On Friday, the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights held a hearing on peer-to-peer violence and bullying in public schools. The focus of the hearing was on the federal response to bullying directed at students on the basis of protected-class status. The commission will issue a report on the matter to the president and Congress in the next few months. Until then, just a few brief observations:
-
Several witnesses, including those from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, testified about the “bullying pandemic” sweeping the nation; the bullying “crisis”; the “alarming increase” in bullying. There may, in fact, be an increase in bullying in public schools (I tend to think there has been an increase). But when I asked the witnesses for data in support of the asserted increase (specifically, when did the federal government or any other entity begin collecting data on bullying? What were the numbers then and what are the numbers now?), there was no response. That’s because, according to one expert, no such stats are kept. In essence, the argument for greater federal involvement and legislation in response to bullying is based on no reliable data as to whether the problem has increased, decreased or stayed the same.
-
The federal officials failed to cite any examples of how the federal government has, thus far, addressed the problem of bullying better than officials at the state, local, or school level.
-
No precise definition of bullying was proffered at any time during the hearing.
-
During the seven hours of testimony, a range of issues were discussed: federal jurisdiction, First Amendment concerns, the adequacy or lack thereof of state responses, etc. There was, however, no discussion whatsoever of the role of parents in addressing the problem.
Student-on-student harassment is deplorable. Some of the testimony regarding actual instances of such conduct was both sickening and infuriating — especially those instances where school officials failed to take adequate, commonsense steps to prevent or stop harassment and violence. Clearly, more needs to be done. The commission’s report will address, however, whether greater federal involvement and legislation is the answer.
Really? The federal government has addressed bullying? That is, of course, unless the bullies are union employees....
Schools need to do a better job of dealing with bullies. However, I suspect that school administrators are fearful of litigation.
I do recall a "board of education" on the wall of my grammar school principal's office. Just the sight of it hanging there is memorable....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy fear is that federal anti-bullying guidelines will somehow end up being more about enforcing a so-called right and wrong way to think. Already we have seen "bullying" conflated with ideology(having the wrong politics = being a bully "because your beliefs make me feel Othered" and so on).
We must ensure that bullying is defined in terms of which behaviors are unacceptable, regardless of the identity status of both perpetrator and victim.
I simply do not trust the federal government to do this.
Captcha: "silver bullet".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLinUSA is correct. Anti-bullyting is thought crime/hate crime stuff, and a way of going after selected perpetrated and protecting selected victims. If a teenager calls a cross-dressing flamer fellow student a "homo" it will no longer be free speech, it will instead be "bullying." We aren't on a slippery slope anymore, we are on a 180 degree decline.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo offense, Mr. Kirsanow, but why is this the business of the US Commission on Civil Rights? What "civil rights" are at stake?
Forget whether the federal government should get involved in the first place. I cannot think of one good reason why your commission has jurisdiction over this issue, even if we assume federal jurisdiction.
Everyone thinks as you do, Mr. Kirsanow: the "bullying" problem has gotten worse. Why? None of you know, apparently. It's just an assumption with no data.
In most instances, you will find a school administration with a hands-off approach to intense harassment and violence. The worse the situation, the less their involvement. But, dare a child bring a toy pistol on Halloween with his Lone Ranger costume, and we have grounds for an expulsion.
Fat chance your commission, or any department in the federal government, will be able to restore common sense to this or any other issue.
But, initially, I still wonder why it's any of your business, Mr. Kirsanow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is much more to this issue than you admit, LinUSA and SeanB. In Morse v. Frederick, the Roberts court specifically said that students in school don't have the same right to free speech as adults, and school officials have the discretion to prohibit speech that "materially and substantially disrupt[s] the work and discipline of the school." If a school bans anti-gay slurs (either under federal instruction or otherwise), surely the controlling precedent would allow the prohibition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee, wouldn't school choice/vouchers be a "compassionate" solution to "bullying"?
The problem with "real" bullying is that rarely is either the bullier or the bullied removed from the school. And even if the bully goes, friends of the bully may remain and continue bullying.
Of course, letting one, really bullied, really intimidated and frightened child move freely to another school would clearly threaten all of public education.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBullies exist. Better to learn how to deal with them while still in school and the stakes are relatively low than be thrown into the adult world unprepared.
In any case, the Fed needs to keep its darned dirty paws to itself. Friggin' do-gooders make me want to hurl. They fabricate an issue, throw up a few poster children, and expect a stampede of support. They all deserve atomic wedgies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, the biggest problem is the lack of anyone's ability to point to the part of the Constitution that allows the federal government to even talk about this, much less craft legislation or regulation to "deal" with it.
What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." do these folks not get?!?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There may, in fact, be an increase in bullying in public schools (I tend to think there has been an increase). "
Maybe, but on what basis would any of us think that? There has always been bullying in schools, how do we know that its increase without any data? What if bullying is like “Shark Attacks,” when the Media decides to cover something in depth and suddenly everyone is convinced that there’s been an increase, when its just an increase in coverage? MA already passed a bullying statute, if the Government must become involved with preventing Bullying, then let it be at the State level.
My worry is that the broad definition of Bullying in the MA statute is based on the subjective perception of the “victim”:
Bullying”, the repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof, directed at a victim that: (i) causes physical or emotional harm to the victim or damage to the victim’s property; (ii) places the victim in reasonable fear of harm to himself or of damage to his property; (iii) creates a hostile environment at school for the victim; (iv) infringes on the rights of the victim at school; or (v) materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school. For the purposes of this section, bullying shall include cyber-bullying.
Words that cause “emotional harm” could conceivably encompass nearly any mean thing that kids say to each other on a day to day basis. As others have noted, this is ripe with the potential for prosecutorial abuse and could (and will) indeed be used to suppress certain ideas and – at best – be arbitrarily applied (Otherwise, almost every child would become a criminal since hurt feelings arising form “mean words” are an inherent part of childhood social interactions). In order to prevent abuse of the Bullying statutes, these laws ought to be restricted to physical acts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "What part of 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' do these folks not get?!?"
What part of "It's for the *GENERAL WELFARE* of the United States!" do *you* not get?
(I agree with you. I just figured I'd steal some libtard's thunder.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCowards. Let the Feds deal with violence in prisons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Clearly, more needs to be done."
NO!!!!
This is the big lie of "compassionate conservatism" -- that "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move."
This is just another excuse for unwarranted federal intervention.
There is absolutely no reason to think that local parents, teachers, schools and school boards are incapable of dealing with the particular problems of bullying in their districts (and I think it's quite obvious that the bullying problems in downtown Detroit are probably quite different than those in small-town Wyoming). And if the local school is not doing a good job, it is the responsibility of parents to elect school board members who will act in ways they desire, and for parents to act in their children's interests.
There is no reason to think that the imposition of one-size-fits all federal policies and bureaucratic intrusions from federal offices thousand of miles away will do better (and that statement applies to every aspect of education).
Furthermore, and this is a hard concept for some people, even if, in a particular case, the Federal government's choices are better than those the local school district is making, it's still wrong to federalize most activities. It's the essence of a free society that we govern ourselves and that we are free to fail as well as to succeed. A local failure is frequently better than a federal success -- because you can escape or reverse a local failure. But with every federal government success comes a hundred cases where the policies are a poor fit, and the individual is rendered helpless to make his own choice in the matter.
A concerned parent has a chance of getting elected to a local school board. However, he has almost no chance of getting elected to Congress and, once there, being able to chance entrenched federal policies with which he disagrees.
As a last resort, a concerned parent -- when local options are exhausted -- can move to a different area, or choose a private school or home school. But if that parent has run afoul of federal policy, there is no escape.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have six children. I was a nerd in school. I teach computer skills today.
I tell my son, when he is being harassed by a classmate (so-and-so is really "bugging my nuts!" he tells me), that the solution is... Deal With It Yourself.
"But the school has a 'No Violence' policy" he tells me.
"I don't care. Stand up for yourself, or no one else will" I respond.
"But I'll get in trouble," my son says "I might get suspended."
"And if you get in trouble at school for sticking up for yourself, you'll be in good with me. I'd rather you got suspended for three days for sticking up for yourself, than you got three more days of indoctrination into the liberal ideologies that are part and parcel of the administration line, regardless of whether your teachers agree with them or not." (yes, I really do talk to my Fourth grader like that)
Today he comes and tells me "I had to stop on that guys foot today, to get him to leave me alone."
"Good job" I responded. "Did you get in trouble?"
"Nope," he said "He might be bothering me again soon though."
"yeah, that's the nature of bullies. Just like the Federal government, once they realize they can get a little bit of leverage over you, they aren't satisfied until they can control everything you do."
Kids don't need Uncle Sam to get involved in their classroom drama. The idea alone sends my blood pressure up by 40 points. Kids need the old-fashioned way of dealing with things - meeting outside the school and having a fistfight to settle things, or going a couple of rounds in the boiler room with gloves on, or whatever. The problem is (and this will send people through the roof) that women have gotten too involved in education, and they don't understand how men, real men, solve problems and resolve interpersonal differences physically.
God can do anything, but I'm pretty sure that we, as a culture, are doomed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was just watching one of the "World at War" episodes, and apart from detailing the manful accomplishments of heroes, it demonstrated how adults handled trouble.
They handled it.
The episode I was watching had Gen. Curtis LeMay discussing the unfortunate but unavoidable civilian collateral damage produced by firebombing of Japanese cities. One wonders what he and his contemporaries would think of the "anti-bullying" classes being conducted in modern America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would anyone imagine that schools that can't teach math, can teach ethics to bullies? or strength to the bullied?
Let the schools achieve their founding purposes, and perhaps we can imagine them able for other tasks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse