taking it off." So, they said, "You have to take it off or you are going home." So, he goes in the other room, and he puts tape over "their only," taking away the "two genders." They go, "Not close enough. It is exhibiting such hate speech according to their dress code violation, which stated, 'Must not state, imply, depict hate speech imagery, targets.'" So, they are saying this one is so profoundly a hate speech that you have to take it off or go home.

Now, this kid has a history of wearing shirts that are always talking about First Amendment, Second Amendment, these rights and stuff. And the idea is that his First Amendment right to free speech shall not be infringed. The idea is that his argument is, "I have got all these kids for different LGBTQ+ different things that they do at home, different non-binary, whatever context that they are wearing the shirts for it." And the teacher said, "That is not our job. Our job is to enforce the violation of the dress code. And so, you have to take that off." So, he is looking for parity. He is saying, "Wait a minute, if that is okay, why is not mine okay?" And the school says in their answer to this — because he recently lost the case against it because their local version of the Supreme Court said, "Hey, wait a minute, this one does not stand because it is in a violation of the dress code and was going to cause unlawful, just imminent unlawful activity because of him wearing it." So, they thought the longer that he wore that, the other kids in school would get amped up, and sooner or later a fight would break out.

Brian, there again, I am saying, "Wait a minute, what are we talking about?" My standard was this: this guy is doing nothing wrong, he is just going home. He made a violation of a misdemeanor ordinance. It should not cost him the rest of his life and his job and going to jail and thousands of dollars he could not afford. These other kids, they knew better. It was part of their code, their ethical code that they took. Now here we have a kid that is wearing a shirt, and you know what? If you are going to send him home, I get it, okay, that is okay. But then reap the whirlwind when it comes back around with all the other instances. Now somebody is going to say, "Well, that is kind of a weak example." No, it is not, because the policy is clearly designed to keep those kids safer at school because they should not have to contend with this [ __ ] But then if you are going to have that policy, it has got to be equal across the board. How are you going to enforce that?

Well, that, and that, and that is where these zero-tolerance policies come from. It is not from something obvious like, "Yeah, you cannot bring a gun to school." Like, okay, that is, we get it, understood. But it comes from these cases, and it is someone wearing a T-shirt with the… and there are countless, all the way up to the Supreme Court cases going back. There is a lot of legal precedent for that, and free speech is, especially if it is a public school, because they work for the public schools, part of the state, they have, they do not have as much leeway, let us say, as like a private school. A private school can just tell you, "No, you cannot wear that. Get that. Do not care." They can make up their own rules. But it is very different in a public school. And so, those are the types of cases that people do not want to jump into, and so we just go, "You know what, fine, no one is wearing shirts with any message on it!"

Exactly.

Well, like, "So, I cannot wear a shirt that says, 'I love this school, I love my parents,' or something?"

You know what I mean? Like, that that is because it would be a classification, it would be a group.

Exactly, exactly. And that is where the laziness comes in, and they do not want to have those difficult conversations. When in fact, that is where those difficult conversations should be had: at a local level, at the school, with those kids doing that. Like, "Okay, well, you are showing support for one issue, I am showing support for another issue. That is fine." But we do not want to, we do not want to, it is, "We cannot piss off these people because they will sue us." It is like, "Well, then this person is going to sue you!" Like, just, just deal with the problem and stop, stop relegating things to an oversimplified solution. Because it is going to come back up again. It is not like, "Oh, we just get through this one case and we are good." No, all cases inform other future cases. And so, therefore, you kind of got to deal with it now.

And that is my biggest issue with all of this. It is just like, "Well, let us just make it simple." Well, every time you do that, we get a little bit dumber. Every time we do those things, we do not have those conversations. One, it is bad for the kids, man. They, they, they are, they are at the best chance to learn that at that age than they are when they are adults and they are set in their ways. Because that, like, use it as a teachable moment. I mean, it is school. Everything, literally everything that happens throughout the day is a [ __ ] teachable moment in some way, shape, or form. It is a school, they are kids. So, show it, show them everything. You know what I mean? That is the thing. Like, why cannot they learn then? Because they are going to probably interpret it better than the parents are. Just because they do not, they are not thinking of, "Oh, I have kids here, and I am worried about this, and I have this life experience." They are just like, "What, what is the issue?" They are literally a clean slate going like, "I do not see, tell me what the problem is, because you are teaching me." And we are teaching them that just to oversimplify everything, and, "You know what? Your thing does not matter as much as that thing. And this thing is, well, it is different." And it is like, "Well, if you cannot explain it to a kid at school, then you do not know the issue very well." That is the way I look at it.

Well, and look, the reason I brought up Marlon Anderson with the Madison School District and Nichols Middle School and Liam Morrison is they are both sides of the same coin. Somebody is going to think that they are both sides of a spectrum. They are not. I agree with having policies and dress codes because if they are equally applied, they lessen the risk that might go along with threats of violence and those type of mayhem that could cause that happen at school because kids are kids, and they do not understand things, and they will act out and act up. Look at this whole thing with the college campuses. Now, I do not know much about this issue, but I am willing to fight and die for it. Okay, so I agree with that.

But what happened is the policy went to the point where Marlon Anderson is fired for telling the kid not to use the word that the kid used. So, that is what I am trying to say, we have to, I think we have to be careful of the extremes, and here we are again with overreach in the policy where we are saying, the Morrison argument is, "Look, I only wore it because everybody else is wearing something pro-this or pro-that, and the school did not say anything." So, to that end, I agree with the argument, and I always with free speech. But I do also understand that the school has the right to enforce a dress code. So, do not think that we are giving a mixed message here. What we are saying is case-by-case basis. And you are saying, "Well, I do not have time for that." And we are saying, "You have to make time for that."

Well, and this is why we go with demonstrations of intent are more important. What is your intent behind doing this? Yes, that is the big thing. If you came in intending to piss off a group of people, well, you are an [ __ ] [ __ ]. Just say you are, I mean, support what you want to support, but are you directing something towards someone? When you get into just what is your intent behind something, that is even easier with kids because most times it is like, "Well, I do not, I do not... they probably did not even think that far into it." So, it is like, "Okay, you know what I mean? You did not put a whole lot of thought into this. You just, which is okay. You are just being a child. Got it. You are a teenager, you are this, trying to figure, you are figuring [ __ ] out." You get leeway in there versus if you are a 30-year-old person walking into a place of work with something very specific.

When I focus on intent, it cuts through all these situations. Like, what is the intent of this policy then? So, if I go back to the original story from the Chicago Public Schools, what was the intent? Well, the intent of the policy was one, we want to protect students. But there are certain circumstances like an active shooter situation. So, they took it literally, like, "This is an active shooter." It is like, "No, no, no, but it, it, it, this affects the safety and welfare of the students, and it involves students at the school. We still need to apply it here." And they are like, "Well, that is not what it says in the law." It is like, you know what it is? That is the intent behind it. That is the intent behind what this is.

Speed. This action is essential. Exactly.

Exactly. Because it is rare, Brian, because it does not happen every day. That is the whole point behind those type of laws. And I think you can even start with that when you are crafting what that policy is going to be. It is like, what is your intent with this policy? And you can spell that out. And then once you have the intent clear, you can then figure out, well, how does that work here at our school or here at our office? What does that mean at this location? And then we can sit there and go, "Let us come up with some potential situations that we might run into." And this is not an exhaustive, meticulous process. You can sit there with people and go, "Okay, what are we likely going to see with this and play it out?" And when you do that, it helps you craft what the intent behind your message is, and it helps the intent behind the policy. And I think that is everything. And it is the same thing with determining what this person meant by that, by the message on the clothing or by the threat that they made. What is their intent? Their actions.

Right.

Right, those are all hugely important.

Yeah, because otherwise it gets into like, "I do not care what the message is on the shirt necessarily. What are you just trying to be provocative? Are you trying to be evocative? Are you trying to just piss people off?" Whatever the message or the group that you are identifying with, that is fine. You get to be that as a human, you get to be part of all kinds of different groups. But what is your intent with the action you just took? And it just, it helps clarify it because then I can use that no matter what side of the issue it is, and it helps me just maintain some clarity. Are you exercising your First Amendment right, or are you here to start a riot? Those are two different things, right?

That is a predictive analysis tool that could be applied in this situation. The lowest-level argument is, "We have a policy against that." Totally agree, as long as it is uniformly applied. Then the second thing is somebody goes, "Okay, it cannot be uniformly applied because this is a one-off situation." Okay, agreed. Let's bring it in. Is this the proper venue to have this fight? Is this a fight that we should have in front of the students on this day, at that time, that might hurt somebody needlessly? Why do not we take this to the superintendent's office? We bring in the voices that need to be heard on this issue, and we go in this instance. Now, that is something that everybody is going to go for because, look, what does due process say? You have your day in court, you have your time. That is not what we were doing.

And Brian, I just want to make sure, if we have a chance, that we cover the Scottie Scheffler incident because here is a perfect example of a guy demonstrating intent over and over and over, and then a policy is used to circumvent everything. Can you give us a recap of that one? So, Louisville PD, they are investigating a fatal accident right outside where the golfing is having one of their biggest events ever. Number one ranked golfer Scottie Scheffler is on the way, and he is running a little late. So, all traffic is blocked. So, he violates all traffic laws to circumvent the blockade they have got at the fatal [accident site]. He drives in oncoming traffic for a significant amount of time, violating all these laws and rules for safety. And he gets pulled over, stopped by a couple of officers, including a detective that does not have his body camera on for whatever reason. He tells Scheffler, "Hey, you have to stop the car, you have to get out of the car." Scheffler drives off, dragging the officer for a distance.

And what happened is, after all the press going back and forth, "But that is Scottie Scheffler! Hey, there is a different standard!" Clearly, Scottie felt there was a different standard. What happens is the Louisville PD comes in and goes, "Hey, we have a uniform policy that says that 'thou shalt do this,' and he did not do it, so we are dropping the charges against Scheffler." And it is hard, Brian, to look at that one and go, "Wait a minute, the fix was in early on this one, right?" And so, the officer gets reprimanded, and they drop the charges.

And think of those, if it was you or I, would the justice have been applied the same way? And I think that is what we all want. We want our day in court, we want our due process. And you know what? If we do something completely boneheaded like that, we should expect to get pulled over. And the idea is, Scheffler made some off-the-cuff comment, and you folks do your homework, read the article where he said, "Yeah, I knew I hit somebody, but I did not know it was a cop." Okay, wait a minute, those demonstrations building from the beginning, "What the [ __ ] your honor? That is the boys will be boys! I did not know he was an old, feeble man when I pushed him down. I thought he was a kid. It is when I fired the shot at his chest, I was not quite sure that the bullet would penetrate." No, you know, and what we do sometimes, Brian, is we obfuscate things. Like Liam Morrison, good on you that you are thinking about the Constitutional Amendments and your First Amendment right and everything else. But school is not the place to wear that flag. Do you get what I am trying to say? Take it out of there.

And so, while I side with the Massachusetts court, my fear is that it is going to go higher because it is an issue that we all worry about, our free speech. And sometimes, Brian, we fight for free speech even if it is a [ __ ] argument. And that hurts me too because when we start thinking about that, people do not understand the effect that something like free speech can have on it. I actually wrote down if I can find my note quickly about that, that you know, gosh darn it, that when we take those things in, Brian, what we do not think is, we do not think of the impact our words have. And we have to understand that when we take a look at the way the law is, we cannot make those short… yeah, I am never going to be able to find my note on... we are not going to be able to understand the effects of that knee-jerk reaction to a one-off incident. And that is also why I am saying when we name them, we name them, and it is, you know, Megan's Law. Okay, I get that. But what we are doing is we are bottlenecking it at this point in a series of facts that may never happen.

Look, we all want the same thing: we do not want crime, we do not want terrorism, we do not want to be raped, we do not want our property stolen. All that, and I think there is plenty of precedent that shows that we do those things well. It is these things where, when the light shines on them, they are a little bit different. Like the Scheffler thing, I have not followed the caper because we have been busy. But Brian, did he issue an apology at least? Did he say, "Hey, look, kids, this is not the way that you want to do it?" And why did not we get all the information? Because he is famous, because he is a hell of a golfer.

And that is the same thing that I am afraid. Everyone says he is a super nice guy and all that. Exactly.

And to go back, just remember everybody, Marlon Anderson got his job back. Why? Because enough people said, "Wait a minute, this is a good guy. This guy did everything right, and this law is wrong, it is broken." So, going back and fixing a broken law is great. The same thing with Benito Juarez Community Academy. They had to know that they were skating on thin ice and violating the Chicago Police Department (CPD) openly like that. What did that do? Did that restore any faith in the community, or in the school, or in the cops? Do you see what I am trying to say? So, those long-lasting effects from a short-term decision, Brian, are some of the most disastrous, and we really have to, we really have to focus on those.

Yeah, we do not… I do not know. It is like, we, you can do both. You can think globally or strategically and then act locally or tactically. You can do that. You can say, "Okay, I have to make a decision on this specific case, but I have to take into account the overarching effect it will have not just on this specific case, but overall." Absolutely. You have to balance that out, and I think that helps with a little bit of understanding on how to approach these issues. Yes, we have to, people are upset about this thing, so let us deal with it. But how does that fit into the overall big picture? And is this the one we want to go all-in on, or is this something that is going to pop? It just, to sort of, you know, think strategically but act tactically, is what I would say, or decide tactically. That is kind of how I look at it. But…

Yeah, we also, Brian, I think we also have to take a look at outdated concepts. Like, I am ambivalent about the Scales of Justice because I absolutely love the law, you know me. But when we take a look at that, we have forgotten that "Justice is blind" was intended to say that it is going to be equally applied no matter how much money you have, no matter the color of your skin or your religion. Then we see the scales. Well, the old standard was the preponderance of evidence; the more evidence you had that tended to show one side over the other meant that you would win. And we know that is wrong. So, now it goes down to case-by-case basis, putting yourself in the shoes at that time, at that place, and then looking at evidence, artifacts, and evidence that support. And then we have bench trials and jury trials.

So, that thing which we all understand, listen, when we get the balance out, then it is going to be great. We know that it has been problematic. So, here is a time in our lives where we could make a big change and restore some order by going back and saying, "Hey, these capers are important." Look, you know what you and I do? We pick out capers and talk about it for an hour that nobody has ever heard of. I am saying, why have not you heard of these cases? Why are not you more outraged that it took two years for Benito Juarez Community Academy and the CPD to come to a realization that things needed to be fixed, Brian, on both sides? Like the after-action review. That became a contentious situation. How can it? These are all things that are meant to make us safer and lubricate the wheels of justice, and they did exactly the opposite, and that gives me pause.

Yeah, no, I agree. There is kind of a lot of different cases we brought up as examples in the episode. I think it is an easy way out if you want to hit the easy button. Sure, create a zero-tolerance policy. It is going to come back and bite you in the [ __ ], but hey, you did not have to do any work right now. I mean, that is my big thing. It is like, they are complex, they are tough, but they are not outside of the span of someone's control or what you can do at a very simple level. This is not, do not overthink it when it comes to this stuff. I mean, just what is the best way to enforce this for where I am at right now? How does that fit into the bigger picture? And is this a trend or something I am going to see? How much weight do we have to put on this case? I agree, is this the one we want to go all-in on? Because it might not be. And that knee-jerk reaction again is rarely, rarely a good one. But…

Totally.

We appreciate everyone for tuning in. There is a lot more on the Patreon site. You can go ahead and check the links in the episode details. Go over there. There is all kinds of different content that we have on there. We deep dive some of these topics, we give different examples and behavior breakdowns. All that stuff is all on there for you to check out. And then also, you can reach out to us at thehumanbehaviorpodcast@gmail.com. We appreciate all of you tuning in and for supporting the show. So, thank you so much, and don't forget that training changes behavior.