Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.kids,net.politics
Subject: Re: corporal punishment in schools
Message-ID: <174@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 21:39:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.174
Posted: Thu Aug 29 21:39:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:08:58 EDT
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 95
Xref: watmath net.kids:1822 net.politics:10744
Summary: A discussion of corporal punishment in school and home

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:

>What's so odd about corporal punishment.  When I was a kid, I used to get it
>in school, and sometimes at home for getting it in school.  Every time I 
>got it, I DESERVED IT.  

I'm sure Mr. Frank is sincere and writes with the best of intentions.
However, his statement raises some questions in my mind:

1)  What do you mean when you say that you deserved corporal
punishment?  How can a child "deserve" corporal punishment or
beating?  By annoying or inconveniencing the parents or teachers?

2)  Assuming that the first question has been answered, how can
anyone know that he did deserve to be beaten?  It is well known that
our childhood memories are often distorted in various ways.  Isn't it
possible that Mr. Frank's, or anyone else's, memories of childhood
events and the feelings associated with them are inaccurate?  Often
we forget (repress) feelings, such as rage and shame, that are too
painful to be borne because they conflict with our desperate need to
be loved by our parents.  The result is often an adult who lacks the
psychological basis for empathizing with these feelings in others,
especially children, hence an adult who feels that treating children
cruelly is really "for their own good."

smh@rduxb writes:

>In Pennsylvania, public school teachers including my wife have the
>rights of a parent in disciplining a child.  If a parent can spank
>a child, then the teacher can.  Any other restrictions are provided
>by the local school board. No one has the right to beat a child in Pa.

Spanking isn't beating?  Why is it considered beating to strike a
person on the back or head, but not on the buttocks (a part of the
body, by the way, which is associated with shame and humiliation)?
Some kinds of beating are worse than others, of course, but children
have *died* of spankings.  I can't stand this kind of mealy-mouth
euphemistic language -- it is a way we hide the truth from ourselves.
If you believe in spanking children, you believe that a certain kind
of child-beating is a good thing in some circumstances -- don't be
afraid to say so in plain English, if you really believe in it.

Ray Frank again:

>What I find odd is the amount of abuse teachers get
>from students.  The amount of lack of discipline by students.  The disregard
>of respect for the instructors.  

I agree that it is desirable for children to respect teachers and
parents, but how does corporal punishment achieve this?  Surely there
is a difference between respect and fear.  To make a person fear you,
you use your superior physical strength to beat them up.  To make a
person respect you, you must act like a person who is worthy to be
admired and imitated.  

Several generations ago, John Dewey explained why good discipline
comes from good teaching, not the reverse.  It seems that many
Americans still have not understood the lesson Dewey taught, and
still think that "discipline" in the repressive military sense is the
way to provide a good learning environment for their children.  

Children who are truly antisocial and disruptive in the classroom
require special handling.  I used to work (although not as a teacher)
at the Orthogenic School of the University of Chicago, which is a
residential school (first grade through high school) for children
with severe emotional disturbances.  Many were severely delinquent
and antisocial before enrolling in the school, some were
schizophrenic or suicidal; none of them could be handled by regular
public or private schools.  They all attend classes every weekday at
the School, and NONE of them is EVER punished corporally or cruelly.
Of course, they are not allowed to do just whatever they please,
either.  As a result, discipline in the true sense (the word means
"teaching" -- it's related to "disciple") prevails at the School.
For many of the kids, it is the first time anyone has ever cared
about them (in a way they could perceive) or treated them as human
beings, and many of them really blossom.  One of them is a dear
friend and teacher of mine.  If you want to learn more about the
educational methods of the School, read some of Bruno Bettelheim's
books about it (I recommend *A Home for the Heart*).  One of the
basic lessons, applicable throughout life, is that you cannot teach
kindness by any amount of harshness, and you cannot help someone join
human society by treating him as an animal.

The basic reason the Orthogenic School can achieve results that
inner-city public schools cannot is that the School has resources
(particularly money and an enlightened philosophy) that the
inner-city public schools do not possess.  The bottom line here is
that a good education for our children costs a lot of money, money
that the American taxpayer prefers to spend on video recorders and
Caribbean vacations or to throw into black holes like Star Wars or
the MX missile.  In the trite but true phrase, children are our most
precious resource, but America does not care very much about its
children.

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes