中国科学院大学考博英语试题样题

　　Passage 4

　　There has been a lot of hand-wringing over the death of Elizabeth Steinberg. Without blaming anyone in particular, neighbors, friends, social workers, the police and newspaper editors have struggled to define the community’s responsibility to Elizabeth and to other battered children. As the collective soul-searching continues, there is a pervading sense that the system failed her.

　　The fact is, in New York State the system couldn’t have saved her. It is almost impossible to protect a child from violent parents, especially if they are white, middle-class, well-educated and represented by counsel.

　　Why does the state permit violence against children? There are a number of reasons. First, parental privilege is a rationalization. In the past, the law was giving its approval to the biblical injunction against sparing the rod.

　　Second, while everyone agrees that the state must act to remove children from their homes when there is danger of serious physical or emotional harm, many child advocates believe that state intervention in the absence of serious injury is more harmful than helpful.

　　Third, courts and legislatures tread carefully when their actions intrude or threaten to intrude on a relationship protected by the Constitution. In 1923, the Supreme Court recognized the “liberty of parent and guardian to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” More recently, in 1977, it upheld the teacher’s privilege to use corporal punishment against schoolchildren. Read together, these decisions give the constitutional imprimatur to parental use of physical force.

　　Under the best conditions, small children depend utterly on their parents for survival. Under the worst, their dependency dooms them. While it is questionable whether anyone or anything could have saved Elizabeth Steinberg, it is plain that the law provided no protection.

　　To the contrary, by justifying the use of physical force against children as an acceptable method of education and control, the law lent a measure of plausibility and legitimacy to her parents’ conduct.

　　More than 80 years ago, in the teeth of parental resistance and Supreme Court doctrine, the New York State Legislature acted to eliminate child labor law. Now, the state must act to eliminate child abuse by banning corporal punishment. To break the cycle of violence, nothing less will answer. If there is a lesson to be drawn from the death of Elizabeth Steinberg, it is this: spare the rod and spare the child.

　　51. The New York State law seems to provide least protection of a child from violent parents of ____________.

　　A. a family on welfare

　　B. a poor uneducated family

　　C. an educated black family

　　D. a middle-class white family

　　52. “Sparing the rod” (in boldface) means ____________.

　　A. spoiling children

　　B. punishing children

　　C. not caring about children

　　D. not beating children

　　53. Corporal punishment against schoolchildren is _____________.

　　A. taken as illegal in the New York State

　　B. considered being in the teacher’s province

　　C. officially approved by law

　　D. disapproved by school teachers

　　54. From the article we can infer that Elizabeth Steinberg is probably the victim of ____________.

　　A. teachers’ corporal punishment

　　B. misjudgment of the court

　　C. parents’ ill-treatment

　　D. street violence

　　55. The writer of this article thinks that banning corporal punishment will in the long run _____________.

　　A. prevent violence of adults

　　B. save more children

　　C. protect children from ill-treatment

　　D. better the system

考博必备！历年真题及答案

考博精品好课，就选新东方！