MovieChat Forums > School Ties (1992) Discussion > Did Charlie Dillon deserve to get expell...

Did Charlie Dillon deserve to get expelled?

posted 13 years ago by Ernest_Hero
41 replies | jump to latest

A friend of mine was caught cheating on an American history test (we were in grade 11 at the time and this was in a Catholic high school in Canada). He received a mark of zero on the test in question and his parents were called to the school principal's office, but he was let off with a warning and eventually managed to pass the course in question. I personally think that students deserve a second chance in situations like that. I wonder whether school policies with regard to cheating/plagiarism tended to be stricter in the past (could depend on the specific country examined). Cheating is generally severely punished at the university level, but seems not to be as heavily penalized at the high school or middle school level.
Have there been any cases of students being expelled for non-serial cheating while in high school?

Also, I wonder whether David could have let Dillon off the hook... This could have eventually led to the two protagonists' reconciliation (and a happier ending to the film).

[–] kiwiboris 13 years ago

Ernest_Hero,

Different schools have different policies on cheating - in some colleges (UVA is a good example) you can be expelled for a single incident of cheating. Private secondary schools, particularly ones that, like St. Matt's, have very high academic standards, might well have a policy that someone found guilty of cheating is expelled, even for a single incident. Besides, this particular school, being exclusive, was also more likely to have a zero-tolerance policy on cheating. And you are right that school policies with regard to cheating/plagiarism might have been stricter in the past than in the modern, more liberal, times. So, yes, expelling Dillon was a fair game.

I doubt it that David could have let Dillon off the hook. Even if he really wanted to (unlikely), he did not have any say in the decision. It was up to the headmaster. Even though the headmaster was fiercely anti-Semitic (and thus likely to favor Dillon rather than David), he wanted to look fair and thus dismiss the real cheater.

And, I doubt it that any reconciliation between the two protagonists would be possible, no matter what David would do (unless maybe he agreed to keep mum about Dillon cheating - but that would be very much unlike David.)

[–] Moviegoer Dan 13 years ago

Guys,

the issue of cheating in School Ties was directly connected to the honor code system that existed at St. Matthew's. Many prep schools in those days had that system of prefects that was shown, that system's being for the judging of any incidents should cheating be at issue, thus cheating by itself was, by definition, meant to be evaluated on a case by case basis to see if there would be circumstances that could justify giving a wandering student a reprieve, cheating by itself was not a per se rule that required expulsion. Many such schools have since abandoned those tribunals, due to the difficulties encountered in enforcing the honor code. The issue in the movie wasn't whether or not a mere cheating on one exam could get Dillon expelled, it was how those who broke the honor code would be dealt with. Dillon wasn't expelled for a mere cheating on an exam, it was for his continual actions in refusing to adhere to the honor code. He not only cheated but, when confronted about it all, refused to come forward and admit it and then accused another of being the cheater. All of those combined actions were what got him expelled. Greene and Van Kelt also broke the code by refusing to come forward immediately but their actions were excusable under the circumstances. As Headmaster Bartram stated, "the honor code is a living thing, it cannot exist in a vacuum, we absolve you both on that account."

MGD

[–] kiwiboris 13 years ago

Moviegoer Dan,

This begs the question - what if Van Kelt did not go to the headmaster's office to confess that he had witnessed the cheating? Would David be expelled in this case, or just given a warning and/or given a failing grade in the history class?

[–] Moviegoer Dan 13 years ago

Boris,

begging the question refers to a circuitous process that brings one back to asking the original question. That's not really what you're doing here, you're asking another hypothetical.

If Van Kelt had not gone to the headmaster's then it's not certain what would have happened. They might have inquired of David as to how he cheated, etc., only to find David's saying that he had agreed to abide by whatever the tribunal had decided and that he had not cheated. This would only illustrate more how these honor code tribunals were failing as a process. They would have ended up going back to square one and any number of possibilities could have occurred, including Van Kelt's eventually coming forward. There still, however, would not have been any rule about automatic expulsion for having cheated, the honor code would still apply and the case would be evaluated. Likely it would fall flat on its face since David's need to cheat wouldn't have been there at all, he was a good student and his failing one class wasn't likely to add up to that much. The headmaster, Professor Gierasch and the chaplain would have realized that things were truly not working out with the school's honor code and that things needed to change.

MGD

[–] kiwiboris 13 years ago

Moviegoer Dan,

Thanks for the explanation. By the way, in the scenario (but not in the movie), after David leaves the headmaster's office, the headmaster says something like, "I knew that would happen. They manage to bring trouble everywhere" and the chaplain answers, "So you're saying that Dillon cheated just because we brought a Jewish boy here?" and then leaves the office in disgust, and so does Mr. Gierasch.
Too bad they chose not to put this scene in the movie.

[–] Moviegoer Dan 13 years ago

Boris,

I've also, in the past, imagined Professor Gierasch's then going into his history class with an utter contempt for those who acted the way that they did in the tribunal in voting against David Greene merely because of his Jewish background. Gierasch would also make it a point to then teach the class about the history of Anti-Semitism, making sure that these seniors didn't dare leave their St. Matthew's educational experience without becoming significantly different than they'd been when they came in. David would also have been given permission to take a free slug in the face at McGoo, eyeglasses on, and McGoo would then become a pariah for the remainder of the year.

MGD

[–] Ernest_Hero 13 years ago

Thanks for the responses! I agree with @kiwiboris that it’s essential to take into account that this was no ordinary school and accordingly it’s no surprise that cheating was regarded as an extremely serious matter.

As for David, indeed, even if he had decided not to rat him out, the teacher would have likely found out through other channels (and as @Moviegoer_Dan clarified, Dillon forced his nemesis to take action, as he launched a counter-claim against David). Dillon was not merely guilty of cheating, but also of slander/trying to get another student expelled. In that sense, Dillon sealed his own fate. My gut feeling is that the history teacher would have been willing to settle for a strong reprimand, but the decision rested with the school principal.

@Moviegoer_Dan, very good point pertaining to the actions of Greene and Van Kelt and the degree to which they could be considered to be consistent with the honor code. I sort of underestimated the significance of the school honor code system, but you are right that it’s a central part of the story.
As for the possibility of reconciliation – there was indeed a lot of beef between them and neither David nor Dillon were particularly keen (they were too proud) on being the first to extend the olive branch.

[–] Moviegoer Dan 13 years ago

(and as @Moviegoer_Dan clarified, Dillon forced his nemesis to take action, as he launched a counter-claim against David

Ernest, I believe that you meant that David forced his nemesis, Dillon, to launch that counterclaim?

MGD

[–] Ernest_Hero 13 years ago

Technically yes, as David was the first to bring forth the accusation of cheating(though I have the feeling that David woulnd't have mentioned anything about the matter if the teacher hadn't discovered the suspicious notes).

[–] kiwiboris 13 years ago

Probably David made a mistake by trying to have a private conversation with Dillon before turning him in - he should have just reported what he saw to Mr. Gierasch, right away. But let's remember that David came from a regular school where turning a classmate in is called ratting and is frown upon.

[–] Doc80 11 years ago

David coming from a regular school may have had nothing to do with what he did. Things were going rough for him because they found out he was Jewish. He wanted to give Charlie the chance to confess because he knew if he finked, it would have made his already difficult time even worse

[–] roncerabona 13 years ago

Would be good to think so though given the class seemed more about memorising by rote names, dates, places and tidbits than any kind of analysis or discussion I am not sure how much good it would do.

[–] kiwiboris 13 years ago

Moviegoer Dan,

I don't think Mr. Gierasch would go as far as penalizing those who chose to scapegoat David for the cheating accident or teaching them the history of anti-Semitism. He was not definitely not happy about the tribunal's decision, but he was an old and conservative man, and probably wanted this incident to be forgotten as soon as possible. I don't know, though, why the movie makers deleted the scene where Mr. Gierasch walks out of Dr. Bartram's office after the latter makes an anti-Semitic remark.

As for McGoo - I think this character, just like Dillon, had some insecurities, maybe even worse (at least Dillon could play football and did not look like a dweeb), so for him, scapegoating David was an excellent way to finally feel good about himself.

[–] Moviegoer Dan 13 years ago

Boris,

I've never heard about this deleted scene before. How did you learn about this scene.

Are you and Ernest and roncer all the same person?

MGD

[–] kiwiboris 13 years ago

MGD,

I am neither Ernest nor Roncer.

I read the scenario of this movie, and many scenes from there were deleted (or just not incorporated into the movie.) Here is the link:

http://www.stonestreetstudios.com/library/SCHOOL%20TIES%20217.1.pdf

[–] Moviegoer Dan 13 years ago

Boris,

I can't get to that pdf, one needs a password on that site.

MGD

[–] kiwiboris 13 years ago

A workaround is googling for '"van pelt" dillon greene gierasch' (without quotes), then, upon finding the link, clicking its Quick View.

[–] Moviegoer Dan 13 years ago

Boris,

that's Van Kelt, not Van Pelt. There were no Charles Schulz characters in this movie.

MGD

[–] Moviegoer Dan 13 years ago

Boris,

I'm having serious doubts that you and Ernest and Roncer aren't the same person. You all have the same writing style and all seem to quickly show up everywhere the other ones do. Why are you doing this?

MGD

[–] kiwiboris 13 years ago

MGD,

I can affirm I am neither Ernest nor Roncer, and I am not responsible for other people's writing styles.

[–] Ernest_Hero 13 years ago

I only post under the name "Ernest_Hero".
I am currently residing in the UK, but am from Eastern European descent.
Why would I need a sock puppet account and/or respond to my own threads? :) (I rarely raise rhetorical questions).
There could be certain similarities when it comes our posting styles, but coincidences of such nature are bound to happen from time to time. :)

[–] roncerabona 13 years ago

MGD - I am just me, never posted as anyone else. I just happened to be on the board at the same time as Boris and Ernest - and, uh, you! Am enjoying the discussions.
best wishes
Ron

[–] sabahi712 12 years ago

Hi I'm kia .I beg you if you have this full scenario of school ties please send it to my email ecause i can not find it any where even the site that you introduced.
My email [email protected]
Thank you very much
Kia sabahi

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bthr 13 years ago

the teacher didnt say nothing about being expelled, he said fail the test.

your friend didnt let another person take the fall, dillon did. and not only that, he also accused him wrongfully.

so ya, he deserved to be expelled.

[–] Moviegoer Dan 13 years ago

Are you deliberately writing in a manner that suggests that you've never been to school yourself?

MGD

[–] otterprods 13 years ago

The points made above about some special conditions being applied at such a school within that time period are good. Even then, it's possible that he may have been given a second chance if he had come clean right away. Instead, Dillon added obstruction of justice, perjury and slander to his list of 'crimes'. The latter was so blatant and maliciously motiviated that it in itself would have made Dillon's expulsion (if not criminal prosecution!) warranted.

Otterprods, to keep those aquatic Mustelidae in line.

[–] dcavalli 13 years ago

As I'm sure many of the posters noted, every school has different rules.

I know Ted Kennedy was expelled from Harvard after paying a classmate to take a Spanish test for him. However, Kennedy was allowed to reapply, and he eventually graduated from Harvard.

I believe VP Joe Biden got in trouble in law school for plagiarism, but all that happened was that he failed the course, which he then took again.

In journalism, anyone who is caught plagiarizing or fabricating material is often fired: Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, et al.

Not too long ago, a bunch of high school students in Long Island actually got arrested for cheating on the SATs, paying smart students to take the test for them so they would get a higher score and into a better college. Maybe Charlie Dillon got lucky.

[–] roosterb1234 12 years ago

Not only did he cheat but he also, lied about cheating, accuse another pupil of cheating, used a position of powers to influence the others and most likely put up the nazi sign. He deserved what he got

[–] Bernnard_Black 12 years ago

I would say he deserved it, not so much for cheating, but for framing another student. Cribbing is one thing; blaming it on someone else when you know they'll be expelled is quite another. In a way, it was a fitting punishment for the crime; he tried to have David expelled, and suffered the same fate as a result.

I think if he'd admitted to cheating, he'd have failed the exam and possibly the course (I believe they said he was doing poorly and needed the win). I say this because as the Dean said, the honor code is a living thing that is adaptable to different circumstances. Technically, both David and Van Kelt should have been expelled for violating the code, but they weren't because of the circumstances.

Here's to the health of Cardinal Puff.

[–] Ten-Inch-Toni 11 years ago

Technically, both David and Van Kelt should have been expelled for violating the code, but they weren't because of the circumstances.

I disagree with your surmise here. There punishment should not have held the weight of expulsion. Possibly a suspension or being barred from campus privileges, something of this nature.

Both David and Rip knew Dillon cheated, they both gave Dillon the opportunity to come forward and confess. At this point, they are doing the honorable thing.

Dillon puts them both in a bind although neither David nor Dillon know that Van Kelt is in this loop.

If Van Kelt had not come forward and it was later discovered that he knew, then certainly he should have been expelled. His crime is allow the tribunal to continue and allowing them to vote David as the guilty party. His salvation was he ultimately could not allow David to take the fall.

This whole thing is not the arena David was raised in as some other poster mentions, in public school if you come forward you are the rat. But David's not a child, he knows he will still come out okay in life, just maybe not the life he was really working toward. He abided by the privileged and the school rules and had planned to come forward and lie about his guilt. I'm not really certain this is a crime against the school. It's certainly a crime against David himself.

If David had gone to the headmaster and told the truth about Dillon, it would still be David's word against Dillon's wouldn't it?

I wonder how that would have gone if Van Kelt had still kept silent?

[–] chas437 11 years ago

I think what you say is right. I attended a college "prep" academy with the honor code, and we had it in my college as well. What Dillon did would be automatic expulsion, no questions asked.

If Van Kelt kept quiet? David Green would be expelled.

I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout

[–] Ten-Inch-Toni 11 years ago

If Van Kelt kept quiet? David Green would be expelled.

So you're saying "Might or privilege makes right." If it came down to Dillon vs. David, the Head would have proverbially thrown David to the lions and Dillon would have gone unscathed.

If this had followed David, it would have made his life incredibly difficult. Being expelled from a well-respected prep school for cheating.... That's a tough one.

[–] chas437 11 years ago

If you remember the film, you'll remember that the students in the history class voted to support Dillon in the dispute. I'm not saying its right, that's what happened in the film. Rip intervened at the last moment

I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout

[–] Ten-Inch-Toni 11 years ago

Well yeah, I know that. I was just exploring what might have happened if Rip hadn't come forward. That's all.

[–] freebird1987 11 years ago

Yes, he deserved it. Not necessarily for cheating, but for making another student take the blame.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

I think it was more than just cheating. Dillon lied and dishonoured his classmates placing them in a situation where they all might have failed the class.

Plus, I know from personal experience that kids have been expelled from much less elite schools for much less transgressive behaviour than cheating. For a top academic institution in the 1950s I wouldn't have expected anything less. The galling thing is that despite being rightly expelled Dillon expected to still get into Harvard. Even more galling, he was probably right.

All of that makes me think that I would have loved to have seen a sequel in which David and Charlie's paths cross again at Harvard.

[–] Livana_Faolan 8 years ago

Yes. He violated the Honor Code. He cheated. Not only that, but he said nothing when an innocent person was wrongly accused of cheating.

"Never mind walking a mile in my shoes. Try thinking a day in my head."