# Appendix — Ingraham v. Wright

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0213%3A02

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1977
- **Citation:** 430 U.S. 651

## Text

a aa |
FILE D

SEP 24 1976

CORRECTED copy

MICHAEL ROBAK, JR_CLERK

APPENDIX

4)

In the Supreme Court of the United Sta

Ocroser TERM, 1976

No. 75-6527

JaMEs INGRAHAM, BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ELOISE
INGRAHAM, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
WIILIIE J. WNI ox, I. ET AL., RESPONDENTS

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED APRIL 6, 1976
CERTIORARI GRANTED MAY 24, 1976

INDEX

DEED . ccqncgpccentetmicnisesaquatednccesendue
Order defining olass- F

14 Photograph of paddles—

eee
Original panel decision of Court of Appeals for the Fifth
1 ——— cammumnmebaeienisnmntian
En banc decision by Court of Appeals for the Fifth
G TTT
Order for the Supreme Court of the United States grant-
ing motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
granting petition for writ of certiorar
(I)

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
RELEVANT Docket ENTRIES

Date
1971 peo
Jan. 7 Complaint
Feb. 8 Answer
July 15 Motion to determine class :
Aug. 10 Denial of motion to determine class, without
prejudice to later move to. alter this
determination
1972
May 16 Order defining class
Oct. 16 Non-jury trial commenced ;
17 Non-jury trial resumed and continued
18 Non-jury trial resumed
1973

Feb. 23 Order of dismissal
Mar. 13 Notice of appeal

(TI)

In the United States District Court in and for the Southern
District of Florida

(Case No. 71-23)

Exvorse IN AMAM As Next FIND AND MornHer or JAMES
INGRAHAM, A Minor, AND WILLIE Everett as Next Frrenp
AND FaTuer oF Rooseveirt ANDREWS, A MINOR, ON BEHALF
OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OrHers SIMILARLY SITUATED.
PLAINTIFFS

vs.

Witum J. Wricut, I, InprvipvaLty AND As PRINCIPAL or
CRHARLAS R. Drew Junior Hic School, LMM Dexirorp,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL FOR ADMINIS-
TRATION AT CHARLES R. Drew Junior Hin School, Sor o-
MON BARNES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSISTANT TO THE PRIN-
CIPAL OF CHARLES R. Drew Junior Hrn ScRHOOL, Epwarp L.
WHIGHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE
Dan County School, System AND THE DA County
ScHoo. BoarD, DEFENDANTS

Complaint

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This action arises under the First,
Fourth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1988. The
matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000 exclusive of
interest and costs, and the action seeks damages and both in-
junctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-
1988 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, respectively.

2. Plaintiff, JAMES INGRAHAM, Jr., is a fourteen year old
eighth grade student at Charles H. Drew Junior High School
located in Miami, Dade County, Florida.

3. Plaintiff, ROOSEVELT ANDREWS, is a fifteen year old
ninth grade student at Charles R. Drew Junior High School.

(1)

2

4. Defendant, WILLIE J. WRIGHT, I, is the Principal of
Charles R. Drew Junior High School having commenced his
principalship during the September 1970 school term.

5, Defendant, LEMMIE DELIFORD, is Assistant Principal
for Administration at Charles R. Drew Junior High School.

6. Defendant, SOLOMON BARNES , is Assistant to the Prin-
cipal of Charles R. Drew Junior High School.

7. Defendant, DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, is a body
corporate charged with responsibility of establishing, organizing
and operating the Dade County school system. Pursuant to FS.
88 231.09(3), 232.25, 232.26 and 232.27, defendant, the DADE
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, promulgated its policy No. 5144
(attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A) relating
to the use of corporal punishment as a means of behavioral con-
trol in the public schools of Dade County, Florida.

8. Defendant, EDWARD L. WHIGHAM, is the Superin-
tendent and highest administrative officer in the Dede County
school system.

9. In September 1970, or shortly prior thereto, defendants,
WRIGHT, DELIFORD, BARNES, and, upon information and
belief, WHIGHAM (and/or the latter’s agents, servants or em-
ployees) conspired to initiate and did initiate a harsh, arbitrary,
inflexible and brutal corporal punishment policy calculated to
create an atmosphere of dread, fear and anxiety at Charles R.
Drew Junior High School for the ostensible purpose of main-
taining discipline and order.

10. Pursuant to the tactics of terror conceived in September
1970, defendants, WRIGHT, DELIFORD and BARNES,
have engaged in. a pattern und practice of indiscriminate
threats, assaults and beatings upon students at Charles R.
Drew Junior High School. These punitive measures are often
and regularly administered:

a. For the least infraction or appearance of wrong doing
without any prior proceeding to determine whether or
not the student has in fact engaged in wrongful conduct
or whether there were any mitigating factors which should
be taken into account before administering punishment;
i.e., without any semblance of procedural due process of
law.

b. Without first seeking other means of regulating or
controlling the behavior of the alleged wrong doer.

5 Without —— conferring with the victim’s teacher or
other persons who may have had personal knowl
the alleged wrongful behavior. 2
d. In surroundings calculated to embarrass, demean
and degrade the victim, e. g., the boys bathroom, the school
hallways.
e. In the presence of other students, calculated to em-
barrass the victim and hold him up to shame and ridicule
6. whee herd
With a wooden instrument calculated to
9 . tea
g. Without the personal prior knowledge and approv
of defendant WRIGHT, but pursuant to 42
gated by him to defendants, BARNES and DELIFORD.
h. By parading through the hallways and classrooms
while classes are in session, carrying a large wooden
weapon in a threatening manner.
i. Without adult witnesses present other than the per-
son administering the punishment.
j. With vindictiveness. -
11. Upon information and belief, the defendant WHIGHA
and/or his agents and employees in the administrative hier-
archy of the Dade County school system have knowingly lent

their tacit or explicit support and approval to the methods of
discipline and behavioral control described herein.

Frrst Cause or ACTION

12. On or about October 6, 1970, at Charles R. Drew Junior
High School, defendants, WRIGHT, DELIFORD and
BARNES, carpe —— of state law, conspired to administer
an unprovoked and unjustified beating and in-
tiff INGRAHAM. e

13. On or about October 6, 1970, at Charles R. Drew Junior
High School, the aforesaid defendants, WRIGHT, DELI-
FORD and BARNES, while holding plaintiff in an embarrass-
ing and immoble position, did there and then strike him
repeatedly and violently with a wooden instrument.

14. When plaintiff INGRAHAM thereafter attempted to
leave Charles R. Drew Junior High School to minister to his

4

wounds defendant WRIGHT threatened him with further
physical injury to be administered to plaintiff INGRAHAM’s
head.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the beating adminis-
tered to him, plaintiff INGRAHAM was injured in and about
his body, suffered pain and emotional upset, embarrassment
and anxiety therefrom, incurred medical expenses and treat-
ment of such injuries, suffered physical handicap to the extent
that his normal abilities as a youth and student were impaired ;
said injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature,
and plaintiff INGRAHAM will suffer such losses and impair-
ment in the future.

Seconp Cause or ACTION

16. On or about October 1, 1970, plaintiff ROOSEVELT
ANDREWS was among approximately fifteen students each
of whom was beaten in the presence of the others by defendant
BARNES with a wooden instrument in the boys bathroom of
Charles R. Drew Junior High School. No adult witnesses were
present during the beatings which were severe enough to cause
virtually all of the victims to cry out in pain. Plaintiff AN-
DREWS was struck by defendant BARNES on the back, legs,
buttocks and arms. The blows were administered with such
force as to propel plaintiff ANDREWS forward, causing him
to strike the bridge of his nose on a protruding bathroom fix-
ture. The beating received by plaintiff ANDREWS was unpro-
voked and unjustified, and was administered without the prior
knowledge or approval of the defendant WRIGHT.

17. Subsequent to the beating on October 1, 1970 and prior
to October 20, 1970, plaintiff ANDREWS’ father and next
friend, WILLIE EVERETT, informed defendant DELIFORD
that he did not approve of the corporal punishment method of
discipline as administered by school officials to his son and that
such officials should thereafter refrain from assaulting, beating
or otherwise physically injuring plaintiff ANDREWS.

18. On or about October 20, 1970, despite WILLIE EVER-
ET T's instructions to the contrary, defendant WRIGHT, in the
presence of both defendants BARNES and DELIFORD, struck
plaintiff ANDREWS numerous and repeated times with a
wooden implement.

— — —

5

19. As a and proximate result of the beating admin-
istered to him, plaintiff ANDREWS was injured in and about

his normal abilities as a youth and student were impaired.
Tam Cause or Action ;

20. This is a class action authorized by Rule 23 of the Fed-
eral Rules of Civil Procedure. The class which plaintiffs rep-
resent are all students of the Dade County school system who
are subject to the corporal punishment t policies issued by the
defendant, DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD. The class is
so numerous as to make joinder of all members thereof im-
practicable. Defendants have acted on grounds generally appli-
cable to the class thereby making appropriate final injunctive
relief and/or corresponding declaratory relief. with respect to
the class. There are questions of law and fact common to the
members of the class. Plaintifis will protect and represent the
interests of the class.

21. The defendants have promulgated no list of school regu-
lations or standards of conduct, violation of which will result
in corporal punishment. There is no schedule of maximum pun-
ishments. As a result, students have no notice of what offense
will result in corporal punishment or of the amount of punish-
ment which they can expect. Indeed, punishment appears to
be imposed haphazardly and according to whim and ca-
price. Identical offenses are corporally punished or not, and/or
are corporally punished with degrees of severity, apparently
according to the mood of the school official. The regulations
thus provide for punishment of limitiess, undefined crimes, by
limitless, undefined punishments. Such regulations permit and
even encourage widely disparate treatment of identical situa-
tions and conduct.

22. The infliction of corporal punishment by public school
officials on students on its face abridges the privileges and
immunities” of all such students, as well as the plaintiffs on
the facts of the within action, including their rights to physical
integrity, dignity of personality, and freedom from arbitrary

the use of corporal punishment in the schools results in a hostile
reaction to authority, breeds further violence and interferes
with the educational process and academic inquiry.

24. The infliction of corporal punishment on public school
students on its face, and as applied in the instant case, con-
stitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” since its application
is grossly disproportionate to any misconduct plaintiffs may
have engaged in, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

25. Defendants’ failure to provide students with any pro-
cedural safeguards before inflicting corporal punishment on
them, including adequate notice of alleged misconduct, hearing,
examination and crocs-examination, representation and notice
of rights constitutes summary punishment and deprives stu-
dents of “liberty without due process of law” in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

26. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct
in executing, permitting and/or failing to prevent the inflicting
of corporal punishment pursuant to the standards adopted by
the defendants to govern the inflicting of corporal punishment,
plaintiffs-students have been deprived of their rights under the
Constitution of the United States for the reasons stated in
paragraphs 22 and 25 above.

27. Defendants’ past and continuing infliction of corporal
punishment on plaintiffs and members of their class has caused
and continues to cause them great and irreparable injury by
greatly damaging their education, causing them severe and
permanent physical and emotional injury, violating their phys-
ical integrity, and destroying their dignity of personality. Fur-
ther defendants’ past and continuing infliction of corporal
punishment on plaintiffs and members of their class will ir-
reparably injure their fundamental constitutional rights to be
free from arbitrary and capricious governmental action and

7

will irreparably injure the public’s interest in insuring its fun-
damental laws are obeyed by government.

28. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to prevent the
continued implementation of the corporal punishment policy
of the defendants which will continue to cause and threaten to
cause irreparable injury to the plaintiffs and the members of
their class unless enjoined by this Court.

WHEREFORE, and for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs
respectfully pray as follows:

4 ‘That the Court Um jurisdiction of this cause
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1331 and 1343.

b. That the Court will enter an Order determining the
class to be all students of the Dade County school system
subject to the corporal punishment poicies of the
defendants.

c. That the Court will enter a Temporary Restraining
Order, a Preliminary Injunction and a Permanent Injunc-
tion enjoining and restraining the defendants, their agents,
servants and employees from inflicting any form of cor-
poral punishment upon any student at Charles R. Drew
Junior High

d. That the Court will enter a declaratory judgment de-
claring that the corporal punishment policy of the de-
fendants’ Policy No. 5144 contravenes the First, Fourth,
Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.

e. That the Court will enter a declaratory judgment de-
claring that any form of corporal punishment imposed on
students in the Dade County school is unconstitutional
under the First, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United Staces Constitution.

f. That the Court will issue a Permanent Injunction en-
joining and restraining the defendants, their agents, serv-
ants and employees from inflicting any form of corporal
punishment upon any student in the Dade County school
‘system

g. That judgment be entered against the defendants
jointly and severally in both their individual and rep-
resentative capacities in an amount in excess of $50,000 as
to each named plaintiff as compensatory and punitive
damages, plus interest and costs.

h. For such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper. Plaintiffs demand jury trial for all matters triable
by jury as a matter of right.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce S. Rocow, Esq., .
WILIXI D. Fercuson, Esq.,
ALFRED FEInBerG, Esq.,
Fconomic Opportunity Legal Services Program, Inc.,
395 V. W. First Street,
Miami, Florida 33128.
Ricnarp Hamar, Esq.,
4844 N.W. Seventh Avenue,
Miami, Florida 33127.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
By Alfred Feinberg,
ALFRED FEINBERG, Esq.,

Exuisir A.—ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
Discipline/Punishment: Corporal Punishment
I. DISCIPLINE

Successful learning is contingent upon the self-discipline of
the students as well as upon the group discipline which supports
the learning climate.

Student infractions of rules and departures from good be-
havior should be studied, and corrective action should be taken
as a result of identification of reasons for improper behavior be-
fore punishment is invoked. The only exception to this logical
process is in the case of erratic behavior of a student which may
affect the safety of himself or others. At this point, it is neces-
sary to act immediately and probe for causal reasons as soon as
possible. A study of individual differences, conference with the
pupil and parent, and assistance from the principal, pupil per-
sonnel and other school resource specialists may aid the teacher
in attempting to help a student correct behavior patterns which
are retarding his development or interfering with the rights of
others. The principal may also suggest seeking assistance from
other resources in the school district offices or in the commu-
nity.

obedience, and, as a concomitant, power to enforce the class-
room regulations.

Il, PUNISHMENT: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Punishment in the general sense is the infliction of a penalty
for an offense. Corporal punishment is generally applied to the
body of the offender or is physical punishment as opposed to
other forms of punishment and is administered as a means of
changing the behavior of the student. Therefore, it is important
n
action.

Corporal punishment may be used in the case where other
means of seeking cooperation from the student have failed. If it
appears that corporal punishmerit is likely to become necessary,
the teacher must confer with the principal. The principal will
determine the necessity for corporal punishment and designate
the time, place, and the person to administer said punishment.
In any case, the student should understand clearly the serious-
ness of the offense and the reason for the punishment. Care
should be taken that the period of time between the offense and
the punishment is not so long as to cause undue anxiety in the
pupil. The punishment must be administered in kindness and
in the presence of another adult, at a time and under condi-
tions not calculated to hold the student up to ridicule or shame.

In the administering of corporal punishment, no instrument
shall be used that will produce physical injury to the student,
and no part of the body above the waist or below the knees may
be struck. The person administering the corporal punishment
must realize his own personal liabilities it the student being
given corporal punishment is physically injured.

Corporal punishment should never be administered to a stu-
dent whom school personnel know to be under psychological
or medical treatment unless there has been a pre-conference
with the school psychologist or the physician.

(See also Regulation 5150, Control of Student Behavior. )
2 Reference: Florida Statutes, 231.09 (3), 232.25, 232.26

Filed, February 8, 1971, Joseph I. Bogard, Clerk, U.S. Dist.
Ct., Southern Dist. of Fla., Miami, Fla.]

In the United States District Court in and for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division

(No. 71-23-Civ-JE)

Evorsp INGRAHAM, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
v8.
WII J. WRIGHT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

Answer

COME NOW the Defendants, by and through their under-
signed attorneys, and for answer to the Complaint herein state
as follows:

(1) Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth
in Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20
of the Complaint.

(2) Defendants admit that they have promulgated no
list of school regulations, violation of which will result in
corporal punishment. Except as so admitted, Defendants
deny the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.

(3) Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraphs 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the above styled
action be dismissed with costs to the Defendants and that such
other and further relief as may be just and proper may be
granted.

DATED this 5 day of February, 1971.

BoLLES, Goopwin, RySKAM & Wan,
Attorneys for Defendants,
1410 N.E. Second Avenue,
Miami, Florida 33132.
By James T. Schoenbrod
JaMes T. SCHOBNBROD,
O Counsel.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing Answer was mailed to ALFRED FEIN-
BER 3, ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiffs, Legal Services Program,

11

Inc., 395 N. W. First Street, Room 202, Miami, Florida, this 5
day of February, 1971.
James T. Schoenbrod.

Exuisir “A”.—MsMoraNDUM

Avovsr 19, 1970.
TO: All Teachers.
FROM: Willie J. Wright, I, Principal, Charles R. Drew, Junior
High School.

RE BOARD POLICY NO. 5114 “SUSPENSION, EXPUL-
SION AND EXCLUSION”, BOARD POLICY NO. 5144
“DISCIPLINE/PUNISHMENT: CORPORAL PUN-
ISHMENT”, BOARD POLICY NO. 5150 “CONTROL
OF STUDENT BEHAVIOR”, BOARD POLICY NO.
5132 “DRESS”.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SUSPENSION, EXPULSION, AND EXCLUSION

Suspension or explusion of a pupil from the public schools has
very serious consequences for that student in view of the in-

| creasing significance that society places upon education. A stu-

dent cannot be deprived of his education without due process
of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America. Attendance at
the public school does not signify a waiver of the student’s
constitutional rights. It is essential that school administrators
be aware that upon initiating disciplinary proceedings against
a pupil, they must proceed in a fixed order. A fair hearing pro-
cedure must be afforded to the pupil in any type of action which
may result in suspension or expulsion.

Suspension and expulsion are measures to be employed only
after all available school and support services have been consid-
ered, or when school personnel are unable to cope constructively
with pupil misconduct, or where conditions, including emer-
gency conditions, require immediate suspension. Suspension
from school may be authorized by the principal and the Super-
intendent of f hools for a short period of time. Expulsion from
the school requires action of the Dade County School Board to
effect and rescind the status.

12

Expulsion from the regular program of the Dade County
Public Schools is defined as expulsion from the normal kinder-
garten through twelfth-grade (K-12) program; and expulsion
from the Dade County Public Schools is defined as expulsion
from the normal kindergarten through twelfth-grade (K-12)
program and all other programs offered by the Dade County
Public Schools.

PRINCIPAL'S AUTHORITY

The principal shall have the authority to:

1. Suspend a pupil from school for a period of not more
than ten school days on any one suspension for any breach
of the school’s established conduct code or for any reason
provided by state law.

2. Recommend to the Superintendent of Schools, with
the approval of the appropriate district superintendent.
That the pupil’s suspension:

a) be extended by the Superintendent of Schools
up to an additional 30 school days.

b) be extended by the Superintendent of Schools
up to an additional 30 school days and that the Dade
County School Board expel permanently or for a les-
ser period of time. A recommendation for expulsion
shall be in a written narrative form.

The extent of the school administrator’s authority in specific
situations remains a matter of interpretation of the inherent
function of his office and of the guidelines laid down by the
State Legislature and the Dade County School Board.

SUPERINTENDENT'S AUTHORITY

The Superintendent of Schools shall have the authority to

1. Extend a principal’s suspension of a pupil up to an
additional 30 school days, and to assign any pupil so sus-
pended to an individually designated program or other
special placement.

2. Recommend to the Board that a pupil be expelled
permanently or for a lesser period of time.

3. Recommend assignment of a pupil to be expelled
from his regular schoo] to an individually designated pro-
gram or to other special placement.

EXPULSION BY THE DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

Any pupil subject to the control of the school shall be sub-
ject to expulsion by the School Board upon the recomendation
of the Superintendent of Schools when the pupil has:

1. Possessed, used, handled, or transmitted a substance
capable of modifying mood and/ behavior.

2. Possessed, used, handled, or transmitted a weapon
avluding, but not limited to, a gun, knife, razor, explo-
sives, ice pick, club, or paddle.

3. Used any article as a weapon or in a manner reason-
able calculated to threaten any person.

4. Committed a serious breach of conduct including, but
not limited to, an assault on school personnel or on an-
other pupil, 4 lewd or lascivious act, arson, vafidalism, or
any other act which disrupt or tends to disrupt the orderly
conduct of the school or cn activity.

5. Engaged in less serious but continuing misconduct
including, but not limited to, the use of profane, obscene,
or abusive language, or other acts that are detrimental to
the educational function of the school. Any expulsion rec-
ommendation based on such misconduct shall include a
documented report by the principal on the corrective
measures taken prior to his recommendation of expulsion.

PUPIL EXPULSION HEARING PROCEDURES

The following procedures will be observed when the Super-
intendent of Schools recommends a pupil for expulsion:

The Superintendent of Schools shall, by certified mail or by
hand delivery by an appropriate staff member, notify the
pupil’s parents or guardian of school record that he is recom-
mending that their child be expelled from the Dade County
Public Schools. This letter shall set forth the charges against
the student and advise the parent or guardian that he has five
days in which to.request @ hearing on those charges’ beféee a
hearing examiner.

Should: tho. partes: ds iquatdion nhs toaeeiit a higeting within
the specified time, the Board shall act upon the Superintend-
ent’s recommendation at the first available Board meeting.
Said recommendation shall set forth a brief statement of the
pupil’s act or acts which warrant expulsion.

14

Should the pupil's parent request a hearing, the hearing shall
be conducted before one of the hearing examiners appointed
by the Dade County School Board and shall be conducted un-
der the rules and procedures for administrative hearings
adopted by Board Resolution 63-19. (See Regulation 4119.5.)

EXCLUSION: RELEASE FROM COMPULSORY SCHOOL
ATTENDANCB

Certificates of exemption for children under 16 years of age
are authorized under certain cases. Students within the com-
pulsory attendance age limits may be issued valid certificates
of exemption by the Superintendent, exempting them from at-
tending school for one of the following reasons:

1. Physical and mental disturbance
2. Distance exemption

3. Employment exemption

4. Judicial exemption

A certificate of exemption shall cease to be valid at the end
of the school year in which it is issued.

DISCIPLINE/PUNISHMENT: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

I. Discipline

Successful learning is contingent upon the self-discipline of
the student as well as upon the group discipline which supports
the learning climate.

Student infractions of rules and departures from good behav-
ior should be studied, and corrective action should be taken as a
result of identification of reasons for improper behavior before
punishment is invoked. The only exception to this logical proc-
ess is in the case of erratic behavior of a student which may
affect the safety of himself or others. At this point, it is necessary
to act immediately and probe for causal reasons 4s soon a8 pos-
sible. A study of individual differences, conferences with the
pupil and parent, and assistance from the principal, pupil per-
sonnei and other school resource specialists may aid the teacher

in attempting to help a student correct behavior patterns which

are retarding his development or interfering with the rights of
others. The principal may also suggest seeking assistance from
other resources in the school district offices or in the community.

A teacher or principal stands substantially in loco parentis
with the child; that, coupled with the authority set forth in

Florida Statutes, vests them with the power to establish rules
for discipline, develop understandings for the enforeement of
obedience, and, as 8 concomitant, power to enfores de dan
room regulations.

II. Punishment: Corporal Punishment

W V
for an offense. Corporal punishment is generally applied to the
body of the offender or is physical punishment as opposed to
other forms of punishment and is administered as a means of
chenging the behavior of the student. Therefore, it is important
to analyze whether or not this goal will be accomplished by such
action.

Corporal punishment may be used in the case where other
means of seeking cooperation from the student have failed. If it
appears that corpora! punishment is likely to become necessary,
the teacher must confer with the principal. The principal will
determine the necessity for corporal punishment and designate
the time, place, and the person to administer said punishment.
In any case, the student should understand clearly the serious-
ness of the offense and the reason for the punishment. Care
should be taken that the period of time between the offense and
the punishment must be administered in kindness and in the
presence of another adult, at a time and under conditions not
calculated to hold the student up to ridicule or shame.

In the administering of corporal punishment, no instrument
shall be used that wiil produce physical injury to the student,
and no part of the body above the waist or below the knees may
be struck. The person administering the corporal punishment
must realize his own personal liabilities if the student being
given corporal punishment is physically injured.

Corporal punishment should never be administered to a stu-
dent whom school personnel know to be under psychological or
medical] treatment unless there has been a pre-conference with

the school psychologist or the physician.

CONTROL OF STUDENT BEHAVIOR

The schools are established for the benefit of all students. The
educational purposes of the schools are accomplished best in a
climate of student behavior which is socially acceptable and
conducive to the learning and teaching process. Student behav-

216-455 © - 76 -2

16

ior which disrupts this process or which infringes upon the righ
of other individuals will not be tolerated. z

The School Board reaffirms its support of the administrative
staff and teachers in taking all necessary steps to enforce and
implement all Board policies and regulations pertaining to con-
trol of student behavior. Important among these policies are
those in the areas of conduct, corporal punishment, suspensions
and expulsions, and climate for learning.

The School Board directs that:

1. The Superintendent, through the Security Depart-
ment, shall pursue the investigation and assist in the subse-
quent prosecution of any adults inciting students to per-
form violent and unlawful acts in the schools; and

2. That each individual teacher shall be granted full dis-
ciplinary authority over every student in his classroom, in
accordance with Florida Statutes, Board Policies and Reg-
ulations, and administrative regulations.

DRESS

The principal of each school shall provide leadership and di-
rection in developing regulations relating to dress and behavior
for the students in his school.

Cleanliness, personal appearance, and proper dress are impor-
tant in setting the pattern of school and social conduct. There is
considerable evidence to indicate a close relationship between
pupil dress and pupil behavior. The standards of dress for school
should conform to the standards generally accepted by the com-
munity. The administration is encouraged to invite staff, stu-
dents, and parents to participate in setting up acceptable mini-
mum standards for student dress.

Students who come to school without proper attention having
been given to personal cleanliness or neatness of dress may be
sent home to be properly prepared for school, or shall be required
to prepare themselves for the schoolroom before entering.

Students should not wear clothing or hair styles that can be
hazardous to them in their school activities, such as shop, lab
work, physical education, and art. Grooming and dress which
prevent the student from doing his best work because of blocked
vision or restricted movement should be discouraged, as should
dress styles that create, or are likely to create, a disruption of

3

classroom order. Articles of clothing which cause excessive main-
tenance problems of school property are unacceptable.

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
(Case Number 71-23-CIV-JE)
Evoist INGRAHAM, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
v8.
Wiiu J. WRIGHT, ET EL., DEFENDANTS
Order

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel Discovery filed September 30th, 1971; Plaintiff’ Re-
newed Motion to Determine the Class; and Plaintiffs’ Renewed
Motion to Produce Income Tax Returns, etc. The Court has
considered the motions and the record in the cause. Therefore,
it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery filed September
30th, 1971 is granted. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with
the requested documents, by mail, within ten days from the
date of this Order, said documents to be copied by Plaintiffs
and returned to Defendants by mail.

2. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action of the Complaint is deter-
mined to be a class action under Rule 23(b) (2) and pursuant
to Rule 23(¢)(1), the members of the class are determined to
be as follows: “All students of the Dade County School system
who are subject to the corporal punishment policies issued by
the Defendant, Dade County School Board, with the exception
of Miss Karen Grumwell, who specifically requested that she
not be made a part of the class.”

3. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Produce Income Tax Re-
turns and a Statement of Net Worth of Defendants Wright,
Deliford and Barnes is granted to the extent that same shall be
produced to the Court.

DONE and ORDERED at Miami, in the Southern District
of Florida this 16th day of May, 1972.

Jon Eaton,
United States District Judge.

18

In the United States District Court in and for the Southern
District of Florida

(Case No. 71-23-Civ-JE)
E.oiss INGRAHAM, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
v8.

WII J. Wricut, I., er N., DEFENDANTS
Stipulation

Pursuant to the Court’s suggestion, the parties through
their undersigned counsel do hereby Stipulate and agree that
the following summaries of the anticipated testimony of Dr.
Fernando Milanes and Dr. Carlos Gamez would constitute the
sum and substance of their testimony which Plaintiffs intend
to offer into evidence in support of Plaintiffs’ first cause of
action. Taken together with all of the evidence introduced by
Plaintiffs in support of Plaintiffs’ third cause of action, the
testimony of Drs. Milanes and Gamez constitutes all of the evi-
dence which Plaintiffs would offer in their case in chief in sup-
port of Plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action. Defendants
stipulate to the summaries of testimony set forth below with-
out conceding the truth or falsity of said testimony.

ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY OF Dr. FERNAN DO MILANES

1. Dr. Fernando Milanes would testify that he practices med-
icine at the Veterans Administration Hospital, 1201 N. W. 16th
Street. His home address is 8970 S. W. 56th Terrace. Dr.
Milanes is not in private practice. He passed the Florida State
Medical Boards in March, 1971 and is a member of the Dade
County Medical Association, the Florida Medical Association,
and the American Medical Association. From November 1,
1969 to October 31, 1970 Dr. Milanes interned in Family Medi-
cine at Jackson Memorial Hospital. He is currently engaged
in psychiatric residency and as of September 7, 1972 was Chief

Resident in Psychiatry at the Veterans Administration
Hospital.

2. Dr. Milanes would testify that on October 6, 1970 during

the period of his internship he examined JAMES INGRAHAM

19

in the emergency room primary care unit of Jackson Memorial
Hospital. His testimony will show that JAMES INGRAHAM
complained of pain to his buttocks and that Dr. Milanes, upon

ining JAMES INGRAHAM’s buttocks diagnosed the
cause of the pain to be a hematoma.

3. Dr. Milanes’ testimony will show that the area of pain
was tender and large in size and that the temperature of the
skin area of the hematoma was above normal which is a sign
of inflammation often asso¢iated with hematoma.

4. The hematoma Dr. Milanes observed is consistent with a
eee istered to the

t

5. Due to the injury caused to JAMES INGRAHAM’s but-
tocks Dr. Milanes, will testify that he wrote a note excusing
JAMES INGRAHAM from paticipation in Physical Education
classes at school.

ANTICIPATED Testimony or Dr. Cartos GAM

6. Dr. Carlos Gamez will testify that he passed the Florida
State Medical Boards approximately one and one-half years
ago. His specialty is Family Medicine and at the time he exam-
ined JAMES INGRAHAM he was a second year resident in his
specialty at Jackson Memorial Hospital and at the Family
Health Center. At the present time Dr. Gamez has offices at
1707 Coral Way.

7. Dr. Gamez will testify he examined JAMES INGRAHAM
on October 9, 1970 at Jackson Memorial Hospita! and again
on October 14, 1970 at the Family Health Center. The patent’s
subjective signs of injury included a hematoma approximately
six inches in diameter which was swollen, tender, and purplish
in color. Additionally, there was serousness or fluid oozing from
the hematoma.

8. The patient complained of pain to his buttocks and stated
—— he had been beaten with a paddle at school a number of

es.

9. In Dr. Gamez’ opinion the wound which he observed on
the patient’s buttocks is consistent with, or likely to have been
caused by a number of forceful blows with a wooden instrument
or paddle. Furthermore, the hematoma which was observed
was likely to have been painful. It is Dr. Gamez’ opinion that
the observable injury, including the pain, would have likely
persisted for approximately one week.

STIPULATION

The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, do
hereby stipulate as hereinabove set forth that the testimony
summarized above would be the testimony of Drs. Milanes and

Gamez respectively.
ALFRED FEINBERG,
Attorney for Plaintiffs, Legal Services of Greater Miami,
Inc., 395 Northwest First Street, Suite 202, Miami,
Florida 33128, Telephone—379-0822.
LELAND STANSELL,
Attorney for Defendants, Wright and Deliford, 10th
Floor, Biscayne Bldg., Miami, Florida 33130.
Frank Howarp,
Attorney for Defendants, Wright, Deliford, Barnes,
Whigham, and the Dade County Board of Public
Instruction, 1410 NE. Second Avenue, Miami, Florida.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was served by U.S. Mail upon Frank Howard, Attor-
ney for Defendants, Wright, Deliford, Barnes, Whigham, and
the Dade County Board of Public Instruction, 1414 N. E. Sec-
ond Avenue, Miami, Florida, Leland Stansell, Attorney for De-
fendants Wright and Deliford, 10th Floor, Biscayne Building,
Miami, Florida 33130 this 29 day of January, 1973.

ALFRED FEINBERG,
Attorney for Plaintiffs.

21

In the District Court of the United States for the Southern
District of Florida

No. 71-23-Civ-JE

ELOolsn INGRAHAM, BT AL., PLAINTIFFS
us.
Wituie WRIGHT, BT AL., DEFENDANTS

[7] Mr. Fawn.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FEINBERG:

Q. Please state your name and address.

A. Edward L. Whigham, 1339 Coral Way, Coral
Gables.

Q. Please state your occupation, sir.

A. Superintendent of the Dade County Public
Schools.

Q. How long have you been employed in that
position?

A. I am beginning my fourth year.

Q. Beginning your fourth year as superintendent?

A. Yes.

[8-13] * . * * +
{14} Q. In theory, any student who committed any
infraction of School Board policy in the school, he is
not made to receive, or be, corporally punished; is
that correct?

A. Yes; although I would say, here again, that it
would depend on the specific circumstances involved.

Mr. Feinberg continues reading: }

Q. It is possible that any student, no matter how
minor the violation, would be corporally punished,
based on the sound judgment of the principal; is that
correct?

A. Yes; referring to that hypothetical situation.

Q. There is no list of infractions that will result in
corporal punishment, as opposed to the other forms
of punishment?

A. No.

22

Q. There are no means, in advance, of determining
what was to be corporal punishment, as opposed to
the other means?

A. No; there is no established

Mr. Fernperc. Page 19, Line 5:

Q. Is it not conceivable that two students 115] who
have violated exactly the same rule in the same way
and the same manner, can receive different forms of
punishment?

A. If you are asking, there again, a hypothetical
question.

Q. That’s right.

A. This may be due to a difference in judgment and
a difference in specific circumstances surrounding the
incident.

Mr. Howarp. That was the witness’ answer?

Mr. FIN RAG. Yes.

Mr. Howagp. Some of this, it is going to be hard to deter-
mine if it is a question or an answer.

The Courr. Do it any way you want to, Mr. Feinberg.

Mr. Fernserc. What I am going to try to do, where it is
obvious—at least to me—that the question and answer is
not necessary, I won’t say it.

If it appears to be confusing, I will try to say it.

Q. Might it also be due to differences in the psycho-
logical makeup of the principal who is [16] making
the decision?

A. Yes; hypothetically, that might be possible.

Q. Conceivably it could be the same principal who
decides two children who violated the same rule would
receive different punishment? :

A. Yes; because of circumstances surrounding those,
there could be a difference.

Q. What would those differences be based upon?

A. I can’t say. They might be based on attitude,
past history, specific time and circumstances in which
it occurred.

Q. You referred to past history.

Is there a requirement, before corporal punishment
is administered, the child’s past history be investi-

Q. How would a principal be able to [17] determin
55 —
treatment if he didn't read all the files or have a
photostatie memory? —

A. If he did not know, he would have to have access
to someone who is acquainted with this child.

Q. You are suggesting it is or it is not School
policy to make this determination in advance?

nr dient ——— 2 *

24

A. Yes. The principal would a be required tu
have the permission of the parents.

Q. In your opinion, your personal opinion, would
you consider it good educational practice?

A. You are asking me in terms of my personal
judgment, and not the policies covering this?

Q. Yes.

A. I would think a principal would want [19] to
consider a request of a parent, and he would then
have to judge, himself, whether he is going to accede
to that or not.

Q. But there are other alternatives to corporally
punishing a child, other than corporal punishment?

A. Yes.

Q. What do those wiclude?

A. These could be conferences with a student; it
might be having the parent in, or suspending or ex-
pelling the student.

Here, again, there is a wide range of practices
which the administrator might consider.

Q. Is there any requirement imposed on the princi-
pal to employ any of those alternative punitive meas-
ures, or remedial measures, prior to giving a decision
to corporally punish a child?

A. The policy says a principal should consider other
means and generally indicates corporal punishment
should not be one of the first things tried.

It is a general statement and, here again, he would
have to judge this with the specific circumstances with
which he is faced.

20] Q. Would you say a principal would be in viola-
tion of this policy if he did not employ any of the means
of behavioral control, prior to deciding to administer

corporal punishment?

Mr. Fer nBerc. Page 24:

A. General, or one specific case?

Q. I mean in every case.

My question is, if, in any individual case, the princi-
pal, hypothetically, would utilize corporal punishment
as a means of punishing a child before administering
or utilizing any of the alternative methods of behav-
ioral control, would that be in violation of School Board

policy ?

A. I think my answer to the question [21] would

Q. You are entitled to qualify it.

A. I don’t mean by that that the principal can walk

up and just start paddling.

He would have to look at the specific circumstances

he is faced with; but I don’t think he would have to

R pag Pe ong

to judge this in a specific situation.

Mr. Ferneers. Page 25:
Q. The question was whether he would have to em-
ploy any other means, which is a different question.
A. I think, from the time the principal is faced with
a situation, he is considering alternatives in his mind.
I don’t think ——Ä— — t.

spite

f

Q. In the fact that he actually has not em-
ployed any other means of remediation?

A. Yes.
[22-45]

[46] Mr. FN Ind. I will call Dr. Whigham. Thereupon:
EDWA DL. WHIGHAM was called 12 the

t we are more than a year later after our
last tion. So you have been a school superintendent
about five years now; is that correct?

26

A. That’s right.

Q. Does the corporal punishment policy make a differentia-
tion between the use of physical force or first restraint and
then corporal punishment as a means of punishment?

A. No. It does

Mr. Howarp. Excuse me, Your Honor. [47] The policy is
in evidence and it is going to say what it says, and I object to
questions to Dr. Whigham asking him to try to interpret it.

Mr. Fernperc. If Your Honor please, in response to that,
the latest revision, the revision that Dr. Whigham was ques-
tioned about at the time of the deposition, made it very clear
that there was a differentiation between physical restraint and
corporal punishment, because they had it under two different
headings. The latest revision seems to combine them.

I don’t believe the policy has changed and I want to estab-
lish there is a difference.

The Court. All right, sir. Overruled. You can answer it,
Doctor. '

The Wirnsss. The policy attempts to make a differentiation
between physical restraint, in certain circumstances, and cor-
poral punishment as such.

By Mr. Fernserc:

Q. So when we speak of corporal punishment, particularly
under the latest provision, we speak of paddling; is that
correct ?

A. Yes.

Q. Under the regulations and the policies, [48] which I
will treat as one, for the purpose of our questioning here,
may a student be paddled if he is currently under the care of
a psychiatrist?

Mr. Howarp. Your Honor, this, again, is either in the
policy and regulations or it is not.

Mr. Fernperc. If Your Honor please, I think the inter-
pretation of these policies is what this case is all about.

The Court. Are you asking the witness to tell me what is
written or are you asking about general policies in operation,
or what is your question?

Mr. Fernserc. I am trying to determine—and much of
my deposition that I read in was an attempt to put flesh on
the bone of these policies and to find out what is permis-
sible, what is not permissible, so that the Court and every-

27

bedy else has an understanding of what the ish-
„ ewe *
indeed frankiy, I have nothing to hide here—if it
turns out that many things that are occurring in the schools
are allowable, by these policies, or not specifically denied to
ne —— = the school system, maybe these poli-
0 changed and maybe they ought
Sr
. You are ing the witn i
— asking witness to interpret the
Mr. Fuxnznd. That is exactly right.
The Court. All right. Now, what is the question?
Mr. Fansere. Not only that, Your Honor, every one of
these questions that I am asking is derived from evidence
1 to pines the witness stand.
er words, are not is of imaginati
2 — figmen my imagination.
Court. It seems to me if the policy sa adult
mu be present, ‘other than the person Ging the
paddling, you don’t have to ask him if that is in the
policy or not, do you?
Mr. Fernserc. If Your Honor please, if you will remember

28

I would say, in general, the usual sort of problems that
would lead a student to be under the care of a psychiatrist
might be the kind of problems that would not lead the
principal to use [51] paddling. He may not be—he would
have to know the specific reasons.

By Mr. FernsBerc:
Q. What is a cumulative record?

A. A cumulative record is a record kept by the school

which contains information about the student’s educational
progress and career, with certain background information.

It is kept from year to year.

Q. So it is a cumulative history, educational history, of
the student in his progress throughout the schools; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it not also true that it follows the student to the
particular school that he happens to be attending at that
time?

A. Yes; it would.

Q. Would it be available to the principal or other people
in the school to examine at any time? Is that correct?

A. It would be available for him to examine.

Q. Does your interpretation of this corporal punishment
policy require, prior to determination [52] that corporal
punishment will be administered, that the principal examine
the cumulative record of the student?

A. We do not have a regulation that requires him specifi-
cally to examine the cumulative record.

A student would be brought to the principal for corporal
punishment probably by the teacher or someone else. The
teacher is supposed to be familiar with the cumulative record
of the school.

Q. Are you suggesting that in every, or even most cases,
of corporal punishment, the teacher actually brings the stu-
dent down and discusses the prior educational] history of the
student with the principal?

A. I am suggesting that the principal does not initiate the
action; that the action is ini ated from a teacher or some
other staff inember.

Q. That happens in some cases and in some cases the prin-
cipal might initiate it; is that correct?

A. It might.
. initiate:té,

„7 oe in iy aap de ireRten Eee
ool?

A. Right. Students are mostly under the direction of
teachers while they are in school.

Q. There is no formal requirement to examine the cumu-
lative record.

My question to you, sir, is, even if we assume that a stu-
dent’s psychological, psychiatric, or medical condition is in
the cumulative record, if there is no forma] requirement
-that the cumulative record be examined, how is the princi-
pal to know whether or not he should consult with the par-
— physicians that are involved before deciding to

dle?

A. Let me go back. You are making a statement which is
not the same one that I made. You said there is no formal
requirement.

I said there is no formal requirement that the principal
examine the cumulative record. If the teacher recommends
this and the teacher's response is, “I am familiar with the
youngster’s record,” then, of course, he may act on that.

Uf he deee ‘not heey thts information, then he should

There is no formal ——— that [54] principals

Q. So it is quite possible and quite conceivable that a
child could be under this form of treatment unbeknown to
anybody in the school system?

30

*

A. It is conceivable that he might be, yes.

Q. If, as you testified on deposition, corporal punishment
may be administered in a rest room or a bathroom, under
certain circumstances, and [55] in front of other students,
what does the phrase in Paragraph 4 of the new revision of
the regulations mean, “that corporal punishment is to be
administered under conditions not calculated to hold the
student up to ridicule and shame”?

Mr. Howarp. Your Honor, I think that is a very drastic
impression of his testimony before on his opinions about
permissible places for corporal punishment.

The Court. I interpret the question to be the following:
“What meaning do you attach to the following sentence?”
Is that what you are asking him?

Mr. Fernperc. That is correct; but I have asked it in the
form of a hypothetical, because I think that the testimony
was quite clear—that is why those questions were asked—
that a child can be paddled in a bathroom; he can be
paddled in front of other people.

The question simply is, taking those into consideration,
what does that provision mean; that he shouldn’t be held
up to ridicule or shame?

The Courr. You can answer the question, [56] sir.

The Wrrness. To not hold the student up to ridicule or
shame means that we don’t want—by this action of corporal
punishment, we do not want that the student be ridiculed
or be made ashamed before his peers and before others.

By Mr. FN RENO:

Q. I’m sorry; I can’t hear you, Dr. Whigham. Not made
what?

A. If you want me to define “ridicule” or shame

Q. I’m asking you, what understanding do you attach to
that if children can be paddled in front of other children
and children can be paddled in a bathroom? What meaning
do you attach to not holding a child up to ridicule or shame?

Mr. Howarp. Your Honor, that is an improper distortion
of what he said. He said, in his deposition testimony that
it would not necessarily be improper to paddle a child, under
some circuinstances, in a rest room, and so on, but he, him-
self, had reservations about it.

I think this question attempts to slant the whole thing the
other way.

31

(ez) = Covrt. Overruled, | 7
The Witness. In reference to your question about pad-
dling in the bathroom, I have f exact. wording
in response to that, bu. ie
By Mr. Fernserc:

Q. Dr. Whigham, I am really interested—the Judge has
rephrased my question. I am really interested, in your own
— 2 not in the words of the policy, what does it

ean—if you can give an example of what w ridicu

and we agen gs that will help. — .

What does that mean, that a chi
— — : child should not be held up
A. But you have tied your questions to some -
tices of punishment; in the —— and so — *

Q. Those practices, to be ridicule and shame.

A. My response to your question, I believe, in the deposi-
tion was that I would not rule out, under certain eircum-
* meaning of bec wy T* was that I would not

or say a princi never paddle a youngster
or punish a youngster in a rest room. 7

(58) We have 237 schools in Dade County. At certain
times, under certain conditions, the office or some other
place might not be appropriate and a rest room might be
the best available place for a principal or a teacher, who-
ever was authorized, to administer the corporal punishment.

I think, for example, if you want to take one that I would
find very questionable, I could not, offhand, see why a prin-
cipal would be doing it, is if he decided to administer the
corporal punishment in the main entrance to the building,
for example, an action which would be, it seems to me—
unless he can offer a very acceptable reason of why he was
r
an is would come withi e concept of subjecti i
youngster to shame and ridicule. 8
5 Q. Does the corporal punishment policy, as you understand
it and as you interpret it, authorize physical education
teachers to decide whether to corporally punish, without
prior consultation with the principal, on a regular basis?

A. No, it would not authorize that.

Would you think that the corporal [59] punishment

poliev encomnasses paddling for reasons such as gum-chewing,
standing with one foot on top of another, not dressing out

216-455 O- 76-3

32

properly, not wearing tennis shoes or wearing dirty under-
wear

Would you consider those appropriate grounds for cor-
porally punishing a child?

A. I believe, if I recall the ones you listed, appropriate
grounds for corporal punishment with the proper procedures
and authorities.

Q. Even with the proper procedures?

A. This, again, would depend on the circumstances. You
are asking me a series of hypothetical circumstances about
practices, and I don't know what kind of situation this oc-
curred in, how much of the defiance of the school people
this may have constituted, and so forth.

In general, I would say no.

Q. Does the corporal punishment policy encompass pad-
dling entire classes for the wrongs of a few?

I will give you a specific example: Let's say a child’s
money is stolen. Does the corporal punishment policy au-
thorize, in your opinion, the paddling of the entire class
because the person [60] who stole the money won't come
forward?

A. No.

Q. Would you consider it appropriate to paddle students
for the sole reason that they failed to learn their lessons up
to the expectation of the teachers?

A. I think the answer to that is no.

Q. Perhaps part of the deposition covered this, but I
would like to ask it more generally:

Would you consider paddling to be excessive or severe if
it resulted in observable injury?

Mr. Howarp. Your Honor, I——

Mr. Fix nd. I think he can answer it. If he can’t
answer it, he can say he can’t answer it.

Mr. Howarp. It seems to me this entire line of questions
about asking the superintendent of schools about what he
personally thinks would be appropriate or inappropriate to
paddle, in hypothetical questions, doesn’t go to any relevant
kind of proof in the Court that we are now trying in this
Court.

Mr. Fernserc. If Your Honor please, [61] in response to
Mr. Howard’s argument, every one of these corporal punish-

ment policies has some statement in words or effect, that
paddling should not be extreme or severe.

Indeed, the previous policy, which has since been amended,
specifically states that the person who is administering the

must be cognizant of the fact that he might be
held personally responsible for injuries which result in his
paddling, and my question, I think, goes to an interpretation
of those provisions.

The Covrr. All right, sir. Overruled. You can answer it,
Doctor.

The Wirness. Could I have the question back, please?

Mr. Fernserc. Mr. Reporter, please

The Covrr. You know what you want to ask him; just
ask him again, Mr. Feinberg.

By Mr. Fernserc:

Q. Does the corporal punishment policy, as you interpret
it, authorize paddling so as to cause observable injury?

A. No; but I would want to say here, of course, when it
says punishment shall not be extreme, [62] severe, or what-
ever the specific words are that are used there, in an admin-
istrative policy and regulations, this would require interpre-
tation.

Q. That is what I am asking you, sir.

A. As you describe the situation, my answer would be as 1
have indicated.

Q. “No”?

A. It would be no; but I am saying this is a matter of inter-
pretation here.

Q. I am not sure I understand you.

Is there some phrase or word that you didn’t understand?
“Observable injury”, I think, is clear.

A. I am saying it is a matter of the interpretation of the
words.

Give me your question again.

Q. Would the corporal punishment policy be violated if a
paddling resulted in observable injury?

A. What do you mean by “observable injury”?

Q. Injury that can be seen.

A. There might be some—in other words, it is possible that,
in certain circumstances, such [63] as a sensitive voungster's
skin or something, that it might produce a situation that the
principal might not know would be produced there.

34

You are saying “observable injury”, and I am saying, in
general, the answer to your question would be no under those
circumstances.

G. You are qualifying your answer? You are saying if the
principal didn’t know about a special condition, perhaps, that
the student had, and it resulted in observable injury, then
that—am I not right—that you are saying that might not be
a violation of the corporal punishment policy?

A. No. What I am saying is that when you administer cor-
poral punishment you may get a reaction not anticipated, to
the skin of the body.

The Court. The difficulty with the question is the word
“injury”. Sometimes when you paddle a kid, his buttock looks
red when he gets home and the next day it is okay.

Is that an observable injury?

Mr. Fernperc. All right; I accept that, Your Honor.

The Court. Is something a little bit black and blue an injury,
as an example, if it goes [64] away in one day? This is the
difficulty in answering your question.

By Mr. Feix NRG:

Q. Would you think that the corporal punishment policy,
as you would interpret it, authorizes or allows for giving extra
licks, let’s say, to the student, if he cries out when he is hit
or moves the chair that he is leanirg on?

Would you say that is encompassed within the policy?
Would you say that would be questionable practice?

A. | think that would be questionable practice as I under-
stand you to describe it.

Of course, the present policy which the School Board has in
effect, gives the maximum number of licks, to use your phrase.

Q. You already answered this indirectly, I think, the next
question I have.

Would you consider the paddling of tardy students to school,
outside of the main entrance of the building, prior to allowing
them to enter the school, to be a violation of the ridicule and
shame provision of the paddling policy?

A. Paddling a student for being tardy, [65] in the full view
of others, I would say is not consistent with the policy.

Q. Is it not true that the corporal punishment policy pro-
vides that a determination must be made whether or not
paddling will change the behavior of the student? Isn’t that a
part of the policy?

If you want, I can read it to you.

A. Yes; why don’t you read it to me.

Q. I am now reading from the latest revision, and I would
state to the Court that this provision has been virtually un-
changed:

Corporal punishment is generally applied to the
body of the offender or is physical punishment as
opposed to other forms of punishment, and is admin-
istered as a means of changing the behavior of students.

It is, therefore, important to analyze whether or not
this goal will be accomplished by such action.

Do you remember that in the policy?

A. Yes.

Q. My question to you, sir, is, taking that particular require-
ment into consideration, would [66] you consider it a ques-
tionable practice to paddle a student three or four times within
a two-week period?

A. In general, yes, I think it would.

It is not inconceivable to me that it might be done, but
in general I would think that would be a questionable
practice.

In some cases, it may be that administrative judgment is
that this sort of repeated corporal punishment might have
some hope of changing the behavior of that student.

On the other hand, the question can also be raised as to
whether the repetition of the corporal punishment was, in
fact, accomplishing anything in that case.

Q. Do you subscribe to the theory that paddling should
continue in the schools because—and now I am quoting, sir,
from the May 22, 1969 report, entitled, “Reaction of Junior
High School Principals and Faculties to Prohibit Corporal
Punishment at These Levels”.

Would you subseribe to this statement which is a
quote
2 Howarp. Excuse me. Are you going [67] to introduce
that :

Mr. Fernserc. No; I am going to question him about it.

By Mr. Fernserc:

Q. “At times unadulterated fear must be induced to pro-
vide some behavior controls, This, of course, is not the theo-
retical ideal, but at times it is absolutely essential, if any
reasonable school climate for learning is to be maintained.”

36

Do you think that is a good reason; “unadulterated fear

A. I would not use the phrase and would not agree with
the term “unadulterated fear’. *

Q. Yet, in this compilation, which I will show you, it was
cited in support of continuing the policy.

A. I would have to study their report. It has been some
time since I have seen it, and I think this might be the
quotation of a particular individual’s statement, not repre-
sentative of the general administrative view, or certainly
not an official viewpoint.

Mr. Howarp. I am not sure he was able to finish his
answer.

[68] Mr. Fernperc. Im sorry.

Mr. Howarp. You didn't let him answer as to the com-
plete statement.

The Court. Finish your answer.

Mr. FMN. Your Honor, I'm sorry; I didn’t hear you.

The Court. I said, let the witness finish his answer.

The Witness. I would not use the term “unadulterated
fear that is used in that particular person's statement, who-
ever it may be. It is unidentified there.

I think corporal punishment is viewed by many school
personnel, administrative people, and instructional people, as
a technique that may be used for control of—social control,
in a school situation. But to use the phraseology or termi-
nology, “unadulterated fear’, I would not agree with.

By Mr. Feinperc:

Q. You have familiarity with this report; is that correct?

A. It is a report of some several years ago, and I don’t
readily recall the details and the circumstances of it.

469] Q. But you reme:nber the report was prepared; is
that correct?

A. Yes; and I can’t even recall why and under what
circumstances it was prepared.

Q. Do you recall whether or not any attempt was made
to find out who made that statement and to question the
principal who made that statement?

A. I don't recall, at the time, whether any attempt was
made to find that particular person and question him about
his terminology that he used there.

Q. If I had a principal on the witness stand now who
made that statement, would you be kind enough to question

37

him about the use of corporal punishment in his school, if
he came out and said, “I use corporal punishment to create,
unadulterated fear in my school, and it is necessary, to main-,
tain discipline in my school“?

A. If I had knowledge that the principal was making that,

1 would want to know something about the circumstances
and so fe th, that I would want someone to raise a question
with him about what he means by that.
70] Q Getting back to the interpretation of the policy
and the regulations, as you interpret the policy, is there any
requirement that a person who is dispassionate and un-
familiar, personally unfamiliar, with the events to the pad-
dling, make the decision to paddle?

Is there any such requirement?

A. My answer to that would be yes. It is not in the
terminology of the words you are saying; you say “dis-
passionate”, and I have forgotten the other words you used.

Q. What I am really getting at—and I will ask it in a
different way—ien it true that this policy authorizes a
principal who has, himself, observed the alleged wrongdoing,
to administer the paddling and decide it should be
administered ?

A. It could, under some circumstances, yes.

Q. You say, “under some circumstances’?

A. The ones you have just specified in your question; he
is the one that observed the misbehavior and, therefore, he
decided 60 act.

Q. There is no restriction on a principal deciding and
administering the paddling when the [71] principal has,
himself, decided that he has seen the person «+ the child
doing something wrong? There is no requirement he consult
with somebody else, is there?

A. No, there is not a requirement that he consult with
someone else.

Q. You mentioned before that the number of licks allowed
has been limited according to whether you are elementary
school, junior high school or high school?

A. In the current policy; that is correct.

Q. What provision is there, or what way is there, either
in the policy or that you know of, to insure that those limits
are adhered to?

38

A. It is a provision of the policy that the principal is to
keep a log on the cases of corporal punishment.

Q. How do you have any insurance that the log is going
to be maintained accurately? Is there any way of assuring
that?

A. Yes; by the administrative staff under whom that
school works, which would look at that log.

172] Q If the principal didn’t write down a paddling that
took place, there would be no way of knowing such pad-
dling took place?

A. That's right; if he wanted wo falsify the records, then
he could do so.

Q. Indeed, there is no real way of knowing that any of
these requirements are adhered to; any of these regulations,
the ten or so?

A. I would have to say my answer to that would be no.

Q. Isn’t it true that there is no formal requirement and
it is not the practice to inform the student population of
these regulations?

A. No. I think the answer to that is no.

Q. What requirement is there?

A. The requirement to interpret to the staff and students
what the rules and regulations of the school are.

Q. Where is this written?

A. It is written in—I think implied or written, in a num-
ber of places in our policies.

Q. Are you suggesting it is the policy of the school system
to inform the students, “When you are paddled, you will
receive only so many licks; [73] and a determination must
be made by a principal; you are not allowed to be paddled
by anybody other than the principal“?

A. I think the principal would need to interpret those
policies and regulations to his staff and to his student body.

Q. Im not asking you about the staff, sir; I’m asking if
you have personal knowledge of the fact that students are
informed of these policies.

A. I evs'd not have personal knowledge of what goes on

in 237 sch .

Q You t point out any regulation which said that
these particu.ar policies—corporal punishment policies and

regulations be posted in the school any place, or be distrib-
uted to the students? as
A. No; we do not have regulations requiring them to be

E Inn it e fact—and T would be happy to show you the
icy and regulations for the purpose of this question—tha
eae objective or subjective, or combined objective and
subjective, determination to be made by the principal be-
fore he decides to paJdle a student, is whether or not it will
change his behavior?

these policies relating to the determination of whether a
paddling should take place, is the determination by the prin-
cipal of whether or not the paddling will change the
student’s behavior, and that is considered an important
requirement? ;

The word “important” is written in. ade"

A. I think the answer to what you are saying is yes, as I

CROSS-EXAMIN ATION

. Howarp: “
i in the portions of the [75] deposition
read, and the questions that were asked by Mr.
Feinberg, there was very slight reference to your background
and educational employment, and I would like to amplify
that a little bit.

You have been superintendent of schools for five years
now in Dade County?

A. I will have to count them up myself. I came in 1968.
Going on five years, Mr. Howard. Soon, before too long, it
will be the end of the fifth year.

ivy
8

40

Q. Could you briefly teli the Court your educational
background? |

A. You mean collegiate preparation?

Q. Yes; your collegiate and graduate work and degrees
which you hold.

Mr. Fernserc. For the record, I would like to object to
this examination, because I think it goes into, perhaps, the
question of qualifying Dr. Whigham for testimony that Mr.
Howard would want to submit in defense of this suit.

The Court. No. You have asked him for many opinions
and this goes to the Court weighing it, deciding what weight
should be given to the opinions. It is proper questioning.

76] The Wirness. My Bachelor's Degree from Emory
University of Georgia; Bachelor’s Degree from the Uni-
versity of Georgia; Doctorate from New York University,
Doctorate and Ph. D. Bachelor and undergraduate degree in
political science.

By Mr. Howarp:

Q. Would you briefly detail your employment experience.
then, as an educator?

A. I was initiaily, in education, a teacher. Then, following
that, assistant principal, a principal; then I was an assistant
superintendent of schools for a number of years and then
was superintendent of schools in Oak Ridge, Tennessee prior
to coming to Miami, where I came as a deputy superintendent
of schools and then became superintendent.

Q. Was corporal punishment, or the authorization for the
use of corporal punishment, a generally prevalent technique
of pupil control in the various school systems in which you
have been employed as a teacher or as an administrator?

A. I am hesitating on your words, “generally prevalent”.

Q. I am not asking you about the prevalence of its actual
use.

77] A. You are not asking about its use?

Q. Was it authorized in the various schools?

A. By policies, yes. In the school systems, I believe. in
which I have worked, it was permissible, by policy, to ad-
minister corporal punishment.

Q. You gave the figure of 237 schools in the Dade County
Public School System?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the student population now in the Dade
County Public School System?

41

A. The student population, at this time, is somewhere
between 240,000 and 243,000 students. That is elementary
and secondary schools. It does not include adult programs
and so forth.

Q. What is the total personnel population in the school
system, of both teachers and administrators?

A. You mean teachers and administrators?

Q. Yes.

A. Because there are other employees.

Q Leaving aside non-instructional, maintenance, carpen-
ters, and such.

[73] A. The figure is somewhere around 12,000.

Q. What is the size of the Dade County School System as
compared to other systems throughout the country?

A. Size. in terms of student enrollment—which I assume you
are referring to—would make us the sixth largest school sys-
tem in the United States.

Q. Would you explain to the Court, in general terms, your
duties and responsibilities as superintendent of the school
system? What different problem areas do you oversee in the
superintendent’s job?

A. IJ hope some of them aren't always problems.

The superintendent of schools in the Dade County system
has a number of duties that are assigned to him by law,
statutory.

Mr. Ferneerd. Your Honor, for the sake of brevity, I would
stipulate that Dr. Whigham is the chief administrator. officer,
of schools, and I think the Court can take judicial notice of
the fact that he exercises executive duties in accordance with
his powers in his job.

To go into every detail of what [79] his position is, I think is
a waste of the Court’s time. |

Mr. Howarp. I am not going to go into tremendous detail,
Your Honor, but I think the scope of his responsibility goes,
not only to his qualifications, but it also serves to put this issue
of corporal punishment somewhat in perspective, from the
standpoint of the operation of a school system of this size.

The Court. All right, sir. Overruled.

By Mr. HOWARD:

Q. You may continue.

A. In general terms, a superintendent would be responsible
for assisting the Board in the formulation and issuing of basic

42

policies and regulations for the operation of the school system,
in making basic resource allocations for general oversight of
the administration of the school system.

There are areas of operation which are administered from
the county level; personnel service in the school system; the
physical plant systems in the school system; the financial
services, the transportation system, food service, and so forth,
in our [80] school system is divided into six geographical areas
and we have an area superintendent under whom the various
school units operate, and the responsibility of the superin-
tendent is the overall supervision and coordination of those
services.

Q. Then your duties go considerably beyond just the over-
seeing of curriculum formation and the presentation of curricu-
lum studies in the school, I gather?

A. Yes. The development of educational programs, instruc-
tional policies and regulations, basic program structures, of
course, is one of the functions.

We have a department under—at the county level and, of
course, that is also a responsibility area at the school level,
but it includes the other functions, financial—the total opera-
tion of the school system.

Q. What is the current annual budget of the school system.
Dr. Whigham?

A. If you include the current expenditure for capital pur-

poses our annual budget would be $275,000.
[81] Actually, the budget, by the time the fiscal year is
over, we will get close to $300,000. It is because you amend
in certain portions of the budget. So $275,000 to $300,000
would be the budget.

The budget increases during the year, during various con-
tracts, and appropriations are amended into the budget.

Q. From the standpoint of the pupil in the school system,
your responsibilities at the top of the administrative heap
include curriculum—general overseeing of curriculum?

A. Yes; in the educational programs, curriculum, if you like
to use that term.

Q. The provision of the physical plant, the school’s
equipment?

A. Yes.

Q. The provision of personnel, teaching personnel, and
administrators in the schools?

A. Ves.

Q. Purchasing?

A. Purchasing, yes, is one of the functions that is under our
general administration.

Q. Transportation?

[82] A. Yes; transportation.

Q. — — — degs.

A. I don't think of those two terms as being synonymous,
but yes.

Q. The provision of health and food requirements;
lunches, clinical care?

A. Food service, yes.

The health services we provide, Mr. Howard, are health
services provided through the County Health Department in
the schools. It is a cooperative arrangement.

Q. In this total picture, I want you to discuss now the
question of pupil discipline and purposes and needs for dis-
cipline among the pupil population of the schools.

Why is it necessary, in the first place? What purpose does
discipline in the school serve?

Mr. Fernserc. If Your Honor please, I really think this
is way outside of direct testimony in this case. I limited my
testimony to paddling and corporal punishment.

The Court. What difference does it make, as a practical
matter? You have one judge, no [83] jury, and it may well
be that he is exceeding the direct and it might be that the
witness may not have to stay here all week, or come back. I
don’t know.

Mr. Howarp. That is one purpose I am trying to serve, to
not have to do this in two or three pieces.

The Court. You can ask the question. Maybe the biggest
objection would be that if you are exceeding cross, then you
should not lead or cross examine, but rather ask direct
questions.

Mr. Fernperc. I really have no objection to these ques-
tions in the abstract.

The Court. Treat him as your witness when you go be-
yond cross.

Mr. How. All right, sir.

By Mr. Howarp:
Q. Do you remember the question, Doctor?

44

A. Yes; discipline in the school: For the purpose of estab-
lishing what we call a climate—we use that term—that is
conducive to learning and for the control of the behavior of
students and students in groups at the schools, so thet the
purposes of the school can proceed.

Is part of this the example or teaching [84] to students
about the existence of external standards or rules? Is that
part of the discipline picture?

Mr. FEIN BERG. Your Honor, I am going to object. That
is a leading question and I don’t think it is appropriate.
If there was ever a leading question, that is it.

The Court. Sustained.

By Mr. Howarp:

Q. Dr. Whigham, assuming the need for an orderly climate
for learning and order in the schools, which I think you
mentioned, what different methods are available within the
school system now for maintaining order and discipline and
good behavior in the schools?

A. Let me get at some basic things which I think are very
relevant here and are a part of it. As a matter of fact, I
think some of our publications indicate it, or certainly our
statements do, that the first, most basic thing, in terms of
creating order in the school and behavior of students, is an
adequate instructional program; placing a student in one of
those programs which is suited to his needs.

The quality of teaching in the classroom [85] and the
quality of instruction is a very important aspect of con-
trolled student behavior.

In terms of the kind of practices or provisions that schools
have made in controlling the behavior of students—we are
talking in the broad dimension here—we have tried to
emphasize the providing of students with a right to partici-
pate in the life of a school.

Q. How is that done?

A. In any number of ways; in student government,
through participation of student activities. Secondary schools
have been asked, for example, to set up specific committees
that get at some of the current problems and concerns in
the schools, and to have students’ participation on those.

There are other kinds of ways of working with students,
groups of students or individual students, where there is a

45

problem, such as conferences with them, conferences with
their parents, having the assistance of some of the specialists
where we have them on the staff, visiting teachers, psycholo-
gists, or referral to another agency, again, where that is
available.

It is a matter of having conferences [86] with the prin-
cipal or assistant principal.

The assistance of the guidance people is a part of this,
although we don’t see them as being responsible, per se, for
discipline; the whole of the guidance, all of these are part
of controlling the behavior of students at school.

There is also a School Board policy which permits the
suspension and expulsion of students, if that is determined
advisable.

Q. Do the PTA’s and parent groups enter into this picture,
also, in terms of methods of controlling student behavior?

Mr. Fernsperc. Excuse me; I didn’t get your question.

The Court. Does the PTA busy itself helping control
discipline in the schools?

The Witness. Well

Mr. Fernserc. If that is the question, I have no objection.

The Wrrxrss. I think that works formally and informally.
Some of our policies prescribe that parents shall be involved.

For instance, the school dress; parents shall be involved
in. the deliberation of [87] this.

Some of our other practices require that there be parental
involvement. In addition to such formal means as that, I
am sure it feeds back to the school officials, the teachers and
principal and so forth, informally from parents, who are
certainly a part of this.

By Mr. Howarp:

Q. Are curriculum adjustments made, from time to time,
with particular students, to attempt to help with behavior
problems? Is this a standard technique? ,

A. Yes. This is to be looked at as whether this youngster
is properly placed in the instruction program from the stand-
point of both the particular instruction experience being
ofered him in the class or curriculum to which he is assigned,
pius the possibility of shifting this youngster to a program
which more nearly meets his interests and needs and to the
extent that we have resources to do it, yes.

The answer to your question is yes.

46

Q. I think you mentioned, in your direct testimony, that
one of your responsibilities is to formulate and propose
policies and regulations to [88] the School Board for
adoption!

A. Ves; or to be the person who heads up this process.

Q. You oversee the process of the formulation of the
policies?

A. Yes.

. Are ere various policies enforced, bearing on student
behavior and discipline within the schools?

A. There are, and from time to time we have issued
publications that summarize—not summarize, but list those,
and indicate the reference to them, or as far as the adminis-
trative staff, each member of the administrative staff, each
principal, each head of a department or office of each school
have a copy of Board policies and regulations; but we have
issued publications.

Q. Can you enumerate some of the policies, and if you
have material that you want to refer to to help you, you
can do so; the policies which have to do with student be-
havior and student discipline?

A. Policies relating to control of student behavior on
buses; policies in reference to field trips; policies in refer-
ence to dress; policies in [89] reference to the relationship
between law enforcement officials « 1 the school and the
student while he is at school.

Policies requiring that certain kinds of committees be set
up in schools and certain steps be taken toward the control
of conduct at school.

Policies on suspension and expulsion. Policies on corporal
punishment.

Policies of this type.

Q. The policy, then, and regulation, on corporal punish-
ment is one of these various techniques or written policies
which are available to the school staffs?

A. Yes.

Q. With reference to the policy and regulations on cor-
poral punishment, is this reviewed and revised, from time to
time? Has it been so developed?

A. There is no requirement—I think my answer to your
question is yes, but I would like to respond to it.

47

There is no requirement that they be, at a specified in-
terval, reviewed. Because of the concern of school behavior
and conduct of students, in recent years it has been revised
numerous times.

[90] Q. Is this true of other policies and regulations relat-
ing to student behavior and control?

A. It would be true of all policies and regulations.

Q. Dr. Whigham, you were asked a number of questions
about your opinions on corporal punishment, and I want
to ask you just a few more.

How do you see the role of corporal punishment in the
school system today? What is its place? What is its proper
function, as you see it, for the availability of corporal pua-
ishment as a technique?

A. Well, I think there are strong differences of opinion,
even among professional educators, about the use of cor-
poral punishment.

It is a technique which is available to staff members, under
the Florida law and under the School Board policies and
regulations.

Staff members feel it is a useful technique under certain
circumstances.

I am not sure I am being responsive to what your question
is.

Q. Do you, or does anyone else, as far as you know, within
the educational circle, recommend it [91] as the prime and
only technique for controlling student behavior?

Mr. FH d. Your Honor, I object to the very gener-
alized nature of that question. He says, “does anybody”, and
that is pretty general.

The Covrr. You can answer that question. Overruled.

The Wirness. Well, I was going to say, Mr. Howard, I
can’t say what everybody—which is what your question im-
plies—in education may think about this.

It is not my general impression that educators generally
would find the use of corporal punishment as you indicated.
As a matter of fact, quite the opposite; that they would
not find acceptable the indiscriminate use of corporal
punishment. ,

I would use the term, “indiscriminate” to describe—to be
the same as the adjectives that you just used to describe it.

216-455 O+ 16+ 4

48

By Mr. Howarp:

Q. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages, or
the considerations, to be taken into account by school ad-
ministrators, as between the [92] administration of corporal
punishment and suspension or expulsion of a student? What
factors are involved in that decision?

A. I think the administrator, in deciding whether he was
going to use one or the other—here, again, we have a hypo-
thetical question, and I always want to give the responses—
it depends on the specific circumstances; but I think, in
the first place, he would need to determine first the other
means are not useful or have not succeeded, the other means
available to him to have control or to secure proper be-
havior, desirable behavior, as he would find it in that situa-
tion, from the student.

With reference to the two that you specified there, sus-
pension or expulsion versus corporal punishment; suspension
or expulsion would terminate either temporarily or for a
longer period of time, the education of the youngster, and
he needs to weigh that step, which is a very serious step,
against whether the corporal punishment would, in fact.
bring some improvement in the situation; whether it is a
useful procedure or technique with this particular youngster
and that particular situation.

If he concludes that it is not and [93] the other means
are available, then he might want to turn to suspension and
expulsion.

Am I responding to your question here?

Q. Corporal punishment leaves the student in school,
right, as opposed to suspension or expulsion?

A. That is the idea behind it, yes.

Q. Assuming that corporal punishment is to be used in
a given instance, is it desirable that the punishment be given
as quickly as possible after the offense?

A. Yes; as a general principle we have found that is
desirable.

Q. What are the reasons against a delayed period of any
significance between the misconduct and the administration

of corporal punishment?

A. Primarily to keep

b-
_ Fernperc. If Your Honor please, I am going to 0
Pe this question. I think it calls for an answer from an
expert psychologist, and I don’t think the doctor is qualified
as such to answer this question, particularly since the policy
talks about anxiety, which is a psychological term. a

The Courr. We don’t expect him to [94] testify in the
area of psychology, but I think he can answer the question.
1122 To keep the youngster from building up
undue concern in his mind about the impending punishment;
to keep from coping with this over a long period of time;
the idea is to go ahead with the punishment, as in the terms
indicated * 9

B . Howarp: :

Q. sae opinion, would it be desirable or functional
to post a detailed list of infractions for which corporal
punishment could be administered, with a list of how many
licks for each?

As an educator, how does that idea sound? *

A. Vou are asking me for my judgment, and my answer
that would be no.

5 ot? a Sait
r ™ — of posting a detailed list in that trying

t a list that is exclusive, that becomes exclusive in
2 of human behavior and behavior of students at school,
I would not favor the particular list and posting a list.

I think it tends to remove—certainly [95] is a — in
removing any judgmental aspects. I think the judgment does

ed to t to the situation. ö
* Would it be desirable or functional to require a ~~
or stylized hearing procedure Rs — instance, before the
administration of corporal punishment . .

A. We have not felt it was desirable to require ——
assuming you are referring to some sort of administrative
xy = sort of procedural steps — to what we now

ide for suspension hearings, for example.

Tt think this would require more time; would —
more personnel to be involved and 80 forth, that it ——
lengthen the time, for instance, if it was determined —
punishment was to be administered, it would lengthen
time before the punishment was administered.

50

Q. You are referring back to the student’s concern, then,
or worry, which you mentioned before?

A. I would consider that would not be desirable to prolong
that period of time.

Following that, then, obviously the [96] way the policy
and regulations now require the principal to make the deci-
sion for administration of corporal punishment involves some
delay, as opposed to the teacher administering the
punishment.

Summarily, in view of your last answer, what is the
desirability of having the principal pass on making these
decisions in each case?

A. The law provides, if I recall, I assume the thinking
behind that provision was not to give

Mr. Feinserc. Your Honor, I object to assuming the
thinking.

The Covurr, Sustained.

By Mr. Howarp:

Q. What is your opinion, your judgment, on the desira-
bility of having the principal be the one who decides on
corporal punishment?

A. There is one person in the school that is passing judg-
ment on the total practices of the school, and also so that
that decision is not made solely by a teacher in the school;
but the teacher, in order to have corporal punishment admin-
istered, would have to consult with the principal, would have
to have the judgment of the principal himself involved.
[97] Q. Mr. Feinberg asked you some questions intended
to suggest that there was no way that the policy and regula-
tions on corporal punishment can be enforced, so to speak,
within the schools.

Is it not a fact that the policy requires the presence of
an adult witness when corporal punishment is to be
administered?

A. The policy specifies that, yes.

Q. It does require that a log be kept of each corporal
punishment?

A. The present policy does specify that, yes.

Q. If the principal, or any other member of the staff,
violates these policies, would there be grounds for dismissal
or for proceedings for dismissal?

51
Mr. Fernserc. I object to the leading nature of that

def withdraw the objection

I w the ( a

The Wrrness. If any violation of the policy would require
that, we consider that and take some action with reference
to it. It might or might not lead to the particular action
that you mentioned.

os Bowell I have no further [98] questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

By Mr. Fein :
Q. When you testified to a number of alternative methods
of dealing with disciplinary problems in school—you just testi-
fied to that?

Ves. .
8 7 punishment is merely one in the arsenal that is

available to the school system dealing with disciplinary prob-
lems; is that right?

A. Yes. A

Q. Isn’t it true that the ome 3 a is gen-

considered a last-resort plinary measure 2
A that the terminology used in several of the editions
corporal punishment policy?
1 * — — is — This term, as I would under-
stand it, does not mean that every other means must, in every
circumstance and with each individual case, be exhaustively
used. It means that it is not to be considered the sole means
iscipline in the school.
4% Walt 1 You are saying, on [99] the one hand it
doesn’t mean that all other ape be used. On the
hand, it doesn’t mean it is the sole means.
3 it mean that it 1 be considered the first?
len't that the general meaning of it !
1 No, I would not say 2 1 “my say no, in every cir-
cumstance it does not mean it cannot be.

. I didn’t ask you in every circumstance. I said generally
it suggests at least it shouldn’t be the first. Isn’t that a fair
statement?

A. It depends on what you mean here. If you say it generally
means where it cannot be, then the answer to your question is

ves.

52

Q. Do you attach any significance to the fact that that
particular phraseology—and I will quote it from the 8/5/70
revision, the second paragraph Corporal punishment may
be used in the case where other means of seeking cooperation
from the student has failed.”

We find that particular phraseology in both the third and
fourth revision. Quoting, now from the fourth revision, “Cor-
poral punishment may [100] be used when other means of
seeking cooperation from the student has failed.”

We find that in the last revision that language, even in
substance, has been deleted.

Is there any significance to the fact it has been deleted?

A. Yes; I think there is significance to the fact that it has
been deleted. It was deleted because of the request of organi-
zations, of staff members, particularly the classroom teachers
association and others, who questioned whether the other
terminology might not lead to an interpretation of what was
not meant; precisely the point you are getting at today.

If I recall those discussions and debates at the time that that
change was made, they particularly wanted to eliminate the
“last-resort” phrase in the policy.

Q. Are you familiar with the National Educational
Association?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe for us what the National Educational
Association is?

A. The National Educational Association [101] is an organi-
zation of educators in this country now confined largely to
the classroom teachers.

Q. Isn’t it true that recently the National Educational Asso-
ciation came out with a long, detailed history called “Educa-
tional Psychological Report“, condemning the use of corporal
punishment in the schools and urging that it be phased out as
quickly as possible?

A. I would not be able to respond to your question. I am
not familiar with your report.

Q. Are you familiar with the report about which I speak?

A. No. I said I am not familiar with that report.

Q. Hopefully for the last time; getting to the question of
who makes the determination as to who gets paddled, isn’t it
fact that not only is it required by the School Board policy

53

that the principal be the one to make the decision, but the
only mention of corporal punishment in state law—at least
the only one that I can find—refers specifically to the fact that
teachers should not paddle students without the prior consent

of the principal?

Are you — with that? There [102] is a state statute
spelling that out?

A. I can’t quote it. I don’t recall it.

Q. You suggested that violations—you stated, in fact,
that violations—on cross-examination—that violations of
School Board policy would result in administrative inquiry.

I think Mr. Howard asked you whether it would result
in dismissal and you said it would at least result in some
kind of inquiry; is that right?

A. It does not automatically lead to dismissal, but it
would lead to an administrative inquiry.

Q. If violations of School Board policy are found to have
been perpetrated by an administrator, then I assume some
action may be taken; not necessarily dismissal, but some
action?

A. Actions which are available to us by law or policy, yes.

Q. Do you know whether or not any action whatsoever
was taken against those persons who paddled James Ingra-
ham on October 6, 1970?

A. Yes. If I recall, and I don’t recall the specifics—exact
details may not be right there 103] there was an inquiry
or objection to that incident by the area office, I believe on
two occasions.

Q. Do you know what the findings were of that area
office?

A. No, I cannot give them to you; but I believe there was
a reprimand, a letter of reprimand, placed in the file of the
principal.

Q. Did Mr. Wells make the inquiry; do you know?

A. I can’t say.

Q. Do you know if any administrative action was taken,
as a result of the several paddlings which occurred in the
month of September, late September and October 1970 to
Roosevelt Andrews, the other plaintiff in this case?

A. I can’t answer that precisely. I believe—I have for-
gotten whether the investigation—I don’t know. Mr. Fein-
berg, whether it pertained to several cases or one case.

54

Q. You don’t hold any kind of degree in psychology, do
you?

A. No; I’m not a psychologist.

Q. You would agree—at least you did in your deposition—
that there are certain circumstances, 104] certain psycho-
logical factors, that go into paddling students, aren't there?

If you want me to remind you of your testimony

A. I want to explain psychological factors is a term used
in one sense. Are you talking about an exact determination
by a psychologist? That is another matter. But psychologi-
cal factors, yes.

Mr. Fernperc. That's all. No further questions.

105-107]
108] AFTERNOON SESSION

[Thereupon, the trial was resumed and the following pro-
ceedings were had.]

The Court. Who is next?

Mr. Fernserc. I would like to call James Ingraham.

Thereupon:

JAMES INGRAHAM was called as a witness in his own
behalf, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

By Mr. FIN BERG:
Q. Please state your name.
A. James W. Ingraham.
Q. Where do you live?
A. 9221 Northwest 16th Avenue.
Q. How old are you?
A. Sixteen.
Q. Who do you live at that address with?
A. My parents; mother and father.
Q. Who else?
A. My brother and sister.

55

Q. How many brothers and sisters do you [109] have who
live at that address?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you first start going to elementary school?

A. Gladeview.

Q. Is that in Dade County?

A. Yes. a

Q. Did you go to any other elementary schools in >
County?

A. No; not that I can remember. 2

Q. What school did you go to after Gladeview!

A. I was in junior high; Madison Junior High.

Q. Let’s talk about Gladeview for a minute: Did you ever
receive a paddling at Gladeview Elementary School?

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you remember what grade that was in, about?

A. Which one are you talking about?

Q. Excuse me
[110] A. Board or a paddle?

Q. I didn’t understand. I am asking you if you were ever
paddled at Gladeview Elementary School.

A. Yes.

Q. More than once?

A. Yes. om

Q. Do you remember in what class you were paddled’

A. Yes. :

Q. What grade?

A. I was in the fourth, going on the fifth.

Q. Do you remember who your teacher was?

A. Mr. Curry.

Q. Do you — the reason why Mr. Curry paddled
vou? f .
A. To going to tell the time. If you don’t tell the time —
if you don’t get the chance, then they will paddle you.

Q. What location in the school did he paddle you?

A. In the classroom. :

Q. Were the other students present in the classroom when
you were paddled?

111] A. Ves.

56

Q. Were you the only one that he paddled because you
couldn’t tell the time?

A. No.

Q. How many others did he paddle for reasons such as that?

A. Lots of people.

Q. Lots of other children in the classroom?

A. Yes.

Q. You specifically remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember if Mr. Curry paddled students for any
other reason other than not being able to learn?

A. Yes; they get their name written down on the board for
talking.

Q. He paddled for talking?

A. Yes.

2 — ever get paddled by Mr. Curry for talking?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did he ever take you to the principal’s office?
[112] A. No.

Q. Where did he have the paddle?

A. In his room.

Q. Do you remember where it was? Can you picture the
room and where the paddle was?

A. By the desk, on the blackboard.

Q. Where would he paddle the children in the room? Any
specific place in the room?

A. Up by his desk. Sit down and turn this way and they face
that way.

Q. Did he call the children up to the front of the room? Is
that what you are saying?

A. Yeah, or else stand up.

Q. Did the paddle hurt; do you remember that?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you ery?

A. No.

Q. Excuse me?

A. I held it in.

Q. Do you remember if any of the other children cried. in
Gladeview?

A. Yeah.

57

Q. Do you remember any other paddling in [113] Glade-
view Elemen: School that you received or that you saw?

A. Yeah.

Q. What?

A. My PE teacher.

Q. By the PE teacher in Gladeview?

A. Yeah.

Q. Are you certain it was in Gladeview?

A. Yeah.

Q. Tell me about that. Why did the PE teacher paddle you?

A. I got paddled—it was my job to bring in the balls and I
forgot to bring them in, so I got paddled for that.

Like if you fight out there, you get paddled, or don’t get in
line and playing around in line, you get paddled.

Q. Were you paddled for all those reasons?

A. I just got paddled for leaving out the balls.

Q. For not doing your job?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you see other people paddled for those other reasons?
114] A. Yeah.

Q. Do you remember his name?

A. Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Stewart.

Q. Two PE teachers.

Do you remember what grade that was in?

A. Sixth, fifth and fourth.

Q. Where did they get the paddles from?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Can you picture where they obtained the paddles when
they paddled you?

A. You mean out there? They have them on their desk.

C. The PE teachers had their paddles on the desk?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether or not Mr. Lawrence and
Mr. Stewart ever consulted with the principal before paddling
anybody?

A. No. |

Q. Did he ever take you to the principal before he paddled
you?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see them remove any of the other stu-
dents from the PE room or the PE field [115] and take

them away to the principal?

58

aa — ey them, sometimes. Like if they keep fighting

eee
d. This d both Mr. La
.

in the fourth, fifth or sixth grade, > that — aes

A. I see Mr. Curry beat a teacher—I
Q. Who? mean, beat students.

A. Mr. Curry.

Q. You already told us about Mr. Cu Y
addition to what you have told us? 9

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Tell me about that.

A. Like you passing by the room you
1 you see him beating

) Q. In other words, you would pass his room and look in:
is that what you are saying? ‘
[116] A. Yeah.

Q. Do you have any other llecti
Gladeview? y recollection of paddlings in

A. I got hit by a book.

Q. Who was holding the book when you were hit by it?

A. The principal.

Q. Where did he hit you?

A. On my butt.

Q. Do you remember the reason for that?

A. No.

Q. You say you went to Madi 7
that right? ison Junior High School; is

A. Yeah.

Q. What grade did you start Madison at?
A. Seventh.

Q. Did you ever receive any paddlings at Madison?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall specifically any paddlings?
A. Being late. = 1

Q. For being late to class?
A. Yeah.

[117] Q. Where would you get paddled at Madison?

A. In the assistant principal’s office.

Q. Who would do the paddling?

A. All of them. The man named Mr. ——

Q. Tell me what position they held in the school, if you
know. Were they principals, teachers, assistant principals?

A. All of them was assistant principals.

Q. How many were there?

A. Three.

Q. Were you paddled by all of them?

A. No; only by one.

Q. Do you remember his name?

A. Mr. Albert.

Q. Mr. Abbott or Albert?

A. Albert.

Q. Were you paddled by him more than once?

A. Yeah. ;

Q. Do you remember how many times?

A. Not exactly.

Q. Can you give us an estimate?

A. About three or four times.

Q. Were they all for being late?

[118] A. Naw; about two for late—two or three. Yeah,
about three. Naw; two for late, one for fighting and one for
getting accused for a stolen bike.

Q. Let me ask you this: You say you were paddled in
somebody’s office; is that right?

A. Yeah.

Q. Whose office was it?

A. Mr. Albert’s.

Q. Do you remember—think back—do you remember any
of these paddlings specifically and who was present when you
were being paddled?

A. Just Mr. Albert.

Q. On every one of these occasions, only Mr. Albert was
there?

A. No; when the lady was there whose son or boy had
stole his bike, she was the only one present then when I
got paddled.

Q. Tell me about that. You say you stole a bike?

A. No. Alvin stole it, a friend of mine.

Q. How did you wind up getting paddle 7

60

A. Somebody saw me and him on it, so we were called—
they called us into the office the next [119] day and we got
a paddling for it.

Mr. Albert said she could have pressed charges against us,
but she d in’t. She wanted us to get punished, so we got a
paddle.

Q. You say this was in the seventh grade?

A. Yeah.

Q. That was the 1969-70 school year; is that correct?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. I want to go over it again.

You specifically remember this paddling for the stolen
bike?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I want you to think carefully and tell me exactly who
was present in the assistant principal's office.

A. Mr. Albert, a lady and her son and Alvin and me.

Q. No other adults were there?

A. No.

Q. Was the principal there?

A. No.

Q. Were you taken to the principal before you got a
paddling?

[120] A. No.

Q. Do you remember how many licks you received?

A. About five.

Q. Did they hurt?

A. Yeah.

Q. Was Alvin paddled?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember now many licks he received?

A. About ten.

Q. Did he ery?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ery?

A. A little bit.

Q. Do you remember any other times that you were
paddled by Mr. Albert? You said you were paddled about
four times.

Do you remember any other times, specifically?

A. I told you for being late.

61

Q Do you remember being paddled for being late,
specifically?

A. Yes.
l, Q. Can you picture the time you were being paddled?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was in the room then?

A. Just Mr. Albert and some more children who got
paddled for being late.

Q. So you were all paddled for being late?

A. Yeah.

Q. Were any other adults in the room at the time?

A. No.

Q. Were you taken into the principal's office before you
were paddled?

o>
8

you remember being paddled on any other occasion
Albert?

tting in a fight.

you remember that paddling?
eah.

ere were you paddled?

A. In his office.

o was present?

Albert.

o else?

other boy, who I had the fight with.
ere you both paddled?

— ao
Borer.
Thee

POPOPOPOPOPOPOroR
Egy

SFS

*
F 5

you remember how many licks you got that time?
ut four apiece.
it hurt.

Pat

ere any other adults present, at that time?

2 5

| Mr. Albert see you fighting?

2%

ow did he know you were fighting; do you know?
mebody must have went to the office and told.

3

. Do you remember any other times you were paddled
by anybody at Madison? Was Mr. Albert the only man that
paddled you?

[123] A. That paddled me.

Q. Did you see anybody else being paddled by anybody
else?

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. By a man named—I forget his name.

Q. Who was he?

A. He was an assistant principal.

Mr. Howarp. Your Honor, excuse me. Unless we have
some proof about whether there was authority or no author-
ity, it seems to me that just his seeing other people pad-
dled doesn’t prove anything here.

If they are going to get into everything

The Court. Does this have to do with the policy of cor-
poral punishment?

Mr. Fernserc. No. The purpose of this testimony will be
the purpose of much other testimony to show these regula-
tions are not followed; they are ignored.

The Court. Merely the fact that someone else—he saw
someone else get a spanking, you are showing he was not in
the principal’s office?

[124] Mr. Fernpera. I don’t know what he was going to
say. I don’t think I’m putting words in his mouth.

For example, if he saw somebody paddled on the PE
field, I think that would be evidence that there was.

The Court. So you propose to follow up with other ques-
tions along that line?

Mr. Fernserc. Yes.

The Court. All right, sir.

By Mr. Fernserc:

Q. My questions to you was, you said you saw somebody
else paddled; is that right?

A. Yeah.

Q. Who was the person that was doing the paddling? You
say you can’t remember his name?

A. He was tall and dark. He was colored. He had a black
Cadillac. —

Q. That isn't my question.

Who was he in the school; was he a teacher?

them, Mr. Albert’s office here, another

assistant’s office here, and another one right here, and these
doors be open.

When you come in the office, are sitting right down
looking in his door. — 2

Q. That's when you saw this paddling

Did you see more than one?

A. Yes. I seg lots of them.
aan have seen lots of people paddled in there; is that

1. —

Did you see anybody cry as a result of these ings?

A. He paddled a girl.

Q. You saw the girl being paddled?

A. Yes.

. Did they ery?

45

you remember how were standing when
were being paddled? Re — *
A. Straight.
Q. What did he use to paddle them with?
[126] A. A board.

Q. nly referred to as a paddle, in the school
system?

A. Yeah.

Q. How long did you stay at Madison?

A. For a whole year.

Q. Have you told me about all the paddlings you either
received or observed at Madison? Can you think of any
others?

A. No

Q. Where did you go from Madison?

A. I went to Madison from the beginning of the school
year.

Q. Where did you go from Madison? What was the next
school you went to? That was in the seventh grade, right?

A. Yeah.

Q. Where did you go to the eighth grade?

26-465 O- 16-5

A.
Q. You went to Madiaon inthe eighth grade?
A.

Q. When did you go to Drew? What grade were you in

at Pe

A. Eight.
(127 Were you at Drew for the whole time during the
eighth grade?

A. No. "

Q. You started at Madison; is that it?

A. Yes, and then I went to Drew.

Q. You were only at Madison for a few days, though; isn’t
that right?

A. Yeah.

Q. So for the most of the ninth grade, you were at Drew;
is that right?

A. Yes.

K. Did you stay at Drew through the whole ninth grade?

A. That was the eighth.

Q. The whole eighth grade, did you stay at Drew?

A. No. For about—I don’t know how long.

Q. Where did you go after Drew?

A. To Horace Mann.

Q. Did you finish the eighth grade there?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you go through the ninth grade?

A. Yes; Miami Central.

Q. Let’s talk about Drew. You were in [128] Drew for a
half of the eighth grade or so, or more?

A. About a half. Maybe a little bit more.

Q. Who was the principal at Drew when you were there?

A. Mr. Wright.

Q. The man you see in the audience?

A. Yeah.

Q. Can you point the man out?

A. Mr. Wright, right there.

Mr. Fernperc. Let the record reflect that Mr. Wright is
being pointed out. He is sitting next to his attorney, Mr.
Spicer.

By Mr. Fernperc:

Q. Do you remember who the assistant principal was at

Drew?

I x>ore>
Tk
2
834
5
+

witness.
By Mr. Fernens:

—
S
—

Serke
7
5
1 2

Ves.
. Can you point him out?
A. Right by Mr. Deliford?
Mr. Fernserc. Let the record reflect that Mr. Barnes has
been identified by the witness.
By Mr. Fernserc:
Q. Do you know if there were any other assistant princi-
pals or assistants to the principal, at Drew?
A. I’m not sure—but I don’t know his name—but I think
that man with the "
Q. The man with the glasses. Okay.
You don’t know his name; is that right?
A. No.
7 — you experience any paddlings at Drew?
Ves.
Q. Do you know how many?
A. Two.
130] Q. I you know by whom?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. By the PE teacher and Mr. Wright.
Q. Who paddled you first; the PE teacher or Mr. Wright?
A. The PE teacher.
Q. Who is the PE teacher?
A. Mr. Wright and Mr. Kemp.
Q. They were the two PE teachers?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Wright that you have identified as the PE teacher,
he is —4 the same Mr. Wright who is the principal; is that
correct

66
A. No.
Q. He’s another Mr. Wright?
A. Yes.

Q. Were you paddled more than once by either Mr. Kemp
or Mr. Wright, the PE teacher?

A. Just once.

Q. Can you remember that incident?

A. Yes.

Q. Was anybody else paddled, at that time, besides you?
[131] A. Yes; the whole class.

Q. Do you remember the reason?

A. Everybody was talking.

Q. Who did the paddling?

A. Both of them; Mr. Wright and Mr. Kemp.

Q. Tell me how they did it.

A. Lined the whole class up in two rows.

Q. They lined the class up in two rows?

A. Yes. :

Q. Did they divide the class in half?

A. Yeah.

Q. What did they tell the class to do then?

A. Step up, one by one, and take a lick.

Q. Step up one by one and take a lick?

A. Yes. See, you have two lines. Mr. Wright one here, and
Mr. Kemp over here, and everybody come up one by one and
got a lick.

Mr. Wright put on his gloves.

Q. Mr. Wright put on his glove?

A. Yes.

Q. What kind of glove is this?

A. A leather type glove. One of them leather ones.

[132] Q. Why did he do that?

A. So it wouldn’t shake. So his hand wouldn’t sting when he
hit you with the board.

Q. Did both Mr. Kemp and Mr. Wright participate in this
paddling?

A. Yes.

Q. They each had a paddle?

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you know where they obtained the paddles?

A. They was in the office.

Q. In whose office?

A. They office; Mr. Wright’s and Mr. Kemp’s office.

Q. Had you ever seen these paddles before or since?

A. I seen them once. Yes, once in a while in the office on the
desk.

Q. Have you ever seen anybody else paddled by Mr.
Wright, the PE teacher, or Mr. Kemp?

A. Did I see——

Q. Anybody, besides this one occasion when the whole
class war paddled.

A. Yes, I see people get paddled by Mr. [133] Wright before.

Q. Do vou remember on how many occasions Mr. Wright
paddled? The PE teacher, I am talking about.

A. Lots of times. About, at least, almost three people a week.

Q. Do you remember why he paddled people; the reason?

A. Yes; for late, talking, eating in the class, cursing.

Q. Anything else?

A. Or coming, you know, like upstairs, just caught saying
names around all the white teachers upstairs, you get a pad-
dling for that, or for fighting.

Q. Mr. Wright, the PE teacher, would paddle for all of these
reasons, and you saw people paddled for all of these reasons?

A. Yes.

Mr. Howarp. Your Honor, I think he is leading his witness.

Mr. Fri x ERG. I think he testified to that.

The Cour. If he did, you are [134] repeating the testi-
mony.

By Mr. Fernserc:

Q. Let me ask you this: When the whole class was paddled
by Mr. Wright and Mr. Kemp, do you know whether
Mr. Wright or Mr. Kemp consulted with the principal before
paddling the class?

A. They didn’t.

Q. How do you know that?

A. Because they—th» first time they told us to shut up

and everybody kept talking, so they come out and told
everybody to line up.

Q. Do you know whether, on any of these occasions, they
consulted with the principal?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. How do you know that they didn’t?

A. Because they—half the time, all they do, like if you
say nigger or something, they will get you and paddle you
and tell you you’re going to change or either in the class
they take your foot and paddle.

So they don’t have time to tell the principal.

Q. Did you ever see the principal or any of the assistant
principals when they were paddling [135] the students in
the PE class?

A. No.

Q. You mentioned you were paddled another time by
Mr. Wright, the principal; is that correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you want to tell me about that?

A. Well

Q. When did that happen; do you remember?

. Well, in October.

. October of what year?

. I don’t remember what year. It was two years ago.
. 1970?

. Yeah.

. Who paddled you; Mr. Wright?

. Yeah.

. Where did he paddle you?

In his office.

Q. In the principal’s office?

A. Yeah.

Q. Was anybody else paddled at that time?

A. Yeah.

Q. Who?

A. Some more students.

136 Q. How many other students?

A. About eight to ten. About that many.

Q. Where had you just come from before you got to the
principal’s office?

A. We come from out of the auditorium.

Q. Who got you out of the auditorium?

A. Mr. Wright.

Q. The principal?

A. Yeah; he took us to his office.

Q. He took you to his office?

A. Yes.

OF OOO

Q. What happened? Who was the first one paddled?
A. I don’t know their names.
Q. You weren’t the first one paddled?
A. No; I was the last.
Q. Did you see the others paddled?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there girls and boys?
A. Yeah.
Q. They were all paddled?
A. Yes.
Q. Did any of them cry?
A. Yeah.
[137] Q How come you were the last?
A. Because I wasn’t going to get no paddle.
Q. What do you mean? I didn’t understand that.
A. I didn’t do nothing to get nothing for.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Wright that?
A. Yeah.
Q. What did you say to him?
A. I said I didn’t do nothing but went up on the stage
by accident and I ain’t going to get no paddling.
Q. Did he tell you that he was going to paddle you?
A. I don’t remember what he said. I don’t remember
exactly what he said, but he said, “You wait right here.”
Q. Why did you say you were not going to take a
paddling?
A. Because I didn’t do nothing.
Q. How did you know you were going to be paddled?
A. Beca’ e he said so.
Q. He saiu he was going to paddle you?
A. Yes; he was going to paddle everybody.
[138] Q. When you saw these other students paddled, who
else was in the office besides you, the students and Mr.
Wright?
A. Nobody.
Q. Was Mr. Deliford in the office?
A. No.
Q. Was any other teacher in the office?
A. No.
Q. Was Mrs. Miranda in the office?
A. No.
Q. Who is Mrs. Miranda?

70

A. The lady back there.

Q. Who was she, at that time?

A. Who was she?

Q. Yes.

A. Science teacher. Naw, not science; black history, or
something like that teacher. She was a teacher.

Q. She was the teacher?

A. Yes.

Q. Was she your teacher that day?

A. Yeah.

Q. But she wasn’t in the room when you were paddled;
when the other students were paddled?
[139] A. No.

Q. Who was in the room when you were paddled?

A. Mr. Wright, Mr. Barnes and Mr. Deliford.

Q. What happened to the other children?

A. They went back into the room.

Q. They were sent out of the principal’s office?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you resist the paddling?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember if he told you how many times he
was going to beat you?

A. Started off with five, and then he went up to twenty.

Q. Did he eventually paddle you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you physically resist it?

A. Yes.

Q. How did he paddle you, if you resisted it?

A. They took off their coats when they come in.
[140] Q. Who were they“?

A. Mr. Deliford, Mr. Barnes and Mr. Wright.

Q. They took off their coats?

A. Yes, and their watches.

Q. Then what did they do?

A. Told me to take the stuff off my pockets and take off
my coat.

Q. Take the things out of your pockets?

A. Yes; my back pockets.

Q. What kind of coat were you wearing?

A. A blue jean jacket.

Q. They told you to take that off?

71

A. Yes. *

Q. Then what did they tell you to do?

A. “Stoop over and get your licks.”

Q. Show me how they showed you to do that.

Q. Yes.

A. Told me to get like this, and then I wouldn’t take
no——

Q. Did you do that

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0213%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.