There is a lot of talk from many people about bullying in school. The problem is that it is all talk. There is no sign that anybody is going to do anything that is likely to reduce bullying.
When politicians want to do nothing, and yet look like they are doing something, they appoint a blue ribbon committee or go to the U.N. or assign some Cabinet member to look into the problem and report back to the President — hoping that the issue will be forgotten by the time he reports back.
When educators are going to do nothing, they express great concern and make pious public pronouncements. They may even hold conferences, write op-ed pieces or declare a "no tolerance" policy. But they are still not going to do anything that is likely to stop bullying.
In some rough schools, they can't even stop the bullying of teachers by the hooligans in their classes, much less stop the bullying of students.
Not all of this is the educators' fault. The courts have created a legal climate where any swift and decisive action against bullies can lead to lawsuits. The net results are indecision, half-hearted gestures and pious public pronouncements by school officials, none of which is going to stop bullies.
When judges create new "rights" for bullies out of thin air, just as they do for criminals, and prescribe "due process" for school discipline, just as if schools were little courtrooms, then nothing is likely to happen promptly or decisively.
If there is anything worse than doing nothing, it is doing nothing spiced with empty rhetoric about what behavior is "unacceptable" — while in fact accepting it.
Might educators abuse their power, if the courts did not step in? Of course they could. Any power exercised by human beings can be abused. But, without the ability to exercise power, there is anarchy.
When responsible officials are prevented from exercising power, then bullies exercise power.
President Barack Obama has joined the chorus of those deploring bullying.
But his own administration is pushing the notion that a disproportionate number of suspensions or other punishments for members of particular racial or ethnic groups is discriminatory.
In other words, if a school suspends more black males than Asian females, that is taken as a sign of discrimination. No one in his right mind really believes that, but it is part of the grand make-believe that pervades our politics and even our courts.
For years, there have been stories in New York and Philadelphia newspapers about black kids beating up Asian classmates. But do not expect anybody to do anything that is likely to put a stop to it.
If these were white kids beating up Hispanic kids, cries of outrage would ring out across the land from the media, the politicians, the churches and civic groups. But it is not politically correct to make a fuss when black kids beat up Asian kids.
None of this is unique to the United States, by the way. The same mushy-minded attitudes have been carried even further in Britain, both as regards criminals and as regards bullies in the schools.
Britain was once one of the most law-abiding nations on earth. But the reluctance of the left to put some serious punishment on criminals has been carried so far there that only 7 percent of convicted criminals actually spend any time behind bars. Britain has now overtaken the United States in various crime rates.
Years ago, there was a book published in Britain titled "Murder in The Playground." The boy who ended up killing a fellow student on the school playground had previously committed crimes ranging from motorcycle theft to arson that created more than $50,000 worth of damage in school. For the latter, he was given 24 hours' detention.
People who say that we should learn from other countries almost always mean that we should imitate what other countries do. But one of the most important things we can learn from other countries is to avoid the mistakes they have made.
To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
7 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
My Powell is directly on target with this article. As a public school teacher, I can assure you that we are ignoring the very problem that liberal legislators are writing laws to prevent: a hostile environment of bullying in our schools. Fact: the teachers are being bullied, stalked, ridiculed, and mocked by a generation of lawless kids. Fact: the administration is doing little to nothing to ensure a "safe and supportive environment". Fact: we are raising a generation of Jared Loughners by blinking our eyes to the sin of bullying. Buzzwords like "manifestation of disability" and "stay-put", are paving the way for more "guilty by insanity" defenses. God help this nation. We need more common sense conservative Americans participating in our public education system.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Patriotteacher
Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Zero Tolerance fighting policies also contribute to bullying problems. My son was suspended in Middle School for restraining a bully from hurting a fellow student until a teacher arrived back in the classroom. He exercised an admirable amount of restraint in using only the force necessary to prevent another student from being strangled. Still, the school administration was incapable of discriminating between his actions and those of the bully - both were suspended!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Thomas Amidon
Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Dr. Sowell is exactly right when he says that judges (of which I am one) have made little courtrooms out of classrooms. When we take the ability to keep order away from teachers, the consequences are natural and predictable.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Citizen
Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Sowell,
I read an article you posted on lewrockwell.com on the 15 of april, I was hoping you could put it here so I could comment on it, but you have not. So I will comment it here anyway.
In the article you presented statistics that you argued as undisputable facts, and yet did not show the origins of the statistices. There was one comment about the fact that people are usually mostly transiant in poverty and transiant in high income/wealth, that these are not permanent states, which appear to infear that most people fit in the middle most of the time. I believe that this analysis is borrowed from a 2006 census working paper, which at the time I have found to contain very bad discipline. For example, the study explained, a bit like you repeated that people come out of poverty more than they go in. That pauverty perceptions may be simply stages of life, you earn above normal earnings when you are young and above as you get older. Yet what the study infered, when one does his homework, for example, is that if a single person earned 9,000 a year and shared an appartment with a non relative, he was not considered in the study because he was single. Yet he was under the pauverty treshold. If his situation changed and his hours got cut by half, and he now earned 4,500 a year, he suddenly had to move and go live with his brother who is married with 2 children dependant and lives under the poverty treshold with 21000 a year. This brother is part of the study base. So when the single person joins his brother, a relative, he lives in a larger unit of 3 adults and 2 children, all relatives. And now because both incomes total 25,500, they have "jumped" out of poverty. (all these numbers assume 2005 pauverty threshold and are from memory because I cannot find the research but did read it when it came out).
Would you also interpret this, as the study does, as a betterment of the situation of these 5 people?
As for the top 1% club of income earners, it is true that members maybe transiant because high income is often derived from capital gains, which are volatile by nature and episodic when large lumps are considered. Yet, the top 10% club of income earners does not show this variability. And vertical income and wealth mobility, for the past 20 years has been going down, not up. There is now less mobility between the bottom 4 quintiles and top quintile than there was. Income for the bottom 4 quintiles has been stagnant in real terms.
So it is suprising to me that someone of your education does not challenge himself in reading between the lines and does not tests what he is being fed. I am sure that when you go to the restaurant, you show more discernment.
Maybe you should let go of the Hunter/Gatherer Statistical Almanac Method and form your own opinion.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Denys Picard
Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:45 AM
|
|
|
|
As usual, Dr. Sowell is correct. However, I find the the entire "bullying" debate silly. I'm from the generation that learned: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." If a bully really bothered one you cured the problem with force and violence and the bully never bothered you again. Moreover, our sense of self was forged through the pursuit of excellence and learning to deal with failure not being praised for "trying" or existing as today's children are. Children (and liberal adults) today are too thin skinned because they've never learned to develop self respect through accomplishment and fear bullies because they have no real integrity or inner strength.
Suggestion to "victims" of bullies: grow a set.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Bill Peters
Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Sowell,
Being a victim of bullying, I know what a miserable experience it is for those unfortunates who go to school day in and day out bearing the abuse. It is deplorable how this continues to go on and how nothing is really being done about it as you said in your commentary. It is a right of children to be in a safe environment were they can learn and grow and look back on, fondly, in later years. If an adult were to be bullied by another adult what would that contitute? Harrasment or assault. Something that comes with crimminal charges. Why should these bully's be treated any differently. Sure, the person being bullied can put up a fight in some instances and it will get them to back off but what about a number of bully's ganging up on an individual. And the instance were a girl is being bullied by a male or many males. What are they to do? This is suppose to be a nation of justice and freedom. How can this be so when a child does not have the freedom to have an enjoyable experiencing going to shool in a safe environmet condusive to learning.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Nibs
Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:23 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Sowell, as usual, is right on the money. I am so tired of hearing all the rhetoric about zero toleerance, condemnation blah, blah, blah. This is all talk and no action and we can blame the mainstream media and liberals that are destroying this country, Barack Obama included.
Diane
Comment: #7
Posted by: Diane Hirschfeld
Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
