This framing offers the illusion of fairness by invoking collective responsibility—yet it often functions to dissolve individual accountability. When a child’s support is sacrificed to preserve system-wide equilibrium, it signals a willingness to accept harm as the price of administrative coherence. The phrase reframes exclusion as strategy and casts refusal as foresight, when in truth, the decision has already been made to leave someone behind.
-
The right amount of agony in BC schools
After watching my children endure eight years of institutional failure, eight years of exclusion disguised as discipline and support withheld under the language of inclusion, I have…
This entry is part of The budget is the behaviour—a series of graded rebuttals that translate common institutional justifications into the language of consequence. Each response challenges euphemism, clarifies impact, and holds decision-makers accountable. Read the full series.
