Ending Bullying by Changing Its Name

 

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

A group of researchers commissioned by the American Education Research Association says that efforts to reduce bullying in school are hampered by the overuse and abuse of the term “bullying” and are calling for it to be replaced by the term “victimization,” according to a recent report in USA today.

Yeh, right. . .

When the Blackwater mercenary army was having image problems they changed their name to Xe and then again to Academi, innocent sounding names that couldn’t possibly have any connection with the slaughter of Iraqi civilians or martial law in New Orleans. Similarly, civilians commonly refer to their problems as “issues,” in a semantic shell game they hope will make them seem more together. So why not call bullying victimization and trust that unhappiness and suffering will cease to be a problem at schools?

The problem, according to the researchers, is that the term “bullying” is being used to describe everything from eye rolling to teasing to simply not wanting to be friends, thus obscuring educators’ ability to identify what is actually happening and respond appropriately and effectively. One researcher said that school employees have reported waiting for bullies to repeat their behaviors before intervening, in accordance with school policies that define bullying as “repeated” abuse.

They are correct that the term bullying has become meaningless, but changing the name to “victimization” will not solve the problem. A teacher who refuses to intervene in abusive behavior because it doesn’t seem to fit the school’s definition has other issues (oops, problems) hindering them, like fear of authority, passiveness, inability or unwillingness to act independently, lack of empathy or compassion, and/or personal biases. When a child is being taunted or teased, for example, why should it matter if the behavior fits a school’s definition or violates its code of conduct? It serves no productive or legitimate purpose at school, it is often disruptive of the learning environment, and it is likely making someone feel bad unnecessarily. Thus intervention is the rational and appropriate response.

There are many reasons why people victimize each other and why others allow it to happen. What we call it is not the biggest problem. Teachers may avoid intervening in an interaction occurring outside their classroom with students whom they do not know out of fear, or because they do not trust they will be supported by their administrators, or because they cannot leave their own students unattended, or because they are so swamped with work they don’t want to be bothered with the time and potential paperwork involved. Their own biases may prevent them from intervening (e.g., “boys will be boys” or “that kid is a sissy.”)

Nevertheless, it is a good thing that someone is challenging the misuse of the term “bullying.” Rolling eyes, disliking someone, and not being nice may feel disrespectful and offensive, but they are also relatively innocuous and sometimes reasonable behaviors and certainly not bullying. It is a lofty goal to expect everyone to always treat everybody with courtesy and respect, but not everyone is equipped nor ready to love their all their neighbors, let alone their enemies.

Today in Labor History—March 31

March 31, 1927: Birth of Cesar Chavez.

March 31, 1941: Wisconsin state troopers attack striking auto workers in Milwaukee. The strikers succeed in holding off scabs.

March 31, 1949 – Last great strike of the Canadian Seaman's Union.

March 31, 1966: Two day boycott of Seattle schools protesting de facto segregation.

(Sources: Daily Bleed, and Workaday Minnesota).

Union Sells Out Bus Drivers For Nothing

Image from Flickr, by Michael Fleshman

In one of the clearest examples of the folly and stupidity of unions’ love affair with political action, the leadership of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) called off the New York City bus workers’ strike last week, after only one month. Their justification was a letter signed by the five Democratic Party candidates for mayor calling for an end to the strike. The union never asked for a vote of the membership and got literally nothing in return for the back-to-work order aside from a nebulous promise by the mayoral hopefuls to “revisit the school bus transportation system and contracts” if elected, the WSWS reported today.

Without a solid victory, the drivers face losing their jobs entirely or being forced to reapply for a fraction of their old wages, as the Employee Protection Provisions (EPP) that once protected their seniority and wage scale, regardless of which bus company was hired by the school district, came under attack. The assault on the EPP was launched by Mayor Bloomberg in January and the ATU’s initial response was to ask him to reconsider. Even after it became clear that negotiations were going nowhere, the ATU leadership, like most unions these days, made little effort to promote and support the strike, according to the WSWS, even going so far as to interfere in the dissemination of strike information among the workers.

An obvious question is why would the union leadership acquiesce to a request from a group of wannabe mayors to end the strike without getting anything concrete in exchange? There is no way of knowing whether any of them will actually be elected or whether they would actually do anything to preserve the drivers’ wages and job security if they were elected.

Historically, the goal of strikes has been to aggravate the bosses to the extent that they were willing to compromise and make concessions. The workers remained on strike until they won concessions or were forced to give up because of the hunger and poverty that resulted from going too long without a paycheck. In the case of the New York school bus drivers, many were clearly pleased with the prospect of once again earning a paycheck, but it was premature to argue that poverty was killing their solidarity. In fact, many were angered that the one paycheck they did give up may have been for naught.

Some of the drivers speculated that the union leadership colluded with the bus companies to drive down wages. While this may have been the case, there is also another more basic reason why the ATU leadership sold out its members: Their role (like that of all unions) is to help maintain the profitability and efficiency of business by keeping workers on the job and content with their lot. To this end, capital accepts unions and the occasional concession as a cost of business, while the leaders of the large unions have an incentive to keep their members on the job and paying dues so they can maintain their high salaries (ATU leaders make $200,000 per year). Furthermore, because union leaders generally make so much more than those they represent—often for sitting in an office and wining and dining with politicians, rather than doing the same work as their members—their interests tend to align more with the bosses than with the workers.

In contrast, protracted strikes can result in jail time for union officials, while injunctions, lawsuits and loss of union dues because workers are not getting paychecks sap money from union coffers, thus jeopardizing unions leaders’ income and personal freedom. Yet, if they want to maintain their jobs and high salaries, they must also seem like they are fighting for their members’ interests. Therefore, they often make forceful public statements, pretend to be aggressive, criticize (and sometimes insult) the bosses, and occasionally even go through the motions of taking a job action in order to legitimize their positions and win their members’ support. This creates a fundamental strategic conflict in which strikes, which are workers’ most powerful weapon, are also feared and consequently avoided by their leaders.

Today in Labor History—March 31

March 31, 1927: Birth of Cesar Chavez.

March 31, 1941: Wisconsin state troopers attack striking auto workers in Milwaukee. The strikers succeed in holding off scabs.

March 31, 1949 – Last great strike of the Canadian Seaman's Union.

March 31, 1966: Two day boycott of Seattle schools protesting de facto segregation.

(Sources: Daily Bleed, and Workaday Minnesota).

Half of All Students Sexually Harassed At School

Image from Flickr, studiostoer

A new study by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) found that 48% of middle and high school students experienced sexual harassment last year, according to Good Education. The new study revealed that 56% of girls and 40% of boys reported being sexually harassed. While most of the harassment was verbal, many students also said they had been subjected to physical and electronic harassment.

Only 9% reported the harassment to a teacher, guidance counselor or administrator, and only 27% told their family. While these numbers are sad, they are not surprising, considering that often times the harassers are the adults on campus.

“Hostile Hallways,” a similar AAUW study done in 1992, found that 20% of girls and 10% of boys reported being sexually harassed by school faculty or staff.   An earlier survey of North Carolina high school graduates, however, found that 82% of girls and nearly 20% of boys had been sexually harassed by school employees (See “Scapegoat Generation,” by Mike Males, Common Courage Press, 1996).

During my first year teaching, two of my female students accused a male colleague of sexually harassing them. One said he came up behind her in the hallway, squeezed her hips, and said, “My, you’re getting chunky.” The other said he complimented her on her bra and then, when she told him to F-off, told her that was the best offer he’d gotten all week. When I mentioned it to the school social worker, she told me he had been repeatedly accused of similar offenses, but always got away with it. When I reported it to the administration, the principal called me into his office and asked what I had against the man.

In the end, I have no idea whether he was reprimanded in any way. He was promoted within a few years and became dean of a middle school and then an assistant principal.

While it is particularly disturbing to know that those who are responsible for the safety of our children are sometimes the ones who are threatening them, what is much more common is their unwillingness to intervene to stop harassment by others. School employees sometimes ignore put downs or the objectification of students, or refuse to enforce rules prohibiting such behavior. At one school where I worked, the administration responded to a lunchtime melee in which several students attacked a lesbian couple with cans and food by suspending only 2 of the attackers and the 2 victims, and offered a voluntary debriefing for interested students, facilitated not by counselors or social workers, but by other students.

Those who dismiss bullying as a rare or insignificant event will hopefully be enlightened by this recent data on sexual harassment. When we consider that nearly half of all students experience sexual harassment, the conclusion ought to be that bullying is the norm, not the exception. While many of the abusers felt that what they were doing was “no big thing,” or “just a joke,” nearly 30% of the victims said they had trouble sleeping, frequently felt sick or did not want to go to school.

Lowered Expectations: Oakland Unified Hires Drunk Racist Cop, Then Places Him on Leave

Oakland Unified School District hired Peter Sarna as their district’s police chief in 2009, despite the fact that he had been cited in a drunken driving crash which led to his resignation as deputy director of the Division of Law Enforcement for the California Department of Justice in 2007.

What they didn’t know at the time was that he was also a raving homicidal racist, too.

According to the Bay Citizen, Sarna told a black colleague, another school cop, that he had no right to live in upscale Orinda because he was a “n-----r and should be hung in the town square.” He apparently then threatened the black officer and an Asian officer who was in the car with them with death.

Sarna was placed on leave by OUSD after the black officer filed a complaint against Sarna.