The Expulsion argument

Is expulsion despotism?

Unfortunately, some of the education sector are contaminated with conceited ideologues who are obdurate and very unwilling to engage in reasonable conversation. In my experience, some educators are confused by our values, and we are catastrophizing scenarios to inflate our importance and the weight of our arguments.

Recently, there have been some staunch advocates for completely removing expulsions from school without considering the fullness of this request. If students have been violent towards others, harassment, verbal abuse, or discrimination, a “chat” ought to fix that aka Restorative Justice. In this land of rainbows and butterflies where a chat with everyone involved can fix the indiscretions of the past seems highly credulous, is an absolute folly of reality, and puts the victims in a beleaguered situation. “Chatting” is simply not appropriate for these types of behaviours. By the time the school considers expulsion, the school has generally utilised all its resources to support students, yet it has all been in vain. The schools’ attempts have failed, not through lack of trying, however. With exhaustion, once it has been established that all the tools at the school’s disposal cannot help, the next best available option is expulsion. Despite this being the best available option, there are obdurate educators advocating to keep these students in the same school, amongst the same peers and in the same playground- our very own Andrew Giles with the edict for Direction 99 in our schools. Shocking.

There are, however, a few issues that have not been considered by these crusaders who vaingloriously advocate for the position of the offenders, thinking they are doing the “right” thing by the students and the schools. Arguing that expulsion puts them on a worst path than the alternative is rife with error and highly short sighted. I can appreciate that we are talking about children who are learning; however, this does not mean that they are free of consequence. It means that they chose their actions, and this is the outcome, and we put them on the best path forward, even if that means moving them on.

My gripe with the no expulsions dialogue is that the virtue signalling and posturing from the no expulsions groups hopelessly consider the outcomes for the students who have been subjected to this atrocious behaviour. In an article by The Conversation, it cheaply compared Australian school expulsions in the same way of school expulsions from America, completely ignoring the cultural and contextual differences of each country to further their own destructive agenda and fantastical position. This narrative is unhelpful. School expulsions are not societal rejections. To have a more nuanced and context specific approach to this matter would be highly beneficial and accurate.

To consider all perspectives and attribute the weight of each person’s perspective on the basis of school and community values is a more considered approach. It would stand to reason that we would provide more weight to the perspective of the victims and less weight to the perspective of the offenders. However, some are advocating for the offenders to carry more weight and allow them to “work” through the problem, undermining the perspective of the victims. Obviously, this outrageous stance might lead to some indignation from the victims, and fairly so, as it is a clear demonstration of the values of the school.

The argument in favour of expulsion takes a judicious and utilitarian view of school consequences by establishing the least possible harm to the most people. It should also be noted that students who are on the path to expulsion have likely been in similar situations before. In my experience, the removal of students who have caused serious harm to students can benefit from expulsion. Tangentially, they do not think society has rejected them. Life is not Monopoly where these students do not collect 200 dollars and go straight to gaol. Students in this situation leave the school and find a new school where they can start again and, hopefully, not repeat the indiscretions of the past. They leave behind the toxic dynamic that played out in their friendship group. By removing the students from their friendship circle, it creates a different dynamic amongst the remaining peers where vitriol and unsavoury conversations previously occurred, signalling to them the school and community standards.

Expulsions also protect those who were harmed. This is where most of my gripe lays with this conversation. I will elevate the voices of the victims over those of the offenders, I will protect those who have been harmed and be opposed to those who have done the harming. In this instance, my sympathies are with the victims, not the offenders. On that basis, expulsion is a reasonable solution. Expulsion protects those who have been harmed, as they do not have to carry the very heavy weight of past events with them when they inevitably see the offenders in class, around the school, or in the playground. The victims do not have to think about how the offender’s friends might treat them or talk about them, as the remaining friendship group are not bolstered by the same toxic dynamic. Simultaneously, the offenders do not have to get panned by their peers, whispering in the halls of the school or in passing, or worse, those who will confront them overtly and with bellicosity. This is all avoided.

In my opinion, specifically for expulsions, the need of safety for the victim outweighs the needs of the redemption and rehabilitation for the offenders at the same school.