Children are dying of moral neglect

The Boston Herald

Beverly Beckham

The juxtaposition is what struck me. On the front page of The Patriot Ledger last week was a photograph of two women comforting a crying child. The child, 5 years old, had been in a Texas elementary school when a student's father, allegedly upset over his son's grades, burst into the school and began shooting.

Next to this photo was a local story headlined "Schools get tough, suspend more kids." The gist of the article was that public schools are failing kids by suspending them from class. Discipline, state officials said, is getting in the way of learning.

The idea that discipline is disruptive to learning is certainly novel. If the man who went bonkers in Texas had even a little discipline, even a little self-control, he wouldn't have gone nuts. He would have been able to channel his rage. He acted out because he lacked discipline.

Discipline does not disrupt learning. It's essential TO learning. The problem is not that public schools discipline too much, but that they discipline too little. Public school students know they can get away with just about anything because the schools HAVE to take them back. The law requires that kids be educated. So kids can show up for school late, cut classes, start fights in the hallway, swear at teachers, intimidate students, not do their work, and get away with it.

But without discipline, this is what we have: Kids with knives and guns. Schools with metal detectors. Young people with attitudes. Old people with attitudes. A country whirling out of control.

If kids don't learn discipline at home, and too many don't, where are they supposed to learn it? Who is teaching today's kids about right and wrong, good and bad, actions and consequences, acceptable and unacceptable behavior?

No one.

Consider the sentiments of a teen-age girl, whom Peter Gelzinis quoted Tuesday, talking about the murder of MIT student Yngve Raustein: "They're makin' it out like Shon (who is accused of murdering Raustein) bleepin' killed the whole United States 'stead a just one bleepin' MIT guy. People get killed every bleepin' day. What's the big deal?"

What's the big deal? This girl honestly doesn't know.

For centuries America's churches and religious organizations have used their wealth and resources to help the needy all over the world. Today, the neediest group are the morally deprived, undisciplined youngsters in our own back yard.

Imagine the good that could be done if America's religious institutions were to pool their resources, use their clout and open free religious schools where the only payment would be adherence to moral standards, where kids would know that if someone pulls a knife on them one day, or punches them, or threatens them in the parking lot, that they won't be back in school the next day. Imagine the opportunity for new direction, for change and for moral growth.

Public schools do an OK job teaching kids to read and write, but they don't teach kids about right and wrong.

Kids need to be taught about the sanctity of life, about how to get along, about respect and tolerance and forgiveness.

They need standards and parameters.

If parents don't teach them and churches don't teach them, who will?

Missionaries tend to the needy all over the world.

American children are the ones who are needy now. American children are dying of moral neglect.

Can the churches afford to run schools? The question is, can they afford not to? Many of America's youth are in trouble. Churches are in the business of helping people in trouble. There's a church on practically every corner in America. If these churches worked together to educate and guide and help America's troubled youth, a young girl hearing of young man's death would weep because she'd know why it was a big deal