The expert: birch beats the cane
The use of the birch rod is ‘one of the kindest, most
impressive’ punishments for schoolboys. The cane ‘can act as an instrument of
torture’. Those were the considerations of Clement Dukes, hailed
in his time as the prominent expert in school hygiene. He had very clear views
on the punishment of schoolboys. He is still considered today to be one of the early
pioneers in his field.
In a book published in 1905, he set out the following rational scale of punishment for schools.
1 Expulsion,
when the nature of the offence, clearly proved, is such as to come within the
law of the land rather than within the narrower scope of school discipline.
2 Private
removal, when the boy gains no good for himself, and proves a source of
evil to others: sometimes it may even be necessary to remove a ‘set’ of boys to
prevent insubordination.
3 Corporal
punishment for the graver school misdemeanours. This plan should be tried,
if possible, even before removal, and thus allow the boy every chance of
redeeming his character and remaining at school.
4 The
drill-sergeant for the lesser misdemeanours, varying the time according to
the degree of the offence. The names of delinquents should be entered in a
register kept for this purpose, and the sergeant should receive ‘orders’ to
drill those only whose names are previously recorded.
5 Copper-plate
copies for minor faults, such as unpunctuality, and manifest laziness.
Where lessons, however, are not known, the boy should be compelled to learn
them until he has succeeded, and this should form the only punishment.
6 Wholesome
chaff, which is often preventively effective. [He means ‘ridicule’. ‘It
must, however, be borne in mind that it is the fault which should be
ridiculed, and not the boy who has committed it.’]
He goes
on:
As I have
recommended the proper use of corporal punishment, I should like to
state more explicitly the scope of my approval and disapproval in this respect.
1. I approve
of the use of this punishment rather than expulsion, for some of the graver
school offences; and for the continual repetition of lesser faults, which other
punishments have failed to control.
I approve
the use of the ‘birch’ only, for it simply temporarily stings, and
neither damages the skin nor the subjacent structures. It should be
administered only on the place suggested by Nature; and thus applied I continue
to advocate it, as one of the kindest, most impressive, and least injurious
punishments. Further, it should be
invariably administered by the headmaster, or in his presence, after a written
report of the offence, and never by the ‘form master.’
2. I
entirely disapprove of the use of the cane, for it can act as an
instrument of torture, severely bruising the skin and subjacent tissues for
days and weeks. Moreover, a vindictive cut with the cane on the hand by a ‘form
master,’ can be too easily given in the moment of exasperation. This could not
occur where the birch was employed: the use of the birch, too, allows time for
the temper to subside before its application.
I
altogether disapprove of corporal punishment for elder boys, except for the
‘bully.’ The knowledge that the birch is always ready would be quite sufficient
to act as a deterrent, and would render its employment seldom necessary. The
use of the ‘cat’ was only required a very few times to put an end to
‘garrotting.’ The brutal bully, whether
man or boy, is always a coward and dreads nothing so much as the personal
application of the treatment he himself employs.
Extracted from Health at School, by Clement Dukes
(Rivingtons, 1905)
Picture credit: C of Sweden
Comments
Post a Comment