The kid getting punched might not have fought back if he knew that doing so would get him expelled or like in lot of places in the US arrested and fined hundreds of dollars. Because the punishment was reasonable it was low enough that he was willing to risk it for the right to defend himself. You make is sound like I am claiming he doesn't have the right to defend himself but the opposite is true. I am saying that he has the right to do it if he thinks it worth paying the price. Very rarely do we know enough about what leads up to these fights so the only rational thing is to treat both boys the same. Now if one kid makes a habit out of fighting he should be punished more. I do think that if can be shown that the one boy was simply attacking the other boy for sport (and please don’t claim we can or we will be back in the context argument again) then I think it would be reasonable for the school to punish the one boy both for fighting and then separately for harassment but that would not stop me from punishing both boys for fighting. I don’t think any of us know enough about this case or what evidence the school has to make that judgment. It would have helped if there has been some audio.

I will admit that this case stretches my argument by I still think it makes sense to have the rule that fighting will be punished and it is up to you to decide if you want to pay the cost. If not all the bully has to do is instigate the victim into throwing the first punch.