As Ann Marie pointed out, bullying has become quite the topic in schools today thanks to a new law that purports to be the "fin du fin" of the issue – top down control from Concord with a strictly controlled law that does not allow for absolutely minimal "local control" over what happens in the schools.
Look, I can agree with sentiment. I was bullied in high school – I was one of the nerds. And contrary to today’s politically correct, pacifist education world, I solved the problem myself in a most incorrect fashion. No, I didn’t knock the snot out of my main protagonist; rather, a head lock was turned into a full Nelson and then I simply kept squeezing until he dropped. And cried. And cried some more. He never bothered me again. His friends left me alone, too. A mark was left on him, but not a physical one – it was unnecessary. The point was made, learned, and kept
Is that THE solution as well? No, and I willingly admit to such. It worked for me and in that situation. And I didn’t have to run to the Government (the teachers or the Administrators) to solve my problem, either. And I didn’t have to resort to perverting some base principles in doing so. I realize that today is a different time and place – at least that’s what others keep telling me. However, they seem to have this great problem in answering my question: sure and indeed – but do we have to have basic principles changed?
Funny think, principles. Often, base principles never changed – or shouldn’t be changed. So, in the context of the above, add this from this article in the Concord Monitor on this. Tell me, what’s wrong here? And what is the two principle that these seem to advocate for (one obvious and one not-so-obvious)?
‘If someone writes something mean about you on Facebook, your mom might tell you not to look at it or to just turn off your computer. But that doesn’t mean it won’t hurt you, because your friends can still look at it. And it might make it hard to go to school. So the mean person should get in trouble at school."…
…"A student should have the right to say what they want in a text message or e-mail, but not if it’s going to hurt someone’s reputation – like calling a person fat or stupid or saying that you hate them," a girl from a parochial school wrote. "I personally know someone who had that happen to her, and those comments never go away."
"The First Amendment gives us the right to say what we want in this country, but not if it affects our right to a safe environment," a local high school boy wrote. "I know a kid who doesn’t like to come to school out of fear."
I really looked twice at both of those statement, and then again and again. My thought was "this is wrong – in several ways and on several levels". However, I will keep this short.
Overall, the most egregious felony is that against the First Amendment and our Right to Free Speech. Look at what those students say; in all cases, they pay lip service to it, but are suffering from that oh-so-dangerous "BUT-itis".
The obvious victim is that of Freedom of Speech. Go, look at it. Read it. Then look at what these kids said, again; it should be obvious. In each case, there really is no freedom of speech. In all cases, the thrall of emotions hold sway – one of our basic freedoms is simply thrown under the bus for Political Correctness: Thou shalt not say hurtful things – or, at least what I declare to be hurtful. In each case, their notion says that the true principle is subject to political correctness. In each example, they are willing to sacrifice the plain wording of the First Amendment to a continuous variation of what others wish to be true.
And where did they get this notion that this was a correct interpretation of the First Amendment? Is that what our teachers are teaching? Or is this what our teachers are NOT teaching?
Safety over Freedom – is that what our forefathers gave their lives for? Self-esteem now ranks higher basic Rights? The First Amendment is there to protect not only the speech to which most of us find acceptable but that to which we find objectionable.
Only in the politically correct world. Only in the world where we see much action by Government to "keep us safe". Sure, one of the Constitution’s first enumerated powers is to defend the country – and yes, that is ‘safety’. But over and over again, we see Government denying us the choices that we should be able to make on our own, simply because they "wish to keep us safe – it is for our own good and well-being".
*****
So, who is at fault here?
No, not the students. They speak from the heart, but I also believe that they are merely parroting the political correct notions they hear. They think with emotion at that age, and are caught in the "self-esteem first" philosophy that seems to rampant in the educational world – one that seemingly transcends the actual mission of the schools which to my mind, is to teach the basic academic subjects to a rigorous standard. Which they are not.
So the first to be whacked should be our educational system – the Administrators and the Teachers. When they hear this pap from their charges, why aren’t they using it as "a teachable moment", to point out the counterfeit value for the actual one? It bears repeating once more – no one has the right to be free from objectionable speech, even hateful speech. And if such passes into the realm of what already has been deemed illegal (e.g., incitement), those should be used.
But there is another problem with which I have a large concern – it is with the ever encroaching school system. Inch by inch, school systems (teachers and administrators) are pushing themselves into the private lives of their students and families. Sure, if there is a problem during school hours and school property, the school system should step in – that is appropriate and necessary. Ditto on buses, as that is transportation under contract to the school systems – and thus, under their control and responsibility. But often, we have seen the outward migration of that "responsibility" to beyond the traditional school functions. Should it extend to the bus stops residing on town property as well? How about those on private property? What about on the way to those bus stops? An after school party or other gathering? Where is the demarcation line – and why does it keep on moving? Who benefits from this – and who does not?
In essence, this is now the equivalent of the Interstate Commerce clause – the camel that gets its nose under every tent of the community. Review that first example again:
"So the mean person should get in trouble at school."
Thus, at what point is any kind of harsh words (or series of words) "not school"? Our legislators have created a huge hole into which Government (in the form of School Boards, Administrators, and staff) now has legal authority to be everywhere all the time. Even worse, there are now legal implications if the Administration does not follow the students into the home.
And what does this say?
It says, to me, that the responsibility of the parents is once more diminished. Once more, it seems, that we become more like a European socialist Government (i.e., look at Sweden that almost demands that they have control of the children, or the school system in Germany). It moves the locus of control from the home and the parents to the school and "the professionals". It is one more break in the chain that binds parents and their offspring. And why not? What does it say when the students run to the school for solutions instead of the parents?
Look at your history – where have we seen this play out before?
I saw that up in Moultonboro – where teachers actually seemed to hold the opinion that they know better than the parents what is best for the children. Video is late of this, but will be put up.
