COMPLAINT THAT PREFECT CANED BOY TO BE PROBED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22890, 9 March 1949, Page 9

COMPLAINT THAT PREFECT CANED BOY TO BE PROBED

(P.A.) NELSON, Mar. 9. A complaint, that when a boy at Nelson College refused to carry out a fatigue imposed on him by the head prefect because he walked on a forbidden area of grass, the boy was seized by the prefect and two others and carri e<i, to a room, where lie was caned, was made at a meeting of the college Council of Governors.

Mr. T. Houlker, a member of the council, stated that he had been informed that the boy had been told to clean out a drain as a punishment for having walked on grass where he should not have walked.

Trades Council’s Attitude

The lad refused the fatigue and the head prefect and two others waited for two or three days when they seized the boy, carried him into the college and caned him, the caning leaving weals that were apparent when he arrived home.

The Trades Council which he represented, Mr. Houlker said, had discussed the question of caning by prefects several times and its opinion was that it was very much against such punishments, believing that punishment for such offences should be a question for the headmaster to decide. The chairman, Mr. C. R. Fell, said he was in favour of having a report on the case. He thought there was a rule as to the limit to the number of strokes the head prefect could give and the boy to be punished had the right to say whether he would take it from the prefect or from the headmaster.

Canings Should be Wiped Out

Mr. D. F. Horlor thought it might be better if such catlings were wiped out altogether. Discipline must be maintained, but it was not necessary that the head boy should cane a lad. If punishment by cane was indicated, the head boy should report the case to the headmaster. It was not the wish to allow head boys to have such power. Some excellent head boys in the past had been severely criticised for these canings. Matters of punishment should be referred to a mature mind. The chairman said that within strict limits caning was a good thing. Caning in the case under discussion was, he pointed out, for defying a rule when told to observe it. Reasonable’punishment was due but there were aspects that had to be considered.

The meeting decided to ask the principal for a report,