Mr. Knapp made two mistakes in this case. First, he failed to provide
for a situation which, had he been less preoccupied, he might have
foreseen; that, if they won, these boys would consider a late supper a
manly and smart way of celebrating. Second, he punished them, not by
taking away a personal pleasure from each, but by cutting them off from
a social enterprise for the good of the school, an enterprise which was
a means of growth in just that very sense of responsibility which the
boys lacked when they took advantage of their principal’s absence.
If a punishment is too severe in the minds of the pupils, the
administrator loses the possible endorsement of the penalty which would
in fact effectively reinforce it. A punishment that does not accurately
represent social conscience can have almost no value. It generates
repugnance.
“The mood of repugnance tends to give rise to and to be accompanied by
either a mood of anger or of sorrow, according to the degree of
opposition to which it is subjected and the degree of energy available
for resistance.”[6]
Footnote 6:
Shand, _The Foundations of Character_, 406. Macmillan.
[Sidenote: Do Not Fight Instinct]
He made too much of a misdeed that grew out of very natural instinctive
impulses. The public announcement was a flaunt in the face of the entire
school and a severe attack on a matter which had strong public sentiment
behind it. It is unwise to launch one’s self against a small misdeed in
a way to make one an enemy to a popular movement which one after all
desires to promote. Confidence in high school pupils must be genuine,
yet a principal must safeguard them against overstrain on matters where
adolescent enthusiasm easily runs wild. There is a way of trusting
pupils and at the same time “fixing” circumstances so that disobedience
is not likely to occur.