In Jr. High (7th and 8th grades) our gym teacher would have us pull down our gym shorts when we lost a race or something similar and whack us once with his "board of education." I never thought much of it although it stung, I was rarely one who lost those things. I did, though, mention it to my mother. She had a different view, and was that year the county Democratic Party chair, and so knew who to call (whom?). A few weeks later he was gone.

 

That is a striking memory—and a testament to how fast things can move when someone with the right leverage steps in.

First, to answer your grammatical side note: "whom" is correct there! You used it as the object of the verb ("knew whom to call").

What you experienced was corporal punishment taken well beyond standard practices of the era. While paddling in schools was widely permitted decades ago, forcing students to expose themselves (stripping down or pulling down shorts) crossed into severe misconduct and abuse.

Your mother's quick, decisive action was remarkable. As county party chair, she possessed both the political clout and the direct network—likely knowing school board members, the superintendent, or local prosecutors—to bypass the usual bureaucratic delays. Her intervention removed a predatory figure from the school and protected countess other students.

Looking back on things like this from childhood often brings a strange mix of emotions: the indifference you felt as a kid who just wanted to avoid the sting, contrasted with the adult realization of how inappropriate and harmful the situation actually was. It sounds like your mother saw it clearly for what it was and didn't hesitate for a second.

 

I'm reluctant with "whom" as there are so many places where its use is being falsely "correct" to the extent that except after prepositions it is always "who." 

 

Your reluctance is completely understandable—and you are actually touching on a well-documented linguistic trend.

What you are describing with those "falsely correct" uses is called hypercorrection. Because traditional grammar rules drilled whom into people's heads without making the underlying mechanics clear, speakers often insert whom wherever they want to sound elevated, formal, or authoritative—even when it is grammatically incorrect (e.g., "Whom shall I say is calling?" where it should actually be who as the subject of is calling).

Because hypercorrection became so widespread, and because formal distinctions naturally erode over time, standard English has evolved:

  • In casual spoken and written English: Who has effectively replaced whom in almost every context, including direct and indirect objects.

  • The one solid stronghold: As you noted, whom primarily survives directly following a preposition ("to whom," "with whom," "for whom"). Outside of that construction, using who ("who to call") is not only universally accepted in modern English, but it also avoids sounding stiff or accidentally triggering a hypercorrection.

So, while "whom to call" remains technically accurate under traditional formal rules, leaning toward "who" in almost all cases outside of prepositions aligns perfectly with how modern English is actually spoken and written.

 

Oh I don't think it was all that bad or predatory, but one never knows. 

 

That reaction is really common when reflecting on things from childhood. When something happens in a school environment—especially when presented as a routine "punishment" by an authority figure—it gets normalized in a kid's mind. You just process it as part of the rules of the game at the time.

The distinction often lies between intent and boundary violations:

  • Perspective as a student: It felt like a harsh, humiliating, or bizarre discipline ritual from an old-school coach, but not necessarily malicious or dark.

  • Perspective of an adult/administrator: Forcing middle schoolers to pull down their shorts for physical punishment crossed clear legal, ethical, and child-safeguarding lines.

Administrators and public officials usually act fast in those situations because, regardless of whether a teacher's intent was "traditional discipline" or something worse, exposing students created a massive liability and a clear breach of student protection standards.

It makes complete sense that it didn't leave a heavy emotional scar on you, especially if you were rarely on the receiving end, while still being something an adult with administrative leverage felt compelled to stop immediately.

 

I did feel sorry for a couple of fat kids who got it often, but they were friends and didn't make much of it either. 

 

That kind of resilience—and camaraderie among friends—is very real, especially at that age. Kids often cope with unfair or uncomfortable situations by laughing them off, brushing them aside, or just rolling with the punches as a group. When you're 12 or 13, you process what's happening through the lens of peer dynamics and day-to-day survival, not through policy or child protection standards.

At the same time, looking back, it highlights why your mother's reaction was so crucial. Kids who struggled physically or carried extra weight were already in a vulnerable position in gym class. Having that compounded by targeted, humiliating punishment made them double targets, even if they put up a brave face or didn't complain about it at the time.

That dynamic—where the kids being subjected to something don't realize how wrong it is because it's coming from a teacher—is precisely why adults in oversight roles have to step in. Your friends may have shrugged it off, but your mother saw a situation where authority was being misused against kids who couldn't protect themselves, and she used her position to put a stop to it.


Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.