The University daily. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 18??-????, 1896-06-09
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
shall The Birch Gol
Continued from Second page

Tits useless to prolong this dis
cussion Of the question as to its ef-
fects upon the child. The day il
fast approaching, nay, I believe q
now here, when the evolution Of
motive, the natural development
and education Of the will, will be-
understood as the proper means Of
control, and the brutality Of the
rod forever banished The tidal
wave Of progress is upon Us, and we
must rise to its crest and be borne
along. Even semi-barbaric Russia
does not permit corporal punish
ment ia her schools. France, Hol-
land, Prussia and Austria do not
allow it. In England the sixth
form boy, and all above him, are
exempt. In our own country the
cities Of New York, Chicago, Phil
adelphia, Boston, St. Louis, San
FRANCISCO, New Orleans, Savannah,
Pittsburg, Indianapolis, Norfork,
Nashville and Macon have abolish-
ed it in part or in whole. Shall
We not keep pace with this adyanc-
ing column, and soon add the
names Of all the cities and towns
of the Lone Star State2 I believe
we shall. And then by statute We
should prohibit the use Of the rod
all over this glorious state, in the
country as well as in the city
schools.
/ am aware that strong authors
tn can be produced il favor Of the
use of the birch, that some Of our
best educational writer's are adyo-
Gates Of it, but almost without ex-
ception they belong to the class who
wrote at least fifty 81 sixty years
ago. In the face Of the sentiment
that has been steadily gaining
ground since they wrote, would
they write now as they did then?
q believe not.
But, sir, I am not one Of the
class Of men who would tear down.
existing conditions, and offer noth-
ing better as substitute therefor;
and I shall close this paper with an.
account and explanation Of q plan
which I believe to be based on ma
tlre and common sense, and which,
/ have found to succeed most adj
rnirably, giving better results so far
as children are concerned, and
avoiding all those graver and more
disagreeable collisions with parents
occur from cor orai
] punishment I az not claim for it
originality OF novelty but inpell-
ca BY al intense interest ii the
success Of teachers and the better
inent Of our schools, I do ask that
you give it your thought and at
tention and afterwards q fair trial.
80
Suspension and expulsion have
often been tried as subititutes for
corporal punishment, and the pre-
ponderance Of testimony is ia favor
Of their retention as such snbsti-
tutes. In fact, rarely do teachers
who have used both plans in school
government, desire q return to the
use Of the rod. And the principal
reason why some do 30 desire is
that they are injudicious in their
exercise Of suspension and expul-
sion, or careless in some Of the de-
tails essential to their successful
execution. In the first place, teach
ers should not suspend or expel pu-
pills for minor and trivial offenses,
thereby bringing the plan into rid
icule and themselves into contempt
as exhibiting spirit Of littleness
and weakness. In fact, pupils
should not be suspended or expell-
ed for any offense that does not
merit corporal punishment. In
other words, these remedies should
be the substitute for corporal pun
ishment.
Now, the question is almost sure
to BE- asked, how does the number
Of suspensions and expulsions COM
pare with the cases Of corporal
punishment before2 In some
schools and systems of schools, the
number Of suspensions exceed the
number Of cases of corporal pun.
ishment. In others it is vastly di.
minished, and in others still there
are no suspensions. remember
reading the other day Of one school
in which there had not been q sin.
=