Bullying Johnny
Parents do positive harm when they support zero-tolerance policies and reflexively demand disciplinary action against Attila the Hun Jr.

By Linda Gorman, a senior fellow at the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank.
April 2, 2001 9:55 a.m.

ith Georgia passing legislation to let armed, school-security officers "address" school bullying, Massachusetts committing $1 million to anti-bullying programs, and the intense attention paid to the supposed plague of school bullying as a cause of recent school shootings, one would think that adults would focus on giving children the tools they need to subdue their tormentors. Dream on. Infected by the one-dimensional cardboard moralism that seeped into the body politic from the sixties swamp, many of today's adults positively embrace child-rearing practices guaranteed to produce bevies of perfectly formed bullies. Driven to protect their little darlings from the rigors of the real world, these parents then proceed to harass schools into adopting policies that condone the rotten behavior that they have encouraged in their unlovely offspring.

Consider the mental map of the middle-school bully who disrupted a group ski lesson on a school trip early this year. Setting a fine example for the younger children, the selfish brat refused to do the exercises specified by the instructor unless she explained to his satisfaction how they might help his skiing. Having neither the time nor the inclination to make everyone else wait while this young barbarian attempted to absorb a lecture on elementary physics, the instructor barred the child from returning to class after lunch.

In high dudgeon, his mother ordered him to apologize. The boy refused, saying that he would not violate his strongly held principles. If ever there was a time to demonstrate why God made parents larger than children, this was it.

In public, at least, his mother backed down. Perhaps she, like so many others, is a victim of the pop culture that values sticking to one's principles above all else without bothering much about such banalities as whether the principles in question are worth defending. Untrained in real morality, such people lack the intellectual conviction necessary to convince cocksure youngsters that their principles need immediate realignment. Besides, facing down one's children is difficult and time consuming. It's easier all around to rationalize their thuggish positions.

Like the bullies who animate the U.S. culture wars, this boy has discovered the magic combination of threats and self-righteousness that is the key to imposing his will on others. In school as in adulthood, the threats run the gamut from promises of hurt feelings, to promises of bodily harm. Some school bullies are satisfied with emotional manipulation. Mocking other kids and calling them names is a time-honored method of domination because making others feel bad might make them cry, and kids who cry can be embarrassed. Along with name-calling, bullies pinch or punch other kids when the teacher isn't looking, step on feet or hands at recess, steal personal items, and violate personal space.

When it comes to name-calling, the best response is often no response. After a couple of months of name-calling fails to produce the desired result, bullies often move on to softer targets. To get them to move on, the victim has to first examine his conscience to determine whether there is any truth in their remarks. Finding none, he can be sustained by an intellectual conviction that anyone who would say such things simply to cause hurt does not deserve the company of decent people. Finally, he must practice ignoring his hurt feelings in order to deny the bullies the satisfaction of a response.

Unfortunately, schools and parents often do their utmost to undermine the intellectual convictions that kids need to carry out such a plan. Educators put so much emphasis on students' feelings that they are more likely to ask how students feel about an equation than whether they can solve it. In this atmosphere, kids grow up thinking that their feelings are the most important things in the world. And so many people have been cowed by the diversity bullies that far too many shrink in horror from defining decency, much less using it as a basis for being judgmental, the blackest of all sixties sins.

People more concerned with teaching their child to face the real world will help him to understand that mastering his feelings is a source of strength. They will also teach him to use this mastery against those who would hurt him. Helping kids see the truth in the old saying, "sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never harm me" is a good start. An introduction to the real harm that can be done by words in the mouths of people intent on the politics of personal destruction can safely be delayed until they are old enough to run for office.

In fact, parents do positive harm when they support zero-tolerance policies and reflexively demand disciplinary action against Attila the Hun Jr., whenever their son, St. John, claims, "Attila called me a dummy and hurt my feelings." With his parents always at his side calling on school officials for help whenever he feels injured, Johnny never will develop his own shield against the slings and arrows of outrageous playmates.

If Johnny's parents are also members of the cult that distributes the "believe the children" bumper stickers, he is in real trouble. Many of these folks substitute reading pop-psychology books about children for spending time with them, and are way too naïve to be in charge of the real thing. They literally have no idea that Johnny may very well have forgotten to mention that he called Attila a dummy first, and will support their child, no matter what, in involving every other adult in his orbit in a time-wasting, acrimonious, series of claims and counter claims.

Rather than run to school authorities, perhaps they might simply ask Johnny whether he really is a dummy. If Johnny answers it with a resounding "No!" then it quickly becomes clear just who the dummy is. Add a continuing series of lecture/demonstrations of how a superior smile and a smug silence can make the in-group feel out, and Johnny is well on his way to winning the playground wars.

The blanket condemnations of violence that mindlessly lump self-defense with aggression are also harmful because they produce a ready-made group of victims. In one case, two mothers were comparing notes on the actions of a group of girls who were picking on their daughters. The first mother said that the school was generally doing a good job of containing the bullies, but that now she would have to write a note because their tactics had changed and they were crawling under the bathroom stall doors while her daughter was going to the bathroom. The second mother laughed and said that if it was her daughter she'd advise her to put her foot on the first hand that appeared under the door, apply a little pressure and say, in a loud voice, "Oh, is that your hand? I'm so sorry; I never expected it to be there! Really, I am so sorry …".

"Oh," admonished the first mom, "I could never counsel my child to use violence."

One part of the modern Zeitgeist produces bullies. Another produces unarmed victims. Given that an armed society is a polite society, is it any wonder that American schools resemble war zones?