Ending the Tragedy of Corporal Punishment

In view of repeated incidents of students suffering injuries from corporal punishment by teachers, the Association for Human Rights Education has decided to join three parents in filing a state compensation claim against the government. Ministry of Education officials stated that the relationship between teachers and schools is one of employment, and whether state compensation laws apply when students are injured as a result of corporal punishment inflicted by teachers during instruction remains open to debate. This perspective amply demonstrates a widespread misunderstanding of the law among the general public, particularly educational professionals.

Under current laws, regarding the concept of public servants, Article 10 of the Criminal Code and Article 2 of the State Compensation Act stipulate that public servants refer to personnel engaged in public duties pursuant to laws and regulations. Because national education is a form of compulsory education, junior high and elementary school teachers engaging in counseling and disciplinary actions are personnel engaged in public duties pursuant to laws and regulations. Furthermore, actions referred to as "public servants exercising official powers while performing their duties" under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act are not limited to high-authority actions possessing coercive force; other actions taken by the state to provide benefits, services, relief, and care are also considered the exercise of official powers. Therefore, counseling and disciplinary actions taken by teachers to fulfill the state's provision of educational benefits and services, if resulting in student injury, naturally fall within the scope of the State Compensation Act.

Given that the State Compensation Act applies to teachers administering corporal punishment to students, the three cases spearheaded by human rights organizations—assuming students indeed suffered injuries due to improper corporal punishment by teachers—should have a very high likelihood of parents ultimately securing compensation or winning their lawsuits. The problem is that over the past decade or more, cases of teachers being ordered to pay compensation or even being criminally convicted due to improper corporal punishment are too numerous to recount; the Ministry of Education has also repeatedly issued strict injunctions banning teachers from inflicting corporal punishment on students. Why do incidents of improper corporal punishment by teachers repeatedly occur? Are parents being overly nitpicky? Do teachers lack democratic and rule-of-law literacy? Or is there something wrong with our regulatory system?

In fact, in a modern society governed by democracy and the rule of law, it is naturally necessary to simultaneously balance the constitutional intent of safeguarding human rights. However, for a long time, the issue of corporal punishment has not been eradicated by bans from the Ministry of Education or the authorization under the Teachers Act to formulate "Measures for Teacher Counseling and Discipline of Students," which clearly shows that our regulatory system has gone awry and failed to consider socio-cultural backgrounds.

As a former teacher, I can deeply empathize with how most teachers in the past, nurtured by the traditional notion that "a teacher for one day is a father for life," held extremely high expectations for students. Should students fail to meet required standards, resorting to whipping or cane punishment became standard practice on campus; meanwhile, some parents also believed that teachers who exercised strict discipline were responsible and dedicated good teachers. Today, with the awakening of individual self-awareness and the expansion of nuclear family structures, children have become the apple of the family's eye, and phenomena such as student-teacher confrontations and parental over-intervention in discipline have become commonplace. At this juncture, if teachers fail to perceive the changes of the times and adjust their pace to meet societal needs, it becomes the primary cause of conflicts among parents, teachers, and students.

The ambiguity of relevant regulations is an even deeper factor driving campus conflicts. Taking relevant regulations as an example, the Ministry of Education claims it has repeatedly issued injunctions banning corporal punishment, but the question is what "corporal punishment" actually means has never been clearly defined. A recent survey conducted by the human rights organization on campus corporal punishment incidents showed that out of 2.8 million domestic junior high and elementary school students this year, nearly 2 million students had experienced corporal punishment by teachers. The data seems staggering, but a closer look at the items of corporal punishment reveals that aside from bodily battery which has never been controversial, other measures—such as assigning extra coursework, restricting activities (e.g., forbidding recess), labor service, fining, or assigning specific postures to fatigue the body (e.g., standing as punishment)—whether they should be considered corporal punishment and prohibited, actually spark differing opinions across various sectors.

Particularly in our society, where the notion of "spare the rod and spoil the child" remains deeply entrenched, such punitive behaviors that still possess a certain educational effect are likely accepted by the majority of citizens. Taking the alternating squats that triggered this state compensation incident as an example, according to recent judicial practice views, as long as the principle of proportionality is observed and the actions are based on educational purposes, they are still permitted by law.

Since all sectors of society hold different definitions of corporal punishment, the best way to resolve this is to avoid using stigmatized terms like "corporal punishment" and instead establish a followable guideline for teacher counseling and student discipline. Unfortunately, past measures formulated by the Ministry of Education still lacked concrete and feasible operational standards, while the demands of human rights organizations appeared overly lofty and impractical. Consequently, dedicated teachers had no choice but to "go their own way" and continue adopting the educational method of the "master's whip." This is precisely why, seven or eight years after the implementation of these measures, parental and teacher conflicts arising from corporal punishment are still frequently heard of.

Regarding the many actions of such human rights organizations, I have always maintained a positive and affirmative attitude (including this state compensation incident) and hold deep admiration for them. However, concerning the issue of teachers counseling and disciplining students, I believe this is a policy choice regarding whether to balance ideals and reality, rather than an issue that can be sharply divided into right and wrong. Being accustomed to "premature legislation"—enacting laws with good intentions that cannot be effectively implemented—will only keep the relationship concerning the rights and obligations among parents, teachers, and students in a state of perpetual uncertainty, repeatedly placing teachers in the dilemma of whether and how to discipline students.

This state compensation incident can serve to urge educational administrative authorities at all levels to re-examine the rationality of regulations concerning teacher counseling and student discipline. The Teachers Act amended and passed in 2003, based on the spirit of respecting school-based management, directly authorized individual schools to formulate measures for teacher counseling and student discipline, prompting the Ministry of Education to repeal its previously formulated measures. However, expecting parents and teachers—who still lack a consensus on democracy and the rule of law—to formulate a set of concrete and feasible measures when central legislation failed to solve the problem is likely fraught with practical difficulties.

As the highest competent educational administrative authority, the Ministry of Education should indeed follow due legal process to establish a policy communication platform, forge a consensus among organizational representatives including county and city governments, student and parent associations, teachers' associations, and human rights organizations, and synthesize a concrete, feasible guideline that aligns with the consensus of the majority of citizens rather than the opinions of specific groups, so that all schools have something to follow and reference. This should be legally permissible and represents the expectation of the majority of citizens.

※ Published in: China Times / Forum Square