After the recent events in my country, along with some memories from my own childhood or tales from my younger siblings or things I've read, I'm coming to the conclusion that teachers see abuse as a conflict. A social one.

Therefore, seeing it as a conflict, they believe it shouldn't be judged but rather solved the problem-solving way. To them, it typically means mediation of some point, with both parties conceding something.

Consequently, they see the abuser and the abused as equal parties with equally legitimate interests. As a result, they believe the beaten up boy or the sexually harassed girl should concede something to the attacker for the sake of peace and some twisted sense of social justice. This particularly means expecting those children to put up with something.

It clearly goes against any form of justice to expect the victim to behave passively and accept harassment, however, in my opinion and one shared by many a better lawyer than I will ever be.

Discuss.

[ October 31, 2006, 13:03: Message edited by: chevalier ]

My wife is an elementary school teacher, so I can tell you is how they handle conflicts at their school. Naturally, since the students here are between the ages of 5-11, there really isn't anything in the way of sexual assaults or the like.

Once a week, they have a session called "Child Speak". It is during this time that any child can come into the office and talk about something that is bothering them, including conflicts they may be having with other students. Most students don't like to be labelled as a "snitch" or "tattletale" and so this is a forum where they can have their complaints heard annonymously. Depending on what their complaint is, the teacher may either recommend a course of action to the student, or if they were wronged in some way, they will take it up with the child that committed the offense.

I guess some examples are in order. For example, if Bobby comes in and says, "Johnny pushed me down in the playground and I bruised my knees," then it is likely that the teacher will have a talk with Johnny about not playing rough or being mean in the playground. The teacher would approach Johnny and say, "One of the aids saw you push another student down in the playground and told me about it." Handled this way, Bobby doesn't get shoved around, but at the same time the offending student is under the impression that it wasn't Bobby who ratted him out.

However, if the complaint is, "Johnny won't play with me at recess," there really isn't much that can be done. In this case, the teacher will likely make suggestions to Bobby and give advice of how to integrate better during recess. Obviously, they can't *make* Johnny play with Bobby if Johnny doesn't want to. They don't want Bobby being deliberately excluded from games, but at the same time, they can't force two kids to play together.

Fortunately, given the ages of the children involved at my wife's school, the problems usually do not rise to the point of criminal behavior. That having been said, I think that the basic concept of a confidential forum to raise concerns may be a good thing if it can be implemented properly.

I think teachers don't want trouble, so they search a middle way. Here, parents sometimes threaten and beat teachers. And sometimes they are stabbed by students. So a person who is able to protect himself by using force, like a police, should be involved.

I've seen a lot of this 'mediation' type of approach you talked about. The common phrase here was always 'it takes two to fight' (implying consent to fight). That may be true, but it only takes one consenting to beat someone up. If someone attackes me, my options are usually 1.) take it or 2.) fight back. Gee, I wonder which to choose. Any teacher saying a child should be punished for defending themselves needs to re-think their position. Rules in the school should reflect laws in the real world. In the real world, no one should ever be conviced for reasonable self-defense, likewise, no student should be punished for reasonable self-defense. Teachers, however, often see this as a give-and-take relationship, where there was obviously something going on on both sides, when usually there isn't.

Bullies should get theirs, whether it's academic sanctions like suspension, custody to prevent misbehavious (like detention), or even legal ramifications. Aggression for the sake of aggression is not to be negotiated.

I think the problem is that if a teacher attempts to exact fair and straight justice -- whatever you take that to mean -- bullies might be apt to circumvent the teacher or take their anger on the teacher. Paddling the bully, for example, may very well just lead to more secretive bullying, or to a sack of sugar in the teacher's car (depending on what grade you're talking about).

I don't see a lot wrong with getting to the core of the issue, instead of just trying to condition bullies with punishment.

I don't see a lot wrong with getting to the core of the issue, instead of just trying to condition bullies with punishment.Do you think demanding bully victims to concede something for bullies for the sake of peace is the same as getting to the core of the issue?

I'm all in favour of dissecting the problem. I remember that when I was a school child, teachers told you off both for reporting your classmates and for hitting back when you were hit, for instance. So they essentially required you to talk to the bully and reason with him or to concede and accept some beating or give some money or I don't know what, in exchange for a lighter treatment. That's rubbish.

As far as sexual molestation goes, however, there's hardly a core. Maybe one in many a thousand girls is playing a rape game (psychological term) and framing the boy or teasing him for fun. But in most cases it's unwelcome and uncalled. So what is a girl supposed to do? Flatter the idiot until he feels appreciated, so that he won't force himself on her to prove something?

Let me once again stress that getting to the core of the problem is not the same as negotiating and conceding. I don't know where you got the idea.

Back in the day when I were but a wee lad I often got into fights at school - yet I was never the aggressor. The cause of fights? Somebody thinking they can push me around, cut in line at the lunch line or generally being a prick and trying to 'look hard' in front of his mates.

I only ever responded in kind: somebody insulted me, I insulted them back; somebody pushed me, I pushed them back; somebody took a swing at me, kid gloves were off and I'm not going to let him take a second swing.

Perhaps being in a single-sex school the teachers understood the schoolyard situation between pupils better than other schools, I'm not sure exacly why they had the stance but the end result was that I recieved NO disciplinary action even after leaving two students with broken fingers (separate occasions) and several students requiring stiches. Basically the teachers knew me to never be the instigator but they also understood that if a student backs down from confrontation that it also harms the student's reputation at the school and this can simply lead to more bullying.

Believe it or not but that system also prevented weaker students from being picked on. If you defended another student from a bully you wouldn't be punished either.

In the end I guess I was very lucky to have gone to a school with such a... simple schoolyard justice system.

I agree with chevalier, the victim should never be punished for the agressor's act, that's plain rubbish. I remember when I was in 3th or maybe 4th grade, can't remember clearly, I got exactly in a position like that. Some 6th grade bully thought it would be «fun» to steal my lunch so I obviously didn't stand for it and it turned out to be fight. Well I got punished too! WTF? I should've let the fool steal my lunch? I know punishing for the sake of punishing can't resolve many aggresive behaviour, that taking the problem to the core is the way. But why should the victim pay? That's nonesense.

This comes to mind; A friend of mine, she worked in a corner store (or convience store whatever it is called :p ) Well during her 2 years there she was robbed thrice. If the robber's threat were directly at her and her life was depening on it she was still prohibited by store policy to defense herself. The store prohibit this behaviour because the robber might sue the store for physical aggression, what nonesense is that?! Fortunately she never suffered any physical harm, however a robbery leaves some psychological trace.

If the robber's threat were directly at her and her life was depening on it she was still prohibited by store policy to defense herself. The store prohibit this behaviour because the robber might sue the store for physical aggression Wait a second - don't you have some type of proportional force clause in your nation's laws? I mean, if a guy comes into the store and demands money, you can't just pull out a gun and shoot him in the face, but every western country I'm aware of has something in the way of a law that you are allowed to defend yourself using proportional force. Therefore, if someone actually did pull a weapon on you, you would have the right to defend yourself. I know someone who owns a convenience store, and while he doesn't own a gun, he does keep a baseball bat under the counter as a means of defense if someone pulls a knife on him.

Olefix, that policy is to protect her life. Should she try to defend herself, she would MOST PROBABLY be killed (at least those are the statistics I learned while managing a McDonald's). The job of clerk or the manager is TO GIVE THE MONEY UP. Period. Any delay, any attempt to defend yourself, puts the robber in a more desperate situation -- that often results in violence that would not normally occur. The joke used to be give the robber all the money in a bag and ask if he wanted a Big Mac and fries with that.

Back on topic: There is a difference between the bully who pushes the kid down in the play ground to assert dominance and the bully who starts kicking the kid while he's down. The first is a conflict which teachers rarely get involved with (and I do not believe they should). The second is assault and action needs to be taken.

Children need to learn the social skills to handle many different situations -- including defusing a bully. Once the situation shifts to criminal, children should not be expected to handle that. On the sexual side, in America I believe we have gone overboard -- to the point of suspending a five-year-old for kissing another five-year-old.

Unfortunately, common sense is not a prerequisite for teaching.

Olefix, that policy is to protect her life. Should she try to defend herself, she would MOST PROBABLY be killed (at least those are the statistics I learned while managing a McDonald's). The job of clerk or the manager is TO GIVE THE MONEY UP. Period. Any delay, any attempt to defend yourself, puts the robber in a more desperate situation -- that often results in violence that would not normally occur. The joke used to be give the robber all the money in a bag and ask if he wanted a Big Mac and fries with that.
While this has long been held as the common-sense approach, the modern statistics recorded by the FBI report that you're actually more likely to be seriously hurt or killed if you give in. Psychologically, it seems to make the robber feel he can easily dominate you and the kind of person that tends to rob 7-11s is usually the kind that likes beating on people. On the other hand, if you fight back, you're actually less likely to get seriously injured, because the 'bully' type usually doesn't like being pressed, and will retreat if there's resistance. They want the easiest target, and someone defensless. If you prove you aren't either, they're much more likely to just make a break for it.

@NOG: Unless ambition is involved. Then they will never let go of you. The conclusion is you're screwed either way, so it would be better to turn the table and get the bullies screwed big time. I think resistance works if it's personal, while lack of resistance is safer when it's not.

@T2Bruno: I think teachers should do something to prevent the dominance thing and the hierarchy stuff. I wonder if social structures didn't form like that in the middle ages and before... Anyway, it's probably wiser to think long before taking action. But I think to say it's not a problem would be untrue. I think if a kid goes to the teacher to complain about being pushed, it needs to be dealt with. Any hostile breach of corporal integrity is assault and a criminal thing.

As for kissing, well, if against will, the offender should be punished, although there's of course a lot of difference depending if it was on the cheek or lips and what the situation was. Anything which involves any form of uninvited physical contact should be punished. I even think people should have the right to sue for being merely touched in spite of a request not to be.

[ October 31, 2006, 22:21: Message edited by: chevalier ]

My gym(or what's called) teacher has jokes he often uses if he sees someone bullied either(to the bullies): "why didn't you kill him?",(chokehold:)"you should keep your fingers together so he can't grab them" or (to bullied guy):"there's a baseball bat in the closet, here's the keys".
Somehow that often stops fighting AND bullying!


I remember in primary after a bigger kid beat me up, he wanted me give him my money and cry. I didn't cry/call for help/say him to stop, or give any money so the teachers thought it was a game (WTF!). When I was sure he didn't want to hit me anymore I insulted him in as unfriendly as I could. My teacher noticed me only after I was all bruisy and saw the blood in my cheek.

Because I had insulted the bully afterwards I had to say sorry to him and spend time in detension, he had the same punishment, nothing extra.
My parents had quite a long conversation with the teacher and the bully failed his year which was nice.
The 'sorry' I can almost understand. But why was I in detension?

Wait a second - don't you have some type of proportional force clause in your nation's laws? I mean, if a guy comes into the store and demands money, you can't just pull out a gun and shoot him in the face, but every western country I'm aware of has something in the way of a law that you are allowed to defend yourself using proportional force. Therefore, if someone actually did pull a weapon on you, you would have the right to defend yourself. I know someone who owns a convenience store, and while he doesn't own a gun, he does keep a baseball bat under the counter as a means of defense if someone pulls a knife on him.I wouldn't really know about Federal laws, I'm not too overly familiar with them. However I've heard of one called «legitimate self-defense» I guess that's the one.

Olefix, that policy is to protect her life. Should she try to defend herself, she would MOST PROBABLY be killed (at least those are the statistics I learned while managing a McDonald's). The job of clerk or the manager is TO GIVE THE MONEY UP. Period. Any delay, any attempt to defend yourself, puts the robber in a more desperate situation -- that often results in violence that would not normally occur. The joke used to be give the robber all the money in a bag and ask if he wanted a Big Mac and fries with that.Still even if she gave the money, the agressor could still threaten her but the store policy wouldn't let her defend. That's the policy I found to be nonesense.

Trellheim, I believe you were in detension to match the punishment the bully received. That is, to give the idea you were both equal and what you did was comparable. Did he have to say he was sorry too or not really? I believe you should probably have been punished somehow for the insults if they really were over the top, but in case of the bully, we're talking about something that could get an adult person behind the bars for many years.

I had similar incidents in school, although I never got to bleed, I think. My favourite was "talking back to teachers" - pointing out inconsistencies, inconvenient previous promises. I always had a reduced conduct grade without any specific reason (the lame claim I was getting the default grade because I didn't manage to earn better) for obvious reasons. After some time, I just learnt, if they said something I didn't really like in front of the class, to get them back in front of the class as well. They generally held each other's side in conflicts with me, but they eventually learnt that if a student was complaining about me, he had well deserved what he got (except when it was physical, however, since they were even ready to believe I attacked multiple people at the same time :rolleyes: ). But since conduct grades were discussed behind a closed door, they could always say they defended me and voted in my favour when they did the opposite (and some other teach told me).

Let me once again stress that getting to the core of the problem is not the same as negotiating and conceding. I don't know where you got the idea. I don't think I said anything about equating getting to the problem with negotiating and conceding. Anyhow, the problem does lie with the bullies themselves.

I am, however, beginning to think that because SP is full people who play computer games, and hence has a relatively high proportion of "geeks", there will be more stories about being bullied to come.

Did he have to say he was sorry too or not really?He said sorry, but it wasn't a really heart warming one.

I believe you should probably have been punished somehow for the insults if they really were over the topYes a bad insult might be enough for a short detension, but three hours after I was beaten up (and I never raised my hand to attack!) is a bit too much, I think.

@Oaz: Okay, sorry, I overreacted a bit. But I really want to stress the difference because it's quite common among teachers to miss the point and end up requiring children to suffer some so that their bullying colleagues could be brought up more gently.

@Trellheim: Sorry, I'm not familiar with the detension system, so I don't have a picture of how much it is. Truth be told, I even see detension as easily falling under unlawful imprisonment. ;) My biggest problem in your case is getting the same punishment as the bully did and the forced reconcilliation as equal parties. Had you quarrelled about the shape of one or other's face or about a girl or something like that, I would understand. But since there was criminal extortion at the root and since he was basically beating you rather than getting you into a fight, I have a fundamental problem. Some teachers tend to think there's always something wrong about the victim of bullying and it must have been provoked somehow. That's often true but the presumption is unjust, hurtful and, I would say, unprofessional.

All in all, I think if teachers want to play judges, mediators and I don't know what else, they should get some training. Basic stuff, basic principles. Presumption of innocence, benefit of doubt, audiatur et altera pars (let the other side also be heard), some basic concepts of legitimate self-defence. After all, they won't and shouldn't be trying the kids, but they will inevitably get to solve some disputes and punish some meddlers, so they could have at least a little training in that. And the "conflict solving" training overemphasising mediation doesn't cut it. I would actually discourage giving them any training in procedures or they will make a theatre of it in their pedagogical zeal. But indoctrinating them into some basic law principles sounds like a good idea to me.

[ November 01, 2006, 13:23: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Teachers have to make decisions very quickly. The decision to punish a pupil who did something wrong must be taken swiftly yet it is much better to determine the nature of the sanction after having given some thought to it, not in the heat of the moment.

When a kid misbehaves in my classroom I give a warning and talk to the pupil at the end of the class, if this has no effect I write a note to the parents in the mark book. I may end up writing a report about the incident and eventually send the kid to detention.

Conflict solving is important but sometimes you can't avoid conflict and at the end of the day a teacher in his/her classroom has to have the final word.

I'm a teacher but my work involves a lot of things that have nothing to do with my subject. When you deal with young people you quickly understand that they need to have some clear limits and some discipline (and many pupils only get that in school because the parents are too busy or worse they don't even care). Teenagers are often angry and feel nobody understands what they're going through but they need to get some points of reference.

Teaching is not as easy as it looks. I think that some of you have unresolved issues with teachers in general. Most teachers try to do their job as best as they can in conditions which are sometimes very unfavourable. Dealing with violence inside and outside the classroom is part of the job. I know that if I slapped a kid or even shoved one I would probably lose my job and perhaps even go to jail (no matter what the kid had done). I had some training on how to respond to certain situations but sometimes there are no good and easy way to deal with some incidents. Every year teachers get punched, stabbed and worse. A friend of mine actually had to prevent one of her pupils (11 years old) from committing suicide in her classroom...

Teaching is not as easy as it looks. I think that some of you have unresolved issues with teachers in general. Most teachers try to do their job as best as they can in conditions which are sometimes very unfavourable. Dealing with violence inside and outside the classroom is part of the job. I know that if I slapped a kid or even shoved one I would probably lose my job and perhaps even go to jail (no matter what the kid had done). I had some training on how to respond to certain situations but sometimes there are no good and easy way to deal with some incidents. Every year teachers get punched, stabbed and worse. A friend of mine actually had to prevent one of her pupils (11 years old) from committing suicide in her classroom... Heck yeah -- being a middle or high school teacher is probably one of the more stressful jobs in the United States. I remember when students would give teachers more than enough crap to deal with, or suspect that their teachers were "sexist" or "racist" because they received lower grades.

Granted, there are no doubt bad teachers. But in retrospect, the ones who were most strict and largley considered "hardasses" were the ones that offer more discipline. Certainly there are students who receive crap from classmates and teachers unfairly, but when you consider that a middle/high school classroom has a lot of angst/hormones/"no one understands me" emotions, there is bound to be a degree of frustration and anger directed at teachers, especially when parents are looking out for their children without regard for teachers.

So yeah -- teachers and relatives/spouses of teachers on SP have my support. :)

I agree with chevalier, the victim should never be punished for the agressor's act, that's plain rubbish. I remember when I was in 3th or maybe 4th grade, can't remember clearly, I got exactly in a position like that. Some 6th grade bully thought it would be «fun» to steal my lunch so I obviously didn't stand for it and it turned out to be fight. Well I got punished too! WTF? I should've let the fool steal my lunch? I know punishing for the sake of punishing can't resolve many aggresive behaviour, that taking the problem to the core is the way. But why should the victim pay? That's nonesense. You know, I've already had such a situation happened. *I* was not the instigator of the fight, and I defended my ground until one of the teachers forcibly separated us (it was a good thing, the bastard was taking one hell of a beating). We both found ourselves in front of the principal... and BOTH of us were convocated into detention. I spoke to me Ma about that, saying that I wouldn't be punished of just defending myself, and she totally backed me up. I foxed detention, then they assigned me to another one, which I also foxed, and so on. Basically, I foxed FIVE detentions, and I was suspended for a week for doing so. I couldn't care less, since this was a free week off.

It seems that if you defend yourself, you're no better than your agressor. F*** that **** - what am I supposed to do, ignore everything and reduce myself to the status of doormat? No f****** way. I will fight until my last breath if I simply defended myself.

My favourite was "talking back to teachers" Hehe, that was my speciality! I was a take-no-s*** kind of wee lad, and still am this way. :evil:

You know, I'm beginning to think that the case of "he started it!" is going to be seen as a justified defense in this thread.

Heck, if there's one thing a person learns after high school (and hopefully before high school), it's that actions have consequences. I mean, potential psychopaths are the only individuals who typically have trouble picking that up.

There are most typically better solutions than violence, but the assailed victim's mind is not as clear and logical as ours when we are calm and have a broader perspective. The defence reflex is natural and justifiable and everyone has the right to defend himself -- there's no obligation whatsoever to receive a beating or run away. Once again, better solutions exist and I can typically talk people out of wiggling their uneasy limbs in front of my nose. But so long as the alternative is getting beaten/running away or defending onese, I believe the defender should only be punished for needless violence after defeating the opponent or for responding with inappropriately overwhelming force and doing much harm in the process.

@Oaz:

You know, I'm beginning to think that the case of "he started it!" is going to be seen as a justified defense in this thread.For "participating in a fight" yes (it's actually a legal term here, but I guess teachers and generally people use it everywhere). For beating someone up until he bleeds, not really. But between the kid who insults the other one's family line back to Forefather Adam and the kid who clocks him one, I'd rather side with the latter if it developed into a lawsuit and both boys' parents asked me to represent them.

In the middle ages, when you had one big feudal militia doubling as an army instead of law enforcement and the same people who fought enemy invaders dealth with bandits as well, whoever started a fight, even by insults alone (e.g. Knight X to Knight Y: "Your mother is fun to play with"), had himself to blame for getting chopped into pieces. I'm not saying this is the perfect system, but in harsh environments, like among teens, some elements of it would do a good job.

To my mind, if teachers delve into such advanced justice-related philosophical/legal problems as how much you can do in defence, how you should react to assaults to minimise damage and so on and so forth, they could as well employ proper standards of benefit of doubt, presumption of innocence and hearing out both sides. Also, if they require such a high moral ground of students as to fend off physical aggression with words of reason, themselves they should be morally high enough to show examplary standards of justice in judgment.

And yeah, I know it's not an easy job to get teens in order. I've had quite difficult siblings and difficult tutorees (the only class I've ever had has consisted of people all older than I am) and I've known some teachers.

For beating someone up until he bleeds, not really.Well, this is more of what I have in mind. However, I would like to nonetheless convey to the bullied party that it's still not okay (or at least mature) to go around clocking people because of what they say. Children should be aware -- and I'm sure you wouldn't explicity advocate otherwise -- that violence is not in the long run a helpful way of resolving things.

Of course, the bullying party probably deserves attention foremost, but of course this doesn't mean the bullied party's actions should be neglected.

Hmm... yes, violence is not the answer, but I think words actually do more harm that quick and deserved violence. Prolonged and making the kid feel powerless and defenceless is traumatising. But getting a prompt punch... Hard to say. As a kid, I remember I was desperate to stop some people from calling me names and otherwise mocking or taunting me. Sometimes it was not even what they said, but just that they wouldn't shut up and be quiet. This is to say the "verbal" kids can make it as bad on you as a real physical bully. The bad thing is that they always make a real physical bully out of you if you chase them and then you can't even say they kept provoking you because don't all bullies say they are being provoked?

My other impression is that teachers often see replying with violence to violence as worse than actually starting the violence. The lawyer in me revolts (and maybe that's how the lawyer in me was born, actually).

I've never seen a school employ "mediation" with bullies. It wasn't employed when I went to school and it hasn't been employed at any of my son's schools, either. Where I come from, bullies were actually subject to administrative action (suspension, etc) or even legal action in more severe cases. The only time I've ever seen "mediation" employed has been in instances of personality conflict or fights which erupted mutually (ie not bullying).

Were they undoubtedly mutual, the conflicts, or was it the teacher's judgment?

Chev, all such instances are going to require a modicum of judgement. That said, it's generally pretty obvious when a fight is an instance of "bullying" or just a personality conflict.