Because I am interested, and because I have time, I read or at least scanned the exchange. When I got to the bottom, I saw a potential source of the conflict, Christian, in your address. Where did Person A come from? Different, even only slightly different cultures and assumptions can bring people to talk past one another. Everyone involved is interested in the role of discipline in the raising of young people but that may mean we are going to have a hard time discussing the subject. Education is discipline and it also is understanding the person being educated.
In a Minnesota high school 60 years ago, the new German teacher was an Austrian exchange. In the first few days, it became clear that some of the young jerks, I mean students, were going to test him. One, named Mark, spoiled son of the local undertaker, went out of his way to create disturbance. On the third day, this big Austrian football player carefully positioned himself behind Mark. He held a hardback textbook in his hand and at the first indication Mark was going to act up, the teacher struck him on the back of the head with the textbook. And I mean he struck, hard. The gasp from other students was audible and Mark was clearly stunned, both physically and mentally. The teacher had broken the rules Mark thought were in force. New rules in force based on different assumptions.
I've never forgotten the incident because Mark, in addition to other things, was a guy who bullied me at a time when I was more vulnerable to bullying than I am now. Herr Professor had a mean streak, no question, but many of us in the room secretly applauded the comeuppance he administered. I doubt Mark ever forgot it, either. The incident did have an effect, though I don't know whether that effect was long lasting.
So that's an anecdote, not conclusive but instructive. Maybe both you and Person A are right in your own ways. I do believe that some people in general remember life as anecdotes and others build theories. Make allowance for both processes, I say. And thanks for sharing.
I agree that education is a discipline, and part my point was that context really matter which is why I was trying to at least have some working definitions of terms.
Yes, this is the kind of example that I was seeking. I have no doubt that Mark toed the line. My worry is about what this teaches Mark, the other students, and the school. It seems to suggest that it encourages people to become stronger so they can enact whatever kind of rules they wish upon the weak. It seems to suggest that might is right. It also seems to celebrate revenge -- and teach that one should become strong and powerful so one can act on that revenge. On the other hand it may get compliance, and sometimes playing the part helps be the part. Did Mark learn to abuse his strength in future interactions to get compliance from employees, others?
I totally agree that the zeitgeist moves on and that some kinds of discipline which are now seen as abusive were not only frequent, but expected. Those children grew up mostly ok, which shows that system is not entirely bad. I suspect likewise most children today will grow ok. There is plenty about current approaches that bothers me. I worked at a school were kids had unlimited retakes during exams (under the idea of it does not matter when someone learns something). Of course this was abused, kids came to the first exam expecting to do the retake, so not as prepared.
I definitely agree that experience and theory and analysis have a role.
I think Person A and I actually likely agree on a whole bunch. I was just disappointed in the exchange (which also includes me).
Short-form reply: Mark did get physically abused, and I don't know if it changed him at all. He was already formed in many privileged regards at 16. I am not entirely happy with my own appreciation of his pain but I did take it as a sign there were limits in the classroom. Might making right? Always a hard question but I believe that as a default position, might wins a great many battles, both for ill and for good. The meek may inherit the earth but they will probably have to wait a very long time. My best line of the week: Education is a combination of discipline and understanding. So thanks for the discussion.
I do think this can have some value, and on rare occasions, one needs to use physical force to help prevent something. I agree that might often wins out, but this may be in part a reflection of how we have built things. I hope we can do better. As I said, I am not really sure, what lessons one draws from such an event but I can see them being either that there are limits, or that power, strength, and so forth allow you to enact revenge. It is difficult and complex.
Thanks for sharing this! Person A does not seem to have read my article at all. He complains that I am advocating for restorative justice, a term that I do not use a single time in the article. Also, my argument does not imply that it is inappropriate to discipline children at schools, as Person A seems to think it does. I discuss two justifications for discipline policies, the quarantine principle and deterrence. My argument is just that retribution is not an appropriate basis for discipline policies, not that discipline itself is illegitimate. It's a really interesting example of how readers project their own concerns onto a piece of writing and totally ignore what it's actually saying.
Because I am interested, and because I have time, I read or at least scanned the exchange. When I got to the bottom, I saw a potential source of the conflict, Christian, in your address. Where did Person A come from? Different, even only slightly different cultures and assumptions can bring people to talk past one another. Everyone involved is interested in the role of discipline in the raising of young people but that may mean we are going to have a hard time discussing the subject. Education is discipline and it also is understanding the person being educated.
In a Minnesota high school 60 years ago, the new German teacher was an Austrian exchange. In the first few days, it became clear that some of the young jerks, I mean students, were going to test him. One, named Mark, spoiled son of the local undertaker, went out of his way to create disturbance. On the third day, this big Austrian football player carefully positioned himself behind Mark. He held a hardback textbook in his hand and at the first indication Mark was going to act up, the teacher struck him on the back of the head with the textbook. And I mean he struck, hard. The gasp from other students was audible and Mark was clearly stunned, both physically and mentally. The teacher had broken the rules Mark thought were in force. New rules in force based on different assumptions.
I've never forgotten the incident because Mark, in addition to other things, was a guy who bullied me at a time when I was more vulnerable to bullying than I am now. Herr Professor had a mean streak, no question, but many of us in the room secretly applauded the comeuppance he administered. I doubt Mark ever forgot it, either. The incident did have an effect, though I don't know whether that effect was long lasting.
So that's an anecdote, not conclusive but instructive. Maybe both you and Person A are right in your own ways. I do believe that some people in general remember life as anecdotes and others build theories. Make allowance for both processes, I say. And thanks for sharing.
Hi Evan,
I agree that education is a discipline, and part my point was that context really matter which is why I was trying to at least have some working definitions of terms.
Yes, this is the kind of example that I was seeking. I have no doubt that Mark toed the line. My worry is about what this teaches Mark, the other students, and the school. It seems to suggest that it encourages people to become stronger so they can enact whatever kind of rules they wish upon the weak. It seems to suggest that might is right. It also seems to celebrate revenge -- and teach that one should become strong and powerful so one can act on that revenge. On the other hand it may get compliance, and sometimes playing the part helps be the part. Did Mark learn to abuse his strength in future interactions to get compliance from employees, others?
I totally agree that the zeitgeist moves on and that some kinds of discipline which are now seen as abusive were not only frequent, but expected. Those children grew up mostly ok, which shows that system is not entirely bad. I suspect likewise most children today will grow ok. There is plenty about current approaches that bothers me. I worked at a school were kids had unlimited retakes during exams (under the idea of it does not matter when someone learns something). Of course this was abused, kids came to the first exam expecting to do the retake, so not as prepared.
I definitely agree that experience and theory and analysis have a role.
I think Person A and I actually likely agree on a whole bunch. I was just disappointed in the exchange (which also includes me).
I am terribly sorry you were bullied.
Short-form reply: Mark did get physically abused, and I don't know if it changed him at all. He was already formed in many privileged regards at 16. I am not entirely happy with my own appreciation of his pain but I did take it as a sign there were limits in the classroom. Might making right? Always a hard question but I believe that as a default position, might wins a great many battles, both for ill and for good. The meek may inherit the earth but they will probably have to wait a very long time. My best line of the week: Education is a combination of discipline and understanding. So thanks for the discussion.
I do think this can have some value, and on rare occasions, one needs to use physical force to help prevent something. I agree that might often wins out, but this may be in part a reflection of how we have built things. I hope we can do better. As I said, I am not really sure, what lessons one draws from such an event but I can see them being either that there are limits, or that power, strength, and so forth allow you to enact revenge. It is difficult and complex.
Thank you for the chat, I found it valuable.
Thanks for sharing this! Person A does not seem to have read my article at all. He complains that I am advocating for restorative justice, a term that I do not use a single time in the article. Also, my argument does not imply that it is inappropriate to discipline children at schools, as Person A seems to think it does. I discuss two justifications for discipline policies, the quarantine principle and deterrence. My argument is just that retribution is not an appropriate basis for discipline policies, not that discipline itself is illegitimate. It's a really interesting example of how readers project their own concerns onto a piece of writing and totally ignore what it's actually saying.
Agree, sorry to tag you if it was a bother.
I merely wanted to provide context.
I also think I should maybe have started by going back to your article rather than engage in a tangential conversation.
No bother at all! I'm thrilled that my work is being read and discussed.