Section 7 reveals how deeply education in Flatland shapes not only personal success but societal structure. Advancement depends on passing the Final Test, and those from the Polygonal class often thrive, accelerating far beyond their Triangular classmates. In early stages, triangles and polygons may share the same curriculum, but over time, the Polygonal students display sharper insight and superior understanding. This distinction becomes clear as they enter professional life, where their education translates into control over science, government, and law. Their dominance is accepted as natural, even necessary, reinforcing the idea that intellect and symmetry go hand in hand. For most of them, a bright future is guaranteed by both birth and effort. Yet the system is less forgiving to those who fail its standards.

Those few among the Polygonal youth who do not pass the Final Examination face severe consequences. Unlike those in lower classes who may still find modest roles, these failed Polygons are seen as useless anomalies. They are denied employment, excluded from influential circles, and considered unworthy of marriage alliances. Their failure is treated as a permanent flaw, not just a temporary setback. Without societal function or support, these individuals drift into isolation or desperation. Many of Flatland’s revolts and disturbances have been traced back to such disenfranchised figures. Their bitterness toward a system that offers no second chances often turns into rebellion. In response, some of the more conservative leaders advocate for harsh remedies. They propose either permanent imprisonment or gentle execution, believing this will ensure stability and discourage others from questioning the established order.

This rigid approach reflects how deeply Flatland values regularity, not just in shape but in behavior and contribution. Those who cannot conform, regardless of the reason, are cast aside to preserve the perceived harmony of society. But the system’s harshness also reveals its fragility—its need to eliminate difference in order to maintain control. These failures are not inherently dangerous; they become so because they are pushed out of every respectable avenue. Exclusion breeds resentment, and resentment eventually turns to defiance. The solution may not lie in punishment but in rethinking the idea of worth. A system that treats failure as a final judgment rather than a moment for growth creates its own opposition. In this way, Flatland’s pursuit of order may be undermining the very stability it claims to protect.

The issue of irregularity takes this idea of rejection even further. In Flatland, every citizen must possess a perfect, predictable shape. Women must be straight lines, and men must adhere to precise geometrical forms, whether triangular, square, or beyond. Uniformity is essential not just for visual recognition but for social functionality. If an angle is slightly off or a side uneven, the individual becomes difficult to identify and potentially dangerous. In a society where sight and touch replace names and faces, irregularity is more than inconvenient—it’s treated as a threat to civilization itself. The fear is that if too many irregular figures existed, confusion would spread, and daily interactions would collapse into chaos. Thus, regularity is not merely preferred; it is enforced as a form of moral and civil duty.

Irregular figures are met not with compassion, but with hostility. From birth, such individuals are labeled defective and are often destroyed before reaching adulthood. If allowed to live, they are segregated and treated as symbols of corruption. Many in Flatland argue that geometric irregularity is tied to moral failure, though no scientific proof supports this. Even those who disagree cannot shift public opinion. Society clings to the belief that only perfection can ensure peace. Irregularity becomes a metaphor for all forms of deviation—intellectual, social, or ethical. To be irregular is to be inferior, and this mindset leaves no room for nuance or empathy. It reflects a fear not just of difference, but of complexity.

Yet the rigid system ignores the value that could be found in variation. Just as in nature, where diversity strengthens ecosystems, a society open to different shapes and ideas might become more adaptable. Innovation often comes from those who think differently, who don’t quite fit. In rejecting irregularity, Flatland may be sacrificing creativity and resilience. A world that allows only for symmetry risks becoming brittle—beautiful on the surface but unable to cope with change. The treatment of the irregular reveals a society more concerned with image than with substance. And beneath the appearance of order lies a tension waiting to unfold.