‘Obnoxious teacher’ hit SLO student with horsewhip in 1870s. What happened next?
Hopefully, we can all agree hitting kids with a horsewhip is bad.
That didn’t keep a 19th century writer for The Tribune from considering it as a form of discipline for unruly students.
Oscar Thornton pondered the benefits of corporal punishment while writing about a 1876 incident that “occasioned a great deal of talk in the community”: a teacher at a San Luis Obispo school giving a boy a “severe thrashing.”
The educator’s actions likely would result in jail time today.
Thornton’s story careens from a fact-based news article to an opinion-based editorial, with the author blaming the school board, teacher, students and parents for forcing the teacher to resign.
It touches on school budgets, staff, class size and rules — issues that schools still struggle with.
The horsewhip incident was clearly a hot topic of conversation. Thornton’s unusually long story took up a column and a half on the front page — making it about six times longer than another article in the same issue about a shooting that wounded a boy in town.
The three owners of the weekly San Luis Obispo Tribune at the time had a combined zero hours of parenting experience.
Jacob Tuley and William Waters each would not be married for several months. The primary writer and editor of that time, Oscar Thornton, never married or had children.
The following story ran on July 26, 1879:
School Troubles.
A Boy Gets Thrashed and a Teacher Resigns.
An unpleasantness occurred at the Court School, in this city, on Tuesday last, which has occasioned a great deal of talk in the community, and which is likely to result in a great deal of permanent injury to public schools of the city. The affair is the outgrowth of the unwise action of the Board of Trustees in breaking up the efficient corps of teachers who were employed last year, and disarranging the classes by reducing the number of teachers. The present trouble was precipitated by the transferring of Mr. Burks from the Nipomo street school to Court school. Some of the pupils came to the conclusion that Mr. Burks should not be allowed to teach. Before resorting to open rebellion, however, these embryo presidents, congressmen and supervisors, in imitation of their forefathers, sought to effect their object by petition. To this end one of the large boys prepared a petition setting forth
THE STORY OF THEIR WRONGS
And praying that the obnoxious teacher might be removed. This paper was circulated among the pupils and received several signatures. Among those to whom it was presented was the son of Mr. Burks, a lad twelve or thirteen years of age. Not knowing the contents of the paper the child was about to sign it when a school-mate informed him of its nature and object. The little fellow was naturally indignant, and he attempted to scratch out the names already signed. A much larger boy who was engineering the disgraceful proceedings, grabbed the Burks boy by the coat collar and slung him several feet. At the same time Fred Buster also a larger boy went towards the Burks boy in a menacing manner. The latter backed away apparently endeavoring to avoid a difficulty. Young Buster followed him up and he then turned and ran into the hallway of the school-house where the boys clinched and struggled until Mr. Burks, who was in his room just off the hall, came out and separated them. He took the boys into his room and examined them in regard to the transaction. During the investigation, Mr. Burks says the Buster boy used very profane language, claiming that the teacher had no right to punish him as he did not belong in Burks’ room. Convinced that he deserved chastisement Mr. Burks took a horse-whip and gave the boy a severe thrashing. The youngster’s back was
MARKED WITH SEVERAL STRIPES,
Some of which are still visible it is said. The whipping created a great deal of excitement among the pupils and as soon as school was out the news spread about town like wildfire; all sorts of stories were afloat, distorted and twisted as were the real facts, by the hundred of little busy tongues each anxious to make the scene as thrilling and interesting as possible. On Wednesday the trustees held an informal investigation and after hearing Mr. Burks’ version of the affair decided to uphold the teacher. The following morning it was reported that legal proceedings were to be instituted by young Buster’s parents. On Thursday morning at recess Mr. Burkes tendered his resignation and left his class which was subsequently dismissed for the week. Mr. Burks states that he found his class so demoralized that rather than to go through what he knew he would be compelled to during the next few days he preferred to resign. It is due to the boy to state that he denies using the language attributed to him. It is plain to be seen that the mutiny is the result of the wide spread dissatisfaction at the changes made in the teachers. Mr. Burks was laboring under the disadvantage of having pupils who were in two different rooms last term and who seemed to think they ought to have been consulted before any change was made. There is no doubt that the discontent was not, to say the least, sought to be allayed by
HOME INFLUENCE.
Any other teacher would have had to face the same current of opposition that assailed Mr. Burkes. There are reports about that the Buster boy is a bad one. We have made inquiries but can learn nothing particularly out of the way with him. Mr. Stringfield says that during the first few days of school he caught this lad breaking windows out of a house adjoining the school-house, for which he reprimanded him; but he knows of nothing else against the boy. In regard to the act of whipping Buster, the TRIBUNE is inclined to the belief that Mr. Burks in the first instance overstepped his authority in chastising the boy even if he deserved it; and that he punished the boy with undue severity. He admits that he applied the rod harder than he intended, He should have turned the boys over to Mr. Stringfield, the principal, and laid
A FORMAL COMPLAINT
Against the petitioners for his removal. It is one of the unfortunate circumstances that the teacher’s boy was the aggrieved party. Mr Burks should have known that he would have been accused of bias in forming his opinion of the guilt against the Buster boy. His excitement must have momentarily upset his good judgment. So far as the marks are concerned it does not require a very heavy blow to leave a black and blue stripes on a boy’s back, and these marks are no indications that the boy is materially injured. Any parent who has had occasion to use the rod upon his offspring is aware that a slight blow will leave a mark. The teacher ought not to have resigned, and the Board should have stood by hem and supported him with its influence. The youngsters who signed the petition for the removal of Mr. Burks ought to have been severely reprimanded in the presence of the entire school, and the one who prepared the insulting document should have been
PROMPTLY EXPELLED.
Then discipline would have been maintained and the teacher’s authority respected. As it is a spirit of insubordination has been fostered, from which fresh troubles are bound to ensue. The authority of the teacher during the time in which the child is entrusted to his care should be supreme. No interference on the part of parents should be for an instant tolerated, It is rarely indeed that teachers abuse their power. Them must of necessity be dictatorial, and it is natural that the pupils should consider as tyrannical the restraints which are placed about them. If parents cannot bear to have their children subjected to this discipline they have the American privilege of taking their pets out of school. We will stand by the teacher every time, so long as he does not resort to brutality.
The trustees propose now to employ two teachers in place of Mr. Burks. Another instance of locking the stable after the horse has been stolen. The appointment will probably be made today and school resume on Monday next.
