In 19 States, It's Still Legal to Spank Children in Public Schools via NY Times. Image Mark Graham for The New York Times

In 1970, only three countries – Italy, Japan and Mauritius – banned corporal punishment in schools. By 2016, more than 100 countries banned the practice, which allows teachers to legally hit, paddle or spank students for misbehavior.

The dramatic increase in bans on corporal punishment in schools is documented in an analysis that we conducted recently to learn more about the forces behind the trend. The analysis is available as a working paper.

In order to figure out what circumstances led to bans, we looked at a variety of political, legal, demographic, religious and economic factors. Two factors stood out from the rest.

First, countries with English legal origin – that is, the United Kingdom as well as its former colonies that implemented British common law – were less likely to ban corporal punishment in schools across this time period.

Second, countries with higher levels of female political empowerment, as measured by things such as women’s political participation or property rights – that is, women having the right to sell, buy and own property – were more likely to ban corporal punishment.

Other factors, such as form of government, level of economic development, religious adherence and population size, appear to play a much less significant role, if at all.

We are experts in education policy, international policy and law. In order to conduct our analysis, we constructed a dataset of 192 countries over 47 years using country reports from the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children and the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child. Then we matched it to data from the Quality of Government Institute.

It is true that the trend of banning corporal punishment in schools aligns with the passage of the 1990 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child – a treaty now ratified by all countries except the United States. The treaty requires nations to “take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity.” However, as our analysis reveals, it wasn’t the treaty alone that spurred the bans.

Global shifts in corporal punishment norms

Worldwide, 732 million children attend schools where corporal punishment is allowed.

Social norms surrounding this issue have shifted over time from viewing corporal punishment as an appropriate disciplinary method to viewing corporal punishment as less acceptable. In the last several decades, for instance, experts have found that corporal punishment is harmful to children socially, cognitively and emotionally.

Consequently, many countries have adopted new laws banning corporal punishment in schools. South America and Europe have made the most progress toward outlawing corporal punishment in schools. Africa and Asia have had more mixed results. There are no bans against corporal punishment in schools in the United States, India and Australia. In the United States, corporal punishment in public schools is legal in 19 states. It is also legal at private schools in 48 states.

While we found that countries with English common law systems were less likely to ban corporal punishment in schools, the reason why requires a closer look.

Common law countries abide by the principle of stare decisis – that is, the idea that similar cases should be decided upon similarly and should rely upon precedent. This means in practice that policies on a given issue are slower to change and become somewhat “locked in” because court cases and appeals take significant time.

Conversely, countries that are based primarily in civil code are often able to change the laws mostly through legislation, which often can be nimbler and swifter. Of course, some nations, like the United States, change laws through both methods.

Our analysis found that the proportion of countries with bans increased steadily after the passage of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990. We also found that not a single country with English legal origin banned corporal punishment in schools prior to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Even among countries that ratified the convention, those with English legal origin were 38% less likely to adopt a ban.

Female political empowerment and corporal punishment bans

The degree of female political empowerment in a country is also strongly associated with how likely the country is to ban corporal punishment in schools. Why is this the case?

One possible explanation is that women in general show lower support for the use of corporal punishment. Women also more generally prefer compassionate policies over violence. And finally, female political empowerment can reflect the progressiveness of society itself, given the clear links between women’s rights and human development. Societies in which women have greater rights tend to have more progressive policies in other domains as well, such as environmental protection.

The future of corporal punishment in schools

In sum, it appears that international agreements such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child might nudge some countries to make progress on specific human rights issues – in this case, the right for children not to be physically punished in schools. Yet, the ratification of an international treaty has limited influence, it seems, in comparison to a country’s legal structure and the level of its female political participation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled the practice of corporal punishment in schools unconstitutional. In fact, it issued a decision in 1977 that noted both the historical traditionof corporal punishment in U.S. schools, and the common-law principle that corporal punishment is permissible as long as it’s “reasonable but not excessive.”

Merger of SIA Legal Team and If/When/How reproductive justice lawyers unit announced March 13, 2019

Two powerful groups fighting for women’s reproductive rights have joined forces under the If/When/How name. Their goal? Creating a national network to push back against restrictive abortion legislation in every state, helping those ‘whose rights are being trampled.’

The merger of SIA Legal Team and If/When/How—two existing pro-choice groups that already shape policy, file lawsuits, and inform lawyers around reproductive rights issues — launched today March 13. To date, most legal work in the reproductive rights arena has focused on protecting clinics and providers. Executive director Jill Adams says the new organization will also focus on providing a network of attorneys for everyday people facing reproductive rights challenges.

Ryan Magers Madison County, Alabama

Examples of new lawsuits include that of Alabama man Ryan Magers of Madison County, Alabama, who recently filed suit on behalf of an aborted fetus, claiming that his girlfriend had a medication abortion against his wishes in February 2017. In the law suit, filed in January, Magers filed a petition to serve as the “personal representative” of the aborted fetus’ estate.

Next, Magers sued the clinic that performed the abortion, the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Huntsville, on behalf of himself and “Baby Roe,” as the fetus is referred to in court documents.

On March 5, Madison County Probate Judge Frank Barger granted Magers’ petition to represent the estate in a decision his attorney, Brent Helms, said broke new legal ground.

NARAL President Ilyse Hogue called the decision a “very scary case”. “This is the logical consequence of all anti-abortion activity,” tweeted Erin Matson, founder of Reproaction. “Fetuses are treated like people and women and people who can become pregnant are not.”

In November 2018, Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment making it Alabama state policy to “ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child” and “recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.”

This action is a setup for passing personhood legislation, which would establish the “fetal personhood” of a fertilized embryo, putting the state of Alabama in legal charge of pregnant women in the state. If this legal case sounds like it’s right out of The Handmaid’s Tale, it is.

A Federalist Society for Women’s Rights

Announcing the formation of If/When/How,, communications director Andrea Grimes likened the new organization to a pro-choice counter to the Federalist Society, committed to stripping women of their reproductive rights.

In announcing the direct outreach to legal professionals across America, Grimes explained: “[Lawyers] know they have skills and knowledge and privilege and influence that could be of use, but to date there has been no place for them to plug into the reproductive rights and justice movement and so all of that talent and potential has been lost.”

Operating as If/When/How, the new organization will pursue SIA Legal Team’s mission of decriminalizing self-managed abortions. Anti-abortion forces like The Federalist Society, argue that the US Constitution must be strictly interpreted in 2019, as it was written when women had no rights — although abortion was legal. The Federalist Society oppose nearly every form of contraception, not only abortion.

In addition to its goal of decriminalizing self-managed abortions, the new organization will also focus on other issue areas including improving young people’s access to abortion and securing public insurance coverage for the procedure. The group will also be working on legal routes to overturning the Hyde Amendment.

If/When/How already operates law school chapters on 100 campuses in the U.S. and Canada, with more than 10,000 alumni. Brigette Amiri, deputy director at the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, is one of the more public members of the organization. Wednesday’s merger will double the group’s staff, giving it representation in eight different cities around the country. Based in Oakland, Calif. the group will have a major presence in Texas and New York. Read more about this important new group in the legal fight for reproductive justice and consider funding a monthly donation.