CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS In Defence of Catholic Teachers

Sig,—" Under 25 " started this discussion by alleging an " orgy of caning in Catholic schools." This contention has since been supported by Messrs. McDonnell, Stephens and Burns. In reply, my letter was accurately headed " Sweeping Assertions against Catholic Teachers," for these arc my only concern in this discussion.
In my first letter I said that your Columns, though you are generous with them, were not adequate to a proper discussion of punishment, or of corporal punishinent particularly. Knowing that, Mr McDonnell yet taunts me with having nothing to say in defence of that System; but I am not now going to be
side-tracked into an " objective " discussion of corporal punishment. I am
not interested in the pros and cons of that subject, beyond being highly amused that men of the eminence of
Messrs. McDonnell, Stephens and Burns should think that a few dogmatic statements by Mr McDonnell, unsup ported by a shred of evidence, should
be taken as "a case against," a " heartening condemnation " of, or a
" gentle knock-out " to the monster. I suggest they ask a barrister what are the essentials of a good " case against." No, I stick to my original contention that your four correspondents have
made a series of generalisations and
unsubstantiated statements against not a few, nor some, but against the generality of Catholic teachers. For fear the plausibility of their letters might give a false impression of our schools, I again wish to point out these sweeping assertions are unsubstantiated by evidence. I should not dream of making such generalisations about my colleague on the other side of the partition with whom I have worked for eight years as these four make so glibly about the generality of Catholic teachers. Particularly from Catholic schools, who can have extensive know ledge of the circumstances and difficulties of only a very few Catholic schools, rushing in with such pharisaical condemnations of the motive s, capabilities and outlook of their thousands of colleagues.
Mr McDonnell now says that this is not the case. He says I have missed
the whole trend of the discussion. It is not Catholic teachers " who are being attacked but the system . . . which is."
That is a quibble. For surely people who freely use a reprehensible system are, by implication, reprehensible them
selves. Now, truthfully, is it only the system that has been attacked?. Let us Sec.
On December 23 "Under 25," covered by a pen-name, said, "... stop the orgy of caning, etc.; in which our Catholic teachers seem to revel." "Trifling breaches of discipline followed up by Indiscriminate corporal punishment."
On December 30 Mr McDonnell, a Catholic headmaster of Birmingham, also making use of the general terms " Catholic schools " and "Catholic teachers," says that laymen, religious and priests " are all represented in the system." That is a misleading statement, because it is indefinite.
In what system, and to what extent? Does he mean the system of corporal punishment or that of excessive punish ment? If the latter, to what extent are we all represented in it? The next McDonnellian generalisation is: " God's Moral Law is confused with the Teachers' Penal Law. For example: cheating at exams. and not hanging
your hat on the right peg are much the same sort of thing. Deliberate lies are
regarded as the prisoner's 'Not guilty.'" Note, such things are so regarded not In a few cases, or in some cases, but in Catholic schools generally.
Lastly, Mr McDonnell feels it incumbent on him to preach us all a homily to direct the scriptural reading of Catholic teachers.
On January 6 Mr Stephens, a Catholic assistant from Royton, Lancashire, gratuitously asserts : "For most of us
the idealism of school days rapidly evaporates—and we become slaves to tradition." "Few of us suspect our own motives." " Most teachers prefer ' a brute ' with discipline to ' a gentleman ' without."
Really, sir, I have no objection to Mr Stephens making such a very humble public confession on his own behalf, but I should like previous notice before it is made on my behalf—for the chances are I am included among " the most." How does Mr Stephens know so much of the Inward motives and outlook of " most of us" ?
Now for the piece de resistance, the letter from the Director of the Child Guidance Clinic, which Mr McDonnell categorically tells us MUST be considered as expert evidence. I wish I could. It contains one unsubstantiated general accusation, one misstatement of fact, very unfair innuendo, and some medico-psychological statements, except in one case a vague appeal to psychiatrists' agreement. It was always impressed on me that a scientist was a man of very precise statement who only said as much as the evidence warranted.
Again, is one who admittedly has an axe to grind a fitting judge of excessive punishment? For in a Child Guidance Clinic, I presume, the noun of corporal punishment is nil, and, therefore, even slight use of caning is excessive.
"I have felt," he boldly says, " . . that the excessive caning . . . which went on in many Catholic schools is a scandal." I am not interested in his unscientific feelings. I want to ask on what evidence he makes that accusation. How does he know what happens in many out of 1,265 Catholic schools (elementary) in England and Wales? I doubt if the Board of Education with all its reports could support a statement like that.
Again, " One knows that caning is only supposed to be administered by headteachers." That is not true. Under L.C.C. regulations, which are similar, I believe, to those of other authorities, it may be administered by assistants at the discretion and by permission of the headteacher.
I think I can now claim to have shown that your four writers have not only criticised caning, but actually have made many unsubstantiated criticisms of Catholic teachers generally. Perhaps they will now either substantiate them or withdraw them.
Lastly, a word as to this allegad superiority of council schools, which three of your writers admit, Mr Stephens going so far as to accuse them generally of " Free Discipline." Mr McDonnell says I accuse him of saying something he did not say. Hie words were: " In the 'non-sectarian ' world the pendulum has swung from Dotheboys Hall to the Psychological Clinic." In deducing his meaning thus shrouded In metaphor I said, " Mr McDonnell .. . goes so far as to say that caning has disappeared in council schools." The Important words are " has swung," not " is swinging." Have I really mistaken his meaning?
W. D. FARRELL, Assistant Master. 33, Benchhin Roe& S.E.9.
Lax Discipline in the Home
Sia—That the question of corporal punishment should arise is not surprising, for we are living in a very different era from that of even ten years ago. With life being lived at a greater speed than the world has previously known, the child develops, mentally. at a greater speed. At six months now, he has seen
and heard more than in days tea and at six years he has "more off " than we had at sixteen.
The parents, too, have grown to find cheap entertainment outside the home, consequently the children are left to themselves or are turned out to seek cheap entertainment, too. Correct discipline in the home is a thing of the past, hence treatment in school is bound to change and become more difficult.
That some corporal punishment is necessary any good Catholic agrees, for sin must be punished either here or hereafter. The teacher knows only too well the effect of an unruly child on the rest, hence, for example, for rahk disobedience which approaches defiance of the teacher, corporal punishment is absolutely necessary. it must be administered in a respectful manner, for the teacher, as well as the scholar, has to keep the fourth Commandment.
Co-operation on the part of the parents is very needful in these days, but hard to obtain, A system of correction and punishment by the writing of suitable lines as homework might help to bring this about. The parents then see wherein the child is at fault; and the child at the same times learns the remedy. For constant inattention he might be required to write, "I must pay attention, if I wish to become good and clever." Or again, "Why must I always tell the truth? So that I may become honest and brave."
This kind of correction is surely a form of Catholic Action, for in this way the Catholic teacher keeps in touch with the Catholic parents.
Lucy TURNER. Preston, Lance,
No Answer
SIR, — When Mr McDonnell asks a question of those " who believe in frequent corporal punishment," he asks what I think cannot be answered.
What does he mean by " frequent"? I do not know. If a boy receives corporal punishment once in a school year he has not been " frequently" punished; but if of 200 boys, in the one school, each receives one punishment in that school year then puunishment is " frequent."
I do not believe that, in large Catholic Colleges, corporal punishment is frequently given; I believe that the very vast majority get no such punishment during their whole school career. I got it once, and remember it on account of the kindly incident connected with it; I may have had another dose in the course of my school career of six—seven years, but have only a vague idea about this. There must be very few who get it six times in six years.
At Stoneyhurst discipline is strict, but eminently paternal and kindly. The boys live and work in a religious atmosphere, and have the greatest love, trust in, and admiration for the Jesuits. The Jesuits do not spare themselves in the work they do for these boys in carrying out their aim to make these boys good Christians, good citizens, and well able to fight their battles in this very difficult world.
Mr McDonnell has drawn a wrong inference from the incident narrated by one. The Master saw it as a mere " try-on " without a spark of anything like wickedness in it. a mere sudden ebullition, and at once showed that authority must be respected, and gave them the punishment which he thought to fit the crime. The second punishment was, of course, another matter. They had told a lie, which was a very grave matter, and thie he could not pass over as anything but grave.
CHAS, R. CHICHESTER. Jersey.
Headmaster Defends It
Sot—No case for corporal punishment? May I ask for enlightenment? Corporal punishment cannot itself be wrong. For (a) Punishment in Hell and Purgatory is partly corporal.
(b) Texts in the Old Testament uphold it.
(c) Our Faith allows it.
(d) Our Lord administered it.
My personal experience. As a boy I dreaded—to perspiration—being sent to the Head, who often remitted the corporal punishment, but never omitted a nerve-racking talk. A visit to the Prefect of Discipline—where the corporal punishment was scientifically administered and the "pi-jaw" omitted —was by comparison a work of mercy.
As a teacher. I have repeatedly had boys, and even girls, who have requested corporal punishment instead of punishment which would penalise as well, their Team or House.
Admittedly there are children to whom corporal punishment is medically —and possibly morally—harmful. But to claim that corporal punishment should be abolished is to say that the immemorial custom • of mankind is vicious. For which view Chesterton's phrase would see to be most apt" Chuck it! Smith!"
HEADMASTIC R.
A Lancashire. IN this conmtry there are too many sporting men and not enough sportsmen. As one who thinks very little of watching, but always wants to be playing, however, I don't like people who look down on sports and profess a contempt for games and players, regarding them both as idiotic.
A man who has little or natural ability to play games can still get a tremendous amount of enjoyment and companionship from them, if he plays them properly. But a man who regards them merely as pastimes whereby exercise can be obtained rather misses the key note. There is only one game fit for him—and that is Tennis.
TIRESOME TENNIS