Chapter 7 — Artane

Physical abuse

A former resident from the same period explained: Another Brother, if you are talking or doing other things in the dormitory that you weren’t supposed to be doing, he would make you go in to the washroom and put your hand into very cold water, because there was no hot water in Artane, and he would make you put your hand in the cold water for about ten [minutes] to quarter of an hour. Then he would call you out and while your hands were still wet, he used to make you put your hand, palm upwards, on the iron bedstead and he had a foot ruler and he used to slice the top of your fingers. It was only afterwards when the blood returned to your hand that you actually got the pain that was involved. Speaking here, it doesn’t seem to imply that being hit at the top of your fingers was a great punishment but it certainly was. The pain afterwards was more than the actual striking of the fingers.

Another technique was to get the boy to hold his hand over a hard object; the same witness explained the procedure: There was one teacher, and if he needed to smack you with the strap, would make you hold your hand possibly about an inch or two away from the desk and then he would smack you with this strap ... and when they walloped you on the front of the hand, your hand came down on the desk, so you got it on the front and the back of the hand.

Another witness, there in the 1950s, described a similar procedure. He said, ‘You would put your hands out and if he missed he would make you put your hands on the wall ... so you couldn’t pull your hand back’.

A resident from the late 1940s described how a teacher would punish boys who got something wrong: If you didn’t get something right in class, if he asked me a question or whatever it was and I can’t remember what it was, if I didn’t get it right, he would come along and he would take your ear. He said “this part of your ear is no good, it won’t do any harm”. He pierced the side of my ear with his nail and dragged you to the board to write the correct answer on the board whatever it was that you got wrong. He would escort you back the same way. You would have to pray that you didn’t get something wrong the next day because although your ear was sore with a scab on it he would still do the same thing with the same ear.

He then added, ‘Outside of that he never used the cane. I never saw him raise the cane to anyone’.

One of the functions of the rules and regulations for corporal punishment was to ensure that chastisement was carried out only for serious offences, so that the punisher knew how and when to punish and the wrongdoer knew what to expect. One effect of these other forms of punishment was to remove predictability about physical punishment. Uncertainty about what was going to happen next contributed to the climate of fear described by many of the complainants.

Some witnesses complained that the punishments they received sometimes resulted in serious injury. A former resident from the 1940s described an incident on the playing fields: [The Brother] was, I would say in his time, a great hurler. He always carried a hurley with him no matter where he went. When I was on the hurling team, when I was fighting to get on it, I was put in goal and I was dropped and he then said, “I will teach you to be a good goalkeeper”. He beat – he hit balls at me, I am not sure you know how hard a hurley ball is. He hit hurley balls at me one after the other. One of them hit me on the eye and my eye came up (indicating) really, really large. He apologised. The other balls that hit me on the body and head quite badly. He was the one in actual fact who hit me on the knees ... with the hurley. A day later my knees came up like balloons ... It was deliberate because I wasn’t doing what he wanted me to do. I wasn’t being a good enough goalkeeper. I wasn’t stopping enough balls properly ... The next day my knees came up like balloons. I couldn’t walk and I was taken down to the infirmary. There was a lady looked after me. I never saw a doctor all the time I was there. I don’t know how long I was there, I can’t remember to be honest with you, he came to visit me when I was there ... I was in a while but I can’t remember how long.

In their Opening Statement given before the public hearing, the Christian Brothers outlined the rules, regulations and guidelines that governed the use of corporal punishment in industrial and in national schools. They also give an outline gleaned from internal documents of the policy of the Congregation in relation to corporal punishment. A more detailed analysis of the rules, regulations and policy documents of the Congregation are discussed in the Christian Brother General Chapter.

These regulations setting the acceptable standards of the day were often broken. Moreover, the Brothers often broke the two main provisions about corporal punishment in the Christian Brothers Acts of Chapter, namely that proper comportment, gravity and propriety should be observed in administering corporal punishment, and that the only form of corporal punishment authorised should be a leather strap on the palm of the hand.

Physical abuse

Most of the witnesses did not complain of being punished if they had done wrong and deserved chastisement. Their main objections were to unjust, capricious punishments or excessive punishments that were administered without ‘proper comportment, gravity and propriety’, or where the experience was either cruel or humiliating.

In the course of his interviews on behalf of the congregation, Mr Dunleavy discussed the ability of Brothers to complain to their superiors about incidents or deficiencies in Artane: No Brothers interviewed recalled any means by which they could make a complaint on any matter concerning the School. Several Brothers expressed feelings of disquiet about things they had seen during their time at Artane but maintained there existed no process by which they could make their feelings of unease unknown. The absence of any proper complaints procedure for staff was mirrored in a total absence of such a procedure for pupils. If a pupil had a complaint relating to any matter within the School or concerning any Christian Brother in the School he would have to make that complaint to another Brother. Apart from the inadequacy of such a system, Brothers being interviewed recognised that such a complaints procedure was unlikely to be invoked by a pupil because of the fear of his complaint being relayed back to the Brother concerned.

Mr Dunleavy reviewed 11 cases of alleged physical abuse and found that they shared certain features: (a)In no case of an allegation of physical abuse did the School notify the Dept. of Education of the allegation. (b)In no case where the Dept. of Education became aware of an allegation of physical abuse did it insist on carrying out its own investigation, or insist that an independent investigation be carried out. (c)In all cases involving allegations of physical abuse of which the Dept. of Education became aware, the Dept. were content on each occasion for the School authorities to investigate themselves. (d)In no case involving an allegation of physical abuse could I find any evidence that either the School or the Dept. of Education dismissed or disciplined the individual involved. (e)In no case involving an allegation of physical abuse does it appear that the experience of the incident led the School to establish any safety measures or any appropriate code of practice or even a simple regulation governing the maximum force to be used against a boy, to ensure that such incidents did not recur. (f)In no case of an allegation of physical abuse, where it was clear that the Dept. of Education’s own guidelines concerning the proper procedures for the notification of an injury to a boy had not been followed, did the Dept. of Education insist on carrying out its own investigation, or insist that an independent investigation be carried out.

The documentary evidence, the recollections of independent witnesses, the evidence heard by the Committee between September and December 2005, and the report of Mr Dunleavy that was commissioned by the Congregation all described a regime of punishment and physical abuse in Artane.

It is an inadequate response to the allegations of physical abuse to attempt to refute them by forensic analysis. The Congregation failed to address central issues about Artane. There is a body of information showing the prevalence of excessive use of corporal punishment in cases that are documented and others that are acknowledged. The evidence of complainants confirms what is beyond dispute. There was an absence of an ordered system of management and governance of the institution that had inevitable consequences.

1.Artane used frequent and severe corporal punishment to impose and enforce a regime of militaristic discipline. 2.Corporal punishment was systemic and pervasive. Management did nothing to prevent excessive and inappropriate punishment and boys and Brothers learnt to accept a high level of physical punishment as the norm. 3.Brothers used a variety of weapons and devised methods of increasing suffering when inflicting punishment, and in some cases they were cruel and even sadistic. 4.Brothers did not intervene to stop excessive punishment by colleagues, and there was a code of conduct between Brothers that prevented criticism of each other’s behaviour, even in cases where it was clearly extreme or excessive. All Brothers, therefore, became implicated in excesses. 5.Even where a child behaved and kept to the rules, he could still be beaten. 6.The result of arbitrary and excessive punishment was a climate of fear. 7.Artane did not operate within the Rules and Regulations for industrial schools and the precepts of the Christian Brothers concerning corporal punishment. 8.The absence of a punishment book in Artane was a disregard for a specific legal requirement intended for the protection of children. The Punishment Book was not maintained in Artane because the Christian Brothers chose not to maintain it. 9.The Department was also at fault in failing to ensure that the statutory punishment book was properly maintained and reviewed at every inspection. 10.The Department of Education failed in its supervisory role by maintaining a defensive and protective attitude towards the management and staff. Even when it conducted an investigation, the Department simply accepted Brothers’ explanations uncritically.