A student sits down on their first day of school and is immediately handed a syllabus. The rules are listed in bullet points in bold black letters under the large section discussing grade weighting. As they go down the list, it reads: “Tests are non-retakeable and will be put in as zeros,” “Showing up to class late is an automatic lunch detention,” and “Submitting the wrong file is unacceptable and will result in a zero, no exceptions,” along with many other rules that make up the walls of the classroom and the foundation of the student’s relationships with their teacher. As the student continues to read, it’s as if big red letters spelling out “cheater” begin to appear on their forehead.
Some rules, established in classrooms or society at large, aim to close any possible “loophole” in their systems. Assuming that students skip tests or make fake mistakes indicates to the student one thing: they are not trusted.
However, this “gotcha” moment only widens the gap between the teacher and student by closing the door to understanding.
Teachers who build positive relationships with their students have been shown to foster an environment that promotes more effective learning, meeting the developmental, emotional, and academic needs of students. This allows them to receive more constructive guidance and praise, according to the American Psychological Association.
If education is meant to teach responsibility, it must have a backbone of trust.
Branding students as “cheaters” and “troublemakers” leads them to feel as if that identity is their only option, and they lack the desire to oppose these notions since their efforts have already been dismissed.
This concept is known as labeling theory, which posits that labeling someone as deviant results in their internalization of that role, according to sociologist Howard Becker’s “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.”
Relying too heavily on a strict curriculum and structure can hinder students from developing their own study habits and establishing effective boundary management. According to Rachel Poliner and Jeffrey Benson’s “Teaching the Whole Teen: Everyday Practices That Promote Success and Resilience in School and Life,” it is essential to allow teens the freedom to develop responsibility and creativity in the classroom.
When rules and restrictions are too confining, it makes students feel stuck and unable to separate themselves from the identities these guidelines have given them. When walking into a learning environment where a student is already assumed guilty, the learning stops before it starts.
This self-fulfilling prophecy, where an assumption becomes truth simply because it is treated as such, is not only evident in the education system but also in other aspects of our society. There is an obsession with punishment over understanding that fuels the flames of labeling theory.
In relation to the justice system, sociologist Émile Durkheim’s “The Division of Labor in Society” argues that punishment serves less as a form of penalizing individuals and more as a ritualistic function to reassure the rest of society that rules still matter.
Much like schools, society punishes to affirm order, not to solve problems. Without a set “villain,” there can be no set punishment and therefore no order. That role is easily filled when authority assumes and labels defiance.
Rules are essential for creating boundaries and expectations; however, when they are created and executed to highlight the assumption of defiance, they lead to more harm than good. It is vital to maintain an open mind and room for understanding when navigating the challenges faced by our youth and other members of society.
Rules should guide, not define. When defiance is assumed, that is exactly what will be received.
This editorial reflects the views of the Editorial Board and was written by Caitlin Stehr. The Editorial Board voted 8 in agreement, 4 somewhat in agreement, and 5 refrained from voting.
