I’m not the least bit surprised to hear that a study by criminologist Seokjin Jeong at the University of Texas at Arlington demonstrated that anti-bullying programs in public schools did not reduce bullying. They increased it.
He was amazed. I wonder if he is a Democrat?
He thinks the programs, which show kids how to identify bullying and what to do when you see it, are teaching kids how to be a better bully; even how to hide it so you don’t get caught. This may be true but I think the idea that there are “programs in place,” and the bureaucratic application of such programs, may create more problems than they solve.
Example.
In New Hampshire statute one of the definitions of bullying is when someone or “several someones” push another kids buttons–could take five minutes of five weeks–until that kid to acts out and get into trouble. So an act of verbal assault that is actually a defensive response to serial psychological abuse by other students, is viewed as defiance to the statute. Bureaucrats often lean toward the easiest solution. Bureaucrats seeking quick solutions become the bullies themselves. Picked-on kid gets detention, suspension; real- bully claims victory. Rinse, lather, and repeat. It happens all the time.
The end result of that there is more bullying.
My response was to email the statute to the School with a letter pointing this out.
The bureaucratic bullying of my child stopped.
Most everyone in the SAU meant well, they just wanted to get through the day. They wanted to remove the ‘distraction’ without determining the real source. If a kid gets marked as ‘difficult’ their claims of being bullied are deemed less credible, seeing as they are the ones seen screaming at other kids and “being mean.” After they have received a detention or been suspended, they learn quickly how that world works for them.
The other scenario here is that the people reporting the incidents have jacked up the number of infractions because the sensitivity level has been heightened. The joke is that it is only sexual harassment if you don’t like the guy (or girl) but what others perceive and report changes that dynamic. If a coworker describes flirting you encourage as harassment, management has to act. If banter in a hallway is redefined as bullying then that is what it is.
Whether it is or not is irrelevant to an institutional bureaucracy. They inevitably record, report, and respond, with a focus on getting it over with because the nature of the definitions and human responses to them, have created a percentage of false-flags them must process.
The same rules apply to social workers, people at the unemployment office, and let’s be honest, your government run health-care system. it becomes impersonal by design. But having taken away most of your authority, and that of your care providers, and given it to the “system,” the decline of access and quality is a given. You will be processed, eventually. It will feel like Bullying, and no, you wont be able to do much of anything about it.
