Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-11-29
Stuart Bitter in Condemninq
Corporal Punishment,
SAYS HE WAS MISQUOTED
Teachers All Know His Attitude and
There Are No Whippings.
MR.. cox SUPPORTS THE RULE
Says It Protects Teachers Who
Whip, But Adds That None
:
Does Whip.

Not only is A. T. Stuart opposed TO
spanking children in schools, or In any
other form of corporal punishment in the
schooiroom, but he declares that he is
rabid, radical and bitter In his opposi-
ton to any form, manner or means OF
punishment which approaches In the
snghtest degree to brutality or tends to
degrade and humiliate scholars or to fur
nish them with an exhibition which Il
more OF a scuffiing match than anything
else That he has been misquoted on the
subject of corporal punishment he 10
quick to say. That his ideas on the sub
ject Of corporal punishment are we'll
known throughout the scnool system Is q
fact, and every teacher will testify to IL.
Il don't want the rule which allows
corporal punishment in the handbook OF
the board of education. l am rabid.
radical and bitter In my opposition to it.
l do not believe there is single thing
that school children can do which would
merit being struck by a teacher. Children
should not be Inundated by that sort OF
thing. Children should not see one Of
their class struck
Duty for Parents, Not Teachers.
If there should be a boy who needs
a good licking then his parents ought
to give it to him. His teacher does not
have to do it,
The rule on corporal punishment
which Mr.. Stuart would like to have
taken out Of the new rule book which
has just gone into use is as follows:
THE avoidance Of corporal punish
ment, as far as may be with a due re-
gard to obedience on the part Of the
pupils Is enjoined on all teachers. Each
case of corporal punishment with the
reason therefor. shall be reported
promptly by the teacher in charge OF
the school and forwarded, through
the principal and supervising principal
to the superintendent"
Mr.. Stuart was asked this morning
whether any cases OF corporal punish
ment had been reported to him. He
said very emphatically that there had
been none.
His Position Clearly Defined.
Why" he said. I'm SO we'll known
an opponent of corporal punishment that
I've been on record in The Sunday Mag
azine Of The Sunday Star in discussion
with DR.. G. Stanley Hall. In that arti-
Gle, published March %, 1908, said:
Corporal punishment breeds resent
ment and often revenge in rational crea-
lures. Let f1ogging once he restored to
the schools by authority and note the
struggle that will be on between brute
force and the purpose to secure protec-
ton from brute force, paralleling in Q
striking way that familiar contest in
modern warfare between the ever-vary-
ing efficiency OF armor plate on the one
hand and projectiles on the other. This
could not be a physical conflict because
the men behind the knout would be too
strong to be successfully resisted. 1t
would become an intellectual and moral
conflict in which the keen-witted and
clever American boy would play his evil
tnventions-lying, evasion, blaming the
other fellow and brood of other en-
forced immoralities-as defense
against inevitable scourgings.'"
Quotes "Mr Dooley.''
Mr. Stuart picked up a volume of Mr.
Dooley" and turned to q paragraph which
he believed carried the point against
whipping children in school. 1t was this:
Il wuddn't give anyone TIL right to
lick child that wanted to lick a child.
If it's right to larrup an infant av eight.
why amt it right to larrup wan Of eight
cen? Suppose that President Hadley OF
Yale see that tn left tackle or the half
back av th foot ball team wasn't be-
havin' right. He'd been caught bloNin'
a peashooter at tn prefisser av iliminthry
chemistry or pullin tn dure bell av tn
prefisser av dogmatic theosophy. He don't
know any different. He's not supposed tn
realize tn distinction between right an
wrong vet Does President Hadley grab
tn child be tn ear an conduct him to
tn corner av the schoolroom an walIop
him? Ye bet he does not. President Had
ley may be a bold man I'm raisin' money
or translatin' Homer; but he knows tn
difference between courage and sheer
reckleSSness."
Rule Protects Teachers, Says Cox.
MY position in the matter" said W.
V. Cox, president OF the board of edu-
cation, 'is right in the rule, which is cor
tainly clear. Teachers are enjoined not
to use corporal punishment unless abso-
lutely necessary. and then they must
make a report of it. / believe the rule
was written primarily to be used I'm case
a parent brought suit for assault against
any teacher who whipped q child, and
think it would hold in court.
But the whole thing Is q bugaboo. Not
a child has been whipped or spanked, Or
nuniShed. cOrDOrally. in any way and