The controversy becomes more complicated when considered alongside the history of corporal punishment in American schools.
In some parts of the United States, the paddle remained an accepted instrument of school discipline long after similar practices had disappeared elsewhere. In other states and districts, corporal punishment had already been prohibited.
This creates an obvious difficulty with so-called birthday spankings.
If physical punishment has been abolished, why should something resembling it be reintroduced as entertainment?
And where corporal punishment remains permitted, an equally troublesome question arises: how is a child expected to understand that an action represents punishment on Monday but harmless amusement on Friday?
Children, particularly younger ones, do not necessarily make the same distinctions between motive and action that adults do.
A school therefore has good reason to make its rules unmistakably clear.
If striking a pupil is forbidden, it is difficult to understand why an exception should be made simply because somebody has a birthday.
If a paddle is regarded as an official instrument of correction, using the same or a similar object jokingly during a celebration risks making nonsense of the disciplinary system.
There is a broader matter at stake.
Teachers inevitably exercise considerable authority. Even the most friendly teacher remains responsible for maintaining order, assessing work and enforcing school rules.
For that reason, excessive familiarity between teacher and pupil can create difficulties.
The best teachers have always been capable of warmth, humour and kindness without forgetting that they are adults occupying a professional position.
A school is not an extended family, however much its prospectus may occasionally suggest otherwise.
Nor can the standards governing teachers simply be compared with those applying to parents.
Parents may permit all manner of harmless family customs which would be quite inappropriate if introduced by a teacher.
Public education carries public accountability.
A teacher cannot merely say, “It was only a joke,” if the joke places a pupil in an uncomfortable position.
This is particularly true where participation may be influenced by the presence of classmates. A youngster may laugh along because refusing would be embarrassing. He or she may fear appearing humourless, cowardly or different.
That is not necessarily genuine consent.
The distinction between willing participation and reluctant compliance is easily overlooked when a roomful of people are laughing.
The principal at the centre of the controversy therefore appears to have committed a fundamental error.
He confused informality with equality.
A principal and pupil are not equals within the school setting. The principal possesses institutional authority; the pupil does not.
For that reason, the adult carries the greater responsibility for establishing sensible boundaries.
A good school tradition should leave a pupil with a pleasant memory.
It should never leave him wondering whether he was actually allowed to say no.
