Children in schools are often shamed, at times intentionally, sometimes inadvertently. The question we pose is whether this practice violates their fundamental human rights, in particular that of freedom. Arguably, because of their limited capacities and dependent status what children require is protection rather than rights. Yet, children are not just a collection of needs requiring care; they are also apprentices to adulthood holding ‘rights-in-trust’. We confront the conflict through the following: (1) clarify the slippery term shame and its corollaries humiliation, embarrassment, and guilt; (2) illustrate school shaming practices with a focus on No Excuses charter management organizations; (3) review empirical and theoretical appraisals of shaming; (4) suggest that the concept of human dignity, upon which human rights rest, creates a moral barrier limiting the permissibility of shaming; (5) it follows schools should foster children’s dual rights, welfare, and freedom/autonomy, with a consciousness of freedom as the eventual and pre-eminent goal; (6) in conclusion, shame – a disparagement of the other by a person in authority that is both intended and received as such – is almost never justified as a disciplinary technique. It shrinks the self and immobilizes action. Discipline through guilt inducement is far preferable because its target is an act, not the person, and it motivates reparation. Schools are therefore obliged to abolish shaming practices, in so far as they can, and search for disciplinary alternatives; we offer an approach.

中文翻译：

---

羞辱学童：侵犯基本权利？

学校里的孩子经常受到羞辱，有时是故意的，有时是无意的。我们提出的问题是这种做法是否侵犯了他们的基本人权，尤其是自由权。可以说，由于他们的能力和依赖地位有限，儿童需要的是保护而不是权利。然而，儿童不仅仅是需要照顾的需求集合；他们也是成年人的学徒，拥有“信托权利”。我们通过以下方式面对冲突：（1）澄清羞耻感及其衍生的羞辱、尴尬和内疚；(2) 以“无借口”章程管理组织为重点，说明学校羞辱行为；(3) 审查羞辱的经验和理论评估；(4) 提出作为人权基础的人的尊严的概念，造成道德障碍，限制羞辱的允许；(5)学校应培养儿童的双重权利、福利和自由/自主性，以自由意识为最终和首要目标；(6) 总而言之，羞耻——权威人士对他人的贬低，既是有意的，也是被接受的——几乎从来没有被证明是一种纪律手段。它缩小了自我并固定了行动。通过内疚诱导的纪律要好得多，因为它的目标是一种行为，而不是人，并且它会激发赔偿。因此，学校有义务尽可能废除羞辱行为，并寻求惩戒替代办法；我们提供了一种方法。和自由/自主，以自由意识为最终和卓越的目标；(6) 总而言之，羞耻——权威人士对他人的贬低，既是有意的，也是被接受的——几乎从来没有被证明是一种纪律手段。它缩小了自我并固定了行动。通过内疚诱导的纪律要好得多，因为它的目标是一种行为，而不是人，并且它会激发赔偿。因此，学校有义务尽可能取消羞辱行为，并寻求惩戒替代办法；我们提供了一种方法。和自由/自主，以自由意识为最终和卓越的目标；(6) 总而言之，羞耻——权威人士对他人的贬低，既是有意的，也是被接受的——几乎从来没有被证明是一种纪律手段。它缩小了自我并固定了行动。通过内疚诱导的纪律要好得多，因为它的目标是一种行为，而不是人，并且它会激发赔偿。因此，学校有义务尽可能取消羞辱行为，并寻求惩戒替代办法；我们提供了一种方法。它缩小了自我并固定了行动。通过内疚诱导的纪律要好得多，因为它的目标是一种行为，而不是人，并且它会激发赔偿。因此，学校有义务尽可能取消羞辱行为，并寻求惩戒替代办法；我们提供了一种方法。它缩小了自我并固定了行动。通过内疚诱导的纪律要好得多，因为它的目标是一种行为，而不是人，并且它会激发赔偿。因此，学校有义务尽可能取消羞辱行为，并寻求惩戒替代办法；我们提供了一种方法。