Background image

terug

The case against caning

 A 13-year-old boy beaten with a cricket bat; junior-school children smacked in front of the
 whole school for persistent and deliberate disobedience'; 11 and 12-year-old girls given eight
 strokes of the cane for stealing money. These cases are not from the last century. Nor are they
 from some violent society, run by fanatical mullahs or generals, in Asia or Africa. All these
5 incidents have occurred in British schools in the 1980s.
 According to the legal textbooks, these punishments were carried out 'for the purpose of
 correcting what is evil in the child'. The law upholds teachers' rights to beat children because
 they represent the parents and can, therefore, use any punishment that a reasonable parent would
 use.
10 But how many ordinary parents use canes on their own sons or daughters? I have only ever met
 two who admitted to it. This seems to me the crux of the argument. There is no comparison
 nowadays between corporal punishment in the average home and beatings at school. Like most
 parents, I want my children to believe that violence is wrong. But it would be absurd to pretend
 that they do not sometimes infuriate me to the extent of slapping or shaking them. Afterward,
15 I feel guilty and, possibly, I apologize and explain that if goaded beyond endurance, parents
 sometimes resort to violence.
 Isn't that the lesson they should learn; that, among reasonable adults, violence is an
 aberration; that it happens when people have lost control of their emotions; that, on second
 thoughts, most people regret it? We are never going to live in a non-violent world, but at least
20 we can strive to minimize violence.
 By institutionalizing it, by subjecting it to rules and regulations, schools are giving children
 the opposite message. They are suggesting that, if violence is planned and considered, it is more
 defensible. Yet, in most areas of life (including the courts of law ), we attempt to excuse extreme
 behaviour by arguing it was unpremeditated. 'Passion or rage' (created by appropriate provocation)
25 is a defence; cold, calculating violence is considered more reprehensible.
 This is what makes non sense of the argument that teachers represent the parents. At home,
 corporal punishment is usually immediate, informal and unceremonious. It is carried out by
 someone who has a close relationship with the child. The traditional school beating, carried out
 by a remote authority figure, normally the head, is usually delayed, considered, formal and
30 ritualistic. The current proposal from Sir Keith Joseph, the education secretary, to change the
 law so that parents can exempt their children from school beatings simply adds another stage of
 formality and regulation.
 There is another important difference between home and school. As research into
 child-rearing habits shows, parents generally smack younger children more than they smack older
35 ones; and they have the perfectly reasonable defence that, when a child's verbal reasoning .......
 faculties are underd eveloped, it may be necessary to resort to physical argument. Few parents
 would dream of beating a 13-year-old . In schools, it is the other way round: corporal punishment
 is used most sparingly in infant schools, more commonly in the juniors and perhaps most
 intensively in the early and middle years of secondary school. In other words, children are most
40 often beaten by teachers at exactly the time they are forming their adult personalities and models
 of behaviour. At that stage of life, schools should be pulling out all the stops to convince them
 that reason and argument, not physical force, are the best ways of resolving differences.
 Joseph 's Bill, duein the current session of parliament, is a political convenience, enabling him
 to observe a European Court declaration that parental objections to corporal punishment must be
45 respected, while placating the pro-beating members of his party.
 
 Peter Wilby in The Sunday Times, December 9, 1984