147 entries for Historical Context

At the Emergence hearings held in public, when the investigation recommenced in 2004, Mr Kevin Stanley of the Irish Deaf Society highlighted an issue that was of major concern to his members, namely the policy that was imposed by the Department of Education on deaf schools of preferring oralism over signing as a method of communication. The contention was that this policy was ill-considered and unjustified. It made communication difficult between children educated under the new system and their families, who were used to sign language. It was also argued that the methods employed to implement the policy were abusive, because the school authorities used corporal punishment for that purpose. This last point could be examined in the general context of physical abuse in the School, but the policy issue was a different matter. The discovery material and Submissions make it clear that there was a real question of principle that had to be decided as to the method of communication to be taught in schools. There were arguments on each side as between oralism and signing, with advantages and disadvantages accompanying whichever was chosen. The decision that was made can be rationally justified. In those circumstances, it was not the function of an investigation into abuse to try to determine whether the policy choice was the best available, even if it could be argued that a different option would have been preferable. Another problem about this issue is that the policy does not appear to have been applied in more recent times. This complaint, accordingly had to be excluded, subject to the point about the implementation of the policy by means that constituted physical abuse.

This School is of particular interest because it had to deal with abuse that occurred in recent times, compared with other institutions, and the chapter concentrates on these modern cases and summarises the records of earlier allegations.

The Christian Brothers in their 2006 Submission stated that their approach to corporal punishment in St Joseph’s was similar to that in primary schools throughout the country at the time, in which corporal punishment was permitted until 1982. Apart from the Departmental regulation of corporal punishment, the Christian Brothers were also bound by their own Constitution Rules and Acts of Chapter, which sought to reduce corporal punishment to a minimum. These provisions also emphasised that it was not to be used for failure at lessons, and that the sole authorised instrument of punishment was the leather strap, to be used only on the hand. In a letter written in 1958, the Provincial wrote to the Superior of Cabra, advising that ‘There must be no punishment except as permitted by rule and that is to be applied as seldom as possible’.

The documents furnished by the Congregation revealed instances of physical abuse by Brothers and lay staff from as early as 1955. The Brothers in their Submission asserted that known incidents of physical abuse ‘were dealt with in a responsible and appropriate manner’. A case that is more fully documented is set out first, followed by information about other episodes gleaned from records. Allegations against a teacher, Mr Ashe1

The allegations against Mr Ashe span a period of five years, beginning in the 1980s. In the year following the commencement of his employment at St Joseph’s, the first complaint about him was made at a Parent-Teacher meeting in the School. A parent complained to the Chairman of the Board, Br Noyes,2 that Mr Ashe had struck her son. Br Noyes responded by defending the teacher and ‘eventually smoothed over the situation’. In March of the following year, the parents of a boy wrote to the Principal, Br Ames,3 complaining about the aggressive and arrogant manner in which Mr Ashe had spoken to them. The Principal pointed out to Mr Ashe that such behaviour was unacceptable, but the teacher was unresponsive and Br Ames noted that he ‘got so little satisfaction from talking’ to him that he did not reply to the letter of complaint.

Following a number of subsequent incidents involving this teacher’s aggressive and threatening behaviour towards pupils and staff, the Board of Management met and the minutes of this meeting recorded their view that: He was an excellent teacher ... but he appeared to lack understanding of a deaf child’s problems. He would appear to be more suited to a teaching position outside a school for the deaf.

The Chairman conveyed the Board’s views to Mr Ashe who undertook to seek alternative employment. He was given a reference by Br Noyes, but was apparently unable to get another teaching position, and instead sought leave of absence. However, he did not take leave of absence and continued teaching at the School. Further complaints of physical abuse and threatening behaviour were made against him the following year.

Parents of a boy wrote to Br Ames, alleging that Mr Ashe had struck their son and had used foul language. Six months after this complaint, a boy complained that Mr Ashe had struck him on the nose causing it to bleed; and, one month after that, four boys wrote letters to the Principal complaining that Mr Ashe ‘thumped’ them. Furthermore, he had threatened and tried to intimidate the school Principal.

The Department of Education withheld Mr Ashe’s teaching diploma, pending investigation of complaints by parents and pupils. The Department sought a comprehensive report from the Board of Management. The Board decided that an investigation would have to be undertaken and a report was prepared and submitted to the Department, which set out the allegations that had been made against Mr Ashe over the previous three years.

Two members of the Board of Management had a formal meeting with Mr Ashe, at which the Chairman outlined a series of complaints and invited the teacher to respond. The first item was an allegation that he had struck a pupil in the face and made his nose bleed. Mr Ashe denied the allegation, claiming that, while he had snatched a pen from the boy’s mouth, he had not hit him and that the boy’s nose bled for some other reason. He also denied showing disrespect to the Principal, and rejected a charge of setting excessive homework and hitting boys for failure at lessons.

The final allegation put to Mr Ashe at the meeting was that he threatened and tried to intimidate the Principal, Br Ames, by words and gestures. In reply, he described an angry meeting when he accused the Principal of trying to set him up and of being hypocritical. The minutes of the meeting include the following comments that Mr Ashe made to Br Ames: Are you up to your old tricks again or what? You have some neck to try to set anybody up with all the beatings and spankings and all the other stuff you have been up to lately. The Guards never come down to me over hammering. Remember, in case you forget it, that it was to you, yes you, the Guards came, after the daylights being kicked out of a pupil.

The Board was conscious of potential difficulty and embarrassment. Other teachers could be expected to support Mr Ashe, notwithstanding the history of complaints and incidents. There was also the matter of the Principal’s own history, which is dealt with below: There are some points that could be made to look awkward for Br Ames, eg. that a pupil went to the Garda station to complain about Br Ames, and the Gardai came down to meet him.

The Board’s solicitors advised that Mr Ashe should be dismissed, and approved a proposal to terminate his employment at the end of the school year. The Chairman, Br Noyes, wrote to Mr Ashe, stating that the allegations of physical abuse were ‘well founded’ and therefore justified his dismissal from the School. However, he urged Mr Ashe to take the option of resigning: This should help you in your future career. A reference could be furnished as I am sure you could get on well in another type of school. I just do not think you are suitable to a special school such as St. Joseph’s.

Br Noyes also wrote to the Patron of the School, the Archbishop of Dublin, seeking his permission to dismiss Mr Ashe, but the Archbishop refused. In a letter he said: The matter was investigated on my behalf by [the parish priest]. [The parish priest] has given me a full report on the case. Having studied the documentation and report, I am not prepared to give my permission to the Board of Management to give notice of dismissal to Mr Ashe at the present time.

The Priest appointed by the Archbishop held meetings with Mr Ashe and the Board of Management separately. He advised the Archbishop as follows: Having consulted with the Education Secretariat and [a Solicitor], I have come to the conclusion that the permission sought by the Board of Management of St. Joseph’s to dismiss Mr. Ashe should not be granted. The case made against Mr. Ashe does not warrant dismissal and would probably not stand up to testing in court. It is generally agreed, however, that Mr. Ashe would be better suited to teaching in an ordinary second-level school or at third level. In view of this and of the poor relationship between Mr. Ashe and the Principal of the school, every effort should be made to assist Mr. Ashe in finding alternative employment as soon as possible. The attempt should be also made to establish better relations between Mr. Ashe and Brother Ames for as long as Mr. Ashe is in the school. That might be for some considerable time due to the general employment situation for teachers.