There is a thin line between discipline and destruction. While educational institutions have a responsibility to enforce standards of conduct, they must also remember that the purpose of punishment is to correct wrongdoing, not to ruin lives. This is why the reported expulsion of a final-year Nursing student and suspension of 14 others at Madonna University over a video recorded in a hospital deserve reconsideration.
If the students behaved as alleged, their conduct was insensitive and unprofessional. Sick people in hospitals are often frightened, vulnerable and emotionally distressed. They deserve compassion, dignity and respect, not ridicule from those training to become their caregivers. Nursing is not merely a profession for earning a living; it demands empathy, patience and a commitment to human welfare.
However, condemning an offence does not mean that every punishment imposed for it must be accepted without question. Madonna University must ask itself a fundamental question: What is the purpose of educating young people if, when they make a serious mistake, the institution chooses to throw away years of investment instead of correcting their behaviour?
A university is not simply a place where students acquire certificates. It is an institution where young people are expected to mature intellectually, socially and morally. Students sometimes make mistakes, including serious ones. The responsibility of the institution is to establish the facts, enforce accountability and, where possible, help them become better professionals.
The reported case is particularly troubling because the students are said to be in their final year. They have spent years attending lectures, writing examinations and completing clinical postings. Their parents and guardians may have sacrificed substantial resources to keep them in school. For some families, nursing education represents years of savings, loans and denied comforts. Should all these investments be discarded because of misconduct without seriously considering alternative sanctions?
This is not an argument that final-year students should enjoy immunity from punishment. Their advanced training makes their responsibility to behave professionally even greater. But the seriousness of an offence and the proportionality of its punishment are two different matters. An institution can insist on accountability without making expulsion the only acceptable response.
The video in question showed nursing students dancing in hospital areas, accompanied by the caption, “No sick oo, nah Gen Z full hospital.” There is not a doubt that the incident raised legitimate concerns about professional conduct, patient dignity and the use of social media in healthcare environments.
Nevertheless, the university should distinguish between dancing in a hospital and deliberately mocking an identifiable patient. Both may raise disciplinary concerns, but the circumstances, intentions, consequences and applicable rules should determine the punishment.
The institution must establish precisely what happened, what each student did and whether anyone’s privacy or welfare was compromised.
Collective participation should not automatically mean identical culpability, just as individual responsibility should not be ignored. Each student’s role and the evidence against them should be considered fairly.
Perhaps the most painful aspect of this controversy is the potential loss of years of hard work and financial sacrifice. Behind every student are parents, guardians or benefactors who have invested money, time and hope. Imagine a parent who has spent years paying tuition and other expenses, believing that a child is approaching graduation. Imagine the student who has passed examinations and completed much of the required training, only to face the possibility of abandoning the dream or starting over.
The university may argue that the students brought the consequences upon themselves. There is some truth in this: actions have consequences, and misconduct cannot be ignored simply because students are close to graduation. But the existence of consequences does not eliminate the need for proportionality. Making a mistake does not automatically mean that the harshest available punishment is the most appropriate.
Education is an investment in human development. If institutions are interested only in punishing wrongdoing without considering whether offenders can learn from it, they risk undermining one of education’s most important purposes.
Madonna University does not have to choose between doing nothing and expelling students. Several disciplinary measures could preserve accountability while allowing room for rehabilitation.
The university could impose a substantial suspension, subject to its regulations, and require the students to undergo ethics training and counselling before returning to their studies.
They could also be required to complete supervised community service or participate in appropriate patient-support and health-awareness programmes. Such measures must be carefully designed to protect patients and must not replace any mandatory professional training.
Formal warnings, probation and additional assessments on patient dignity, medical confidentiality and responsible social-media use are other options. Before returning to clinical duties, the students could be required to demonstrate that they understand the professional standards expected of them.
These are not proposals to let the students escape punishment. They are proposals to make punishment meaningful. If the evidence establishes serious misconduct, stronger sanctions may be justified. But where corrective measures can adequately address the wrongdoing and protect patients, permanent exclusion deserves especially careful consideration.
The university should also establish whether the students were given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and whether the disciplinary process complied with its regulations and applicable law.
The incident has become an opportunity for some people to condemn Gen Z as irresponsible, unserious and addicted to social media. At this, or any other time, such generalisations are unhelpful. Young people must understand that not every trend deserves participation and not every moment should become online content. The pursuit of likes, shares and popularity must never take precedence over human dignity.
Nursing students, in particular, must understand that patients may be frightened, weak, embarrassed or in pain. Professional compassion is not something to be switched on after graduation; it must be developed throughout their training.
The students should acknowledge the seriousness of their actions, apologise where appropriate and demonstrate that they understand the ethical standards expected of them. A second chance should come with responsibility, not an assumption that the incident does not matter.
Madonna University has a legitimate responsibility to protect its reputation and ensure that its graduates meet the highest professional standards. But its reputation could also be strengthened by demonstrating that it can combine firmness with fairness and accountability with compassion.
The institution should review the case, examine each student’s involvement, ensure due process and consider replacing the harshest sanctions with corrective measures that address the misconduct without unnecessarily destroying the students’ futures.
This does not mean that expulsion should never be imposed. There may be circumstances in which it is justified. However, it should be a carefully considered last resort where the facts and applicable rules warrant it, rather than a reflexive response to public outrage.
A university should not merely produce graduates; it should help shape responsible citizens and professionals. Sometimes, the greatest test of an institution’s values is not how it treats students who obey its rules, but how it responds when they fail.
Madonna University has an opportunity to teach a lesson more enduring than any disciplinary letter: mistakes carry consequences, professional ethics matter, and people can be held accountable without being denied every opportunity to rebuild their lives.
Punishment should correct, not destroy. Discipline should teach, not merely condemn. And where young people can learn from their mistakes, a second chance may be a greater victory for education than expulsion.
