> Are people with a pattern of disruptive, dysfunctional behavior allowed to be present in your workplace?

Yes, actually. The standard to fire people is high and HR wants these people constructively managed out rather than fired. This is incredibly common in large corporations.

Had a bad hire once that abused an entire engineering department for 2 years while they had no responsibilities and did no work until they were finally bored enough to quit.

What about the second question? Is it desirable to tolerate abusive employees? Should managers who do something about it be considered problematic because they're shielding people from the real-life learning experience of being bullied?

These are not gotcha questions. I'm honestly trying to understand your worldview here.

It's not desirable, no, but there are other employers to go work for.

If you get expelled _by a public school system_ you may not have another option.

My worldview is that all kids have the right to an education, regardless of how "manageable" adults interpret their behavior. "Disruptive children" are more often a failure of the adult to meet the needs of the child. Also they're children. They haven't learned how to behave like adults yet. Expecting them to do so is cruel.

But you've defined education as learning how things are out there in the real world, including bullying which prevents children from getting what people traditionally called education.

What if most people don't want this type of education? Are they wrong? Do you have the moral authority to force it on them?