Again and again, the evidence returns to fairness.
Former pupils often remember the reason for a punishment more clearly than might be expected after many years.
They distinguish between punishments they accepted and those they believed unjust.
This distinction appears central to their later judgement.
Knowing the Rule
Punishment was easiest to accept when the rule was clear.
A pupil told not to run in the corridor knew that running was forbidden.
A child instructed to work silently understood that talking broke the instruction.
A pupil caught smoking could hardly claim ignorance of the rule.
Where offence and rule were both clear, contributors frequently describe the resulting punishment as effective even when they remember it as unpleasant.
Disputed Offences
The situation became more difficult when the facts were disputed.
The previously mentioned boy accused of cheating maintained that another pupil had copied from him.
Because the teachers did not believe him, punishment followed.
Years later his objection remained centred not upon the cane itself but upon the injustice of being punished for something he claimed not to have done.
This distinction matters greatly.
Had he actually cheated, he might have regarded precisely the same punishment differently.
Collective Responsibility
Collective punishment presented an even greater problem.
A whole group could be punished because one pupil refused to confess.
From the teacher’s viewpoint, collective responsibility might appear necessary to maintain authority.
From the innocent pupil’s viewpoint, it could appear arbitrary.
Interestingly, not every contributor who experienced such treatment remained resentful.
Some accepted it as part of school life.
Others did not.
The Teacher’s Temper
Fairness also depended upon consistency.
Children quickly noticed whether punishment followed an established rule or a teacher’s mood.
A teacher who punished one pupil for conduct ignored in another risked appearing unfair.
Similarly, a punishment delivered in obvious anger might be remembered differently from one administered calmly after an explanation.
The survey cannot reliably tell us what teachers were thinking.
It can tell us how their actions appeared to pupils.
That perception mattered.
Discipline Requires Legitimacy
Fear can produce obedience.
But fear and respect are not identical.
A teacher regarded as strict but fair could command considerable respect.
A teacher regarded as arbitrary might secure immediate silence while generating resentment.
This may explain why former pupils can speak approvingly of one teacher who punished them while remaining critical of another.
They were judging more than physical severity.
They were judging character.
Thus the question of corporal punishment cannot be separated from the broader question of authority.
The cane did not create authority by itself.
It depended upon the pupil believing, at least to some extent, that the person holding it possessed the right to impose discipline.
