The University daily. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 18??-????, 1896-06-09
Shall the Birch Coz

S1BxH5t6 sss9
Thequestion Of corporal punish-
ment il one which has engaged the
attention 81 school authorities from
time immemorial and it's still un-
settled.
The use of the rod has been il
some localities, at one time abol-
ished, at another, reinstated. This
/. would seem to indicate, and it does
indicate, that it is question very
difficult Of solution But I am
happy to state that from the best
evidence have been able to gath
er, the consensus Of opinion IN al
most all intelligent communities Is
atspresent against it.
I shall endeayor to treat the
question il d purely practical way,
and what 1 shall say will be based
largely on my own personal expe-
rience and observation, You will
therefore please pardon the fire.
quent use Of the personal pronoun
Of the first person.
It is not necessary to say that SO
far as T am concerned, / am unal-
terably opposed to the practice Of
corporal punishment from the
highest grade in the high school to
the lowest grade in the primary de-
partment. 1t has been frequently
argued that it has place among
the little fellows, but no place
among larger ones. They say5it is
degrading to larger boys, it breaks
their spirit and lltmiliates them ;
but that the smaller pupils soon
forget the disgrace and pain and
humiliation. If 80, then it is a poor
remedy even for the primary pu-
pill. But | imagine the advocates
Of its employment with small boys
and its abrogation III the case Of
the large ones are influenced il
their opinions BY the wind and
muscle of the large ones and the
absence Of those qualities III the
little ones. Iii fact, Mr. President,
prudence mot to say cowardice,
uninfuenced by any other consid-
GRAFTON, dictates the opinions of
this class Of defenders Of the use. of
the rod IT seems to me, Sit, that
simple justice would demand that
the punishment BY the rod, If used
at al, should Be rneted out with
gteafer severity TO The offenders af
maturer mind and judgment than
to those who are less capable Of sell
z
rious thought and reflection.
Again, the fact that the abolish
ment Of corporal punishment id
the high schooland,its continuance
ii the primary grades is urged by
some, would seem TO argue asdoubt
on tile part Of its advocates as to the
adyisibility Of its use atey,uheae. 4.
Now, my felloW-teachers, let us
look at this important question for
q while from the standpoint Of The
welfare Of the teacher. It isftrue
that this is the lowest ground that
can be assumed, for all will admit
that the good Of the child III his
mental, moral and physical devel-
opment by his teacher is the thing
to be sought BY the conscientious
teacher. AT the same time the
welfare of the teacher deserves some
consideration, and it is undoubted-
~ true that whatever affects the
condition of the teacher will to-
SOME extent affect also the condi-|
ton Of the pupil. 81
No one will deny that the infiic-
ton Of corporal punishment isIa
self-imposed duty. Tn a vast ma
jority Of schools there is no speci-s
ally expressed or even implied con-
dition III the contract obligatihg
the teacher to use corporal punish
ment. He IS required to properly
control his school, but not neces-
sarily to do SO by means of physi-
cal force, and many weak or mex
parienced teachers voluntarily lei
sortfto the use of the rod. They
seem to think that control means
corporal punishment Later onEin
their experience they learn there.
are other and better means.
No one will deny that it is(an ,ln-
appreciated task The pupil does.
not appreciate it, the parent does
not appreciate it, the sympathetic
outsider does not appreciate i'll
and lastly, he who uses it, after