Skip to comments.Youth More Likely to Be Bullied at Schools With Anti-Bullying Programs
Posted on 09/13/2013 3:22:41 PM PDT by aimhigh
Anti-bullying initiatives have become standard at schools across the country, but a new UT Arlington study finds that students attending those schools may be more likely to be a victim of bullying than children at schools without such programs.
The findings run counter to the common perception that bullying prevention programs can help protect kids from repeated harassment or physical and emotional attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Law of unintended consequences?
When I was in high school I had an anti-bullying program; it involved an elbow into the throat of the offender and it worked amazingly well.
Well, duh. It’s cotton-wool syndrome. Bullying has gotten worse now that kids are put into environments where they never learn how to deal with it. There was a time when if you were getting bullied, you beat the snot out of the other kid when it reached a point, and it never happened again.
Nowadays, you run to a teacher, you get upset about what people post on social media, it’s pathetic.
Probably more like “Youth at schools with anti-bullying programs call more things bullying.”
I think you nailed it.
Just like cities with strict gun control have the most crime. Just another unarmed victim zone.
How many overweight black girls get bullied because of Michelle Obama’s health initiatives?
Because power is given to the system instead of the individual, bullies are enabled.
Call it vigilante justice, but there is a certain therapeutic benefit to allowing people to take care of their own business at times.
It is more fundamental than a command, or training, NOT to bully.
Teach kids to be genuinely concerned for and considerate of the well-being of others . . . you know . . . love your neighbor . . . do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . like those “hate-mongering” Christians are taught.
More evidence that God gets it right and people screw it up royally. . . .
Kids can cut through a whole lot of crap. Unfortunately, by the time they get into college, they have been so immersed in so much of it that the only ones who remain relatively unaffected are the dropouts.
I think the consequences are so predictable as to be, in effect, intentional.
The hypotheses underlying "anti-bullying" programs are 1) Bullies need care because they themselves are victims, 2) There is no such thing as righteous violence, 3) Fighting back "perpetuates the cycle of violence", so a kid who fights back is just as bad as the bully, and, of course 4) All acts are relative, so that each must be judged in isolation from the others.
-— they have been so immersed in so much of it that the only ones who remain relatively unaffected are the dropout-—
The fact that so many popular conservative voices belong to college dropouts, must mean something. Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and Stein either dropped out of college, or never attended.
The effective anti bullying programs I have seen and participated in, involve the bully getting busted up pretty good.
When you put it that way it looks pretty hopeless.
-— There was a time when if you were getting bullied, you beat the snot out of the other kid when it reached a point, and it never happened again. -—
I’ve seen that happen plenty of times on TV.
What I saw in school was packs of jackals picking on weak, vulnerable kids. Day after day. Kids who were defenseless, and who couldn’t possibly fight back.
And teachers looked the other way. I never saw anything resembling justice.
A good punch in the face is the best Anti-Bullying Program.
Since Dan Savage was instrumental in the whole notion of ‘anti-bullying’, you KNOW that bullying is going to be involved in its implementation
I agree. I suspect that those who claim that all that's needed is for children to "stand up" to bullies have been watching too many tv shows -- or else they encountered some especially weak and cowardly bullies.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this program were being badly administered (or being introduced disproportionately into some of the worst schools, which would skew the stats). The attempt of school authorities to do something about bullying, though, is one of the few things about modern schools that I consider an improvement. This topic was discussed at length in an earlier thread. Rather than repeat what I said there, I'll supply a link.
“What I saw in school was packs of jackals picking on weak, vulnerable kids.”
This kind of behavior seems to be the bedrock of urban gang behavior. Right in there with drive by shootings. Instead of encouraging kids to drink more water, maybe Moochelle could start a program of PSA’s saying that gang behavior is cowardly and bad. Support your local community—don’t ruin it. Obviously, that will never happen.
His son who is even smaller, will test for his 1st Dan soon.
Sure, in borderline cases it helps to be able to fight well. Schools, though, ought not be places in which being able to fight well is a requirement in order to be treated decently. That's not a requirement for adults.
We adults don’t have to prove ourselves by outfighting those who attack us. If necessary, we can use deadly force for self-defense (as the trial of George Zimmerman shows, despite the political propaganda against him). Apparently Trayvon Martin could outfight George Zimmerman. That doesn’t mean, though, that Zimmerman should have had to take his beating. We don’t live in a jungle — not completely.
Though civilization is ultimately based on force — the power of the society to use force to subdue malefactors, and to protect itself from other societies — one of its main purposes is to “insure domestic tranquility” — that is, to allow individuals to live peaceably, whatever their level of physical strength or skill in fighting. That distinguishes civilization from anarchy.
Me, my son, and his son all carry and will use deadly force if needed.
In your case it worked. Children ought not have to outfight their antagonists, though, whatever the size.