Why I have a low tolerance for ''zero tolerance''

You can relax! Get outside and enjoy the first days of spring. Thanks to quick and decisive action, a second-grade menace will no longer be stalking his next victim within the halls of Columbus Public Schools, at least for a while. Thank you, zero tolerance, for removing this predator.

In case you missed the original story, a Columbus second-grader last week found a handgun on his way to school. Kids being curious creatures and all, he picked up the handgun and placed it in his backpack. Unfortunately, this ended up at the child's school, where it discharged, wounding him in the hand.

That appears to be the extent of fact pattern. A young child, 7 years old, maybe just turned 8, doing something that comes naturally to young children WHO HAVE NOT BEEN TAUGHT ANY BETTER.

For those of you with children, think about it. Does a 7-year-old act with inherent evil in their heart, or are they just inherently curious, and will get themselves into the most absurd of situations unless THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BETTER? As a responsible parent, would you prefer your school system shield your child from any mention of guns and pretend they don't exist, or for them to teach your child "Stop! Don't Touch! Leave the area and tell an adult!" You'd be amazed the violent resistance your school boards express to teaching that simple message.

So, considering "It takes a village" to raise a child, how does our kinder, gentler society address this young child's shortcomings? Education? A critical reexamination of where we, as a society, failed this child by not teaching him the most basic of gun safety rules? Accountability for schools that considers it a basic mission to teach acceptance of differing life styles, and even establishes an afrocentric school to celebrate and accommodate those rich heritages, while at the same time shunning state funding for gun safety training?

No, we suspend or expel the second-grader. Think about that statement for a second while reflecting upon the fact pattern. We SUSPEND or EXPEL the 2nd grader.

Now, as a 7-year-old, or just turned 8-year-old, this child is forever encumbered, scarred and perhaps ruined based upon 30 minutes of his life. If expelled, he will be held back and have to repeat second grade. He will go six months to a year without formal school instruction in a district that already has one of the highest flunk-out rates in the nation. All of his friends will move on. He will get used to staying home and watching morning TV. His teachers will forever view him as the one who brought a gun to school.

Does anyone really think this kid will ever emotionally or educationally recover from an expulsion? With an expulsion, we have given a death penalty to a second grader who WAS NEVER TAUGHT BETTER. Who has failed who in this situation?

When everyone is gathered in the Superintendent's office that fateful morning as this child's fate hangs in the balance, the school administration on one side or the table, the second-grade menace on the other side of the table, which side of the table should society remove from the equation?

For my money, it is the side of the table that treats a second grader who WAS NEVER TAUGHT BETTER the same as the 16-year-old gang banger when it comes to bringing a handgun to school.