Draconianism thrives

The headmaster has finally lost it completely. I perhaps need to explain this statement; he has, in the last week, begun a crackdown on swearing in school. Oh, and "in school" apparently includes walking to and from school and generally any time spent in or around school uniform, or possibly even thinking about school (not that any of us would want to do that too much - bad for the health). No swearing at teachers I can understand. I can even concede the logic of banning swearing when in public in the uniform, since it adds a less than welcome tarnish to the school's image. And of course swearing as in verbal abuse is unwarranted and he is right to condemn that. But what the head appears not to realise is the extent to which casual swearing - for better or (more likely) worse - permeates the vocabulary, to one degree or another, of almost every pupil.
I'd like to make it clear that I realise swearing is not a necessary component of speech and may cause offence to those not usually exposed to it in the same way that we school inmates are. It is simply that the headmaster attempting to prevent it, as he put it, from entering common use in school is not only naive and ever-so-slightly too late, it smacks more than a little of Canute (or Knut, whatever) attempting to hold back the tide. Sorry mate, it ain't going to happen. Whilst I agree with his assertion that we are all capable of "switching from one mode of speech to another" when necessary, and avoiding vulgarities, this seems to miss the point; yes, we are, but a certain degree of use of swearwords is, perhaps unfortunately, an integral part of the parlance, if you will, that we use in relaxed speech amongst ourselves. The exclamation "Oh, fuck" is really not qualitatively different from "Oh, bother". It doesn't even have to signify that the event thus heralded is more of a problem, or that the feelings being expressed are stronger, though it may do; the difference is one of delivery and emphasis, not of diction. Lesser obscenities - bloody, crap, piss, and the like - are barely even considered to be such. I realise that an argument could be made that develping such a calvalier attitude to swearing could lead to their use in inappropriate circumstances, but generally I would argue that this isn't the case. We are, after all, a fairly bright bunch, and are, as the head so rightly points out, capable of switching between modes of speech when necessary, and we do. I certainly do not find myself swearing uncontrollably when around authority figures, or even in public. I realise that some people would be offended or hurt simply by hearing me swear, so I avoid doing so. So, by and large, do my peers, and I find it exceedingly unlikely that any school initiative is going to stop those that do not; if anything, I suspect that it would encourage them.
So, we know how to tailor our language to suit the situation at hand. But the headmaster is demanding more than this; he wants a total ban on swearing in school. As I say, this isn't wrong, but really seems to lack sufficient justification and in any case is virtually impossible, as most of the teachers appear to recognise. However, the biggest gripe I have with his new-found zeal is the truly ridiculous puishments being meted out. One person has been suspended for two days for swearing at someone, having been provoked. Two Days! I've seen physical attacks get less! Another lad has been suspended briefly, and the only reason he wasn't suspended for longer was, it would seem, due to the persuasive powers of a more level-headed member of staff. Another person has been "done" today - though has got off relatively lightly, I believe - for commenting in Design to a friend that his project was "fucking bad, man". I have to take issue with the idea that this is in some way a crime. "Fucking" was inserted for emphasis, just as persons of old might have used "jolly", say, ("My project's jolly good, isn't it") and should really not be treated any differently, given that it was used conversationally, non-confrontationally and in a manner that could hardly be described as obscene. The punishment is effectively a punishment for using modern urban patois, and is nothing more than snobbery and class-based prejudice. That may seem a very strong statement, but I think it is justified. The way we speak at school often includes the use of swearwords with widely differing meanings and implications depending upon context and emphasis, and to blanket ban all such uses, in all contexts, simply fails to recognise this fact. Just because the powers that be object to the use of curse words in this way is not, I feel, sufficient reason to ban them, at least not so totally and with such force.
Ultimately, perhaps the strongest argument against the head's decision is perhaps the reaction that it has garnered. It has been met throughout the school by derision, even by those few - and I really do mean few - who choose not to swear; even they realise that the idea is foolish. The simple fact is that the headmaster's wish to stamp out swearing is impossible, and both the idea, and the ways in which he has conveyed his aims and reasons for doing so mark him as being out of touch. This is, of course, the very worst position for an authority figure to be in, and I can but marvel at his lapse in judgement, which is usually very sound. Most critically, it has gone down badly not only with the pupils, but with - in my judgement - a majority of the teachers. I suspect that even those others who outwardly do not find the idea ridiculous realise that it is a futile gesture. It must be borne in mind that many of the teachers swear (though generally only on occasion) in class, at least when teaching the older years, and so the head's reasoning puts them in a difficult position. More generally, the teachers have had to put up with the response to the move - which is of course near-invisible to the safely secluded head - being repeatedly moaned at by class after class, and having repeated requests put to them for official lists of proscribed words and phrases. We've had quite a few entertaining conversations here, with different members of staff taking different positions in the debate. A few are effectively immune, not being the sort of teachers you have conversations with for one reason or another. Others have seen it as their duty to half heartedly, and with agonised expressions, lend support to the head. Others have trod the politicians way: "no comment", "that's an interesting point of view", "I really couldn't say" and such issue from their poker faces. Yet others have poked fun, overtly or guardedly, or even gone for straight out ripping the piss.
So a misguided initiative enters freefall, as does the head's credibility, and will doubtless soon peter out to nothing. So, so long, and f*ck you all!