10,992 entries for Inspections - State

One complainant who was in the school in the 1940s said that he was bullied by other boys and had: many the thick lip and many the black eye for no reason whatsoever. But I wasn’t one to fight back, I never was. I was bullied by the boys I think because, you know, I was different. I wasn’t brought in from the country for some mischief or something or another.

Another complainant said that he was beaten up for being a ‘pet’. He described the situation as follows: When I say a pet, a pet would be the kind of person that would be hanging on to a Brother and, the other boys, especially the bigger boys, would perceive that you were telling them everything that was going on. Now, there was incidents where boys used to rebel and like – at one time they went downtown, a lot of boys from the school went downtown and raided Woolworths downtown and, took a lot of stuff out of Woolworths, a lot of boys now. Obviously, like, the Brothers wanted to know where the stuff was. So we were the pets like and, of course, we would tell them everything. Where the stuff was ... You were picked on then because you were small and you were trying to get protection from the Brother. But in actual fact, like, the Brother couldn’t protect you because you were out amongst all the boys and the boys would beat you up. If they said to you “if you tell a Brother, we’ll beat you, you are going to be killed the next time again”.

He went on to say that they would get you: Anywhere in the school. The school is only a small place that you can go in, it is one square little area like. You couldn’t go far unless you ran away ... you wouldn’t get a bad beating, like, in a sense you wouldn’t need hospitalisation or anything like that, no. You got a belt across the head, a kick that kind of a way. “If you say anything like, we will beat you up again”. It wasn’t that the Brothers could protect you it was that kind of an environment.

The majority of the Christian Brothers who gave evidence on this issue were unaware of its being a problem. Four Brothers who were in Tralee during the 1950s and 1960s said that they were aware that occasional bullying occurred. Br Bevis said that he would deal with it when he came across it.

Br Boyce conceded that, although he never experienced any bullying or preying on the younger boys by the older ones, the boys were very clever and he would not know that it was going on. No boy ever came to him and he said that, if you asked a boy, he would not tell because the others would retaliate.

Br Mahieu stated that he and three other Brothers whom he named were aware that there were complaints from younger boys about bullying and molesting. He also told the Committee that he spoke to the boys about homosexual behaviour but was not asked to do this by the Resident Manager. He did it because of the complaints by the boys about being bullied, physically and sexually. He said that Tralee was a ‘reasonably happy type of place’ before 1966. Then it ‘changed radically, dramatically’ when the schools in Glin and Upton closed, and boys from those schools came to Tralee. The boys who came to Tralee were very streetwise, aggressive and tough. There were more fights, bullying and running away, and stealing became a regular feature of life in the School.

Bullying was part of life in Tralee and contributed to a climate of fear that pervaded the Institution. Violence by bigger boys on smaller went unreported and unpunished. Relations between bigger and smaller boys echoed those between the Brothers and the boys, in being characterised by the use of physical power. Conclusions on physical abuse 1.Physical aggression was a means of communication between Brothers and boys and was used to control the large number of boys that were in Tralee. 2.The efforts of the Superior General in the late 1930s to reduce corporal punishment .in Christian Brothers’ institutions were an indication of an unease at a high level at the amount of corporal punishment in these schools generally. There was, however, no evidence that his warnings and exhortations were heeded or that measures were put in place to ensure that punishments were kept within the guidelines. 3.The story of Br Marceau indicated that excessive punishment only became a concern when it endangered interests such as the reputation of the Congregation or when it ran the risk that litigation would be instituted, but not when it endangered boys. The sequence of events as revealed by the documentation in the Br Marceau case was an example of uncaring and reckless management by the Congregation, which had serious consequences for the children involved. 4.The evidence of physical punishment and fear reported by complainant witnesses was confirmed by some respondent evidence and by the information inferred from the documentary materials. 5.Younger boys were not protected from older boys and were subjected to physical and sexual bullying. The authorities in Tralee did not provide a safe or secure environment for these children.

In their Opening Statement, the Christian Brothers stated that there was no reference in any of the surviving correspondence, annals or Visitation Reports to boys being sexually abused by Brothers or staff members. Had there been an allegation, the problem would have been dealt with in keeping with the practice at the time. They outlined this practice as follows: (i)It would have been reported to a higher authority. (ii)The Brother would have been removed from the school. (iii)The allegation would have been investigated. (iv)If the offence was proved true, the Brother would have been censured in the following manner: (a)if not finally professed, the Brother was generally dismissed. (b)if finally professed, he was called to headquarters, given a Canonical Warning and transferred from the scene of his misbehaviour. (c)if the abuse was repeated, the finally professed Brother was usually dismissed or advised to seek a canonical dispensation in order to pre-empt dismissal.

Br Piperel taught in Tralee for a year in the late 1930s. He had been moved there from Letterfrack where he had been the subject of a serious complaint that he was sexually interfering with boys. At the time of the complaint, Br Piperel had been in Letterfrack for some eight years and he continued his career there for another four years. Thereafter, he served in other industrial schools for almost 10 years. The records contained complaints about the Brother’s work and attitude in these institutions, but did not record incidents of sexual impropriety.

The Christian Brothers have acknowledged that one Brother, Br Garon, ‘behaved in an inappropriate manner in the boys’ showers’.

Br Garon was almost 60 years old when he arrived in Tralee, where he worked for almost 20 years from the early 1950s.

Three witnesses recalled inappropriate behaviour on the part of Br Garon.

The first of these witnesses was in Tralee in the mid-1950s. He said that Br Garon regularly took a shower with the boys. He would wash them and get them to wash him including his private parts.

The second witness said that he was aware that this Brother had showers with the boys but he said it ‘didn’t interfere with me in any way’.

The third witness recalled washing Br Garon, who used to get into the showers with the small boys. The boys used to wash each other’s backs and Br Garon used to do the same. This went on for ‘a while’. He said that they thought it was ‘the norm’.