The threat of herbicide-resistant weed species, such as Palmer amaranth, has driven the development of robust weed management programs that rely on more than chemicals for weed control. Previous research has shown that zero-tolerance weed thresholds, cover crops, deep tillage, and diverse herbicide programs are effective strategies for controlling Palmer amaranth. Unfortunately, research investigating the integration of all four of these weed management strategies in a system is lacking. To better leverage these integrated weed management strategies in cotton production systems, a long-term study was initiated in fall 2018 near Marianna, AR, with zero tolerance, deep tillage, a cereal rye cover crop, and either a dicamba or non-dicamba in-crop herbicide program as factors. Results found that total Palmer amaranth emergence was reduced 76% as the result of deep tillage in 2019 and, in the absence of a zero-tolerance strategy, 73% in 2020. In the absence of a zero-tolerance strategy, the combination of a non–cover crop strategy and dicamba herbicide program decreased total Palmer amaranth emergence by 73%, while the combination of a cover crop strategy and dicamba herbicide program decreased total Palmer amaranth emergence by 78% compared to the combination of a cover crop and non-dicamba herbicide program. Under a zero-tolerance strategy in 2019, tillage reduced cotton yield by 12% and partial returns by US$370 ha−1. In 2020, tillage reduced cotton yield by 14% and partial returns of US$371 ha−1 under a non-zero-tolerance strategy, while a 12% yield reduction and a US$260 ha−1 decrease in partial returns were observed under a zero-tolerance strategy. In 2019, the non-dicamba program resulted in greater partial returns than the dicamba in-crop program because of greater yield and lower program costs. However, in 2020, partial returns were greater for the dicamba in-crop herbicide program owing to greater yields achieved by this program.

Using the Safe Schools Act in Ontario as an example of a school zero-tolerance policy, I demonstrate that there are more implications for governing students through these policies than the literature tends to suggest. The push to exclude students found in zero-tolerance policies co-exists uneasily with the liberal democratic pull to an inclusive education. Principals negotiate the contradictory positioning of students as simultaneously excludable and includable uniquely. There is also an insertion of ‘choice’ as a strategy to resolve these tensions. Inappropriate conduct conceived as the students’ choice signals a reorientation of the main function of the school, to an institution now interested in managing its own reputation by devolving the responsibility of good behaviour onto the student.

This article explores the prevalence of high-level political and bureaucratic corruption in postindependence Uganda, with particular focus on the narrow interests it serves and its impact on development and service delivery. It argues that high-level political corruption endures largely because it is situated within the framework of “neo”-patron-clientelism and skewed power relations. The article shows how institutions have not been able to effectively engage the inner-circle ruling elite due to a skewed power structure that serves narrow political interests. Grand bureaucratic and petty forms of corruption are equally extensive and challenging, though only the former have been affected by “zero tolerance” policies. The article concludes, however, that through its interplay of inclusion and exclusion, political corruption has generated contestations which undermine it and challenge the National Resistance Movement (NRM) regime.

Introduced initially in relation to drug policy, ‘zero tolerance’ has become a catchphrase to describe attitudes and policies relating to drug use, violence and a range of antisocial behaviours. It has been used particularly within schools in the United States as a disciplinary policy since the 1980s. While broadly ascribed, zero tolerance is designed to send a message that targeted behaviours are not tolerated and will be punished. Zero tolerance assumes that swift and uncompromising action aimed at punishing the offender will result in ‘sending a strong message’ to other would-be offenders and deter others from similar antisocial behaviours. However, thirty years of research has shown zero tolerance policies to have failed the individual and the community, resulting instead in increased rates of misbehaviour and early referral to the juvenile and criminal justice systems. This has the potential to negatively impact on the person's mental health and future outcomes.

Elementary and secondary school leaders advocating remediation and prevention of student discipline problems are doing so in lieu of direct development of student self-discipline (Larson, Smith, & Furlong, 2002). This shift has lead to the use of zero-tolerance strategies towards discipline (Maxcy, 2002). In this article, zero-tolerance policies — in particular, the use of out-o-school suspension — is critiqued from three ethical theory perspectives. This research argues for alternate approaches to discipline (Jackson, Boostrom, & Hansen, 1993; Skiba & Peterson, 1999) based in classical ethical theory, with specific emphasis on social justice (Rawls, 1971). Implications on Australian school systems and educational psychological development are discussed.