Name (Registered users only):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>Liam's story reminded me of this news story from 1981, >where a school Principal videotaped about 25 boys >being caned as part of an experiment. > >You can read about in on Corpun.com > >October 1981: >https://www.corpun.com/nzsc8110.htm > >November 1981: >https://www.corpun.com/nzsc8111.htm > >I asked AI to summarise it: > >These two pages from the Corpun (Corporal Punishment) >Archive document a controversial event at Rongotai >College in Wellington, New Zealand, in October and >November 1981. The incident involved the school's >principal, Noel Mackay, and his "scientific" >investigation into caning. > >​ >​The "Rongotai Video-Caning" Incident (1981) > >​1. The Experiment >The principal, Noel Mackay (a former aeronautical >engineer), videotaped the caning of approximately 25 >to 30 boys. His stated goal was "research": he wanted >to use slow-motion playback to understand why teachers >often "missed the target," leaving marks on the boys' >lower buttocks or legs instead of the intended area. >He used his engineering background to theorize about >"cane flutter" and aerodynamic forces. > >​2. The Controversy >​Privacy and Ethics: While the principal claimed the >boys consented, the school board was not informed >beforehand. When the story broke, it sparked a >national debate. Anti-violence groups, such as CAVE >(Campaign Against Violence in Education), called the >experiment "creepy" and "obscene." >​Community Reaction: The school community was deeply >divided. Many parents and over 600 students signed >petitions supporting the principal, giving him a >standing ovation at assembly. However, other parents >condemned the act as a violation of students' rights >and a "misuse of power." > >​3. The Inquiry and Outcome >​The Investigation: A board subcommittee >investigated the incident in November 1981. They >interviewed the boys involved but kept the proceedings >private. > >​The Verdict: The board ultimately cleared Mr. >Mackay, ruling that he had acted within his authority >as principal. They rejected his offer of resignation >and expressed continued confidence in his leadership. > >​Destruction of Evidence: To close the matter, the >board ordered the videotapes and nearly all copies of >the investigation report to be destroyed (shredded for >compost). >​Historical Context for the Assignment > >​Legal Status: At the time (1981), corporal >punishment was still legal and common in New Zealand >schools. It was not officially abolished until the >Education Amendment Act 1990. >​ >The "Cane Flutter" Debate: Interestingly, the pages >include "Letters to the Editor" where people used >pseudo-scientific language (discussing "vortex >shedding" and "ailerons") to debate the mechanics of >the cane, reflecting how normalized the practice was >in some circles at the time. > >​Significance: This case is often cited in New >Zealand educational history as a turning point that >fueled the movement to ban physical punishment, >highlighting the shift from seeing it as a "standard >discipline" to a potential abuse of authority.
Choose Message Icon: None :-) Happy ;-) Wink :-D Joy :} Smirk <:-} Innocent ☮ Peace >:) Mischief B-) Shades <3 Heart |O Yawn <:P Sick >:-( Angry :~( Sad ? Question *!* Alert Thumbs Up Thumbs Down (!) Idea [Info] Info Oo. Talk [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.