I was moved by this article about a recent revocation of admission from Harvard College.
Kashuv has a shot at redemption because Harvard revoked his acceptance. Consequences and redemption are not in tension. In fact, they go hand in hand.
Forgetting the specifics of this situation, I’m more interested in a general principle. I often say that I’m in the business of second chances – that high school and college should be a place to make mistakes without causing long-term catastrophe. It’s through those mistakes that we learn.
I however, struggle with exactly what the author is describing. Because it’s easy to believe that second chances should come instead of consequences. But they are best delivered, and most appropriately received, after consequences.
When I had to “bench” a singer from a single performance for missing too many rehearsals, it was the second chance I gave him after that consequence that made it meaningful. If I had just said “You missed too many, and I should bench you, but I’m going to give you a second chance,” that student would have learned that he could continue to ignore the established rules of the ensemble. But by pairing redemption with consequences, he learned to respect his fellow singers, and change his behavior patterns going forward.
This is particularly important for lapses in judgement. I’m actually holding in parallel a feeling that students should be able to re-complete work for full credit, as many times as they choose to. Because failing to comprehend course material in a specific timeframe isn’t a lapse in judgement – it’s a lapse in learning. That shouldn’t require the same type of consequences to earn redemption.
But when it’s a failure of judgement by a student, then yes, consequences of that judgement should be delivered before a second chance should be offered.
Every human is capable of redemption and deserves to grow and learn from their errors. Consequences can be the right tool for that growth.