According to this New York Times story, 19% of the students who are corporally punished are disabled, when only 14% of students are disabled. This supposedly shows that disabled students are being discriminated against. But that assumes that disabled students are no more deserving of corporal punishment than students generally. What if disabled students are more prone to acting up? Then it's no surprise that they get corporally punished at a higher rate. Sometimes I wonder whether New York Times reporters have brains.
Addendum: Here is the pertinent paragraph from the Human Rights Watch report:
The total number of students, with and without disabilities, who were subjected to corporal punishment in the 2006-2007 school year was 223,190. Students with disabilities, therefore, made up 18.8 percent of those who received corporal punishment, even though they constitute just 13.7 percent of the nationwide student population. This disparity suggests that the most vulnerable students are receiving beatings at disproportionately high rates. (Boldface added.)
There is no mention of the possibility that disabled students are more prone to acting up, and therefore more deserving of punishment. Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that disabled students are more prone to acting up. I have no idea whether that's true. I'm saying that it's possible that they are, and that this possibility undercuts the inference from disproportion to discrimination against the disabled.
Addendum 2: Here is another part of the report:
While some students with disabilities may have particular behavioral problems, this does not justify the disproportionate use of violence against these students. As discussed below, there are more effective methods of discipline that provide safe environments in which all students can learn.
Note the stark admission: "some students with disabilities may have particular behavioral problems." But the report then adds: "this does not justify the disproportionate use of violence against these students." Justify? Who's talking about justification? We're talking about explanation. We're trying to explain why disabled students are corporally punished at a higher rate than able-bodied students. The report explains it as discrimination. But the report goes on to admit that it's not discrimination (or not just discrimination); it's "particular behavioral problems." Do you see the sleight of hand? The report is hell-bent on finding discrimination. It refuses to accept any other explanation of the statistical disparity, such as that disabled students are more deserving of punishment because they are more prone to acting up. This isn't science, folks. It's progressive ideology masquerading as science.
Addendum 3: Human Rights Watch is being disingenuous (i.e., intellectually dishonest). It is opposed to all corporal punishment, not just to corporal punishment of the disabled. Instead of making a direct case against corporal punishment, however, which many people accept as legitimate, it focuses on that subset of corporal punishment that is most likely to bother people: punishment of disabled children. So there are two dishonest aspects to the report. First, Human Rights Watch is trying to induce people to oppose all corporal punishment by getting them to oppose corporal punishment of the disabled; and second, Human Rights Watch draws a fallacious inference from disproportion to discrimination. What a disgrace. This is a perfect example of the end justifying the means. Sadly, it is typical of progressives.
Addendum 4: It gets worse, folks. The report contains this shocking sentence: "Corporal punishment teaches students that violence is acceptable." But wait. All punishment is harsh treatment, by definition. All punishment sets back an interest. Capital punishment sets back the interest in (continued) life. Corporal punishment sets back the interest in bodily integrity. Pecuniary punishment (fines, forfeitures) sets back the interest in property. Confinement (in jail or prison) sets back the interest in liberty. If corporal punishment teaches students that violence is acceptable, then, by parity of reasoning, pecuniary punishment teaches students that theft is acceptable and confinement teaches students that kidnapping is acceptable. The arguer is unwittingly making a case against all punishment! Reductio ad absurdum.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 