Corporal punishment, especially of boys, was once routine in many schools in the English speaking World but now seems to be limited to certain states in the USA and Singapore and a few other places. The decline in CP roughly paralleled the rise of the feminist movement and a move to greater equality. There seems to have been little activism from those on the receiving end, or their dads, for the abolition of the cane.

Is anyone aware of any documented concerted campaigns against CP from school boys?

Why was CP apparently not an issue for those on the receiving end?

KK

Don't know about you, but I think most of us boys at school, say from 1945 right through to 1975, were just too conditioned to it & the expectation of it to revolt.

We were surrounded by media images reinforcing this as well; papers, comics, radio, films & later TV. Did we stand a chance-nah!

I only got truly shirty with my Headbastard when he started treating VI formers like children on other matters. He had an expertise in condescension to one & all, including the PTA & the governors!

As I've just posted on the shirtless PE thread, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime, so 42 years on, I still shrug my shoulders at the one caning I got. The fact I was smoking, but out of uniform and on the bus home from school, still doesn't jump at me as mitigation of a broken rule and getting what you expected to get for it any more than it did back in April 1967.

Perhaps there's just no explaning human nature, especially mine!



Steve

Our sixth form, in a HMC school negotiated a no cane agreement in the early 70's . I note the details as I posted them a few months ago on Yahoo Doctor Dominum's site . If necessary I can easily expand as to how and why this came about. but we did succeed.


Re: Sixth form canings May 17, 2009



As I said before our school with a very traditional headmaster negotiated a non cane agreement in the 70's.I took part in that negotiation. Why did the school do that ? Was it crazy? No.



* The school had three years in the sixth form . Boys were aged 16-19. When a boy reached 18 the law changed. 'In loco parentis' no longer applied. As a consequence , full duty of care was owed to the student . Further all sixth form education was 'post compulsory' i.e. voluntary. Given the above a caning without consent could be subject to prosecution under the then law of assault and battery, occasioning actual bodily harm. This legal advice was confirmed by the School's lawyers.
* Can you actually imagine a struggle to cane an unwilling 18 year old 16 stone prop forward? If the school chose expulsion BECAUSE of the refusal it would open itself to a civil action for damages ( failure of duty of care ; damaging higher education prospects).
* If the students in the sixth form were of the mettle the school expected , they would be capable of formulating and discussing complex moral and ethical decisions. Therefore, even if legal, it would be morally unacceptable to dismiss as irrelevant the views of the student regardless of age. The sixth form was there to develop students into useful citizens , that means granting respect and expecting maturity.



The immunity was completely unconditional except that the student could themselves waive their rights. However other sanctions could be imposed, and usually the alternative would be exclusion/suspension for a given period. The student must weigh up the consequences for himself.


As I said elsewhere, I once waived my immunity (against the advice of the Head). I felt that two fifth formers had been caned for the identical offense ( this later transpired not to be quite the whole case as they had lied, and then been insolent to the Head ) , whereas he suggested my offense was purely technical , as it only happened because I held a strong moral position, in his view incorrectly, over the matter in question.As such he would have suggested a nominal one day suspension.but political honour(?) prevailed and I took the caning, and yes,to other contributors, six of the best did hurt a hell of a lot even at 17/18.

A popular movie called Ghostbusters featured the line: Who ya goin call? Usually a child calling newly planted overprotective mother from a state without CP. If she is surrounded by like thinking peers she will find herself a cause or she can call Paula Flowe's hotline and air her grievance or better still donate to her cause.

Let's do some math. In a county in TN there are two high schools that have similar expereinces in CP say Mumford High School with 1200 students with 190 boys paddled and 130 girls paddled who are they calling? Brighton High School 1385 students with 150 girls paddled and 215 boys paddle who are they calling. The numbers are not coincidental between two independent schools. They reflect a failure to abide to an almost identical student code of conduct.

With those numbers the first question is why did you do that and not how sore is your bottom but of course they know? They know from experience (25% more often then than now) tears well up and sting siminishes in minutes and the redness disaapears by morning. A gentle reminder lingers with a sore and slightly bruised bottom.

Why aren't those on the receiving end not complaining? Not much to talk about. Pass the blackeye peas and stop that squirming. Yes grandma.

American Way ,

just more southern grit , or the next call to Paula?




Out of luck ,
Out of time
Out of control
Out of my mind....
The blows were hard,
the blows were mean
the blows were low,
the hits were clean
I was left black and blue
On the ledge
looking up at you '



Mary Gautier ( say Go-shay Y'all!) 'On the ledge , looking up at you .'
from the album 'Filth and Fire' Root Ball Studios, Austin, Texas


Just the Louisiana way ? just like ya' catch an' skin catfish or smother collard greens......

The earliest known schoolboy campaign against school CP was the 1669 Childrens Petition. This was a 70 page remonstrance by a schoolboy of the time, against the brutality (and indecency, I hasten to add) of the birching of schoolboys bare bottoms as it was practised by schoolmasters of the day.

There was also the tiny and short-lived National Union of School Students, which put opposition to caning among its aims. It came and went in 1972 and was clearly manipulated by older students of the far left.

http://www.corpun.com/uksc7205.htm

In my experience, the only real resentment against CP was when it was unfair or unjustified. In the vast majority of cases, if it was done properly, it was accepted as a reasonable punishment. I think the Friends Reunited memories largely bear this out.

Hi Colin

I was interested in your posting and associated commentary on NUSS. Yes it did start in about 1972, but , although its national coverage was very patchy retained some influence/presence throughout the decade

Towards the end of the decade, the Area student organisations in Higher (advanced post 18) Education , which were a sub national network of NUS branches,and allied organisations, still as I recall had constitutional provision for school representation from NUSS.

In my school during the 70's we had individual memberships of the organisation, although the school would not recognise or negotiate with a 'branch'.However members acted in concert through the school council ( party within a party) . It seemed to be that the areas which promoted open mass protest ( ineffective- often because of the presence of organs like the 'Sun'!!))were very short lived.

London had a problem in particular because of the OZ skool kidz issue and the 'militant ' visitations which occurred at some schools of all types a few years earlier. Thus 'demonstration ' was not a sensible way forward.

Some of the quieter areas who believed in persuasion and negotiation , did achieve some admittedly limited success, including the sort of no cane agreements my school accepted.At some point much NUSS activity became redirected into local , particularly sixth form associations, which mixed political and social networking

This was mainly because the organisation itself, like all student politics of the era was unrepresentative of its members, being riven with splits which paralysed any pretext at leadership , particularly between the far (ultra) left groups .( It takes two 'Trots' to make a party ; three to make a split!). The national leadership eventually dissolved , but when is unclear, as , if I recall correctly for a time there were two national leaderships both claiming legitimacy!