Skinner Box

Being a student of Bruce K. Alexander 15 years ago, I doubt he would use your analogy, RickW. Schools have transformed a lot over the last 50 years. Today, we have a much better understanding of children, their rights, and their need to make some of their own choices in order to become their own person. I would suggest that most schools look more like Alexander's "rat park" than ever before. Schools are more about meeting the needs of the children now and less about caging them into complete conformity. Can we get better? You bet! But, the demonization of schools is without merit.

As to bullying. I appreciate what the author of this article says. It is, no doubt, a complex issue. Dealing with incidents in a reactionary and superficial way will not solve anything. However, that is why wearing pink is so powerful for the students today. This is an idea that was brought forward by students! They are using their voice to make a statement. That they are able to do this is testamount to a changing and dynamic school system. Celebrate their provocative and positive statement and make this a better world to be in.

Bullying and crime in

Bullying and crime in general are just another form of economic competition.

It is that simple.

Our economic system praises and rewards the criminals who steal the most from the most, enslave the most and ruin the most lives and environment, then justifies it with the distorted words of a guy, Adam Smith, dead for over 200 years.

If this kind of behavior is acceptable in the daily lives of our society, where millions don't know whether they'll have a business, home, or income tomorrow, then there's no point in complaining if the survival of the most brutal jerks is copied in the schools.

Overwaitea is now in negotiations , demanding 2 hour shifts. Is this not bullying ? How about the fish farms destroying salmon runs, or mining companies dumping poisons into rivers and lakes ?

I grew up in an impoverished country during the depression, going to elementary school barefoot, because it was the norm, when the price of a pencil was a family crisis and children fainted from hunger in class.

There was no theft, nobody lost anything. We had no lockers and in the winter, our coats were hanging out in the hallways. Nothing was lost, no kids committed crimes, nobody was ever charged with anything.

When my kids were going to school in the Killarney area of Vancouver in the 60s and 70s, their lockers were vandalized, shoes, books, clothing was stolen every week, razor slashings in the girls washrooms over drug deals, etc.

So, what causes such actions in the midst of plenty, if not the general atmosphere of legalized theft in the hands of power elites?

The politicians and the psychologists can moan and groan and wring their hands, unless they dare to look for the real causes, the psychology of ideologically licenced crime, things will never improve.

If our ideological system encourages environmental destruction and the wiping out of whole species, and human societies, for the profit demands of a few, we have no right to complain about school bullying.

Ed Deak, Big Lake

Call it what you want

All the initiatives in the world won't change the fact that some people are just jerks. Regardless of gender, nationality, socioeconomic status, even popularity, some people are just driven to beat down on others. The word bullying connotes the type of continual harassment that can go on - a campaign of attacks, insults and humiliation.

Unfortunately, since I was in the schoolyard, the mediums and opportunities for bullying have just increased. It used to be that you could get away from it once you were physically away from school, but now, kids can be victimized in their own homes, via the Internet.

So what does the writer suggest we do, if it doesn't start with the individuals and families?

bullies?

The schools are wrong. They are responding to aggressive behavior with aggressive behavior. Have we not learned our lesson that aggression is caused by aggression? Are we not just doing to the bully what the bully is doing to someone else? Of course, we are.

It is all due to the lack of affection and emtional security during infancy and early years. If these can be corrected in future generations, we may have a chance to stop it. Of not, we will continue this cycle of violence until we are all gone.

Those who hurt others are just getting back at someone who hurt them - usually a parent. Whenever I hear someone say that they "respect" their folks for physical or emotional discipline, I know I am hearing someone who will beat his children to "get even". This, of course, teaches those children to beat the grandchildren.

Then they can all join up in the military, and kill for peace.

Sometimes it's not discrimination

While I agree with a lot of this article and appreciate the out-of-the-box intelligence brought to the issue, I disagree with two of the premises.

The first is that "young people are getting targeted for being gay, disabled, poor, native, etc." Moy is conceding that the bully is basically accurate albeit inappropriate, hence discriminatory.

I don't remember this being at all true. My observation was that bullies were not very concerned with correctly identifying sexuality or other group characteristic, but in picking the handiest put-down that came to their limited minds. "Fag" was a good one because it was social anathema.

We could just re-educate them out of homophobia, but then the bullies would find a new, stigmatizing epithet.

The second thing I disagree with is the notion of looking to root causes in culture. Actually, I don't disagree with it -- it is surely how we will change the world over generations -- it's just not going to make any discernable difference to the kid that is being, uh, bullied/discriminated against today. "Zero tolerance" etc is imperfect justice, ok, but it's fast. If you have to wait too long for perfect justice, you tend to want to take the solution into your own hands.

And, frankly, that method -- crude, but time-tested and proven effective -- is how this particular 'chink' (actually, Nip) stopped being bullied.

bullying as euphemism

I had similar thoughts listening to a news story recently about a kid in (I think) California who killed another kid for being openly gay. The coverage was framed in terms of tolerance vs. bullying. Almost in passing they mentioned that the murderer was probably reacting to rumours that the gay kid had a crush on him. The bullying script seemed to miss the point entirely. Preaching blanket tolerance in that instance would have been a poor antidote to deadly homophobia.

On the other hand, my school-age daughter and her peers have been, admirably, steeped with an anti-bullying awareness that didn't exist in my day. I like your point about bullying being an imprecise term, and maybe the problem is the misuse of the term as a euphemism. I suppose it's more comfortable for Fox news - or BC cabinet ministers for that matter - to denounce bullying than to pointedly address homophobia without resorting to euphemisms.

Were people bullied into wearing pink today?

I was at school today and a lot of people (more female than male, except for the PE Department, which acts as a large amorphous body) wore pink. The only people who didn't wholesale-adopt pink were middle-age or older women like myself. We know that pink is only a colour; that there are myriads of ways of being discriminated against; that you can wear pink all you like and you can still be "bullied" or treated as a lesser form of life.

Chris H

With respect, I must disagree. What the schools are doing today is strictly "bandaid" rather than address the source.

Ed Deak has it right, in that bullying in school must bve addressed both before the child goes to school, and when (s)he leaves the system. It's a tall order, and for that reason authorities shy from addressing it, except in the most superficial manner.

I think Bruce Alexander (not having met the gentleman, but never-the-less most imnpressed with his Rat Park) would agree with my assertion.

Bullying is a form of addiction, and requires an approach similar to the success of the Italian San Patrignano:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.sanpatrignano.org/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSan%2BPatrignano%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

hey Weasel

Wearing pink is an act of solidarity with the weak, of saying "we're with you." It doesn't address the root causes that Lisa Moy is talking about, but it is a good thing in and of itself.

I can see you maybe flinching at a certain self-congratulatory aspect of it. That's just ordinary smugness, it's not bullying.

Though I can't see a remedy for it,

You are right on, Ed Deak. While anti-social behaviour is noted in the schools, where it is closely watched, we fail to see that it is epidemic in our society, where it is considered "normal".

powertrips

that is what this mis and over used ism is.
Take for instance the proud mother constantly bragging about her successful offspring amongst her peers. Or, the mother or mother-in-law who constantly nags about your inability of properly raising one's children.
Then you have the relative who rains on everyone's parade during the annual thanksgiving or christmas get-together.
One should also remember the politician who uses their fleeting power to bully the taxpayer into conforming to their my-way-or-the-highway stance. Christie Clark and the Teacher's Fed. Then uses the bully-pulpit of the air-waves to promote "Wear Pink." What a hypocrite.
Yes, bullying is the wrong euphemism to be using for this form of human interaction.
It's also sexist.

vague and ambiguous

I found this article’s premise vague and ambiguous, as well as unhelpful in dealing with what I consider a very serious problem of violence in the school system. I disagree with the author’s premise and will continue to use the term ‘bullying’ to refer to a wide range of abusive and violent behavior between school students. And I also support a zero tolerance approach for such acts.

From my perspective, despite the fact Canada is a relatively peaceful society, the tolerance and acceptance for violence remains far higher than what we should aspire to. While hokey fights and government war mongering (as in Afghanistan) are examples of the normalization of violence in society, school plays a pivotal role in shaping the values of our people, and it is there where we can take strong action against violent and abusive attitudes.

The path I would favor is of stronger deterrent against such abuse that would protect victims, clearly identify perpetrators and hold their parents or guardians partially responsible. This doesn’t mean taking harsh and unreasonable action against bullies or their families, for I do agree that complex external factors such as dysfunctional families and poverty play a role. Perhaps a reasonable approach could be to increase funding for psychological support and social services for mal adjusted and violent young people and their families, with serious offenders being segregated from the student population until they understand and take responsibility for the pain and suffering they cause. Of course given the current lack of political support for the education system, it’s almost impossible to expect this, or any, kind of increase in services. So then it might just be up to parents to organize themselves, find allies among school workers and students, then take serious action against violence in schools, and challenge the apathetic and irresponsible elements that cover and make excuses for it.

Our children’s education system is one of the most important places where we as a people must take a strong stand in reducing overall violence and abusive behavior in our society. Schools should be places of sanctuary where children are safe and secure, and a zero tolerance for bullying is a good first step in getting there.

"Zero tolerance"? Just more Hokum for the masses/

Sorry, Mustafarian, but "zero tolerance" in its multiplicity of forms rapidly becomes just another form of bullying.

It's too bad the touchie-feelies have deliberately blinded themselves to seeing that.

Pink the day after

To me, wearing pink on an anti-bullying day is symbolic of the recognition of the action that some students in Nova Scotia took to defend one of their school mates. I will never suggest that one anti-bullying day will eliminate bullying forever. Anti-bullying education requires constant attention in our schools. It requires the students to recognize different types of bullying, the roles of different participants (bully, bullied, and bystander), and steps that can be taken to reduce and eliminate bullying.

As for the pink shirts, if no males wear their pink shirts until the next anti-bullying or elimination of cancer campaign, then the pink shirt just represents a costume to wear on a Halloween-Light day.

Pink is normal.

"Strong, men, aren't, afraid, to, wear, pink!" Quote from grade-two student I know.

Thanks

Thanks for the article. Very thought provoking and written in a way that allows us to explore the issue without offending those who have the best of intentions.