The Constitutional Court upholds the ban against corporal punishment
THERE’S no more getting around it: corporal punishment has no more place in our schools, and educators are going to have to get serious about finding alternatives. This follows the Constitutional Court’s dismissal of an appeal by Christian Education of South Africa (Cesa) to have corporal punishment reintroduced as a disciplinary alternative in schools. Representing close on 200 independent schools, Cesa lodged its appeal with the Constitutional Court when its case was rejected by the Eastern Cape High Court in May this year.
Cesa’s case was based on the argument that ”the prohibition [on corporal punishment] interferes with the right to religious freedom”. Verses in the Bible which make statements such as ”He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him, chaseneth him betimes”, are the basis for their argument that it is a religious right of Christian parents to use corporal punishment in raising their children. Since the parents have delegated the authority over their children to teachers while at school, it follows that corporal punishment should be permitted.
Deputy director of Cesa, Graham Yoko, says the organisation is ”appalled” by the decision: ”Discipline in schools has already declined (and will continue to do so) as a result of the ‘rod of correction’ being withdrawn. The question we must ask ourselves is, ‘What kind of South Africa can our children look forward to in the future, if our Biblical values continue to be eroded away in the name of ‘democracy’?”
Yoko goes on to imply that the court ruling should not deter Christian parents from using the ”rod” to raise their children: ”The final decision on the discipline of one’s children does not rest with the courts, but with the parents. We trust that parents will insist on exercising their right to raise their children in a Godly manner”, says Yoko.
However, this argument is strongly contested by the Minister of Education’s representative Bheki Khumalo. Saying that the department of education is ”relieved” at the Constitutional Court’s decision, Khumalo says, ”It has vindicated our position that we’re a Constitutional democracy.”
However, Khumalo does recognise that discipline is a widespread problem. In some cases, the problem is so drastic that it’s not simply getting learners to do their homework and concentrate in class; it’s a matter of restraining students from being physically abusive. ”Clearly some teachers are terrified in this country. They fear their own pupils”, concedes Khumalo. However, Khumalo believes that ”whipping children doesn’t help anything educational”, and that meeting violence with violence just perpetuates a destructive cycle.
The burning issue of alternatives to the cane is at last receiving attention from education authorities, and ”a workable document has been produced and circulated in the provinces”, says Khumalo. ”It is not an academic exercise — the document gives really practical examples to deal with real issues in schools”, he adds. The document should become available to schools towards the end of the month, says Khumalo.
The court ruling may also see increasing numbers of teachers who still resort to the cane facing disciplinary action: ”If they break the law and are caught, action will be taken against them. Parents can also lay a charge of assault”, warns Khumalo. He cites the example of a KwaZulu-Natal teacher who was recently fined R2 000 or faced six months in jail for administering corporal punishment in schools. See page 4 for more on schools’ approaches to discipline.
— The Teacher/Mail & Guardian, September 5, 2000.
M&G Supplements