Zero Tolerance

Zero tolerance is a laudable policy when abhorrent behavior is clearly visible in black and white. But as we’ve seen in the recent, sad affair surrounding Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official wrongly accused of racism and fired before all the facts were evident, reality is nuanced with shades of grey, making hasty judgments and actions suspect.

One Friday afternoon about five years ago, a frantic Human Resources person called to tell me we had to immediately fire one of my editors. His crime? A review of computer logs—a common, legal practice in many companies—revealed he had visited a pornographic Web site. Zero tolerance dictated swift, non negotiable action, I was told.

Whoa, said I. First, I couldn’t afford to release him that day. He still owed copy for our next issue. More importantly, deeper investigation seemed in order. As our Internet retailing editor, his beat was Web commerce, and, like it or not, pornography is the best seller in cyberspace. Perhaps he was just doing, ahem, some research. Beyond that, I asked if we knew how long he lingered on the offensive site? Maybe his computer accidentally was forwarded to that Web page. If corporate skulduggery showed he quickly escaped the site, that would show his intent was honorable, not sleazy. HR agreed on a stay of execution, pending more investigation. When the tapes were studied over the weekend, the editor was cleared.

The stakes in the Sherrod fiasco involve more than just a job lost. The Obama administration is quick to point out this incident is a “teaching moment.” Hopefully, one of the lessons the administration (as well as the NAACP and the media) learned is that rash decisions, even if done with good intentions, must be incontrovertibly supported by all the facts. Let’s further hope that President Obama finally gets that no matter what he does, he will never do enough to satisfy the conservative opposition. He should stop pandering and start acting presidential, not deferential.