Preaching from the bully pulpitMore laws and more feel-good programs are not the way to end school bullying.
In the past, bullies were unpleasant road bumps on the road to adulthood. Now, social scientists and fiction writers (remember Stephen King’s Carrie?) suggest that bullying leads to indiscriminate slaughtering of classmates. Sometimes, the bully (for example Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech) becomes a mass murderer. More frequently, the bullied become out-of-control, blood-thirsty vigilantes. Consequently, some social scientists even proposed a Persecuted Victim Turned Killer hypothesis. Prior to Columbine this theory was withering on the vine. After Columbine, a Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center seemed to confirm it. Its October 2000 study found that in two-thirds of the cases, shooters felt either "persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked or injured by others". It strongly recommended efforts to combat bullying.
This study became a catalyst for bully prevention despite the fact that 99.99999 percent (I could probably add a few more nines) of those bullied do not shoot their classmates. It provided a new explanation for school violence. It wasn’t drugs, gangs and poor discipline which were making schools unsafe: it was bullies. While pushing for anti-bully legislation in Connecticut, for instance, advocates cited numerous statistics. Surveys claimed that 1 out of 5 teens knew someone who had brought a gun to school; that 1 out of 3 teens had heard another student threaten to kill someone; and half of teens reported knowing another student capable of murder. Potential Eric Harrises and Dylan Klebolds were everywhere. The parade of horribles did not end with violence. Medical organizations like the American Medical Association warned of long-term health consequences for bullies and their victims. Others reported that bullying was linked to depression and suicide. All the shootings studied by the Secret Service involved boys. However, mean girls joined the parade of schoolyard brutes. Several stories in major newspapers have focused on vicious schoolgirls writing nasty notes, sending harassing emails and snubbing fellow classmates. In January, the New York Times featured a young woman confessing to her emotional torture of a peer. Earlier this year, the Washington Post also highlighted a bizarre conflict involving teenage girls. It reported that "cyberbullying" drove 13-year-old Megan Meier to commit suicide. Soon after her boyfriend Josh announced that he was breaking up with her; Megan hanged herself in her bedroom closet. Unknown to Megan, Josh was actually the creation of a family down the street with a 13-year-old daughter who thought that Megan was spreading rumors about her. Armed with statistics and sad anecdotes, anti-bully advocates have pounced on national and local governments. Bully prevention laws have passed in several countries. Thirty-eight states now have laws against "bullying". Politicians have embraced the bully patrol as the vaccine against future Columbines. But hard cases make bad laws. Most statutes don’t criminalize "bullying" because threats and assaults are already illegal. Since physical safety on campus is a minimal expectation, advocates of anti-bully laws have opted for a more utopian goal of schools being a mentally healthy environment. "Bullying" has been expanded to include almost any offensive social interaction. Consider the definition of bullying in the Delaware School Bullying Prevention Act, which is regarded as one the best statutes: [B]ullying means any intentional written, electronic, verbal or physical act or actions against another person that a reasonable person under the circumstances should know will have the effect of: (1) Placing a person in reasonable fear of substantial harm to his or her emotional or physical well-being or substantial damage to his or her property. (2) Creating a hostile, threatening, humiliating or abusive educational environment due to the pervasiveness or persistence of actions or due to a power differential between the bully and the target; or (3) Interfering with a student having a safe school environment that is necessary to facilitate educational performance, opportunities or benefits; or (4) Perpetuating bullying by inciting, soliciting or coercing an individual or group to demean, dehumanize, embarrass or cause emotional, psychological or physical harm to another person. What would be considered dehumanizing? What is emotional well-being? How do teachers and students recognize psychological harm? Teachers and school administrators must be psychologists to understand this law. Besides vague laws, many state legislatures in the United States have saddled schools with the impossible task of tracking bullying and publishing the results. But this is no easy task. School bureaucrats are reluctant to be Number One in thuggery. Students don’t report bullying. According to the Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, in 2005-2006 14 Connecticut schools reported no bullying incidents. Yet in a survey students from the same schools reported missing school out of fear for their personal safety. The article concludes that while anti-bullying laws may be well intended, they are vague, ineffective and only provide false comfort. Bad laws make even worse therapy. Many anti-bully acts called for schools to adopt bully prevention programs. The laws ordered schools to use "scientifically proven" programs. Unfortunately, there’s not much science out there. The studies mainly look at physical aggression. Many schools use programs based on the research of the Norwegian psychologist and bully guru, Dr Dan Olweus. Last year, in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine Vreeman and Carroll analyzed 26 school-based bully prevention programs. Although the authors found that 15 programs with some positive results, only 5 programs documented an actual decrease in bullying. Two programs had implemented the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program and neither showed any improvement. In 2004 Canadian psychologist David Smith published an analysis of the research into the effectiveness of bully programs. Smith discovered that 86 percent of published studies revealed that the program either had no effect or made the problem worse. Dorothy Espelage, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, notes that Olweus’s programs have not been fully evaluated in the United States whose population is very different from Norway. She fears that schools are headed down the same road they took in the 1980s to prevent drug abuse with the discredited DARE program. Many schools rely on pseudo-therapeutic, politically correct mush. Last January, the New York Times featured a popular bully-beating program known as ''Names Can Really Hurt Us" or "Names". "Names" is a popular Oprah-like assembly sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League. At the assembly the bullied share their troubles and bullies confess their sins. But no studies have demonstrated decreased bullying as a result of "Names". "Names" and similar programs reduce morality to mere sentimentalism. It’s doubtful that these cathartic experiences have effects lasting much longer than bubble gum. Emotions only go so far. The sentimental approach has a more basic problem. Not all of the bullied are equally huggable. Some victims may not evoke sympathy for a variety of reasons. In Connecticut, advocates used the tragic suicide of Daniel Scruggs’ to promote anti-bullying laws. But newspaper stories about Daniel Scruggs revealed a picture of a profoundly disturbed teen who would have problems connecting with anyone. Peers recalled that Daniel had a strong body odor, extremely poor hygiene and a tendency to misbehave to draw attention. Columbine and other hard cases have led to arbitrary, unenforceable rules and ineffective feel-good programs. Still worse, the equating of emotional and physical harm can shift the responsibility from the perpetrator of physical violence to the victim. School shootings are essentially a mystery, not a foundation for anti-bullying laws. The wise men of antiquity knew that laws alone do not make men good. And something more than a maze of rules and regulations is needed to put an end to bullying in the internet age. Theron Bowers MD is a Texas psychiatrist. |
relatedarticles
morebythisauthorfreeupdates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (9)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
The ninth anniversary of the Columbine Massacre passed quietly on April 20. No one has ever been able to understand or explain the madness of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The usual cultural villains -- guns, the media and parents -- were unsatisfactory. New demons such as Prozac and violent video games also failed. Consequently, most Columbine reforms quickly fizzled. Guns, Prozac and Playstation weathered the initial hysterica. But one cultural bad guy was discovered: the bully.
Comments (9)
Darren Hall said...This is just another example of politicizing every aspect of life. It is the dream of Karl Marx. No individuality, we’ll all be just bees in the hive of the ruling class.
What’s needed to prevent bullying are adults who act like adults; who can make and are allowed to make mature decisions without following a myriad of politically correct guidelines.
It would also help to realize that some aggression is normal and that it needs to be guided in a constructive manner, not repressed, which only makes matters worse. This is especially true in boys, no matter what feminist agenda and politically correct crowd say.
United States | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 5:53 am
David Page said...Bullies come from bad homes with bad parents, period. Theron Bowers seems to want to blame the victim. Kindness, to him, is mere ‘sentmentalism’. This isn’t surprising considering his association with anti-gay groups such as NARTH. School bullies make life hell for students who are perceived to be weak or different. There is nothing ‘normal’ about bullying, as Darren Hall would have us believe. Bullying is a refuge for damaged, unhappy children.
United States | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 10:13 am
Darren Hall said...Hello again David Page, I did NOT say bullying was “normal”.
I was a victim of bullying myself. The bullying described is partially the result of adults who fail to take charge.
How can you possibly say bullies are the result of bad homes with bad parents, PERIOD.? It’s probably the main reason, but as children interact on thier own and are exposed to so many negative cultural images this type of activity is going to happen.It`s called “human nature” David. The adult world is no better and I believe actually worse. Layering law upon law is not going to change that. It never has and never will.
Would you have children, and perhaps all of us, living under “force” of law? Look at it this way, David, law by its very nature is implemented by force and coercion.I would rather see strong, moral adults take the lead rather than have some “gestapo"force say “you vill obey!!”.The bullies will still bully,the victims continue to be victimized, ah but all the others will be cowed into mindless submission; never defending the victims, never standing up to the bullies, never even seeing what is simply the dark side of our nature.No, just a “hive mentality” that lets the state take care of everything with laws that are not noble but repressive.
And of course, David you just have to work the “gay” angle in there.You don`t know me David, but I will tell you this; no one deserves to be bullied and i would be the first to literally physically defend a victim of “gay bashing”, but that does not change my belief (and fact) that “gay” is not a natural, inborn, legitimate identity.
United States | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 1:12 pm
David Page said...Darren, Theron Bowers has a history of anti-gay activity. When he talks about bullying I have to consider his opinions in the context of that activity. Many of the people who post here seem to consider bullying to be a natural right, especially if the victim is gay.
Hate crime laws make me nervous as well, but the problem is with the attitudes of the prosecutors. You can say that assault, for instance, is already a crime but, in fact, it’s only a crime if someone is willing to prosecute. Hate crime laws, properly written, serve the purpose of forcing Law Enforcement to do their duty when their inclination is not to. Opinion and speech should never be against the law.
Schools are a different story. I think every student should expect a safe, non-hostile school environment. The things you object to, like ‘The Day Of Silence’, came about as a reaction to bullying in school. There was, in my town, a gym teacher who not only allowed gay bashing but seemed to approve of it. I think that sort of thing is very common, especially when you get away from the coasts.
Finally, I have long been of the opinion that good kids can come from bad homes but, barring mental illness, bad kids never come from good homes. I look forward to your reply.
United States | Sunday, 11 May 2008 at 12:49 am
Catawba said...It is silly to call NARTH an “anti-gay group”. The purpose of NARTH is to defend the rights of people experiencing same-sex attractions to decide for themselves whether they wish to pursue them or to seek change. NARTH is “pro-choice” in a sense that apparently eludes those who wish to bully teens experiencing the sexual confusion of adolescence into labeling themselves for life.
In his book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health, former American Psychological Association president Nicholas Cummings notes that he and his co-author lived through the abominable McCarthy era and the Hollywood witch hunts; still he notes, there was “not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists under political correctness.” He says, “Now, misguided political correctness tethers our intellects.”
United States | Sunday, 11 May 2008 at 4:33 am
Darren Hall said...Hello David, The sensible alternative to “Hate Crime Laws” would be for the people to petiton the legislative branch of thier government to compel the judicial branch and law enforcement via the executive branch to exercise thier constitutional and civic duties without discrimination.
You are absolutely correct that law enforcement has, in many cases historically and even now, demonstrated an inclination to discriminate on basis of race, religion, sex and yes on real or perceived “sexual orientation”.
Hate Crime Laws politicize crime. This is very dangerous because it puts de-facto prosocutorial power in the hands of legislators who are susceptible to lobbyists and pressure groups, some who have plenty of money to use for bribary.
Bullying is not a natural right, anyone who thinks otherwise is 100% wrong.If the victim is “homosexual” or self-identifies as “gay” it`s wrong. If the victim is shy and not as boisterous as other boys(I was) it is wrong.
To be fair you must consider individual incidents.By the standards of these HCL`s, one incident can constitue “bullying”. Any member of a minority group can pick a fight, be obnoxious and otherwise cause trouble all on thier own. If they are stood up to or spoken against,will the offended party be liable for HCL prosecution? In the case of “gays’ who are more visible and “out” today, they may make unreasonable demands on organizations and individuals. If someone is physically harrassed by a “gay” and exercises a reasonable amount of self defense will he find himself accused of a crime that carries politically charged penalties?
The Day of Silence is a total disruption of the learning process.(Not that I have much faith in public schools anyway).
I also believe it`s promoted by professional agitators.
I must finish in another post, too many characters.
United States | Sunday, 11 May 2008 at 10:34 am
Darren Hall said...To finish my previous post.
The gym teacher you mentioned should have his license revoked and never, ever work with children again. I know these things do tend to happen away from the coasts so(this may suprise you David)I think a vocal “gay"advocacy group may actually be of help.
I also agree totally with previous poster, Catawba, NARTH is an excellant organization.
When too much power is ceded to government, you have the ultimate bully.
United States | Sunday, 11 May 2008 at 10:42 am
David Page said...Darren, good answer. We still don’t agree but good answer none-the-less.
United States | Monday, 12 May 2008 at 4:18 am
TB said...Interesting. So, now I’m accused of being “associated” with NARTH and anti-gay activity. For the record, I have never been a member of NARTH. I have never spoken or even attended their conferences. So, I have no idea what Mr. Page is talking about regarding any association with NARTH or anti-gay activity.
Even if I were a member of NARTH, I fail to see a connection with this article.
-- | Monday, 12 May 2008 at 1:57 pm
Page 1 of 1 :
New comment