"The principal or designee shall determine the appropriate disciplinary measures
to be taken when appropriate in the case of student misconduct or violation of the rules or regulations."

-Falls Church City Public Schools, Student Section, Policy 9.34

Horseplay (n): rowdy or boisterous play

Three students, during a break from Mr. Hoover’s senior English class, observed a friend wandering through the hallway. They met up with each other and, after exchanging pleasantries, took part in a common boy behavior during which one friend was systematically singled out and wrestled to the ground by the others. This flippant behavior had occurred before—both in and out of school—with little or no consequence. In fact, teachers had observed this behavior and had each time only warned the participants. No other students were in the hallway at the time of the incident, nor had any of the students involved acted with any mal-intent toward any other member of the group. No one was injured and no school property was broken. Two of these students had no serious disciplinary record at the time of the event. These four students were given a collective nine days of suspension.

The initial reaction of the teacher who happened upon the students was justifiable. What would you do if you saw a group of students kicking one another in the hallway? Never mind the fact that you would almost immediately recognize the students to be a group of friends, that you could hear what laughter, or that, dang it, maybe your eyesight isn’t good enough to decipher the movements of people 50 yards away. Some of you might notify the proper authorities who, without knowing the extent of the incident themselves, would rush to quell the apparent gang beating. This is, indeed, exactly what happened. This is however beside the point, as it was not the initial reaction that is being questioned, but instead the following events that are the most unsettling.

What the students did was against the rules—it says so in the student handbook. It clearly states that "students are expected to abstain from inappropriate behavior such as horseplay," the behavior written on their referrals. Though horseplay is mentioned in the student section of the handbook, it is not listed anywhere as a violation worthy of suspension. However, in Regulation 9.26R and Policy: 9.26 Student Suspension/Expulsion, it is stated in not so many words, that the school reserves the right to deem nearly any violation of the rules a justifiable means for suspension. The decision to suspend these students was therefore a judgment call, left up to individuals who were subject to outside influence and their own personal bias. Despite many alternative punishments for these students, including a revocation of privileges, detention, Saturday school, etc., the principal and assistant principal decided that for this certain group of well-known, well-liked, influential individuals, who were friends with students with disciplinary records, a punishment to the full extent of their power was necessary to achieve their goals.

But let’s look at it all from a different perspective, from perhaps a clearer light. Imagine for one second that you are the disciplinarian or principal at a high school who just got word of a gang beating occurring in the hallways of your school. You rush to aid the victim, but when you arrive only find the same group of rabble-rousers who had been disrupting your school for years. In an attempt to get to the bottom of this particular disturbance, you have the participants write statements. They all classify the incident as "no big deal", a "joke", and as "just messing around." You find that your prior concern for the welfare of a student had been in vain, and that the alleged fight had instead turned out to be a harmless horseplay between friends. Keeping in mind that your mission is to "promote safety and a favorable learning environment for all," you are left with the decision of if and how to punish these students.

Ideally, the punishment should fit the crime, both preventing future incidents as well as teaching the perpetrators a lesson. But in this case, is a punishment even necessary? What is accomplished by suspending students for goofing around? Under these circumstances, I can find absolutely nothing that excuses the treatment of these kids. Does it make any sense to offer the "victim" the option of pressing assault charges while simultaneously classifying him an equal participant who deserves suspension? It makes no sense to me how making an example of these students helps at all to achieve any of the administration’s stated goals of promoting safety. I would understand the suspensions if the fight had been real or if there had been injuries or damaged property. Even an injured innocent bystander or two would help justify the actions taken against these students. But the fact remains that there wasn’t.

What if this incident hadn’t been reported to the administrators? Besides the fact that four students would have cleaner disciplinary records, would anything else be different? The student body would be no safer than they are now and I would bet that the school would not suddenly burst into flames. By punishing these students the way through suspension, the administration not only failed to accomplish its goal of creating a safe learning environment, but also intensified the feeling of danger in the hallways of their school. I’ll think twice the next time I want to give my friend a noogie, for I know now that if I do I could face a harsh punishment.

Late last year, two female George Mason students engaged in a fight in the hallways of this school as the bell rang at the end of the day. While the hallways were filled with students, these two were punching, hitting and kicking each other with the intent of causing bodily harm. During the scuffle one of the sophomore students dropped a pack of cigarettes that was later picked up by a security guard. Both students suffered minor injuries. These two students were each given 1-day suspensions.

The differences in these two incidents are staggering, as too are the differences in the consequences. So my question now becomes: what makes the difference? Why are the students of the real fight less deserving of punishment than those who took part in horseplay?