We have all heard the stories - communities of West Paducah, Ky.; Jonesboro, Ark.; and Springfield, Ore.; and Columbine, Col. No one would argue that there should be zero tolerance for such extreme violence.

Yet the zero tolerance policy that safeguards a school community when a child brings a gun to school or threatens harm to another also has expelled students for things as minor as giving an aspirin to a friend or having a penknife. Where do we draw the line? What moral obligation do we have to the individual as well as the community at large?

Arguments in support of zero tolerance policies in schools state that they are moral because they make schools safer. Schools need to provide students with a place that protects them from any elements that can create a negative educational environment or compromises their safety and health. The Catholic Church supports the safety of the common good and legitimate authority. Also students who violate the zero tolerance policies are still provided with an education in an alternative school. Those against zero tolerance policies in schools say that they are immoral because they do not allow students to receive the same standard of education. A zero tolerance policy in a school, in which even the smallest offense or legitimate offense is penalized, can deprive the children of education and their right to learn. Studies have shown that the policy can lead to senses of insecurity and the invasion of privacy. Many feel that zero tolerance policies are racially and social-economically biased, and go against the Christian beliefs of tolerance and forgiveness. The Catholic Church teaches that everyone can be rehabilitated, and zero tolerance is exclusionary.