Bullying

Matthew Lynch published in Bullying

Why bullying needs more efforts to stop it

Jonathan Todres, Georgia State University

The tragic consequences of bullying have become a regular part of the news cycle. In April, an eighth grade girl in Missouri and a sixth grade boy in Pennsylvania committed suicide. Bullying was an important factor, according to their families.

While such devastating cases understandably draw the most attention, they risk leaving the impression that bullying is an issue only in severe cases. In fact, bullying is pervasive and often causes harm. As awareness spreads that bullying is not just a childhood rite of passage but a significant public health issue, the demand for action has increased.

A breadth of actors, from federal agencies to state legislatures to schools, are grappling with how to address the problem. And now a new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine – a leading independent research organization – provides critical insights into bullying’s consequences and what is needed for an effective response. I served on this study committee.

Understanding bullying’s impact

Contrary to traditional views of bullying as mere child’s play, research shows that bullying has significant short- and long-term adverse consequences for targets, perpetrators and others who witness bullying.

Children who are bullied are more likely to suffer a variety of psychological disorders, including depression and anxiety. They are more likely to contemplate or attempt suicide, though as the Academies report explains, “there is not enough evidence to date to conclude that bullying is a causal factor for youth suicides.” Youth who are bullied also report various physical symptoms, including headaches, sleep disturbances and stomach pain.

Children who are bullied suffer from a range of mental and physical health problems. Boy image via www.shutterstock.com

The impact can be felt for years. In many cases, the mental health consequences of bullying persist into adulthood.

Importantly, it is not only the targets of bullying who suffer. Children who bully others and bystanders who witness bullying are also at greater risk of adverse mental health consequences.

The report also found that children who are both perpetrators and targets of bullying “appear to be at greatest risk for poor psychosocial outcomes, compared to those who only bully or are only bullied and to those who are not bullied.” These children may show mental health-related symptoms such as depression, anxiety and withdrawal. They may also show behavior-related symptoms, such as anger and aggression.

While the Academies report found that more research is needed, it also identified a number of ways to advance anti-bullying efforts.

Assessing law and policy responses

In the past 15 years, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have adopted or revised anti-bullying laws. While this legislative action is promising, few studies have measured the actual impact of anti-bullying laws and policies.

Law has played a key role in responding to many public health issues, from infectious diseases to road safety to tobacco use. To ensure it does the same for bullying prevention, a process for continually assessing and refining anti-bullying laws and policies is needed, according to the Academies report.

Among other things, the Academies report calls for an annual meeting among policymakers, social scientists and professionals who work with children to review research that assesses the implementation and effect of anti-bullying laws and policies. The aim is to develop better evidence and ensure that research informs decisions Congress and the state legislatures make to address bullying.

Identifying bullying

Research shows that many school administrators and teachers continue to have trouble identifying bullying and intervening successfully.

An essential step to identification of bullying is training for teachers and others who work with children and adolescents. As the Academies report recommends, “evidence-informed bullying prevention training [should be provided] for individuals, both professionals and volunteers, who work directly with children and adolescents on a regular basis.”

The report notes that such training programs must be ongoing and evaluated to ensure that professionals and volunteers who work with youth can effectively identify bullying and intervene appropriately.

Confronting cyberbullying

Another critical component of this issue is cyberbullying, given the prominence of social media in the lives of children and adolescents.

Cyberbullying presents unique challenges. Girl image via www.shutterstock.com

In some respects, the online world can be viewed as simply another locale where bullying occurs. But it also presents unique challenges. The 24/7 nature of social media may make a victim of bullying feel it is impossible to escape bullying behavior. It also can blur the line between what happens on- versus off-school campuses. As policymakers and schools consider how best to address cyberbullying, technology companies are uniquely positioned to play a role.

The Academies report urges social media companies to develop and evaluate “policies and programs for preventing, identifying and responding to bullying on their platforms.” It also calls on social media companies to post their policies online so they are widely accessible to the public.

Ensuring a safe environment

So long as bullying persists, and children are hurt, we are not doing enough.

We need more research to address gaps in our understanding of bullying and its consequences. And we must ensure that our responses are based on proven effective programs.

From policymakers to parents, tech companies to teachers, we all have a role to play in preventing bullying and ensuring safe environments for children. Building upon evidence-based research can ensure that we are not just responding to bullying, but that we are responding effectively.

The Conversation

Jonathan Todres, Professor of Law, Georgia State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying

The use of homophobic slurs in sports: It’s for the athletes’ own good, right?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jennifer Fraser

“…male athletes in particular are held up as and expected to be paragons of a certain kind of masculinity, seen as the rejection of all that is coded ‘feminine.’ Exhortations that male athletes ‘be a man’ or ‘not act like little girls’ are even more pervasive in sports than they are in general culture. So it’s little surprise that a coach would use insults that imply his players are less than men to shame, humiliate and control them.” —T. F. Charlton

Homophobic slurs are an ideal way to stop young athletes from reporting abuse: if the coach regularly calls boys “pussies” or tells them to “grow some balls” or screams at them that they are “soft,” these boys are very unlikely to report because they worry that if they can’t hack such tough, masculine coaching, they might just be the feminized, degraded players the coach accuses them of being. Chances are good if you ask this kind of coach why he speaks to the boys this way, he will tell you that it’s to ‘toughen them up’. He will tell you that humiliating, taunting, and insulting, namely bullying, are effective tools to build athletic greatness. That’s how he was coached.

Unfortunately, there are many studies that reveal this kind of coaching harms athletes and fails to make winning teams. According to University of Toronto experts in the use of emotional abuse in sports: “One of the barriers to the implementation of an athlete-centered approach is the assumption, held by many sport practitioners, that holistic development comes at a cost to athletic performance.” However, there is “no empirical evidence” to back this belief up.[1] One of the greatest misconceptions in the sporting world is the belief that being hard on athletes makes strong teams.

As long ago as 1983, psychiatrist Dr. Alice Miller exposed a poisonous pedagogical approach as having devastating effects on children. Her study, For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Childhood and the Roots of Violence has been so influential that a new edition was released in 2002. Essentially, Miller argues that care-givers who use abusive approaches, whether physical or emotional, harm children in significant ways even though they claim to have “the child’s best interests” in mind.[2]

Poisonous pedagogy underpins the argument that coaches need to yell, swear, humiliate and demean athletes in order to get the best out of them and for their team to be successful.

I resigned from a school where homophobic culture was widespread and tolerated in the basketball program. To give some examples of the culture: one day, while the Senior Boys Basketball team were competing in the Provincial Championships, one of the coaches wrote an email to all faculty at the school using a homophobic slur: “Boys lose by 11 with a soft second half performance.” This is a team where the term “soft” is hurled at the boys on a regular basis at practices. The messaging is that the abuse is deserved because the boys are failing to achieve masculine hardness (with all of its sexual overtones likely not lost on adolescent boys or in sports culture in general). One of the coaches would yell at students that they were “soft as butter”; according to Google’s online urban dictionary, “soft as butter” is an “expression to describe an absolute pussy who makes the most cowardly person look like a hero.”[3] Fourteen students came forward to report that taunting and insulting language was eroding their confidence and killing their love of the game. They were clear that homophobic slurs were harmful to them.

The use of misogynistic or homophobic terms to humiliate teenage boys is both widely discussed and well documented in sports journalism and abuse literature. However, as the coaches themselves said in their responses to the student allegations of bullying, in a School culture where using this language is seen as “normal” it was difficult to know when they’d crossed the line. And far more insidious and poisonous are the students’ beliefs, when exposed to repeated humiliation, as they recorded in their testimonies, that perhaps they deserve it because they are “soft.” And to bring it full circle, the worry that they are in fact soft stops them from asking for help or protection.

When Rutgers’ basketball coach Mike Rice was exposed as using homophobic slurs, there was significant outcry and he was fired. In Yahoo Sports in April 2013, sports reporter, Erik Adelson says that when the video of Mike Rice abusing players was aired: “social media exploded with horror and one resounding question: Why didn’t anyone fight back?” He looks beyond Rutgers University to multiple athletics programs for his answer and concludes that the question of why athletes tolerate abuse has “a one-word answer: fear.”[4] Athletes, boys in particular, are afraid that if they speak up, they will be accused of being “soft”.

In an article that responded to the Mike Rice scandal, T. F. Charlton examines the phenomenon of athletes not reporting on abusive coaches:

We should hardly be surprised, then, that players don’t speak up about abuse — and even, as in Rice’s case and many others, actually defend abusive behavior. Male and female players alike model the message they receive: that coaches who violate their emotional and physical boundaries do so for players’ good, and players who don’t handle this stoically aren’t up to snuff.[5]

Only one player on the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights risked speaking up against Coach Mike Rice before the video was played on ESPN. Homophobic coaching must be stopped. As T. F. Charlton argues:

“Instead of teaching young athletes to accept and shoulder abusive coaching as being ‘for their good,’ let’s teach them — and remind ourselves — that they have a right to not have their emotional and physical boundaries violated. Let’s provide an institutional structure that is proactive about preventing and addressing abuse and protects athletes and staff who speak out about it.”[6]

As a society, we will never eradicate bullying until we create a culture of support and remedy for those who find themselves in a cycle over which they have little or no control. Just like children who bully are not tolerated, coaches who bully need to be removed instantly from their positions until they are able to stop, get a clean bill of health from a psychologist, and hopefully return to their job. We would never let a teacher with a highly contagious disease near students. Likewise, we should never let a coach or teacher who suffers from a bullying or other psychological disorder to interact with students as their tendencies may well be passed on.

As one student recounted in his testimony at my former school: “I worry that I might become like [two of the coaches]. I’m scared I will snap and coach like them. It’s a really big worry for me. I have the fear that being abused, I’ll abuse others.” Another student reports that when coaching his little brother’s team, he found himself resorting to the same abusive practices to which he had been subjected. When his behaviour was pointed out to him by the adult with whom he was coaching, he felt terrible. Nevertheless, it was still a struggle for this bullied player to stop emulating the abusive coaching style he had learned as a younger player. He wanted to be seen as tough, hard, and successful after having that beaten into his mind over and over again at practices and games.

This honest admission by teenagers about how they have been negatively impacted is extremely concerning especially in terms of the students who normalize bullying behaviour, do not speak up against it or turn a blind eye when they witness it happen. Perhaps this is why there is a bullying epidemic not only in schools, but also in the workplace. For further discussion of emotional abuse in athletics, see Fraser’s forthcoming book, Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court or in the Classroom.

 

[1] Ashley E. Stirling and Gretchen A. Kerr, “Abused Athletes’ Perceptions of the Coach-Athlete Relationship”, Sport in Society Vol.12.2, March 2009: 227-239.

[2] Alice Miller, For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Childhood and the Roots of Violence, trans. Hildegarde and Hunter Hannum, New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux: 2002.

[3] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Soft%20as%20butter

[4] Erik Adelson, “Why do College Athletes Tolerate Abuse?” Yahoo Sports, April 2013: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab–why-don-t-college-athletes-call-out-abusive-coaches–222535612.html

[5] T. F. Charlton: “Why do athletes tolerate abusive coaches? In locker rooms, insubordination is a worse crime than abuse of authority. Unless that changes, nothing else will.” Salon.com http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/why_do_athletes_tolerate_abusive_coaches/

[6] T. F. Charlton: “Why do athletes tolerate abusive coaches? In locker rooms, insubordination is a worse crime than abuse of authority. Unless that changes, nothing else will.” Salon.com http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/why_do_athletes_tolerate_abusive_coaches/

_____

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Bacclaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying

The use of homophobic slurs in sports: It’s for the athletes’ own good, right?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jennifer Fraser

“…male athletes in particular are held up as and expected to be paragons of a certain kind of masculinity, seen as the rejection of all that is coded ‘feminine.’ Exhortations that male athletes ‘be a man’ or ‘not act like little girls’ are even more pervasive in sports than they are in general culture. So it’s little surprise that a coach would use insults that imply his players are less than men to shame, humiliate and control them.” —T. F. Charlton

Homophobic slurs are an ideal way to stop young athletes from reporting abuse: if the coach regularly calls boys “pussies” or tells them to “grow some balls” or screams at them that they are “soft,” these boys are very unlikely to report because they worry that if they can’t hack such tough, masculine coaching, they might just be the feminized, degraded players the coach accuses them of being. Chances are good if you ask this kind of coach why he speaks to the boys this way, he will tell you that it’s to ‘toughen them up’. He will tell you that humiliating, taunting, and insulting, namely bullying, are effective tools to build athletic greatness. That’s how he was coached.

Unfortunately, there are many studies that reveal this kind of coaching harms athletes and fails to make winning teams. According to University of Toronto experts in the use of emotional abuse in sports: “One of the barriers to the implementation of an athlete-centered approach is the assumption, held by many sport practitioners, that holistic development comes at a cost to athletic performance.” However, there is “no empirical evidence” to back this belief up.[1] One of the greatest misconceptions in the sporting world is the belief that being hard on athletes makes strong teams.

As long ago as 1983, psychiatrist Dr. Alice Miller exposed a poisonous pedagogical approach as having devastating effects on children. Her study, For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Childhood and the Roots of Violence has been so influential that a new edition was released in 2002. Essentially, Miller argues that care-givers who use abusive approaches, whether physical or emotional, harm children in significant ways even though they claim to have “the child’s best interests” in mind.[2]

Poisonous pedagogy underpins the argument that coaches need to yell, swear, humiliate and demean athletes in order to get the best out of them and for their team to be successful.

I resigned from a school where homophobic culture was widespread and tolerated in the basketball program. To give some examples of the culture: one day, while the Senior Boys Basketball team were competing in the Provincial Championships, one of the coaches wrote an email to all faculty at the school using a homophobic slur: “Boys lose by 11 with a soft second half performance.” This is a team where the term “soft” is hurled at the boys on a regular basis at practices. The messaging is that the abuse is deserved because the boys are failing to achieve masculine hardness (with all of its sexual overtones likely not lost on adolescent boys or in sports culture in general). One of the coaches would yell at students that they were “soft as butter”; according to Google’s online urban dictionary, “soft as butter” is an “expression to describe an absolute pussy who makes the most cowardly person look like a hero.”[3] Fourteen students came forward to report that taunting and insulting language was eroding their confidence and killing their love of the game. They were clear that homophobic slurs were harmful to them.

The use of misogynistic or homophobic terms to humiliate teenage boys is both widely discussed and well documented in sports journalism and abuse literature. However, as the coaches themselves said in their responses to the student allegations of bullying, in a School culture where using this language is seen as “normal” it was difficult to know when they’d crossed the line. And far more insidious and poisonous are the students’ beliefs, when exposed to repeated humiliation, as they recorded in their testimonies, that perhaps they deserve it because they are “soft.” And to bring it full circle, the worry that they are in fact soft stops them from asking for help or protection.

When Rutgers’ basketball coach Mike Rice was exposed as using homophobic slurs, there was significant outcry and he was fired. In Yahoo Sports in April 2013, sports reporter, Erik Adelson says that when the video of Mike Rice abusing players was aired: “social media exploded with horror and one resounding question: Why didn’t anyone fight back?” He looks beyond Rutgers University to multiple athletics programs for his answer and concludes that the question of why athletes tolerate abuse has “a one-word answer: fear.”[4] Athletes, boys in particular, are afraid that if they speak up, they will be accused of being “soft”.

In an article that responded to the Mike Rice scandal, T. F. Charlton examines the phenomenon of athletes not reporting on abusive coaches:

We should hardly be surprised, then, that players don’t speak up about abuse — and even, as in Rice’s case and many others, actually defend abusive behavior. Male and female players alike model the message they receive: that coaches who violate their emotional and physical boundaries do so for players’ good, and players who don’t handle this stoically aren’t up to snuff.[5]

Only one player on the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights risked speaking up against Coach Mike Rice before the video was played on ESPN. Homophobic coaching must be stopped. As T. F. Charlton argues:

“Instead of teaching young athletes to accept and shoulder abusive coaching as being ‘for their good,’ let’s teach them — and remind ourselves — that they have a right to not have their emotional and physical boundaries violated. Let’s provide an institutional structure that is proactive about preventing and addressing abuse and protects athletes and staff who speak out about it.”[6]

As a society, we will never eradicate bullying until we create a culture of support and remedy for those who find themselves in a cycle over which they have little or no control. Just like children who bully are not tolerated, coaches who bully need to be removed instantly from their positions until they are able to stop, get a clean bill of health from a psychologist, and hopefully return to their job. We would never let a teacher with a highly contagious disease near students. Likewise, we should never let a coach or teacher who suffers from a bullying or other psychological disorder to interact with students as their tendencies may well be passed on.

As one student recounted in his testimony at my former school: “I worry that I might become like [two of the coaches]. I’m scared I will snap and coach like them. It’s a really big worry for me. I have the fear that being abused, I’ll abuse others.” Another student reports that when coaching his little brother’s team, he found himself resorting to the same abusive practices to which he had been subjected. When his behaviour was pointed out to him by the adult with whom he was coaching, he felt terrible. Nevertheless, it was still a struggle for this bullied player to stop emulating the abusive coaching style he had learned as a younger player. He wanted to be seen as tough, hard, and successful after having that beaten into his mind over and over again at practices and games.

This honest admission by teenagers about how they have been negatively impacted is extremely concerning especially in terms of the students who normalize bullying behaviour, do not speak up against it or turn a blind eye when they witness it happen. Perhaps this is why there is a bullying epidemic not only in schools, but also in the workplace. For further discussion of emotional abuse in athletics, see Fraser’s forthcoming book, Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court or in the Classroom.

 

[1] Ashley E. Stirling and Gretchen A. Kerr, “Abused Athletes’ Perceptions of the Coach-Athlete Relationship”, Sport in Society Vol.12.2, March 2009: 227-239.

[2] Alice Miller, For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Childhood and the Roots of Violence, trans. Hildegarde and Hunter Hannum, New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux: 2002.

[3] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Soft%20as%20butter

[4] Erik Adelson, “Why do College Athletes Tolerate Abuse?” Yahoo Sports, April 2013: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab–why-don-t-college-athletes-call-out-abusive-coaches–222535612.html

[5] T. F. Charlton: “Why do athletes tolerate abusive coaches? In locker rooms, insubordination is a worse crime than abuse of authority. Unless that changes, nothing else will.” Salon.com http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/why_do_athletes_tolerate_abusive_coaches/

[6] T. F. Charlton: “Why do athletes tolerate abusive coaches? In locker rooms, insubordination is a worse crime than abuse of authority. Unless that changes, nothing else will.” Salon.com http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/why_do_athletes_tolerate_abusive_coaches/

_____

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Bacclaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Bullying, Education Leadership, First Year Teachers, Policy & Reform,

14 Signs of Cyberbullying in the Classroom

By Gabe Duverge

One of the biggest trends affecting education across the country is the migration of bullying to digital media, which is commonly referred to as cyberbullying. About 7 percent of students in grades 6-12 experience cyberbullying each year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying is much harder for educators to detect and address. The perpetrators are often able to maintain anonymity, and much of the cyberbullying activity occurs outside of school.

Like traditional bullying, there are warning signs for teachers to watch for in their students. These signs can help you identify a victim or a cyberbully and step into the situation. Cyberbullying can be quite harmful to the well-being of students if it goes unchecked. In addition, the negative effects on students can severely damage your ability to manage the classroom.

Emotional Signs of Cyberbullying

Emotional changes in a student might be hard to see, but they are often some of the most severe signs. These signals show that cyberbullying has really had an emotional impact on a student.

1. Becomes a Loner

Cyberbullying victims often take every opportunity to keep to themselves. They refrain from being in groups and take steps to isolate themselves. For typically outgoing students, this will be an obvious change.

2. Mood Swings

You may witness a victim have emotional outbursts and mood swings. A situation may go from very calm to contentious quite quickly. This can occur both in a group setting and on an individual level.

3. Increased Stress

A student struggling to manage stress could be a cyberbullying victim. You may notice this during normally stressful times or in situations where the student wouldn’t normally be stressed.

4. Displays Aggressive Behavior

Lashing out aggressively is common among cyberbullying victims. This is especially true among students who are not usually aggressive. They may show aggression against peers or even educators during any situation.

5. Displays Symptoms of Depression

One of the severe effects of cyberbullying is depression. Among youth, depression may manifest as constant sadness, restlessness, a lack of enthusiasm, chronic fatigue and other symptoms. If teachers witness a student with symptoms of depression, they should immediately contact a guidance counselor and the parents. Untreated depression can have very negative effects on a student.

Academic Signs of Cyberbullying

Teachers are in the best position to identify the reasons behind a student falling behind academically. Victims of cyberbullying can take steps backward in the classroom just like in other aspects of their life. Here are a few academic-related clues that cyberbullying may be taking place.

6. Doesn’t Attend School

Teachers may see students miss school more frequently. If a student begins missing significant time, contact a parent to better understand the reason. This is a good time to get clues on whether something else is afoot.

7. Work Ethic Drops

Maybe a student stops turning in homework or submits incomplete assignments. Victims of cyberbullying may stop contributing in class regularly. This is especially true of often-successful students who are struggling with a cyberbullying situation.

8. Skips Class

Cutting class is never acceptable, but some students may try to avoid interacting in class by skipping it altogether. This may be to avoid the cyberbully or just to act out.

9. Loses Interest in School

Cyberbullying can turn a once-star student into someone less excited about school. If students who are regularly involved in the classroom begin to care less, they may be suffering from cyberbullying.

10. Grades Drop

The overall grades of victims of cyberbullying often drop. This may include performing poorly on tests, missing assignments and struggling in group projects. A sudden drop in grades may be a cry for help from a victim truly struggling.

Social Signs of Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying can have a tremendous impact on how students relate to their peers socially. Cyberbullies typically attack someone they know well. Students may stop trusting their usual social group and withdraw. Here are a few specific examples.

11. Stops Participating in Social Activities

A student who is on a team or in an after-school club may stop participating because of cyberbullying. Teachers who notice a previously involved student suddenly lose interest in extracurricular activities may want to explore what’s wrong and move from there.

12. Stops Eating or Sleeping

This may be harder for teachers to notice, but students struggling with cyberbullying often sleep and eat less. This will be evident during lunchtime or if a student falls asleep during class.

13. Hurts Self

Self-harming is not uncommon for victims of cyberbullying. While a teacher may not quickly notice this, they may notice a student wearing different clothing or trying to hide signs of self-harm. Friends of the student may also provide clues to potential self-harming.

14. Changes in Friends

Students who suffer from cyberbullying may switch their group of friends completely. This could be a sign that the cyberbully is someone close to them or that their feelings of self-worth have changed.

Understanding Cyberbullying

The increasing use of digital communication by young people is driving the rise in cyberbullying. Teachers must develop a strong understanding of cyberbullying and other issues affecting education. The online graduate education degrees at Campbellsville University can help you advance your career by gaining the knowledge and credentials you need. Learn more about taking the next step in your education career today.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Diversity, Education Leadership, Equity

Where does anti-LGBT bias come from – and how does it translate into violence?

Dominic Parrott, Georgia State University

In the United States, public support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community has increased in recent years. These changes are associated with increased visibility of openly gay characters on television, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, violence against sexual minorities remains a major public health problem in the U.S. and internationally. A recent study concluded that approximately 50 percent of LGBT adults experience bias-motivated aggression at some point.

For every highly publicized act of violence toward sexual minorities, such as the recent mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, there are many more physical and verbal assaults, attempted assaults, acts of property damage or intimidations which are never reported to authorities, let alone publicized by the media.

What spurs on these acts of violence? Can we do anything to prevent them? Fortunately, an extensive body of social science research exists that identifies perpetrators’ motivations and suggests ways we can reduce the likelihood of these acts of aggression toward sexual minorities.

Anti-LGBT bias feels normal if everyone around you seems to support it. Maxim Shemetov/Reuters

Reinforcing the roots of antigay bias

Prejudice toward sexual minorities is rooted in what psychologists call sexual stigma. This is an attitude that reflects “the negative regard, inferior status and relative powerlessness that society collectively accords to any nonheterosexual behavior, identity, relationship or community.”

Sexual stigma exists and operates at both individual and society-wide levels.

At the societal level, sexual stigma is referred to as heterosexism. The conviction that heterosexuals and their behaviors and relationships are superior to those of sexual minorities is built into various social ideologies and institutions – including religion, language, laws and norms about gender roles. For example, religious views that homosexual behavior is immoral support heteronormative norms, which ultimately stigmatize sexual minorities.

On an individual level, heterosexuals can internalize sexual stigma as sexual prejudice. They buy into what they see around them in their culture that indicates sexual minorities are inferior. Consider the Defense of Marriage Act. This legislation, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, denied homosexuals the rights held by heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can incorporate that stigmatizing view into their own belief system.

Sexual minorities themselves can internalize sexual stigma, too – a process called self-stigma. Aligning their own self-concept with society’s negative regard for homosexuality results in myriad negative health outcomes.

The heterosexism of our society and the sexual prejudice of individuals are interrelated, reinforcing each other. When cultural ideologies and institutions espouse heterosexism, they provide the basis for individuals’ sexual prejudice – and perpetration of violence based on it. Conversely, researchers theorize that pro-gay attitudes reduce heterosexism that exists within these same institutions.

Beyond prejudice: a masculinity problem

Many people believe that antigay violence is caused by prejudice. To a certain extent, they’re correct. But when we back up and think about this aggression within the framework of sexual stigma, we can see that the causes of antigay violence run deeper and are more complex than a simple “prejudice” explanation.

Perpetrators of anti-LGBT aggression may or may not hold prejudiced attitudes, but they carry out their violence within a heterosexist society that implicitly sanctions it. It’s these society-level heterosexist attitudes that provide the foundation for three well-established motivations and risk factors for aggression toward sexual minorities.

Heterosexual masculinity is a fundamental factor that starts to explain anti-LGBT violence. To be masculine, one must be heterosexual, so the thinking goes. The logic continues that any man who’s not heterosexual is therefore feminine. In essence, a man’s aggression toward sexual minorities serves to enforce traditional gender norms and demonstrate his own heterosexual masculinity to other men.

Researchers have identified two major aspects of this masculinity-based motivation.

The first is adherence to norms about status – the belief that men must gain the respect of others. The status norm reflects the view that men should sit atop the social hierarchy, be successful, and garner respect and admiration from others.

The second is a strong conviction in antifemininity – that is, believing men should not engage in stereotypically feminine activities. Men who endorse this norm would not engage in behaviors that are “traditionally” reserved for women – for instance, showing vulnerable emotions, wearing makeup or working in childcare.

A narrow definition of what constitutes ‘masculinity’ is at the root of anti-LGBT violence. Tea party image via www.shutterstock.com.

Other norms can also lead to violence under certain circumstances. For instance, recent data indicate that alcohol intoxication may trigger thoughts that men need to be tough and aggressive. Being drunk and having toughness in mind may influence men to act in line with this version of masculinity and attack gay men.

In the most common aggression scenario, an assailant is in a group when he becomes violent toward a member of a sexual minority. The attacker has the support of his group, which can act as a motivator. Indeed, the male peer group is the ideal context for proving one’s masculinity via aggression because other males are present to witness the macho display.

Studies also indicate that perpetrators of hate crimes, including violence toward sexual minorities, seek to alleviate boredom and have fun – termed thrill-seeking. It’s important to note that for thrill-seeking assailants, the selection of sexual minority targets is not random. Given that sexual stigma devalues homosexuality, it sanctions these perpetrators’ strategic choice of a socially devalued target.

Translating motivations into violence

How does a given perpetrator get to the point where he decides to attack a sexual minority? Research suggests it’s a long process.

Through personal experience and from social institutions, people learn that LGBT people are “threats” and heterosexuals are “normal.” For example, throughout adolescence, boys consistently have it drilled into them by peers that they need to be masculine and antifeminine. So when a young boy teases a gay person, verbally intimidates that person or hits him, he gets positive reinforcement from his peers.

As a result of these processes, we learn over time to almost automatically view sexual minorities with lower social regard and as a threatening group.

Recent research suggests two types of threats – realistic and symbolic – may lead to sexual prejudice and a heightened risk for anti-LGBT aggression. It doesn’t matter whether an actual threat exists – it’s one’s perception of threat that is critical.

A group experiences realistic threat when it perceives sexual minorities as threats to its existence, political and economic power or physical well-being. For example, heterosexuals may fear that pro-gay policies such as the legalization of same-sex marriage will make it harder to advance their own alternative political agendas. In this way, they should perceive a gay man as a direct threat to their own political power.

Symbolic threat reflects a heterosexual’s perception that sexual minorities’ beliefs, attitudes, morals, standards and values will lead to unwanted changes in his or her own worldview. For instance, a highly religious heterosexual may fear that a same-sex relationship or marriage poses a threat to his or her own values and beliefs.

Getting to know LGBT people can decrease heterosexuals’ prejudice. Francois Lenoir/Reuters

Can we prevent anti-LGBT violence?

Sexual stigma may be reduced by targeting the processes that lead to sexual prejudice. For example, studies indicate that heterosexuals who have a close relationship with an LGBT individual report lower levels of sexual prejudice. That’s probably because positive feelings regarding the friend are generalized to all sexual minorities.

These kinds of experiences may help lessen heterosexism within various social contexts. But given the widespread nature of bias-motivated aggression and the ubiquity of heterosexism, these individual-level approaches are likely insufficient on their own.

If we’re serious about tackling the public health issue of anti-LGBT violence, we need to try to reduce heterosexism at the societal level. Succeeding at that should lead to corresponding reductions in sexual prejudice and antigay violence.

There are a few prongs to a societal level approach. Changing public policies – things like hate crime legislation, repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” legalizing same-sex marriage – can work to reduce heterosexism. Likewise, positive portrayals of sexual minorities in the media and popular culture can contribute to changing views. Social norms interventions that work to correct misperceptions of LGBT people can help, too.

The Conversation

Dominic Parrott, Professor of Psychology, Georgia State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Education Leadership, Education News, Teachers

Could Cyberbullying Be Causing a Rise in Absenteeism?

Seventy-one percent of teens use more than one social networking site.

Think about that statistic for a second. Roughly seven out of every ten teens are sifting through a combination of Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter and a multitude of other sites. Ninety-two percent of teens browse the internet daily, and 24 percent report they are “online constantly.”

Technology is now the common way of life, especially for teens. With the widespread use of this technology, it should not be surprising teens have adopted an age-old practice to fit into this digital age — bullying.

Cyberbullying as a practice is simple to understand. Teens pick on other teens through the use of technological platforms. And yes, it is a big deal. Almost 43 percent of kids have reported they have been cyberbullied. So, when kids are being harassed through social media or even in person, what is their defense? How can they prevent this? Many think there is only one answer. And that’s to simply not show up to school.

Absenteeism is not a new issue for the education community. One of the educator’s main jobs is to take attendance and make sure their students are showing up to class. If they don’t show up, then it is the educator’s responsibility to notify the administration of an absent child. New studies that look into absenteeism give stunning results that should be raising red flags.

In a study that encompassed over 500 school districts, it was found that 30 percent of students missed at least three weeks of school for the entire year. Three weeks equals out to 15 days of learning and development these kids miss out on. While this statistic is alarming, the question that naturally comes up is what is causing this high percentage of absences. While sickness and family issues are a natural part of the process, ABC News conducted a study on cyberbullying and found some intriguing results.

According to the ABC study, 160,000 students stay home from school every day because of bullying. That means 160,000 students are not getting a proper education because of the presence of bullying in all forms and shapes. It may blow you away, but it’s apparent that bullying is a serious problem in school and should not, under any circumstance, be ignored or thrown to the wayside.

Specifically, cyberbullying is a tough act to stop. While teachers can break up fights and keep students away from each other physically, the online arena is a whole different world. Harassment doesn’t just stop when the kids go home for the day. It follows them.

Facebook posts, insulting tweets and horrific Instagram pictures are all tools for cyberbullies. And then there are the texts, which put down the victim and pummel their mind until they believe what the bully is saying.

With cyberbulling being so prevalent, it’s hard to contain it and stop it. Technology is great in so many respects and is used quite often in the classroom. Chromebooks are employed in many schools on a regular basis for testing and enhancing the students’ learning experience. Built-in projectors that hang on the classroom ceiling allow teachers and students to explore any question they have about a topic as the internet is just a click and keystroke away. Technology isn’t going anywhere and is already becoming a normal method of teaching in the classroom.

The technology in the classroom also allows for a diversity of experiences to be seen, felt and heard. Students who learn better by doing can participate in experiential learning on their laptops while students who listen well can watch examples of their lessons play out on their computers. Technology allows all types of learning to occur, which is the goal of every teacher who cares about their students.

While correlation does not prove causation, technology does open up a new avenue for bullying. As with most things in life, there are good things and bad things associated with it. Taking away technology is not going to solve the problem of cyberbullying and absenteeism. Instead, educators and parents need to come up with a strategy to monitor their students’ and children’s activities online.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Bullying

The Link between Bullying Prevention and Healthy Body Image in Children

A guest post by Keir McDonald MBE

The U.K. Government recently released the results of a nationwide survey to better understand public perceptions of body image. It found that 87% of girls aged 11- 21 think that women are judged more on their appearance than on their ability.

This statistic is worrying because research has shown that in addition to affecting how people feel about their looks, poor body confidence can have a devastating effect on many aspects of their lives. According to the research, this is especially pronounced in adolescent children.
From achieving at school to effectively dealing with bullying, healthy body image is important for children to develop. As educators, we all have a responsibility to do everything we can to share positive messages about our bodies and help children develop healthy ideas around body image to further the fight against bullying.

Here are 3 ways educators and parents can encourage healthy body image in children.

#1. Engage in a healthy conversation with students and children.

First and foremost, it is important for parents and teachers to talk to kids about body image. Asking kids for their opinions about how bodies are depicted in the media is one good way to start the conversation.

Consider asking questions like “Does that look real?” “Do a lot of people really look like that?” and “What do you think might have been done to that picture to make it look that way?”

Teaching children to view media images with a critical eye is an important first step in encouraging healthy body image in children.

At a time when they should feel secure with their body, too many children learn to feel anxious about weight and begin to make choices that contribute to the very problems they hope to avoid. Weight stigma and body dissatisfaction in fact lead to poorer eating and fitness choices, less physical activity, weight gain and diminished health.

As a result, researchers at the Yale Rudd Center for Obesity and Health and elsewhere have issued a call for weight stigma reduction programs to promote positive eating and fitness habits without regard to size. Most important to this is developing an identity based on who they are rather than how they look, choosing positive role models that support their deeper values, and actively embracing health and vitality through positive eating and physical activity. This is all part of the important conversation educators and parents must be having with children.

#2. Take a hard line on bullying.

Being bullied is a major contributing factor for depression and low self-esteem in children. Bullying behavior focuses on ‘difference’ and the difference can be real or perceived. In fact, recent research from a U.S-based anti-bullying organization revealed that special needs students, LGBT students, students who are overweight, and students who are perceived as “weak” are the most likely targets of bullying by others.
Weight is often one of the “differences” referenced in bullying.

The classroom, cafeteria, library, restrooms, on the bus, and on the playground are all areas where teachers and parents can strive to create safe and bully-free environments. A safe and supportive school climate can be one of the best tools in preventing bullying. Children need to feel safe or they can’t focus on learning.

The easiest way for teachers to take a hard line on bullying is to intervene immediately. It is important to only address the kids involved separately, never together. Also, forcing resolution in children will not teach them successful coping methods for the long term. Do not make the kids involved apologize or patch up relations on the spot

A recent survey of 250,000 children aged between 10 and 15 showed that nearly half have been bullied at school. And even if they had not been bullied, a quarter of the sample said they were worried about it.
Today, bullying does not just exist within the perimeter of the school. It can carry on day and night through the use of mobile phones and the internet via chat rooms and social media. In short, it can create a vicious cycle that can make a child or young person feel worthless and unvalued. Teachers are uniquely situated to stop bullying on the spot and create a safe learning environment in the school.

#3. Focus on personal strengths and relate to social media

The Internet and social media provide a platform for adolescent children to seek out images of what they want to look like, as well as an outlet through which children can perform outward comparisons with their peers and celebrities. Social media may not create new problems for children, but they do certainly intensify existing ones.

With social media, children are constantly critiquing and analyzing bodies in such a way that promotes body dissatisfaction, constant body surveillance, and disordered thoughts. All of these factors can lead to very serious vulnerabilities and make children susceptible to bullying.

Moving towards student-centered classrooms, which are big on collaboration, are one way teachers can begin to curb bullying by sharing control with students. Taking that one step further, teachers can become a participant and co-learner in discussion, asking questions and perhaps correcting misconceptions.

A simple activity is to give everyone a list of the personal strengths and get them to cross off the strength that is least like them one at a time until they reach three that are left. These are each person’s personal strengths. Consider getting everyone to write their personal strengths on stickers/paper and show them to the group.

Do students recognize the strength in themselves? What about the top strengths of others in the group? Identifying personal strengths is a great way to encourage positive feelings. In small groups, think of a way in which you could exercise your top personal strength more in the next week.

By facilitating a conversation about personal strengths and encouraging students to collaborate around this topic, teachers can begin to help children foster ideas of personal strengths.

In conclusion, by taking a hard line on bullying, focusing on personal strengths and teaching children to understand what’s realistic and what’s not, we can begin to help adolescent children encourage healthy body image now and always.

About the Author
Keir McDonald MBE is Chief Executive Office and Founder of EduCare, an online training solutions company that specialize in child protection, exploitation and online safety, and bullying and child neglect. EduCare is associated with both Kidscape and Family Lives and customers include over 4000 schools and colleges and 12000 pre-schools as well as councils, NHS, charities and more.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying

What should students do when the teacher or coach is the bully?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jennifer Fraser

Our sixteen year old son was competing at the 2012 Provincial Basketball Championships in British Columbia when one of the boys on the team texted his parents to say he “couldn’t take it anymore.” The coaches were calling the team “a bunch of pussies”, “hopeless” and “retarded.”

For my husband and me, that was the point of no return.

When we heard those words, we knew we had to get our son away from those coaches. No matter what it took, we could not let our son be spoken to like that. This wasn’t the first time we’d seen or heard there was something wrong on the team with how the coaches were “motivating” the players, but this time, there was no going back. We could no longer excuse or forgive. The basketball court, that our son loved so much, was becoming a place he dreaded and hated. We didn’t want him to join the statistics discussed by Professor Mark Hymen: 70% of children drop out of sports by the age of thirteen.

This coaching crisis happened a year before the Mike Rice scandal erupted and there were still those who thought it reasonable for a coach to scream obscenities at student athletes. There were still those who believed that this kind of humiliation was in fact “motivation”. Post Mike Rice, in many parts of America that changed.

The logic is that these coaches give athletes the worst in order to get the best out of them. But at what cost? People excuse — or even celebrate — such behavior as a passion. But, let’s call it by its real name: abuse.

– Charles M. Blow, New York Times, April 2013

But in many parts of world, including my son’s high-school, it hasn’t changed and I don’t think it will until bullying—by adults in power over children—namely emotional or verbal abuse joins sexual and physical abuse in the Criminal Code.

At the school where our son played basketball, at the request of the Headmaster, fourteen students gave detailed testimonies about how the coaches were treating them. The police said that there was a “definite pattern in the complaints, all pointing to verbal and emotional abuse.” However, the police could not intervene, as emotional abuse is not in the Criminal Code. And so, over the course of three years, along with a dedicated group of parents, we appealed to school administrators, the Inspector of Independent Schools, BC School Sports, the Commissioner for Teacher Regulation, the Ministry of Education, and the Ombudsperson. To date, no one has done anything to hold the teachers to account for bullying conduct.

Decades of psychological, psychiatric, and sports abuse research has been done that reveals that bullying contributes significantly to a whole host of suffering: low self esteem, dropping out of sports and school, failure to reach potential, addiction, suicide and so on. However, in the last ten or so years, there have also been important neurological studies that illustrate the damage done to the brain of a bully victim whether at school or in the workplace. And in the last few years, there have also been further neurological studies that reveal that the adolescent brain is as fragile as that of the infant to toddler aged brain. It is in full development and therefore at great risk.[1]

Despite substantial research, emotional abuse from teacher to child, or coach to student-athlete continues to be minimized and dismissed as less serious than physical or sexual abuse. This dismissal is impossible to understand considering the neuroscience that chronicles the scars emotional abuse leaves on the brain. Dr. David Walsh, one of the world’s leading authorities on children and teens, stresses the way in which “Brain science lends even more urgency to confronting the scourge of bullying” exactly because there are “studies suggesting that the brain changes are long-term and therefore can create emotional scars that last for a lifetime”.[2] I doubt that when parents insist that “old-style coaching” is okay because it gets results and toughens kids up, they are informed about what is being done to their child’s developing brain. Parents may not know, but it is the job of teachers, school administrators and educational authorities to know.

Endless studies of peer to peer bullying are conducted while at the same time we wring our hands about how bullying is on the rise. We lament the fact that suicide is the second leading cause of death in adolescent populations. But, we do not take a hard look at bullying done by teachers or coaches. It seems to be a taboo subject even among researchers. Yes, there are many wonderful teachers and coaches out there, but that does not mean that bullying from those who have power over children doesn’t happen.

The research Dr. Martin Teicher, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School conducted in 2002 found that “verbal abuse by parents was as psychologically damaging as physical abuse.” More surprising, his research has shown that “kids suffered more depression, anxiety and other psychiatric disorders when bullied by peers than by parents.”[3] If bullying in the school setting causes more harm than the home setting, and verbal abuse is just as damaging as physical abuse, what happens when it’s teachers or coaches who are doing the bullying at school?

If a child finds it hard to report on peer bullying, or not be a by-stander when he or she witnesses peer bullying, that challenge becomes exponential when it is a teacher who has power over the child. Besides, it becomes much more difficult to recognize. Teachers are invested with the professional credentials to assess students and therefore if a teacher says a child is a “retard” or that a child is “not trying” then those words are stamped with official force in a child’s mind. Children don’t want to tell their parents that the teacher is disgusted with them or has rejected them. That’s like having to show a bad report card. On a profound level, the child may believe that the teacher’s humiliating “assessment” is true.

In a recent ground-breaking study by Duke University, that followed almost two thousand students into adulthood, researcher William E. Copeland, Professor of Psychiatry concluded: “If the results of this study are dismaying because they indicate that bullying is permanently scarring, the findings also strengthen the argument for prevention. Copeland underscores this idea. ‘Consider me a reluctant convert, but I’m starting to view bullying the same way I do abuse in the home,’ he said. ‘I honestly think the effects we’re observing here are just as potent.’”[4] The focus of the Duke study is peer bullying which raises the concerning question: how permanently scarring is it when the bullying is done by a teacher to a student or a coach to a student-athlete?

Do we really want to keep saying that when coaches scream obscenities at kids it’s to help them develop as athletes? When a kid calls another kid a “retard” on the playground, we don’t say it helps the child learn. We say that we have zero tolerance for children who bully, but we appear to have vast tolerance for adults who bully.

Until there are consequences, until teachers and coaches are held accountable, until emotional abuse is in the Criminal Code, it’s going to continue to be on the rise and suicide will continue to be the second leading cause of death in adolescent populations. It’s time to make a change and protect children from all forms of abuse. These concerns form the basis for Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court and in the Classroom. The book is a call to action.

[1] Laurence Steinberg, Age of Opportunity: Lessons from the New Science of Adolescence, Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, 2014. Frances E. Jensen with Amy Ellis Nutt, The Teenage Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Survival Guide to Raising Adolescents and Young Adults, Toronto: Harper Collins, 2015.

[2] David Walsh with Erin Walsh, Why do They Act that Way?: A Survival Guide to the Adolescent Brain for You and Your Teen, 2nd edition, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014 (254).

[3] See Amy Anthes, “Inside the Bullied Brain: the Alarming Neuroscience of Taunting,” The Boston Globe, November 28, 2010: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/11/28/inside_the_bullied_brain/?page=2

[4] http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/02/20/new_duke_study_on_bullying_childhood_victims_bullies_and_bully_victims_all.html

________________

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Baccalaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Teachers

Why don’t kids speak up about bullying?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jennifer Fraser

We keep telling kids they must not be bystanders, but what really happens when students speak up about bullying? Why are they so afraid?

Not only do they risk becoming the bully’s next target, but it seems that all too often when students report on bullying a reversal occurs and they become the ones who are in trouble. They are seen as a problem. If the bully is a teacher or a coach, these students might even be shamed or humiliated for daring to jeopardize the adult’s reputation.

If we truly do want students to report on peer bullying and report on abuse by adults in caregiver positions, then we need to change the way in which these complaints are handled in schools and in the law. The first thing a lawyer will ask a bullied child – whether it is by peers or teachers – why didn’t you transfer schools? Expecting the victim to leave suggests that the victim is at fault. If my house is robbed twice, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t move. If I’m sexually harassed at work, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t find another boss. So why do lawyers ask students bullied at school why they didn’t leave?

In Rod Mickleburgh’s Globe and Mail article, written after Amanda Todd’s suicide as a result of bullying, he consulted with another family whose son, Ashkan Sultani, also committed suicide after being bullied. Sultani’s father pointed out that both his son and Amanda were vulnerable because they had learning disabilities. Rather than be accorded special care, as the Ministry of Education documents state educators and administrators must use, Ashkan’s father found that there was a reversal: bullies were exonerated and victims were held accountable: “Too often, [Ashkan’s father] said, school officials become defensive when approached by parents with concerns their child is being bullied. ‘They don’t want to admit there’s a problem. Or, the first thing they do is try to find out what is wrong with the person getting bullied. How come he doesn’t fit in?’”[1]

This reversal is intensified when students report on teacher or coach conduct.

In the articles I have read about Assistant Coach and Whistleblower Eric Murdock, whose contract was not renewed after he went public with his concerns about basketball coach Mike Rice’s abusive conduct, there is a glaring lack of a proper process in place for reporting on bullying or abuse. Although Mike Rice yelled in apparent fury when coaching games, it was actually his conduct at practices that got him fired. As reported by Steve Eder in the New York Times, there were all kinds of warning signs that abuse was occurring and the administrators were already aware prior to video footage hitting the news:

There was the upperclassman who earlier in the year had come forward to say that he felt bullied. There was an outburst during a game that led to Mr. Rice’s ejection. And there were the months of allegations from a former assistant, who repeatedly claimed that Mr. Rice was abusive.

Tim Pernetti, the athletic director, knew all of that and had repeatedly tried to rein in Mr. Rice, according to a 50-page report that Rutgers commissioned outside lawyers to prepare. He personally reprimanded him, attended Mr. Rice’s practices and even assigned the university’s sports psychologist to work with the team, the report said.[2]

Note that the University commissioned a legal report, but they do not appear to consult Human Resources personnel in terms of the whistleblower’s vulnerable position nor do they consult experts in student health to assess the harm being done to student-athletes.

I acted as Whistleblower once at an independent school. Being Whistleblower is the adult version of not being a bystander and from my experience, I understand why students do not speak up. Just like it seems to do for bully victims, a reversal happened: I was treated as if I was a problem employee. The Headmaster exonerated the teachers about whom 14 students gave testimonies detailing bullying conduct and allowed a toxic environment to emerge around me so that I ultimately resigned.

There wasn’t just one student who came forward to say he was feeling bullied, there were 14. There was a Lawyer/ parent’s report informing the school that “child abuse” was occurring in 2011. There were at least thirty parent complaints in 2012 alone. There were many warning signs. It seems that at best, institutions like Rutgers and my former school lack the necessary processes for handling abuse situations; at worst, they have significant conflict of interest in themselves investigating student concerns. There is clearly work that needs to be done in terms of Human Resources, record keeping, anonymous reporting, proper oversight and so on if we truly do want students to not be bystanders.

In a 2013 article in The Atlantic psychologist, Dr. Joseph Burgo studies the power of reversal whereby the abuser positions himself as the victim and he uses cyclist Lance Armstrong’s conduct as an example. Witnesses who first spoke up about Armstrong’s performance enhancing drug-use were humiliated by the cyclist in the press: “To shore up his winner status, Armstrong wanted to make his detractors appear like contemptible losers; he tried to turn public opinion against them, enlisting the support of his many fans.” In Canada, disgraced Canadian musician, writer, and former CBC radio broadcaster, Jian Ghomeshi presented himself on Facebook as being the victim after being accused of sexual assault: “I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.”[3] He has since been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault.

Notably, this dual personality type or charismatic bully appears to be especially attracted to competitive sports because of the win-lose dynamic. Dr. Burgo explains:

It helps to view the bully as a kind of competitor on the social playing field, one who strives not only to win but to triumph over the social losers and destroy their sense of self. As in competitive sport, where winners and losers exist in a binary relation to one another, the bully is yoked in identity to his victims. To a significant degree, his self-image depends upon having those losers to persecute: “I am a winner because you are a loser” [emphasis in the original].

The Headmaster and Board of Governors of my former School responded to students and parent reports of abusive behavior by the adult involved by publicly discrediting them in a report written by a lawyer that said the students were telling manufacturing evidence and lying.

This is why students do not speak up. This is why Whistleblowers are so rare. We can keep encouraging students to report bullying and more importantly abuse, but they won’t do it until they actually know that they will be respected and protected. At present, that is not the case. For further discussion, please see my forthcoming book: Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court or in the Classroom.

[1] Rod Mickleburgh, “Before Amanda Todd, the Sultani family suffered silently,” The Globe and Mail, October 23, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/before-amanda-todd-the-sultani-family-suffered-silently/article4633468

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/sports/ncaabasketball/rutgers-officials-long-knew-of-coach-mike-rices-actions.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss

[3] Staff, “Full Text: Jian Ghomeshi’s Facebook Post Why He Believes CBC Fired Him,” Global News, Oct 2014: http://globalnews.ca/news/1637310/full-text-jian-ghomeshis-post-on-why-he-believes-cbc-fired-him/

____

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Bacclaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Teachers

Why don’t kids speak up about bullying?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jennifer Fraser

We keep telling kids they must not be bystanders, but what really happens when students speak up about bullying? Why are they so afraid?

Not only do they risk becoming the bully’s next target, but it seems that all too often when students report on bullying a reversal occurs and they become the ones who are in trouble. They are seen as a problem. If the bully is a teacher or a coach, these students might even be shamed or humiliated for daring to jeopardize the adult’s reputation.

If we truly do want students to report on peer bullying and report on abuse by adults in caregiver positions, then we need to change the way in which these complaints are handled in schools and in the law. The first thing a lawyer will ask a bullied child – whether it is by peers or teachers – why didn’t you transfer schools? Expecting the victim to leave suggests that the victim is at fault. If my house is robbed twice, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t move. If I’m sexually harassed at work, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t find another boss. So why do lawyers ask students bullied at school why they didn’t leave?

In Rod Mickleburgh’s Globe and Mail article, written after Amanda Todd’s suicide as a result of bullying, he consulted with another family whose son, Ashkan Sultani, also committed suicide after being bullied. Sultani’s father pointed out that both his son and Amanda were vulnerable because they had learning disabilities. Rather than be accorded special care, as the Ministry of Education documents state educators and administrators must use, Ashkan’s father found that there was a reversal: bullies were exonerated and victims were held accountable: “Too often, [Ashkan’s father] said, school officials become defensive when approached by parents with concerns their child is being bullied. ‘They don’t want to admit there’s a problem. Or, the first thing they do is try to find out what is wrong with the person getting bullied. How come he doesn’t fit in?’”[1]

This reversal is intensified when students report on teacher or coach conduct.

In the articles I have read about Assistant Coach and Whistleblower Eric Murdock, whose contract was not renewed after he went public with his concerns about basketball coach Mike Rice’s abusive conduct, there is a glaring lack of a proper process in place for reporting on bullying or abuse. Although Mike Rice yelled in apparent fury when coaching games, it was actually his conduct at practices that got him fired. As reported by Steve Eder in the New York Times, there were all kinds of warning signs that abuse was occurring and the administrators were already aware prior to video footage hitting the news:

There was the upperclassman who earlier in the year had come forward to say that he felt bullied. There was an outburst during a game that led to Mr. Rice’s ejection. And there were the months of allegations from a former assistant, who repeatedly claimed that Mr. Rice was abusive.

Tim Pernetti, the athletic director, knew all of that and had repeatedly tried to rein in Mr. Rice, according to a 50-page report that Rutgers commissioned outside lawyers to prepare. He personally reprimanded him, attended Mr. Rice’s practices and even assigned the university’s sports psychologist to work with the team, the report said.[2]

Note that the University commissioned a legal report, but they do not appear to consult Human Resources personnel in terms of the whistleblower’s vulnerable position nor do they consult experts in student health to assess the harm being done to student-athletes.

I acted as Whistleblower once at an independent school. Being Whistleblower is the adult version of not being a bystander and from my experience, I understand why students do not speak up. Just like it seems to do for bully victims, a reversal happened: I was treated as if I was a problem employee. The Headmaster exonerated the teachers about whom 14 students gave testimonies detailing bullying conduct and allowed a toxic environment to emerge around me so that I ultimately resigned.

There wasn’t just one student who came forward to say he was feeling bullied, there were 14. There was a Lawyer/ parent’s report informing the school that “child abuse” was occurring in 2011. There were at least thirty parent complaints in 2012 alone. There were many warning signs. It seems that at best, institutions like Rutgers and my former school lack the necessary processes for handling abuse situations; at worst, they have significant conflict of interest in themselves investigating student concerns. There is clearly work that needs to be done in terms of Human Resources, record keeping, anonymous reporting, proper oversight and so on if we truly do want students to not be bystanders.

In a 2013 article in The Atlantic psychologist, Dr. Joseph Burgo studies the power of reversal whereby the abuser positions himself as the victim and he uses cyclist Lance Armstrong’s conduct as an example. Witnesses who first spoke up about Armstrong’s performance enhancing drug-use were humiliated by the cyclist in the press: “To shore up his winner status, Armstrong wanted to make his detractors appear like contemptible losers; he tried to turn public opinion against them, enlisting the support of his many fans.” In Canada, disgraced Canadian musician, writer, and former CBC radio broadcaster, Jian Ghomeshi presented himself on Facebook as being the victim after being accused of sexual assault: “I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.”[3] He has since been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault.

Notably, this dual personality type or charismatic bully appears to be especially attracted to competitive sports because of the win-lose dynamic. Dr. Burgo explains:

It helps to view the bully as a kind of competitor on the social playing field, one who strives not only to win but to triumph over the social losers and destroy their sense of self. As in competitive sport, where winners and losers exist in a binary relation to one another, the bully is yoked in identity to his victims. To a significant degree, his self-image depends upon having those losers to persecute: “I am a winner because you are a loser” [emphasis in the original].

The Headmaster and Board of Governors of my former School responded to students and parent reports of abusive behavior by the adult involved by publicly discrediting them in a report written by a lawyer that said the students were telling manufacturing evidence and lying.

This is why students do not speak up. This is why Whistleblowers are so rare. We can keep encouraging students to report bullying and more importantly abuse, but they won’t do it until they actually know that they will be respected and protected. At present, that is not the case. For further discussion, please see my forthcoming book: Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court or in the Classroom.

[1] Rod Mickleburgh, “Before Amanda Todd, the Sultani family suffered silently,” The Globe and Mail, October 23, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/before-amanda-todd-the-sultani-family-suffered-silently/article4633468

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/sports/ncaabasketball/rutgers-officials-long-knew-of-coach-mike-rices-actions.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss

[3] Staff, “Full Text: Jian Ghomeshi’s Facebook Post Why He Believes CBC Fired Him,” Global News, Oct 2014: http://globalnews.ca/news/1637310/full-text-jian-ghomeshis-post-on-why-he-believes-cbc-fired-him/

____

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Bacclaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.

  • no reactions
0
Share