Conservative (and not very gay friendly) columnist Thomas Sowell nevertheless scores some sharp observations about the current campaign against school bullying. While not mentioning gay youth (prime victims of harassment, intimidation and violence), he is otherwise correct in noting:
The courts have created a legal climate where any swift and decisive action against bullies can lead to lawsuits. The net results are indecision, half-hearted gestures and pious public pronouncements by school officials, none of which is going to stop bullies.
When judges create new “rights” for bullies out of thin air, just as they do for criminals, and prescribe “due process” for school discipline, just as if schools were little courtrooms, then nothing is likely to happen promptly or decisively.
If there is anything worse than doing nothing, it is doing nothing spiced with empty rhetoric about what behavior is “unacceptable”—while in fact accepting it.
If public schools aren’t allowed to enforce discipline and to actually punish bullies, then much of the anti-bullying rhetoric is just hypocritical posturing. And legislative mandates that schools “teach tolerance,” when they can’t teach kids to read and write, don’t inspire confidence. (School choice and private school vouchers, providing an actual incentive for public schools to get their act together as they compete for students, just might. At least victims, like Kurt on “Glee,” could flee their tormentors.)
11 Comments for “Toothless Anti-Bullying Campaign”
posted by Wilberforce on
Bad news for the safe schools movement. I wonder why Sowelll would speak about this.
But here we go again, making rhetorical leaps to justify conservative ideology. School vouchers are an incentive for public schools to stop bullying? Please. And the proof is a fictional character on TV? Double please.
posted by BobN on
Thanks a lot for making me read a piece by that asshat. He starts off by just pretending that anti-bullying campaigns don’t work and goes off on a tangent about “school choice”. The truth is that some anti-bullying programs do work and — bad news for Sowell — they’re the ones that work to make school inclusive for gay kids. Openly inclusive, not the namby-pamby “tolerate everyone” that he doesn’t like. I wonder what Sowell would say to that.
Odd, too, that he doesn’t mention that the right, not the left, is behind most of the new “rights” being created for students these days, like the right to wear anti-gay t-shirts.
posted by BobN on
Here’s Sowell talking about programs that DO make a difference in reducing anti-gay bullying:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156133/posts
No surprise, he’s opposed.
posted by Jorge on
He doesn’t seem like an asshat to me. I do think Sowell’s article is weak. It makes no effort to examine specific anti-bullying efforts… anywhere! There are famous, landmark efforts. New laws and policies have gone into effect. And what court trends is he talking about? That article on the Day of Silence at least had some rigor and analysis in it. (By the way, if I were a teacher I wouldn’t tolerate it.)
You know, there was a Supreme Court case on paddling that sounds just like this. The Court ruled schools don’t have to give due process rights when it comes to paddling students. That would defeat the purpose. (Credit: Kids Are Americans, Too by Bill O’Reilly) We don’t need to tolerate this.
posted by Houndentenor on
What judges has created “rights for bullies”?
posted by avee on
Well, here’s one regarding misconduct:
“In this case, nine students from two high schools and one junior high school were suspended from their schools for misconduct. The administrative personnel from these schools did not hold hearings with the students or their parents prior to taking action. This violates the students’ right to the fourteenth amendment by denying them due process.”
“The Ohio public schools students argued that by…“having chosen to extend the right to an education to people of the appellees’ class generally, Ohio may not withdraw that right on the grounds of misconduct.” “
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s not a “right for bullies”. Yes, if a student’s behavior warrants expulsions or suspension from school then there needs to be more than just one person making that decision. Most school districts have a process for this that requires some sort of meeting before a board to determine if such an action is warranted. I think most of us can agree that we don’t want such power in the hands of one individual. For minor offenses yes. For serious misconduct, no. And that wouldn’t just apply to bullying.
posted by Tom on
The courts have created a legal climate where any swift and decisive action against bullies can lead to lawsuits.
The courts have created parameters for suspensions exceeding ten days and for expulsions, requiring minimal due process, but quite a number of state legislatures have enacted laws governing the suspension/expulsion process as well, requiring processes that comply with the court decisions but create additional requirements and/or parameters.
The laws (as well as the court decisions) apply to all cases of suspension/expulsion — all manner of behavior including serious bullying.
In light of that legal environment, I think that Sowell’s argument is incomplete.
I’ll grant you things were different fifty years ago, but times have changed. The culture is no longer as sympathetic with summary punishment for children as it once was, just as it is no longer as sympathetic with corporal punishment for children as it once was.
Whether that’s a good thing or not, I leave to you to decide.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can imagine a situation in which a student would be accused of bullying who had done nothing of the sort. Or perhaps there is more to the story than was originally told. Suspension is a serious matter and I don’t trust any single individual with the power to make that decision. Nor do most school districts. I don’t think this is an issue. The case cited earlier in this thread was 40 years old and I think most school districts are smart enough to set up a system to deal with these matters. If they haven’t there are easily hundreds of school handbooks to choose from for a model.
posted by avee on
Okay, but you’ve shifted from arguing there are no court cases defending bullies (and, by the way, misconduct would include bullying), to arguing that those accused of bullying have due process rights. One gets the sense that you’ll keep shifting your argument in order to take a contrary stance to the blogger.
posted by TomJefferson on
1. Public schools are not — despite what I often hear — all good or bad in America, in terms of teaching basic things like reading, writing, math, social studies science, etc. It depends on many different factors, although schools in poorer neighborhoods or communities do (with few exceptions) have a difficult time access resources needed to help kids succeed.
2. In terms of anti-gay (or other forms) bulling in schools I really do not think that the climate at a private, K12 school is going to be automatically better then the climate at a public K12 school. I have known people who gone through public and or private schools who experienced pretty severe bullying, harassment and threats on a daily basis.
3. Most of the ‘school choice’ and voucher programs I have seen are dishonest gimmicks. Accountability, competition and giving parents meaningful educational choices are not bad ideas at all, but most of the plans I see from (mostly) conservatives fail to really do this.
4. I think if we wanted real ‘school choice’ we would have to do something like this; the parents could send their kid to a accredited public school or a private school or [heck] even home schooling and the government would pay for say, 90% of it. Really, if you want choice for poor kids, working class kids, middle class kids the amount of the subsidy has to be pretty substantial otherwise it really only helps the well-to-do.
This is one of those areas that I seem to annoy the political left and right on. Yes, I think the basic theory of school choice and vouchers is good, but most of the plans (I have seen) are pretty lame.