Nanny caught on camera, N.C. student paddling: Who can hit our children?

After news spread about a nanny caught on camera striking a child and North Carolina schools just now considering a stand against paddling in the classroom, a question needs to be asked: Who has the right to hit our children? No one. Not the nanny caught on camera, not N.C. teachers. 

A nanny was caught on camera slapping a child she was caring for. The nanny tried to feed the child, seen here in a snapshot of the hidden camera film, but the baby refused the bottle, causing the nanny to strike the child multiple times.

As news breaks today about students being paddled in North Carolina schools and a Staten Island mom who watched a live feed from a hidden camera, powerless to stop as a nanny smacked her infant in the face, the question isn’t just about the idea of using corporal punishment, but who (if anyone) has the right to hit our children?

I could not watch the video clip of Staten Island nanny Mamura Nasirova caught on camera slapping an infant across the face so hard the child rocked sideways, without thinking some dark thoughts about what I would do in that mother’s place. The infant was not taking the bottle and the nanny repeatedly smacks the baby in the face. According to the Staten Island Advance, the mother rushed home and the nanny is now jailed on child endangerment charges.

My mother just called me after seeing the story on the news in New Jersey to remind of how, when I was the age of the baby in the video, my nanny kidnapped me and took me to her apartment in Queens. When my father and police arrived there she dangled me from a balcony as my father tried to convince her I was not possessed by demons telling me not to take my bottle. So apparently nanny screening hasn’t progressed very far in the past 45 years.

Sadly, my father was an alcoholic who believed that he and his drunken friends all had the right to give me a fat lip or fracture if I displeased them in any way.

Parenting four sons is a challenge, especially through the terrible twos when there were times I used what Oprah once termed “the diaper pop” or a swat to the butt when the child was so far off the rails he was either endangering himself or another child. That was the limit for me. If someone else were to hit my child that would be a very bad day for everyone concerned.

To ice this mud pie, The Associated Press reports that North Carolina's state school board is pondering “taking a stand against using physical pain to enforce discipline even as the number of children paddled in public schools falls fast."

Corporal punishment is still allowed in a dozen or so of the state's 115 districts. The AP adds the board isn’t asking to outlaw the practice which took place on 404 occasions in schools statewide, down from 891 cases in the 2010-2011 academic year. 

For me, that’s just 404 times too many that a public school teacher decided it was time to strike a child in the classroom. Worse, N.C. is not the only state to allow corporal punishment of students. The only hand raised in a classroom should be to ask a question.

My Grandpa Frank who lived in Passaic, N.J. went to Catholic school and never made it past the seventh grade because the nun would beat his hands with a ruler when he was late to school. He was late because his father had died and he took a paper route to support his mother and sisters. In seventh grade he snatched the ruler, snapped it, and left school forever, becoming the neighborhood fix-it man.

So why does all this hitting happen anyway? Perhaps the best answer came from a character in the film "Time After Time", when H.G. Wells tells his assistant, “The first man to raise a fist is the man who’s run out of ideas.”

My idea is a time out -- for the caregiver or teacher. They need to make sure anger and frustration aren’t driving their actions. Then we need to turn to a site I found called where they list eight good alternatives to striking a child for disciplinary purposes including: empathy, making a contract with a child, prevention, and reward systems.

In these modern parenting and teaching times with an entire internet at our disposal to search for ways in which to arm ourselves against disciplinary problems, there’s really no excuse for running out of ideas and hitting a child.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to