6 ms·

I've never understood why schools seem so reticent to enforce zero-tolerance policies against bullying. In my experience at least, every time bullying seems to

by bane 7y ago

I've never understood why schools seem so reticent to enforce zero-tolerance policies against bullying. In my experience at least, every time bullying seems to be a problem at a school, it's because the environment allows it to occur. Schools will eagerly put in place various other zero-tolerance policies, like no fighting. So if you dare defend yourself against such a social predator, you are taught a lesson by such a policy that you've done a bad thing. I was fortunate never to be a victim of bullying, but many of my friends were (we were a bunch of nerds after all). The difference was I had support at home for fighting back because my parents knew the administration wasn't watching out for students well being. The lesson I learned is that fighting back is the single most effective strategy for stopping bullies, and that parents have to ensure that their child is shielded from ineffective school behavioral policies. My friends didn't have such support and suffered from it, and couldn't ever learn that lesson. Some of them couldn't have fought back even if it was okay for them to do so for various reasons. The ones I still have contact with today have lingering social problems from the childhood bullying and this has fully reinforced on me that bullying is a social plague that needs to be aggressively stamped out. There is the other side that bullies themselves are suffering in turn. Many come from shattered home lives or abusive parentage. Those children should be identified and put into some kind of counseling program as early and as intensively as possible. They will also grow up to be damaged in some way because of it and in their lives, perhaps only the school has an opportunity to tamper down their violent instincts. However, the physical and emotional violence that bullies subject others to is absolutely not to be tolerated in any way. And it seems the best way for other children to handle it is to simply do their best to fight back.

intarga 7y ago
I think the problem is difficulty defining bullying. Fighting is easy, if you hit someone then you broke the rules, but bullying has a much more blurry line. At my school there was some attempt to crack down on bullying, but instances of bullying were regularly dismissed or reframed as "just banter".
- watwut 7y ago
  Punishing kids is not answer on itself either. For one, it does not deal with victim at all. In one school I have seen, they had problem with bullying in a class. What they did were regular meet ups of whole class with psychologist and year long programs about communication. Kids were taught how to express what they feel (what and who makes them angry), were taught to listen to other kids, were taught to care about each others feelings, were taught what is big deal and what is not big deal. Slowly over time, situation got better. The point is, solution was not punishment nor seeking who is guilty. It was working with all the kids, bullies, victims, bystanders and teaching them new behavioral patterns. Repeatedly saying the same things, reinforcing same values, playing similar games etc.
  - LorenPechtel 7y ago
    That sort of thing will help with the minor stuff, it won't deal with the serious stuff.
    - watwut 7y ago
      It was serious. If it would be minor, no one would call specialists. They cost money and time. The bullying went down and there are no permanent victims now. It is not rosy, but much better then in classes where teachers opted for punishment only or ignore it methods. There issues only grew. Yes in one case the problem kid had to leave school. Guess what - he is in another school and I don't think he magically stopped.
- jdashg 7y ago
  If someone's banter is making someone else's life worse, it's not just banter.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    How is that different than just saying anything you don't like is bullying?
jokoon 7y ago
> I've never understood why schools seem so reticent to enforce zero-tolerance policies against bullying. It's pretty simple, this has a political answer: people believe that life is hard and that "it's tough out there", hence it's important for school to "toughen up" kids. It's as simple as that. Social darwinism is a creeping ideology that nobody really questions or talk about, but it's there, despite the presence of social programs. If you ask people "should we protect the weak?", at the end of the day, people will answer "no, it's too difficult to protect the weak, if they can't survive or toughen up, they deserve to die or suffer, they cannot pull other people down". Everybody knows that sending their kids to school generates a lot of anxiety for parents, because parents cannot protect their kids anymore, since bullying and "justice in the classroom" are difficult to do, but also hard for kids to talk about. School is an excellent description of its society. Kids never lie, and their behavior naively precedes and envision the real spine of society. It's also where values and beliefs are taught. Bullying exists because society not only tolerates it, but doesn't want to fight it. The "school of hard knocks" meme proves this perfectly.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > If you ask people "should we protect the weak?", at the end of the day, people will answer "no, it's too difficult to protect the weak" Isn't "protecting the weak" the whole point of civilized society over barbarism? Life is hard enough already, why make it even harder by tolerating aggressive and violent behavior from others? It's not "toughening up" anyone, it's creating an environment where the worst offenders are precisely those who perceive themselves as "winners" and as "stronger" than others. Surely that has to be totally misguided - the only people who would support this are those who are themselves inclined towards bullying, and towards developing contempt and hate for their perceived outgroups.
  - jokoon 7y ago
    Not until individualism and anti-government sentiments kick in I'm not saying that those things I described are good, I'm just saying they make sense in our current time. > why make it even harder by tolerating aggressive and violent behavior from others? > Isn't "protecting the weak" the whole point of civilized society over barbarism? You're right, civilization matters more, but it doesn't change the fact that human nature will always easily re-surface. Free markets, competition, individualism, money, those values sound very dangerous because to me, because they contradicts and almost negate the entire concept of civilized society. The fall of the soviet union and acute capitalistic dogmas have exacerbated the sentiment that it's "everyone for himself".
zhwang 7y ago
I was at a high school that laid down a zero-tolerance policy against bullying. In practice, zero-tolerance turned into a blanket "we don't want to put up with any disruptions" policy. Provoking an outburst out of a target meant consequences for the victim that could be as bad or worse than the aggressor's.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  It's hard when adults do the same thing. I mean not just to the kids at school, but in all of life. How different in essence is using your power to artificially increase the price of healthcare, such as with insulin or in a hundred other examples, for your profit different than stealing someone's lunch money, or making jokes at their expense?
jlos 7y ago
>> My friends didn't have such support and suffered from it Could the real difference maybe be the homelife? The act of supporting you in spite of bullying and school administrators in some sense communicates to you that you are worthwhile and ought to be confident. Maybe the bullying in your friends lives compounded a lack of confidence unintentionally fostered in their homelives?
cmurf 7y ago
The problem is inconsistency, geographically and also over time. Up until perhaps 10-20 years ago, it was a beat down in the school parking lot. That was the only way to deal with bullies. Make them bleed. Today in large part to "no tolerance" policies, the victim gets equally punished for defending themselves. A beat down in a parking lot gets the police involved. And the school can expel both bully and victim if there was a fight. I never had the imagination for shooting up a school when I was a kid. But now that I'm an adult, I totally get it. When trust and civility break down, there are no more rules. Child victims have already been betrayed, and have had normal coping mechanisms inhibited. Sorta like punishing a dog for growling, all you do is teach them to be silent until they bite without warning. Why shoot your classmates? To make the parents suffer. All of them. Why? For raising bad children who are bullies. For having created such a perverted system of adults with no meaningful arbitration or advocacy or fairness. Make them suffer forever. It's a permanent, enduring, ultimate vindictiveness. It is intentionally disproportionate. From the child's point of view: I don't trust this system and neither should you, let me demonstrate betrayal to you. The idea that school shooters don't know what they're doing, or is temporary insanity, I think is absurd. For sure they lack mental discipline and coping mechanisms. But then, I'm not an expert in the psychology of it all, but I was a victim. Parking lot beat down pretty much solved it for me. But who advocates for those who can't or won't?
- Der_Einzige 7y ago
  >But who advocates for those who can't or won't? The answer is literal leftist "SJWs" which is a slur to all but those who agree with the policies. Radical liberation, equality, and compassion for the weak. Negative Utilitarian ethics about reducing suffering above all else is frequently the implicit ethical decision calculus used by: Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Harm-reduction activists, Intactivists, Feminists, Disability Rights Activists, Humanists, among others. If you are in the role of a bullied individual, your best friend is the one advocating for a more systemically equal and just system.
enneff 7y ago
Teachers are often the ringleaders of the bullying in my experience.
LorenPechtel 7y ago
Zero tolerance ends up punishing the victims, often instead of the bullies. Furthermore, it doesn't even work. If the bully gets punished then the victim will likely suffer worse. The victims very quickly learn that there is no help, the victimhood must be hidden even from well-meaning parents and authority figures. Their blundering efforts to help only make the problem worse. They think they solved the problem when they really just drove it underground. It "works", they keep using that strategy rather than doing something effective which would be very difficult. Parents, understand that you probably have only one chance to address it, if you fail to solve it you won't know unless your child suffers injuries they can't hide.
GreeniFi 7y ago
Can you impart some of the lessons your parents gave to you as a child?

by bane 7y ago

intarga 7y ago

I think the problem is difficulty defining bullying. Fighting is easy, if you hit someone then you broke the rules, but bullying has a much more blurry line. At my school there was some attempt to crack down on bullying, but instances of bullying were regularly dismissed or reframed as "just banter".

watwut 7y ago
Punishing kids is not answer on itself either. For one, it does not deal with victim at all. In one school I have seen, they had problem with bullying in a class. What they did were regular meet ups of whole class with psychologist and year long programs about communication. Kids were taught how to express what they feel (what and who makes them angry), were taught to listen to other kids, were taught to care about each others feelings, were taught what is big deal and what is not big deal. Slowly over time, situation got better. The point is, solution was not punishment nor seeking who is guilty. It was working with all the kids, bullies, victims, bystanders and teaching them new behavioral patterns. Repeatedly saying the same things, reinforcing same values, playing similar games etc.
- LorenPechtel 7y ago
  That sort of thing will help with the minor stuff, it won't deal with the serious stuff.
  - watwut 7y ago
    It was serious. If it would be minor, no one would call specialists. They cost money and time. The bullying went down and there are no permanent victims now. It is not rosy, but much better then in classes where teachers opted for punishment only or ignore it methods. There issues only grew. Yes in one case the problem kid had to leave school. Guess what - he is in another school and I don't think he magically stopped.
jdashg 7y ago
If someone's banter is making someone else's life worse, it's not just banter.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  How is that different than just saying anything you don't like is bullying?

jokoon 7y ago

> I've never understood why schools seem so reticent to enforce zero-tolerance policies against bullying. It's pretty simple, this has a political answer: people believe that life is hard and that "it's tough out there", hence it's important for school to "toughen up" kids. It's as simple as that. Social darwinism is a creeping ideology that nobody really questions or talk about, but it's there, despite the presence of social programs. If you ask people "should we protect the weak?", at the end of the day, people will answer "no, it's too difficult to protect the weak, if they can't survive or toughen up, they deserve to die or suffer, they cannot pull other people down". Everybody knows that sending their kids to school generates a lot of anxiety for parents, because parents cannot protect their kids anymore, since bullying and "justice in the classroom" are difficult to do, but also hard for kids to talk about. School is an excellent description of its society. Kids never lie, and their behavior naively precedes and envision the real spine of society. It's also where values and beliefs are taught. Bullying exists because society not only tolerates it, but doesn't want to fight it. The "school of hard knocks" meme proves this perfectly.

zozbot234 7y ago
> If you ask people "should we protect the weak?", at the end of the day, people will answer "no, it's too difficult to protect the weak" Isn't "protecting the weak" the whole point of civilized society over barbarism? Life is hard enough already, why make it even harder by tolerating aggressive and violent behavior from others? It's not "toughening up" anyone, it's creating an environment where the worst offenders are precisely those who perceive themselves as "winners" and as "stronger" than others. Surely that has to be totally misguided - the only people who would support this are those who are themselves inclined towards bullying, and towards developing contempt and hate for their perceived outgroups.
- jokoon 7y ago
  Not until individualism and anti-government sentiments kick in I'm not saying that those things I described are good, I'm just saying they make sense in our current time. > why make it even harder by tolerating aggressive and violent behavior from others? > Isn't "protecting the weak" the whole point of civilized society over barbarism? You're right, civilization matters more, but it doesn't change the fact that human nature will always easily re-surface. Free markets, competition, individualism, money, those values sound very dangerous because to me, because they contradicts and almost negate the entire concept of civilized society. The fall of the soviet union and acute capitalistic dogmas have exacerbated the sentiment that it's "everyone for himself".

zhwang 7y ago

I was at a high school that laid down a zero-tolerance policy against bullying. In practice, zero-tolerance turned into a blanket "we don't want to put up with any disruptions" policy. Provoking an outburst out of a target meant consequences for the victim that could be as bad or worse than the aggressor's.

wallace_f 7y ago
It's hard when adults do the same thing. I mean not just to the kids at school, but in all of life. How different in essence is using your power to artificially increase the price of healthcare, such as with insulin or in a hundred other examples, for your profit different than stealing someone's lunch money, or making jokes at their expense?

jlos 7y ago

>> My friends didn't have such support and suffered from it Could the real difference maybe be the homelife? The act of supporting you in spite of bullying and school administrators in some sense communicates to you that you are worthwhile and ought to be confident. Maybe the bullying in your friends lives compounded a lack of confidence unintentionally fostered in their homelives?

cmurf 7y ago

The problem is inconsistency, geographically and also over time. Up until perhaps 10-20 years ago, it was a beat down in the school parking lot. That was the only way to deal with bullies. Make them bleed. Today in large part to "no tolerance" policies, the victim gets equally punished for defending themselves. A beat down in a parking lot gets the police involved. And the school can expel both bully and victim if there was a fight. I never had the imagination for shooting up a school when I was a kid. But now that I'm an adult, I totally get it. When trust and civility break down, there are no more rules. Child victims have already been betrayed, and have had normal coping mechanisms inhibited. Sorta like punishing a dog for growling, all you do is teach them to be silent until they bite without warning. Why shoot your classmates? To make the parents suffer. All of them. Why? For raising bad children who are bullies. For having created such a perverted system of adults with no meaningful arbitration or advocacy or fairness. Make them suffer forever. It's a permanent, enduring, ultimate vindictiveness. It is intentionally disproportionate. From the child's point of view: I don't trust this system and neither should you, let me demonstrate betrayal to you. The idea that school shooters don't know what they're doing, or is temporary insanity, I think is absurd. For sure they lack mental discipline and coping mechanisms. But then, I'm not an expert in the psychology of it all, but I was a victim. Parking lot beat down pretty much solved it for me. But who advocates for those who can't or won't?

Der_Einzige 7y ago
>But who advocates for those who can't or won't? The answer is literal leftist "SJWs" which is a slur to all but those who agree with the policies. Radical liberation, equality, and compassion for the weak. Negative Utilitarian ethics about reducing suffering above all else is frequently the implicit ethical decision calculus used by: Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Harm-reduction activists, Intactivists, Feminists, Disability Rights Activists, Humanists, among others. If you are in the role of a bullied individual, your best friend is the one advocating for a more systemically equal and just system.

enneff 7y ago

Teachers are often the ringleaders of the bullying in my experience.

LorenPechtel 7y ago

Zero tolerance ends up punishing the victims, often instead of the bullies. Furthermore, it doesn't even work. If the bully gets punished then the victim will likely suffer worse. The victims very quickly learn that there is no help, the victimhood must be hidden even from well-meaning parents and authority figures. Their blundering efforts to help only make the problem worse. They think they solved the problem when they really just drove it underground. It "works", they keep using that strategy rather than doing something effective which would be very difficult. Parents, understand that you probably have only one chance to address it, if you fail to solve it you won't know unless your child suffers injuries they can't hide.

GreeniFi 7y ago

Can you impart some of the lessons your parents gave to you as a child?