DOCSLIB.ORG

Proceedings: Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: a National DE:Bate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proceedings: Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: a National DE:Bate Proceedings: ConfErence on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National DE:bate February 18-20.1977 • • • • •• • • • ~~-f_. • __ ...... __ _ c:J v, c::J ~. The National ~~ institute of Education u.s. Ocpanmenl of Health, Educallon and Welfare In Washin8lon, D.C. 20208 d under Contrac t SNIE-P-77- Depart- These procee d'mg, s t"were al Institutepre~are 0 f Education,The opmlOnsU .. '. ex- 0079 from the Na ~on tion and Welfare. arily reflect the ent of Health, E UC~dings do not ~ec~ss of Education or l ;",,,dposition '0or th'I~~/~~'~'POt ent of Health, N'tio"," Educa I~~~:" , ~d W,iIm,. the U.S. Depar m _J PROCEEDINGS CONFERENCE ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE SCHOOLS: A NATIONAL DEBATE February 18.20,1977 Edited by James H. Wise Conference Presented by Child Protection Center Children's Hospital National Medical Center Washington, D.C. Supported by The National Institute of Education U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Joseph A. Califano Jr., Secretary MIIl'Y Berry, Assistant Secretary for Education NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION Emer30n J. Elliott, Acting Director Harold Delaney, Associate Dir2ctor, Educational EqUity Group Oliver C. Moles, Head, School Social Relations Acknowledgement The editor would like to express his personal gratitude to all the particpants and thank them for their contribution to the advancement of knowledge and understanding on the issue of corporal punishment in our public schools. Special thanks are ex­ tended to the following individuals who assisted in the development and support of these proceedings: Susan Arshack, F.D.R. Fox, Dr. Frederick C. Green, Ronda Green, Gloria Hill, Mary Holman and Carol Kauffman-all of Children's Hospital National Medical Center; and Martin O. Milrod and Dr. Oliver C. Moies-both of The National Institute of Education. Cover design by Fred Stargardt. James H. Wise, Ph.D. Child Protection Center Children's Hospital National Medical Center ii Washington, D.C. .. Table of -Contents Acknowledgement. • . • . • . • . • • . • . • . • . • • . • . • . • . • . • . • • . • .• ii Introduction. • • • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • • . • • . • • . • . • • • . • • • . • . • . • •. v James H. Wise Corporal Punishment And Alternatives In The Schools: An Overview Of Theoretical And Practical Issues 1 Irwin A. Hyman, Eileen McDowell and Barbara Raines An Analysis Of State Legislation Regarding Corporal Punishment In The Schools . • • . • • • . • . • • . • . • • • . •• 15 Robert H. Friedman and Irwin A. Hyman Corporal Punishment In The Schools: The Civil Liberties Objections . • . • . • .. • . • • . • • . • • • • . •. 19 Alan Reitman A Legal Defense For Corporal Punishment In The Schools . • • • • . • . • • • • . • . • . • . • . • • • • •. 25 Frank A. Howard, Jr. A Practical Defense Of Corporal Punishment In The Schools. • . • . • . • • . • . • . • • . • • . • • • • . • • • . • . • • . •• 29 Lansing K. Reinholz The Impact Of The Ingraham Decision .• • • • . • . • • . • • . • . • • • • . • • . • . • • . • • • • . • . • • . • . • • • • . • • . .. 33 Wallace Mylniec ) A Review Of Research On The Effects Of Punishment: Implications For Corporal Punishment In The Schools. • • • • • • • • • .. 35 Anthony F. Bongiovanni All In The Name Of The 'Last Resort'. • • . • • . • . • • . • • . • . • . • • . • . • . • . • • • • • . • • • • . • . • • • • •. 43 Adah Maurer A Cross·Cultural Examination Of Corporal Punishment: An Initial Theoretical Conceptualization. • . • • . • • . • . •• 49 Alan Babcock Open Forum. Corporal Punishment In The Schools: A National Debate. • • . • • • . • • . • . • . • • . • • • • • • • . •• 51 iii iv Introduction During the weekend of February 18-20, 1977, the Child Given the complexity of the topic, the conference was also Protection Center of Chiidren's Hospital National Medical designed to examine corporal punishment from a variety of Center, Washington, D.C., hosted a national invitational con­ perspectives. The eight formal papers presented examined ference on child abuse. One section of that conference, sup· historical and constitutional considerations; debated inherent ported in paJt by funds from the National Institute of Educa­ philosophical, moral, ethical and practical issu~s; analyzed and tion, devoted an intensive two and one half days to a singular reported on corporal punishment practices and excesses in our topic: corporal punishment in the schools. The examination of nation's classrooms today; surveyed the current status of state corporal punishment in the schools proved both unprecedented statutes regarding corporal punishment; provided a scientific and timely. Unprecedented, in the faci. that for the first time overv!ew and appraisal of the effect of physical punishment on the question of corporal punishment in our schools was seriously chiidren's behavior and emotions; and finally, presented an considered and intensively discussed within the overall frame­ initial examination of corporal punishment from a cross­ work of a national conference on child abuse. Timely, in the cultural perspective. In addition. an open forum dialogue was very real sense that just three months prior to the conference held which included representatives of three national associa­ the Supreme Court had heard oral arguments for the first time tions: the American Federation of Teachers, the American on corporal punishment in the schools. At the time of the con­ Psychological Association, and the National Parent Teacher ference, however, the High Court had not yet handed down a Association. decision on Ingraham v. Wright. On April 18th, 1977, exactly This was a truly important and productive conference. It is two months after the conference, the Supreme Court ruled on difficult to recapture on paper the lively spirit and enthusiasm Ingraham v. Wright. In a five to four decision the Court ruled of the conferees who spent an intensive weekend engaged in that corporal punishment in public schools was not a violation debate and dialogue on the issue of corporal punishment in of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and our schools. Despite this limitation, the proceedings which unusual punishment. The Court also decided that due process follow are the real fruit of the conference and are preserved protections need not be accorded school children before for the reader's examination and thought. Hopefully they will corporal punishment is used. provide new insights for many. fresh ideas for some, further This conference on corporal punishment was specifically questions by others and perhaps in time, some answer; for us all. designed to present a balanced cross section of opinion on this controversial and heretofore surprisingly understudied issue. James H. Wise, Ph.D. v • Corporal Punishment And Alternatives 6. During the 1971-1972 school year, the Dallas Public In The Schools: An Overview Of Theoretical Schools reported an average of 2,000 incidents of physical And Practical Issues punishment per month (It's time to, 1972). a paper presented by 7. In the Houston Public Schools, it was reported by Dr. J. Irwin A. Hyman Eileen McDowell Barbara Raines Boney, an administrator, that during a two month period in 1972, 8,279 paddlings were administered (Elardo, 1977). Introduction 8. In New York City (Polier, Alvarez, Broderick, Harrison-Ross, & Weaver, 1974) and Pittsburgh (Schumacher, 1971), black Most people in this country believe that the use of corporal administrators were accused of excessive paddling of black punishment in the schools is either not a problem or a problem children, even though corporal punishment was banned by the of such low priority that it is not worth considering. Any school boards. In both cases, even though it was proven that informal poll will most likely reveal a general belief that the paddling took place, the administrators and many pro­ corporal punishment is little used or that when applied it is corporal punishment parents first denied its use and later usually minor and preferred by most children to other forms defended it on the basis that physical punishment was the only of punishment. A substantial percentage would probab­ thing many of the black children understood. In both cases, ly feel it should be used more often. This latter belief is the accusers were attacked as racists trying to prove the related to the results of recent Gallup Polls which indicate that incompetancy of black educators. most citizens feel that discipline is the major problem in schools today (Gallup, 1976). However, consider the follow­ Some of the preceding cases and many other reported ing: examples of excesses of corporal punishment are presented in 1. In a Florida school a young man was held down on a table a paper by Maurer (1977). Without further documentation, it while a principal beat him 20 times on his buttocks with a is clear to many that corporal punishment is a problem. It also paddle. The beating was severe enough to cause an oozing should be conceptualized as a form of child abuse which is in hematoma which required three hospital treatments. The contradiction to much of what Americans say they believe young man missed ten days of school and was unable to sit about democracy. comfortably for three weeks following this incident (Nuss­ Definition of Corporal Punishment baum, Hilmer, & Precup, 1976). 2. In Vermont, in 1974, a young sixth grade student was The general definition of the term corporal punishment seriously beaten by the principal for striking another student. indicates it to be
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Corporal Punishment in Tennessee
    Office of Research and Education Accountability JUSTIN P. WILSON, COMPTROLLER Corporal Punishment in Tennessee Lauren Spires Legislative Research Analyst March 2018 Table of Contents Executive summary 2 Box: Definitions for corporal punishment and students with disabilities 2 Key findings 3 Policy considerations 6 Section 1: Tennessee’s corporal punishment policy 7 Box: TCA 49-6-4103 7 Box: TCA 49-6-4104 7 School board policies on corporal punishment 7 Exhibit 1: Where corporal punishment is allowed and not allowed per school 8 board policy, 2017-18 school year Tennessee School Boards Association model policies on corporal 8 punishment Variation in district policies 9 Box: Charter schools and corporal punishment 9 Section 2: Variation between board policy and use 10 Variation between board policies and affirming corporal punishment use 10 Variation between affirming corporal punishment use and reported data 11 Exhibit 2: Corporal punishment in Tennessee schools, 2013-14 school year 11 Exhibit 3: Tennessee school districts | Variance among board policies and 12 corporal punishment use Tennessee compared to other states 12 Exhibit 4: The United States of America | State laws on corporal punishment 13 Exhibit 5: The United States of America | Corporal punishment use by school 14 district, 2013-14 school year Section 3: Beyond local board policy | How decisions are made 14 about corporal punishment Exhibit 6: How decisions regarding the use of corporal punishment are made in 15 Tennessee schools Survey of directors of schools 16 Exhibit 7:
    [Show full text]
  • 14-436 Statement of Adult Acting in Loco Parentis (As a Parent)
    TANF/SFA FOR CHILDREN LIVING WITH UNRELATED ADULTS Statement of Adult Acting in Loco Parentis (as a Parent) Fill out this form if you are caring for a needy child you are not related to and you do not have court-ordered custody or guardianship of the child. SECTION 1. AGENCY INFORMATION (COMPLETED BY AGENCY STAFF ONLY) 1. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICE (CSO) 2. CASE MANAGER NAME 3. UNRELATED ADULT’S CLIENT ID NUMBER SECTION 2. INFORMATION ON ADULT CARING FOR THE CHILD (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) 4. LAST NAME 5. FIRST NAME 6. MIDDLE NAME 7. PHONE NUMBER (INCLUDE AREA CODE) ( ) 8. CURRENT ADDRESS (STREET, CITY, AND ZIP CODE) 9. PREVIOUS ADDRESS (STREET, CITY, AND ZIP CODE) SECTION 3. INFORMATION ON THE CHILD’S PARENTS (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) 10. NAME OF CHILD’S MOTHER 11. MOTHER’S PHONE NUMBER 12. MOTHER’S CURRENT OR LAST KNOWN ADDRESS ( ) 13. NAME OF CHILD’S FATHER 14. FATHER’S PHONE NUMBER 15. FATHER’S CURRENT OR LAST KNOWN ADDRESS ( ) SECTION 4. INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) 16. Do you have permission from the child’s parents to care for the child? Yes No If yes, is it in w riting? Yes No 17. EXPLAIN HOW THE CHILD CAME TO LIVE WITH YOU 18. How long do you expect the child to live w ith you? 19. Are you planning to seek court-ordered custody or guardianship? Yes No SECTION 5. INFORMATION ABOUT THE CARE AND CONTROL OF A CHILD "In loco parentis" means in the place of a parent or instead of a We consider you as acting in loco parentis when: parent.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Reports for Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man
    Corporal punishment of children in the United Kingdom LAST UPDATED June 2020 Also available online at www.endcorporalpunishment.org Child population 13,715,000 (UNICEF, 2015) Summary of necessary legal reform to achieve full prohibition Corporal punishment is prohibited in all settings in Scotland and Wales. Prohibition is still to be achieved in the home, some alternative care settings, day care and penal institutions in England and Northern Ireland. Legal defences for the use of corporal punishment are found in section 58 of the Children Act 2004 in England and article 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. These provisions must be explicitly repealed and prohibition enacted of all corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment, in the home and all other settings where adults have authority over children. Alternative care settings – Corporal punishment is prohibited by law in residential care institutions and in foster care arranged by local authorities and by voluntary organisations. Prohibition should now be enacted in relation to private foster care. Day care – Corporal punishment is prohibited by law in day care institutions and childminding in England, Wales and Scotland. Legislation should be adopted prohibiting corporal punishment in institutions and childminding in Northern Ireland. Schools – Corporal punishment is prohibited in all state and private schools, but it has yet to be enacted in relation to some unregistered independent settings providing part-time education. Penal institutions – While corporal punishment is regarded as unlawful, the use of force (in the guise of physical restraint) is lawful in maintaining order and discipline in secure training centres.
    [Show full text]
  • The Psychological Effects of Physical Punishment in School
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE FLESHING OUT THE VOICES: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Linda E. Sanders Norman, Oklahoma 2005 UMI Number: 3170132 Copyright 2005 by Sanders, Linda E. All rights reserved. UMI Microform 3170132 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 FLESHING OUT THE VOICES: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL A Dissertation APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND POLICY STUDIES BY ©Copyright by Linda E. Sanders 2005 All Rights Reserved In celebration of love and family, In gratitude to my husband, son, and daughter -in -law, In honor of my mother and my professors, And in memory of my father and brother. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank the five members of my doctoral Advisory Committee for the invaluable advice and the various suggestions which they offered to help guide me in the researching, organizing, and writing of my dissertation the last two years. The many sage and helpful ideas given to me by the committee at meetings and by correspondence for further readings and critical reflection on my topics were a guiding road map for searching, exploring, and discovering paths to other interpretive frameworks to inform and shape my area of research interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) FAQS for the Child Care Qualifying Reason and Return to School
    Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) FAQS for the Child Care Qualifying Reason and Return to School H.R. 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFRCA), went into effect April 1, 2020 and will apply through December 31, 2020. In addition to other applicable leave available to state employees, H.R. 6201 provides eligible employees who are unable to work or telework due to certain qualifying reasons related to COVID-19 with a period of paid leave. Division E of the FFCRA, the “Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act” (EPSLA) entitles employees to take up to two weeks of paid sick leave for certain qualifying reasons. Also, Division C of the FFCRA, the “Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act” (EFMLA) permits eligible employees to take up to twelve weeks of expanded Family and Medical Leave for certain qualifying reasons. The law provides that employers who are health care providers or emergency responders may elect to exclude their employees from these provisions. Also, employers can exclude employees who are health care providers or emergency responders from these provisions even if the employer has not excluded its entire agency from the provisions. The qualifying childcare reason is when a person unable to work or telework because they are caring for their child whose school or place of care is closed (or childcare provider is unavailable) due to COVID-19 related reasons. 1. If an employee is home with their child because their school or place of care is closed, or childcare provider is unavailable, are they entitled to paid sick leave, expanded family and medical leave, or both—how do they interact? An employee may be eligible for both types of leave, but only for a total of twelve weeks of paid leave.
    [Show full text]
  • Note to Employers: FMLA Scope Has Expanded the Department of Labor Has Issued a Broader Interpretation of the Family and Medical Leave Act
    B2BLegal Note to employers: FMLA scope has expanded The Department of Labor has issued a broader interpretation of the Family and Medical Leave Act B2BExpert 1. The age of the child. 2. The degree to which the child is dependent upon Employers must be cautious when the person claiming to be standing “in loco parentis.” determining whether to grant or deny 3. The amount of support, if any, provided. Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 4. The extent to which duties commonly associated leave, as more employees will now qualify with parenthood are exercised. for leave. On June 22, 2010, the Department The FMLA regulations define “in loco parentis” as Jeffrey of Labor (DOL), now under the direction of including “those with day-to-day responsibilities to care Mullins Secretary Hilda L. Solis, President Obama’s for and financially support a child.” The new interpreta- appointment to the secretary of labor tion changes this definition by not requiring the employ- position, issued an administrative interpretation of the ee to show both day-to-day care and financial support, definition of “son or daughter” under the FMLA, which rather, they must only show either of the two require- allows persons who have no legal or biological parent- ments. Furthermore, the interpretation does not restrict child relationship to take FMLA leave for birth, bonding, the number of parents that a child may have. If a child’s or to care for a child. This interpretation expands the scope parents divorce and remarry, or divorce and enter a of FMLA leave to allow same-sex domestic partners to same-sex domestic partnership, all four of the individu- take FMLA leave so long as the person has either day-to- als may now qualify as the parents of the son or daugh- day responsibility for caring for the child or provides ter.
    [Show full text]
  • Attitudes to Parenting Practices and Child Discipline
    Ymchwil gymdeithasol Social research Number 13/2014 Attitudes to parenting practices and child discipline 1 Attitudes to parenting practices and child discipline January 2014 School of Psychology, Early Years and Therapeutic Studies, University of South Wales: Dr Jane Prince Dr Jennifer Austin Laura Shewring Nicola Birdsey Dr Karen McInnes Dr Gareth Roderique-Davies Views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government For further information please contact: Hayley Collicott Children, Young People and Families Division Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ Tel: 029 2082 3111 Email: [email protected] Welsh Government Social Research, 2014 ISBN 978-1-4734-0926-2 © Crown Copyright 2014 1 Table of contents Executive Summary..........................................................................................3 1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 6 2. Aims and Objectives .................................................................................. 12 3. Methods ..................................................................................................... 13 4. Results ....................................................................................................... 17 5. Discussion……………………………………………………………………….27 6. Policy implications and future research …………………………………..….32 References......................................................................................................35
    [Show full text]
  • FFCRA and Paid Leave to Care for a Child
    Fact Sheet October 2020 | Job Quality Team FFCRA and Paid Leave to Care for a Child Across the country, schools and child care providers remain closed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Parents are struggling to work, maintain their families’ economic security, and care for children who would normally be in child care or attending school.i This burden is acutely felt by women, single parents, women of color, families of color—particularly Black, Latinx, and American Indian and Alaska Native families—families with low incomes, and workers with unpredictable schedules.ii Recognizing the pandemic’s effect on children and their families, Congress created a temporary right in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) to paid leave to care for a child whose school is closed or child care provider is unavailable because of COVID-19.iii This was the first time Congress required federal paid leave for private sector workers—an important initial step in ensuring workers paid low wages have access to these benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Along with other guidance and FAQs, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued a Revised Rule, interpreting the FFCRA.iv This fact sheet provides information from DOL’s Revised Rule and sub-regulatory guidance on working parents’ rights to COVID-related paid sick days and paid family leave to care for a child whose school is closed or child care provider is unavailable.v As recognized by a federal district judge, many of DOL’s interpretations of the FFCRA continue to significantly undermine the law’s purpose of providing crucial paid sick days and paid family leave to employees who need to care for themselves and others.
    [Show full text]
  • Curfew for Juveniles
    ORDO1-0809-001 ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A CURFEW FOR JUVENILES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Pine Level, North Carolina, as follows: Section 1. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to protect juveniles from victimization and exposure to criminal activity by establishing a curfew for juveniles under the age of sixteen (16) years in the town. The youth protection ordinance is intended to reinforce and promote the role of the parent in raising and guiding children, and promote the health, safety and welfare of both juveniles and adults by creating an environment offering better protection and security for all concerned. Section 2. Definitions For the purpose of this ordinance, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning: 1) Function: Any event including but not limited to activities involving the free exercise or religion, speech, assembly and activities sponsored by the town, a church, the county public schools, or other nonprofit or community organization. 2) Guardian: Any person having legal custody of a minor such as: (i) A natural or adopted parent; (ii) A legal guardian; (iii) A person who stands in loco parentis; or (iv) A person to whom legal custody has been given by the court. 3) Minor: A person who had not reached his/her sixteenth (16th) birthday and is not married, emancipated or a member of the armed services of the United States. 4) Public place: Any street, alley, highway, sidewalk, parks, playground or place to which the general public has access and a right to resort for business, entertainment or other lawful purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporal Punishment – Archaic Or Reasonable Discipline Method?
    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT – ARCHAIC OR REASONABLE DISCIPLINE METHOD? MUI KIM TEH† DEAKIN UNIVERSITY, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA The classic English case of Williams v Eady (1893) had, for over a century, supported a teacher acting in loco parentis when inflicting punishment on a child, so long as the punishment was reasonable and given in good faith. But in response to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), which calls for all to respect a child’s right not to be ‘subject to torture or to inhumane or degrading treatment’, many countries have banned the practice of using corporal punishment in schools. This might even include the use of reasonable force to prevent a student from injuring others or causing damage to property if it is seen as a form of discipline or punishment. Schools, therefore, have a difficult task of striking a balance between providing a safe environment for the whole school community and a child’s individual rights. This paper gives an overview of corporal punishment trends in the United States (US), Australia, New Zealand, England, Canada and Singapore, and then looks briefly at the jurisprudence of the courts on this issue. It then discusses the implications for employing or banning corporal punishment as a disciplinary strategy, and in particular whether corporal punishment, if carried out reasonably, could be considered a reasonable form of discipline, ensuring a safe and disciplined environment in which the school community, as a whole, might operate. I INTRODUCTION Media coverage and informal conversations with professional educators seem to suggest that student misconduct in schools is becoming an increasing concern.
    [Show full text]
  • 18 Corporal Punishment
    Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review Vol. 1, No.5; January 2012 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT – A GLOBAL TREND TOWARDS CHILD’S RIGHTS PROTECTION IN NIGERIA* Abstract The paper examined the constitutionality or otherwise of corporal punishment on Nigerian children, often imposed by adults and institutions that take care of children. It analyses and synthesizes the jurisprudence and legal frameworks that supports or does not support this sensitive global issue. The paper finds that corporal punishment is a deprivation and a gross human right violation of children to life, health, dignity and integrity. The paper also looks on how the international community view this problem and makes a case for urgent legislative reforms in Nigeria banning excessive corporal punishment on children. Introduction Article 4(1) of the African Charter on the rights and Welfare of a child1 provides that “in all actions concerning the child undertaken by any person or authority, the best interests of the child shall be primary consideration” This provision has been entrenched in our law by section 1 of the Childs ‘ Rights Act2 which says “in every action concerning a child, whether undertaken by an individual, public or private body, institutions of service, court of law, r administrative or legislative authority, the best interest of the child shall be primary consideration” A replica of the provision is also found in Article 3 (1) of the convention on the Rights of the Child3 (CRC). Bearing in mind the fact that the CRC has been ratified by almost all the member states of the United Nations organization, the “best interest of the child” principle would appear to be the norm presently, both internationally and otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutionality of School Corporal Punishment of Children As a Betrayal of Brown V
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 36 Article 9 Issue 1 Fall 2004 2004 The onsC titutionality of School Corporal Punishment of Children as a Betrayal of Brown v. Board of Education Susan H. Bitensky Michigan State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Education Law Commons Recommended Citation Susan H. Bitensky, The Constitutionality of School Corporal Punishment of Children as a Betrayal of Brown v. Board of Education, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 201 (2004). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol36/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Constitutionality of School Corporal Punishment of Children as a Betrayal of Brown v. Board of Education Susan H. Bitensky* I. INTRODUCTION American judicial history, like any institutional history, has had its shameful moments and its glorious ones, with plenty in-between. Some of the worst and best of these decisions have concerned race relations. Consider such low points for the United States Supreme Court as Dred Scott v. Sandford' and the Japanese-American restriction cases.2 The 3 former, among other things, essentially upheld slavery as constitutional while the latter upheld the constitutionality of the mass internment of and curfew imposed upon persons of Japanese ancestry who lived on the West Coast during World War I.
    [Show full text]