Aloysiad 15-12 2006.indd - St Aloysius

from the principal
Discipline
In 1925 a young American was studying physics at
Cambridge University. A bad year, including a struggle
with depression and frustration with practical work in the
laboratory, culminated in an incident that threatened his
career. He gave an apple coated in noxious chemicals
to his tutor. Fortunately the apple was not eaten, but the
student was discovered. And the venerable University’s
punishment? He was placed on probation and sent to
sessions with a psychiatrist!
The New Yorker magazine leads with this story in an
article on discipline in schools today. The point of the
article is made through the fate of the American student,
who today, no doubt, would have been expelled. Back
in 1925 his teachers at Cambridge weren’t sure that the
benefits of enforcing the law, in this case, were greater
than the benefits of allowing the offender an unimpeded
future. They considered the individual circumstance, and
they acted accordingly. That student went on to change the
face of science through his work in quantum physics. We
know him as Professor Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist
entrusted with the most critical and morally charged project
in the history of science, the Manhattan project, and the
development of the A-bomb. Oppenheimer later became
one of the great thinkers about science and morality, and
was a voice against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The Oppenheimer story relates to the magazine’s critique
of zero tolerance as the answer to the challenge of discipline
in schools. It cites a US study that finds that the frequency of
targeted offences in schools soared after a zero tolerance
policy was applied. More fundamentally, the article
advocates the historical practice in education of being
able to administer discipline with discretion. The argument
is that every case is different, and that, more importantly,
every offender is different. It is an argument that resonates
with me. Often when we know a boy better, knowing
his context and reaching an understanding of the various
pressures in his life, then matters of discipline become far
less black and white. Indeed a maxim might be stated that
the better our pastoral care the more
nuanced must be our discipline
procedures. A distinction can be
drawn between acting ‘fairly’
and acting ‘justly’ in dealing
with boys in trouble. Fairly is when
everyone is treated exactly the
same, and this is the least that can
be asked of any system of discipline.
Acting justly is when you take
other significant
factors into
consideration
before acting,
and this is a
more exacting
standard.
It is fair to say that there is pressure at times from parents
and staff, and even boys, for what is termed more clear-cut
and punitive action: consequently, a more discretionary,
individual based approach is somewhat out of favour. The
New Yorker laments that “to acknowledge that the causes
of our actions are complex and muddy seems permissive,
and permissiveness is the hallmark of an ideology now
firmly in disgrace.” Unusually for a secular magazine, it
goes further with a religious analogy, “that conservative
patron saint Whittaker Chambers once defined liberalism
as Christ without the Crucifixion. But punishment without
the possibility of redemption is worse: it is the crucifixion
without Christ”. There is always a challenge in maintaining
a balance between a structured learning environment
with clear boundaries and a model of education that is
formation-based and relational in nature.
Other factors are also relevant in framing an approach
to a discipline policy. We are preparing our students for a
world in which authority generally must be earned rather
than simply given by virtue of the power or office one holds.
The Church itself has struggled to come to terms with this
mindset, and it is important that a Church institution is less,
rather than more heavy handed, in the exercise of authority.
To a certain extent we should welcome the questioning
student, while also demanding the responsibility that
comes with questioning. Jesuit schools have always had a
tradition of producing enquiring students, and some such
as Voltaire of Castro have travelled a very different road
from one we might wish for them. Nevertheless the gift
from God of an enquiring intellect is never one we should
turn our backs on.
We live in a world, moreover, where personal
responsibility plays an ever-increasing role, given that many
of the traditional structures of authority have eroded. Ideally,
the school community should model both the development
of personal responsibility and the exercise of authority in
a way that better prepares our students for the future. The
example set by adults is a more powerful force than any
other in forming the character of the young person for
today’s world. Put bluntly, the day is gone when a school
can simply ask parents to butt out and leave the business of
education to the school. The day is gone when the word
of a Head is law, and staff act accordingly. And the day
is gone when student behaviour can be modified solely by
the exercise of authority from above. The claim may be
made that parents run the school or teachers run the place
or that students run the place! And in a sense this is exactly
as it should be! Today’s education should be a work of
collaboration, as frustrating as it sometimes becomes. Yet
all of us from time to time pine for a simpler time when
things could be done be a simple authoritative command,
though I’m not sure such a time really ever existed beneath
superficial appearances.
There is a criticism that a more collaborative approach
to discipline is too soft and may represent an abdication
of authority. To my mind, however, collaboration is more
St Aloysius’ College
A Jesuit School for Boys _ Founded 1879 a l o y s i a d / p a g e 4