Dear Editor,
I do not know what meaning the CARICOM meeting of 23rd and 24th October adopted for the phrase “violence in school.” Does violence in school refer strictly to violence by students within the boundaries of the school compound? Or does “violence in school” refer to all violent acts that school-attending children are involved in, during the school week and during the hours immediately before school commences and those immediately following the end of the school day?
If we apply the latter definition for school violence, then we must admit school violence has always been with us. I don’t know if things have changed, but those of us who attended school during the 50s, 60s and 70s know that Friday afternoon was ‘fight time.’
Generally, little attention was paid to the socially unacceptable behaviours of schoolchildren, since these were considered a normal part of growing-up and because they were relatively harmless – example, acts such as truancy and vandalism. Today, however, the violence takes the form of attacks on teachers and fellow students with dangerous weapons. When children direct their violent attacks at adults (teachers), such acts alarm and grab our attention.
It is this increase of violent attacks on their peers and teachers in schools that I suspect has forced CARICOM to act, and hence the recent two-day meeting was organized to coordinate a response. But even as I congratulate CARICOM for this initiative, there are some issues growing out of this understanding that I hope gained their attention.
First, violence at school cannot be effectively dealt with without recognizing that in as much as it is a problem, it is also the symptom of a problem. Therefore, any intervention that merely pays attention exclusively to what can be done within the confines of the school, will at best only offer temporary relief. School violence can only be dealt with comprehensively, by addressing the conditions that birth aggressive tendencies, which in turn give rise to this resort to violence. Those conditions exist beyond the school environment.
Second, it is important to note that while we tend to focus on the violence of boys, girls are just as inclined to violent acts. Violence by boys tend to threaten the physical well-being of others. Girls attack usually with their tongue, which some might consider more ‘cutting.’ However, since no physical damage results from such violence, it is by comparison overlooked. Thus, it is violence by boys that is reported to both school teachers and the police, and explains why their wrongdoings are over-represented in official records.
Third, generally speaking, a significant number of criminologists tend to consider the home as the primary contributing institution for nurturing violent children. Poor homes in which fathers are absent or if present, do not fulfill their role as positive role models for their sons, are breeding grounds for producing boys inclined to violence.
A casual perusal of the background of criminals will reflect that a significant amount of them come from homes in which fathers were absent – “Skinny,” “Fine man” “Jimmy Dog” etc, all from female-headed homes. Indeed, this negative effect of the absence of a father or father figure, is universally accepted. So much so, that Kaieteur News of the 25th October 2019, under caption `Killers of South Road grannies to serve life in prison,’ tells us that counsel for the killers sought to engender sympathy for his clients by informing the court that both men “grew-up without the presence of fathers.” Mothers just can’t teach boys how to be men. It was never intended that they should.
Fourth, middle class and upper class homes also give us children inclined to act violently. Children from middle class homes tend to have excessively indulgent parents. This tendency gives rise, in their children, to a sense of privilege and a right to have their way. At school they encounter rules that restrict their freedom and strict teachers determined to ensure such rules are obeyed. So, for the first time in their lives they cannot do as they please. Faced with this new and unknown world of rules, they are inclined to resort to threats and violence. Perhaps this might at least partly explain the incident at Nations Secondary School involving Dr. O’Toole.
Fifth, even homes in which violence is absent, where fathers and mothers do not beat up on each other, and do not tolerate older children beating up on a smaller brothers or sisters, produce violent children.
Such children learn from this prohibition that violence is wrong at home and so they refrain from such acts. Away from home and their parents, in their mind no prohibition on violence exists.
This in part explains why we so often hear parents and neighbours express shock when they hear of the violent behaviour of certain children they thought they knew, based upon the child’s exemplary behaviour at home or in the neighborhood.
Sixth, the truth is that violence is not all together a bad thing. It is as natural to man as most other tendencies. Indeed, even in our primitive days our survival depended on our willingness to be violent. Our challenge as a society is how to effectively convey the need of restraint to our children? How do we give them violent defensive skills without them feeling a need to display these skills?
These are some of the considerations that I hope were acknowledged and discussed at the CARICOM meeting, and I feel confident that at least some would have been. CARICOM has within its ranks some of the better minds in the region. Further, if needed, it has access to many knowledgeable brothers and sisters who would be willing to be of assistance. I am confident that the meeting of 23rd and 24th October 2019 will not be CARICOM’s last on this matter.
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
