In what objective way was society better off when teachers could hit kids with a ruler. Lower crime rates? Longer life span? More productive workers? Less income inequality?
We weren't but given the choice (false dichotomy, obviously) of teachers hitting kids with rulers for being out of line or having someone who is trained to see everything through the lens of "what charges can we toss at this, what law is being violated" patrolling every school I would choose the former in a heartbeat. Kids hit with rulers is a diffuse bad thing. Kids catching criminal charges is a concentrated bad thing.
That is something that's definitely worse today for white kids. If you were a black kid 60 years ago, it was much worse than it is today.
We as a society should screw more white kids because they're not being screwed as hard as the black kids?
Sounds like a good argument to have school resource officers nowhere if you ask me.
Using size and power to rule children earns fear, not respect, and I think there are a lot of studies to back that up.
Or does it just feel like it was better? My parents think it's much more dangerous for kids to play outside now than back when I was a kid in the 80s. Despite the fact that the crime rate is much lower.
No it's not. Look up the statistics.
>We certainly did not need to have Police permanently stationed in the school.
Most other developed countries don't either. There's no correlation with corporal punishment in schools and school shootings.