After decades of silence, former students of Catholic private establishments have finally decided to speak. In the wake of the Bétharram case-whose victims collective listed 152 complaints at the end of February-, other testimonies in particular flock to ex-student of Notre-Dame-de-Garanging (Hautes-Pyrénées), Notre-Dame du Sacré-Coeur (Landes), or Saint-François Xavier, in Ustaritz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) their education. All describe incessant physical punishment, often very violent, even sexual abuse, perpetrated in these establishments in a period from the early 1960s to the late 1990s.
To understand how such abuses may have existed – and continue – in these private schools, under contract with the State but directed by members of the Catholic Church, the historian of education Claude Lelièvre returns for the Express on the omnipresence of body punishment as an educational tool in certain establishments, at a time when obedience – including physical – was perceived by religious teachers as “Cardinous virtue”.
L’Express: After the Betharram affair, testimonies of abuse and physical, even sexual violence, begin to abound on the part of former students about several other private Catholic establishments. How to explain that so many children experienced violence of this type between the 1960s and the late 1990s, or even beyond?
Claude Lelièvre: To understand, it is first necessary to recontextualize things historically, and notably underline the ideological role of the two great elite teachers from the counter-reform that are the Jesuits and the brothers of the Christian schools. These two orders, which were strong models within the Catholic teacher congregation, place the virtue of obedience at the forefront, considered as cardinal virtue. For example, there is the famous Latin formula among Jesuits “Perinde ac Cadaver “, which means “to be obedient in the manner of a corpse” – and therefore show blind obedience to accomplish the will of God … and his representatives on earth.
This is partly the same thing for the brothers of the Christian schools, who notably distinguished themselves by the codified practice of the ferrule, this kind of leather baton that was struck on the hands. In the establishments directed by this order, we are not talking about a “simple” slap that we would inadvertently give to the students, but rather a conduct inscribed in the regulations of Christian schools, based on the body punishment, where it is admitted to hit a pupil kneeling with the ferrule. It starts from the start of the counter-reform, lasts throughout the 19th century, and left a strong heritage in the 20th century in certain private Catholic establishments, where the idea of making the body suffer so that children learn to obey is completely accepted.
How to explain that these body punishments lasted so long in certain private establishments under contract, despite the various laws prohibiting them formally?
From the 19th century, Jules Ferry went very strongly against corporal punishment at school. In 1887, they were prohibited in public establishments, and in private schools under contract with the State. But in fact, the law is only moderately respected. In 1889, a judgment of the Court of Cassation even restored the right of correction to the masters, in the same way as that granted to parents. In 1908, another specifies that the teachers undoubtedly, by paternal delegation, a right of correction on the children entrusted to them. Of course, to remain legitimate, this right must be limited to the measures to correct the act of indiscipline committed by the child – but we justify, in a way, the right to inflict physical abuse of the students.
The heritage is so anchored that throughout the 20th century, laws will have to constantly recall the ban on bodily punishment at school. Especially since on the criminal side, there remains a right of correction for parents until 2019 – the private sector being an extension of parents’ communities, it has long been considered that the masters also had to have this right of correction, in the interest of the child’s education. There was simply a stronger acceptance of violence by the various actors of the private sector, be it parents or teachers.
The aforementioned establishments have precisely in common to have been considered by parents as “excellence” schools, where severity – especially physical – would have pushed students to the best, in terms of discipline as well as academic results. How to explain this perception at the time?
If Jules Ferry and the Republicans formally prohibit body punishment at school at the end of the 19th, and in general the repressive disciplines, it is precisely because they have the idea of forming republicans. And we do not form republicans as one would form subjects, under the ferrule of a king or an emperor. Clearly, it is a question of teaching children not to be afraid of punishment, but to consent to the rules necessary to learn to govern themselves and the others-it is a question of politics, more than the well-being of the child. Are we in the idea that we want to educate children who will govern themselves, or that we want to put under the ferrule of an authority?
All those who remained in the clerical influence were rather favorable to the idea of considering that the chief is right, that it is necessary to have chiefs, and that we must obey them at all costs. And above all, that any way is good to encourage children to bow before the chiefs – this showed in a way the “serious” of education. It is an ideological choice. In private establishments, parents accepted more easily than there were body punishment for distraction, bad results, slowness in learning.
The fact that these violence often takes place in the camera in the boarding school, without the possibility of talking about it outside, is also very striking for the victims. How to explain this silence?
The most upscale private establishments have always practiced the inter-self and information retention. They thus seek to guarantee their reputation, not only for possible violence exerted by teachers on students, but also for acts of violence in general, between adolescents in particular, or even adolescents against teachers. For reasons that are due to the way the private sector works, that is to say on reputation and the concept of excellence, parents are also much more involved than in the public. Many did not want to attack the reputation of the school by which they themselves had passed, or through which their children had passed. In a way, parents also participated in Omerta around this subject.
The taboo around the questioning of authority, especially religious, also has to do with silence around the violence suffered. Let us not forget that religion is also to accept to submit to authorities supposed to be the representatives of God on earth. If you are not religious, you get back to your discernment. If you are a religious disciple, you make the share of things while respecting whatever it costs the authority that goes beyond you.
From when does the practice of body punishment at school finally become shocking in the eyes of society, including in the private sector?
It was obviously not suddenly done. But we can observe certain key moments, such as during the mixing of schools, from the 1960s. This is due in particular to the fact that much fewer corporal punishment was inflicted in schools supervised by teachers. In summary, it was more easily hit on boys – to which we learned not to cry and endure the blows – than on girls. The massification of teaching also played a role: we no longer guess young children, but also adolescents until the end of secondary – at this age, students are not easily beat. It was not considered acceptable to physically treat adolescents suddenly, teachers and parents of students had to do things.
The rise of revolts and adolescent demonstrations, which led to May 1968, also played in the massive awareness of the young generations of their right to dispose of themselves. Parents and authorities had to accommodate it. In parallel, there have been fewer and fewer congregational teachers in the private sector, and the cardinal value “of obedience at all costs” began to weaken.
How to explain that situations like those of Betharram have persisted for decades, without control or action of the State?
One of the avenues to consider is that when we talk about the school question, there has been a confrontation between the public and the private sector for a very long time. It was a great political issue, as we could see when François Bayrou was Minister of National Education and tried to give advantages to the private sector by reforming the Falloux law, in 1993. For a long time, political leaders had the idea of calming the game in relation to the private, avoiding conflicts and avoiding being considered as the incendiary of a political emblazon on the subject. So we went there with tweezers, without necessarily practicing control, and “letting it go”, in a way.
.