There was a recent high profile story in the news about an 11-year old boy who committed suicide, apparently because he could no longer tolerate being called “gay.” Sadly, this story is not unusual. The highest suicide rate of all groups is said to be among gays. What was unusual in the recent incident is the young age of the person who committed the act.

The most common insult among kids today is “gay.” It is used not only to mean "someone who is attracted to people of his/her own gender," but as a synonym for “stupid” or "bad." Kids get mad when they are called gay and they sometimes get into fights.

I have great compassion for gays. Not only do they have to deal with the derision and even hatred of a large proportion of the general public, they also need to deal with their own angst about being different.

What is one to do when called gay? The anti-bully movement is trying to solve the problem by passing laws making it illegal to insult anyone. Many anti-bully activists insist that anti-bully laws should specifically mention insults against gays and those of non-heterosexual orientions. If it becomes a crime to insult people, then, it is hoped, no one will be attacked with the “gay” insult, and the associated violence will disappear.

One of the problems with making it illegal to call someone “gay” is that it violates the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. However, few people today understand and value Freedom of Speech. Most people seem to believe that it is worth getting rid of Freedom of Speech in order to protect people’s feelings.

The truth is that society has come a long way in recent decades toward reducing hatred and discrimination against gays. However, it will be a while–if ever–before anti-gay sentiment disappears completely. So what is one to do when called gay? If it is happening to you, and you need to wait till prejudice disappears from the face of the earth, your problem may never end. Using laws to punish people for using “gay” as an insult is not likely to solve the problem, either. If people get punished for insulting gays, do you think they are going to think, “Now I respect gays so much because they got me punished”? Of course not! They are going to hate gays even more, and think they are big crybabies who need the help of the government.

Fortunately, as I routinely demonstrate through role-playing at my seminars, the solution to this problem that has hurt so many people is remarkably simple. We can deal with gay insults all by ourselves, and at the same time help reduce prejudice in society. As I will be showing, Freedom of Speech is not the cause of the problem but the solution! And it is mandated by the Golden Rule, which is the ultimate solution to interpersonal problems. Few people are aware of it, but the Golden Rule really comes to teach us that we need to treat people like friends even when they treat us like enemies.

Of course, the following dialogues are imaginary, and the age and sophistication of the kids involved will determine the content of the dialogues in real life. So please don’t get caught up with the specific words; it is the attitudes that matter. And the gender of the people is also not relevant. But since I am a male, it is easier for me to write the scripts as though I am a male. (And when i identify the insulter as "You," I don't mean you, the reader, of course. It's just easy to write the scenes this way, as a dialogue between "Me" and "You.")

Scenario Number One: I am not gay, but you call me gay.

You: You are soooo gay!
Me: No, I’m not!
You: Yes, you are! Everyone knows you’re gay!
Me: How can they know something that’s not true?
You: Didn’t you ever look in the mirror? You’re flaming gay!
Me: No, I’m not! Stop calling me gay!
You: Why should I stop? I’m going to keep on calling you gay until you admit it’s true!
Me: But it’s not true! Shut your mouth already of I’ll shut it for you!
You: A little fairy like you! Hah! How are you going to shut my mouth?
Me: I will! You call me gay one more time and I’ll have no choice!
You: Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay! Go ahead! Try and stop me!

This, of course, will lead to nowhere but a fight. Now I’ll respond differently. I will give you Freedom of Speech and treat you like a friend.

You: You are soooo gay!
Me: How come you think I’m gay?
You: Just look in the mirror and you’ll see.
Me: I do look in the mirror. What about me do you think makes me look gay?
You: The way you dress. Those pants are so tight. Only gays would wear pants like that.
Me: They are 50’s style. Marlon Brando and James Dean used to wear pants like that.
You: Well, they must have been gay.
Me: I don’t think so. I think they were really hot with the women.
You: They were?
Me: Yeah! You should watch some of their movies. They’re real classics.
You: Only gays like old movies.
Me: Oh, you’d be surprised. You should watch, On The Waterfront and Rebel Without a Cause. You’d love them.
You: Well, maybe I’ll watch them sometime.
Me: You won’t regret it!
You: Thanks.

Much better, isn’t it. And it was so easy. I just treated you like a friend and told myself you have the right to say whatever you want.


Scenario Number Two: I am gay and have “come out,” and you hate gays with a passion. Let’s say we are in high school, because by that age we are likely to be aware of our true sexual orientation.

You: You know, you are going to burn in hell!
Me: No, I’m not!
You: Yes, you will! The Bible says all gays are going to burn in hell!
Me: The Bible is nonsense! It was written by homophobic men!
You: No, it wasn’t! God wrote the Bible and it says you are going to suffer eternal damnation!
Me: No, I won’t! You’re the one who’s going to burn in hell because God hates bigots!
You: God loves me! He hates you! That’s why he sent AIDS to kill you off!
Me: How dare you talk to me like that? You are violating my civil rights!
You: Oh, yeah? What are you going to do? Call the police?
Me: Maybe I should!
You: Yeah, go ahead, you gay sissy! Guess what? The police hate gays, too! They’re not going to help you!
Me: Yes, they will! It’s the law!
You: Hah, hah! No law can help you! Gays are beyond help!
Me: Shut your mouth already!

Again, this goes nowhere except endless hostility.

This time I’ll give you Freedom of Speech and treat you like a friend.

You: You know, you are going to burn in hell!
Me: Why do you say that?
You: Because you are gay!
Me: And you think gays are going to hell?
You: Yes! The Bible says so!
Me: Well, I sure hope it’s not true.
You: It is!
Me: How do you know?
You: I told you already. The Bible says so. And that’s what my priest says, too!
Me: Yes, a lot of priests say that. You know, there were a lot of stories in the news about priests molesting young boys. Does that mean they are gay, too?
You: I guess so.
Me: Will they go to hell, too?
You: Sure.
Me: Boy, I’m sure glad there will be some priests to confess to in hell!
You: Stop kidding around. I mean it. You are going to go to hell if you stay gay.
Me: Why do you think it is so terrible to be gay?
You: Because the Bible says “Adam and Eve,” not, “Adam and Steve.”
Me: If God didn’t want there to be gays, why did he make me gay?
You: He didn’t make you gay. You chose to be gay!
Me: You think I chose to be gay?
You: Of course. Everyone knows it’s a choice.
Me: Are you straight?
You: Of course!
Me: Do you remember choosing to be straight?
You: I didn’t have to choose. I was born straight.
Me: That’s right. You didn’t choose to be straight. You never had to ask yourself, “Should I be straight, or should I be gay? I think I’ll be straight!” Well, you know what, I never chose, either. If it were a choice, do you think I would have chosen to be gay?
You: Well, you obviously did!
Me: Believe me, if it were a choice, I would have chosen to be straight. You know how tough it is to be gay?
You: No.
Me: Oh, it’s a bummer! People hate you just for what you are. They treat you like a freak and tell you you’re going to hell. When I first realized I was gay, I thought, “Oh, no. What am I going to do? People are going to hate me. How am I going to live a normal life? And how am I going to tell my parents?” Believe me, if it were a choice, I would have picked straight.
You: Well, it’s not too late! You can still choose to become straight.
Me: Believe me, I tried. I went out with girls. I figured, if I go out with enough girls, I’d learn to be attracted to them. But it didn’t work. I mean, I love their company. We have so much in common. But I was never attracted to them.
You: Maybe you didn’t go out with the right girl.
Me: Dude, it’s nice that you care so much about me, but believe me, I went out with the “right” girls. But it didn’t help. I just had to become cool with the fact that I’m gay, and then I became happier.
You: I think you should still try anyway. In my church, they run this program that turns gay people straight.
Me: I went to a program like that for a whole year. All it did was make me feel guilty. It didn’t make me straight.
You: Well, maybe the program in my church is better. You should try it.
Me: Thanks again for wanting to help me. I really appreciate it. But I’m gay, and I’m okay with it now.
You: Well, if that’s what makes you happy…
Me: Yes, it does. Thanks for the concern.
You: You’re welcome.

Obviously much better this time. If we go to school together, are in the same classes, and I always treat you this way, you may even become my friend even though you hate gays. And you may even end up thinking, “Well, maybe gays aren’t that bad after all.” So why do I need the government’s help with this? I can turn you into a less prejudiced person all by myself if I give you Freedom of Speech and treat you like a friend.

Scenario Number Three: I suspect that I am gay, and I look gay. However, I'm not ready to "come out." The idea that I may be gay disturbs me and I don’t want to admit that I am unsure about my sexual orientation.

You: You are soooo gay!
Me: No, I’m not!
You: Yes, you are! It is so obvious!
Me: No it’s not! And I’m not gay!
You: Man, you really have blinders. Haven’t you looked in the mirror? It is so obvious that you are gay!
Me: I am not gay! Stop saying that I look gay!
You: But it’s so obvious that you are! You know, you are going to be the last person in the world to know that you are gay!
Me: No I won’t! Because I’m not!
You: Oh, my God! You are so clueless! Everyone knows you are gay.
Me: No, I’m not!

This, of course, gets me nowhere. Now I’ll do it the better way.

You: You are soooo gay!
Me: Why do you say that?
You: Because you look gay. It’s so obvious. Look in the mirror.
Me: You know what? You are not the first person who told me they think I’m gay.
You: Duh! If it has feathers, isn’t it a bird?
Me: I know I’m not the most macho guy in the world.
You: You can say that again!
Me: So you actually think I’m gay?
You: Yes. Aren’t you?
Me: No. But I know that some people think I am.
You: Yes, they do!
Me: Yes, they do.

It pretty much fizzles out here, and you will leave me alone. You will stop trying to torment me by calling me gay because it doesn’t bother me. And you will respect me more because I am showing you respect, and I am not making a fool out of myself.

Scenario Number Four: I’m not gay, but you are going to tell me you heard a rumor that I am.

You: You know, Johnny said that you’re gay! He said he saw you kissing another guy!
Me: No I didn’t!
You: Johnny doesn’t lie. You’re gay!
Me: No, I’m not!
You: Don’t try to deny it! You were kissing a guy, and that means you are gay!
Me: I’m not gay! And I don’t kiss guys!
You (in a sing-song voice): Hah, hah! Izzy i-is ga-ay, Izzy i-is ga-ay!
Me: Shut your mouth! I am not gay!
You (singing): Yes, you-ou a-are! You a-are ga-ay! Izzy is a faggot! Ha, ha ha ha ha!
Me: Shut your mouth!!!

Of course I’m a big loser here and you are going to keep on tormenting me. Now we’ll do it again.

You: You know, Johnny said that you’re gay! He said he saw you kissing another guy!
Me: Do you believe him?
You: Yes!
Me: If you want to believe him, I can’t stop you.
You: No, you can’t.
Me: That’s right. I can’t.

And that’s usually where it ends.

When you come to tell me this rumor, you want to see me defending myself. But it’s a trap. I automatically lose by defending myself because it is the weaker position. Since all living creatures are programmed to try to win, you are going to keep on attacking me with this rumor to get me to defend myself.

So the second time, instead of defending myself from the rumor, I turned the tables on you. I made you defend yourself by asking you, “Do you believe it?” Now you have to decide if you want to acknowledge believing a rumor about me. If you say you believe it, I say, “You can believe it if you want,” and I come out being the winner. And if you say you don’t believe it, I also win. So don’t defend yourself from rumors. Just ask the person, “Do you believe it?” and you come out being the winner.

Scenario Number Five: I’m not gay, and you come to tell me that other people are spreading a rumor that I am.

You: You know, everyone is saying that you’re gay!
Me: I can’t believe it! Who’s saying it?
You: Everybody! The whole school is saying that you’re gay!
Me: That’s terrible! You have to tell them it’s not true!
You: How do I know it isn’t? If everyone’s saying it, it must be true!
Me: It’s not true! I swear it! I am not gay! You have to tell them to stop!
You: I can’t make them stop. There are too many of them. Anyway, how do I know it’s not true?
Me: I swear I am not gay! You have to help me stop them from saying it! How can I come to school if everyone thinks I’m gay?

This is obviously not working. Now we’ll do it again, and I’ll use Freedom of Speech.

You: You know, everyone is saying that you’re gay!
Me: Really? That’s what they’re saying?
You: Yes. That’s the word going around the whole school!
Me: Well, if they want to say it, I can’t stop them.
You: But how can you let them get away with it? You can’t let everyone call you gay!
Me: I can’t stop them. People have a right to say whatever they want.
You: You mean it doesn’t bother you that everyone’s saying you’re gay?
Me: I’d rather they didn’t, but if they want to do it, I can’t stop them.
You: Dude, you’re weird! But you’re cool!
Me: Thanks.

Scenario Number Six: I’m gay and I’ve “come out.” You come to tell me that you heard I’m gay.

You: You know, I heard you’re gay!
Me: Yes, I am, and I’m proud of it!
You: Wow, you’re a faggot!
Me: Don’t call me a faggot! The word is gay!
You: I can’t believe it! You really are a faggot! You’re a freak!
Me: The word is gay! And I’m not a freak!
You: Yes, you are! All gays are freaks!
Me: We are not freaks! There is nothing wrong with being gay!
You: Yes there is! Everyone knows that gays are freaks!
Me: No, we’re not! Shut your mouth!

Again, I’m a big loser. You are going to keep on tormenting me, and you are not going to have respect either for me or for gay people in general. This time I’ll handle it better.

You: You know, I heard you’re gay!
Me: Oh! You just found out?
You: Yes! You mean you actually are gay?
Me: Yes. I thought everyone knew.
You: Well, I didn’t.
Me: So now you know, too.
[The situation could end here. I may also want to use the opportunity for a “teaching moment,” so I’ll ask you:] How do you feel about gays?
You: I think they’re freaks.
Me: A lot of people do. Why do you think we are freaks?
You: It’s gross! Guys “doing it” with guys! You are supposed to “do it” with girls.
Me: Well, it works that way for most people, but not if you’re gay.
You: It really grosses me out thinking about two guys “doing it” with each other.
Me: Well, that’s exactly the way I feel when I think of a guy and a girl “doing it” together.
You: You do?
Me: Yep!
You: Boy, you’re weird!
Me: To straight people, gays seem weird.
You: They sure do.
Me: And to us, straight people seem weird.
You: Boy, it’s a strange world!
Me: It sure is!

So you see, by treating you like a friend and giving you Freedom of Speech, you will end up having more respect and understanding for both my group and myself, and you may end up becoming my friend. And you will certainly stop trying to torment me for being gay because your efforts to torment me won’t work.

Scenario Number Seven: Young kids calling each other gay.

This is the final scenario I’ll be presenting here. Young kids today also use gay as an insult. They may not know their own true sexual orientation yet, and they may not even know the sexual meaning of the word “gay.”

You: You are sooo gay!
Me: No, I’m not!
You: Yes, you are!
Me: Stop calling me gay! I am not gay!
You: Yes you are:
Me: No, I’m not! Stop calling me gay!
You: Gay gay gay gay gay!
Me: Stop it!
You: Gay gay gay gay gay!
Me: Stop!!!

I’m a big loser this way. We’ll do it again and I’ll treat you like a friend.

You: You are sooo gay!
Me: What does that mean?
You: You are stupid.
Me: Why do you think I’m stupid?
You: Well, you didn’t even know what “gay” means.
Me: You’re right. I hear the word so much but I wasn’t really sure. Is that all it means—stupid?
You: Yes. It means “stupid.”
Me: Thanks for letting me know.
You: You’re welcome.

And it's over!

So you see, we don’t need laws or other people’s protection to stop people from calling us gay. In fact, these laws against insulting people’s groups teach us that we should get upset when people insult our groups. And when we get upset, the problem gets worse.

All we need is to learn the practice of the Golden Rule, which really means that we should treat people like friends even when they treat us like enemies. And Freedom of Speech is mandated by the Golden Rule.

Note: Please don’t complain to me, “But we need these laws! Attacks against gays aren’t only verbal! There are physical attacks, and we are victims of discrimination, too!”

Yes, of course there are physical attacks and real discrimination against gays. But these acts are already crimes, and rightfully so, and they have nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech only guarantees people’s right to say words that can hurt our feelings, but it does not give them the right to hurt our bodies or possessions, to deny members of our groups equal opportunity, to treat us differently under the law, to threaten us, or to incite violence against us. Furthermore, most physical attacks begin with words, so if we know how to successfully handle verbal attacks against our group, there will probably be no escalation to physical attacks.

It is not more laws that we need, but more education. We need to teach the meaning and practice of Freedom of Speech and the Golden Rule.

By the way, a few years ago I wrote a series of articles showing how to use my "Bullies to Buddies" rules to solve the problem of prejudice, using anti-Semitism as the example. I have recently edited these into a manual called The Golden Rule Solution to Racism. If you think it is worthwhile, please feel free to send the link to others, too. The link is here: http://www.bullies2buddies.com/How-to-Stop-Racism

And don't forget all the other valuable info that is to be found on www.Bullies2Buddies.com!

In my last blog entry, I wrote about a recently published book,  Reclaiming Childhood: Freedom and Play in an Age of Fear, by developmental psychologist, Helene Guldberg. This book, as far as I can tell, is the only one so far in existence that seriously challenges the wisdom and effectiveness of the anti-bully movement. She has discovered, as i have long ago, that you can't challenge this movement without getting massively attacked. Dr. Guldberg was nice enough to be wiliing to answer my questions about the anti-bully movement and her experiences being critized for her views.

Izzy: Do you know of any social scientists criticizing the anti-bully movement?

Helene: I don't know of any social scientists criticizing the anti-bullying movement. There are some who have investigated the efficacy of anti-bullying campaigns, admitting that there is little evidence of their efficacy. Lead author of a study published in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Professor Peter Fonagy, from University College London, conceded: ‘while school anti-bullying programmes are widely used, there have been few controlled trials of their effectiveness' (Fonagy et al, 2009). And Associate professor at the University of Ottawa, J. David Smith, points out ‘The majority of programs evaluated to date have yielded nonsignificant outcomes' (Smith et al, 2004) [detailed references provided following interveiw].

Izzy: Why do you think there is so little criticism of the anti-bully movement from academic psychologists despite its apparent failure to reduce bullying in schools?

Helene: Bullying has become one of those taboo issues that many believe one just shouldn't question. The notion that children can be damaged for life as a result of insults hurled at them by their fellow pupils has become accepted as common sense. As a result, the raft of behavioural codes that now regulate playground behaviour, and the increasingly interventionist role of adults in children's disputes, is seen as a necessary and humane development that should not be questioned.

Sadly there are not enough academics that are prepared to tackle controversial issues and question current orthodoxy.

Izzy: I read a news article about your book. The article was called ‘Bullying' can be good for you - leave pupils to sort out spats, says expert. Most of the space of the article was dedicated to critics of your ideas about bullying. What is the general response you have gotten to your views on bullying?

Helene: As the idea that children should never be faced with potentially emotionally damaging situations is getting stronger and stronger, it is no surprise that it is the chapter on bullying that has caused the greatest controversy. The Daily Mail ran with the headline ‘Bullying can be good for Kids' - the day after my book launch, and the article was republished in the Daily Telegraph, Hindustan Times, Las Ultimas Noticias in Chile and other papers in India, Pakistan and China. Also, I was inundated with requests from local, national and international radio stations wanting me to explain my case.

It is interesting that the initial response of radio producers and journalists was one of disbelief: they could not comprehend that anyone should question the need for anti-bullying campaigns. But once we debated the issue they often started to accept that maybe this is an issue that does require more critical debate. The response of some readers and listeners were rather polarised: either they were incredibly abusive - for example suggestion I needed to be punched in the face - or grateful that at last someone was willing to question the obsession with bullying. Also, I have been pleasantly surprised by the positive response I have received from many teachers - at the talks I have been doing - who feel that the anti-bullying campaigns have gone far too far.

Izzy: How do you handle the criticism?

I ignore the personal attacks. The attacks often come from those who claim they have ‘been scarred for life' by bullying - and as a result would like to see me picked on, victimized and ridiculed, to see whether I still think ‘bullying can be good for you'. I have never said that bullying is good for children: my argument is that some children can come out of frightening and hurtful experiences to become stronger and more confident, while for others it was a very nasty and unpleasant experiences that has done them no good. But that does not mean it necessarily has damaged them for life.

What is sad is that so many have internalized this idea of ‘being scarred for life'. This is a phrase that is used incessantly by anti-bullying campaigners and I do believe that if we keep telling children they can be scarred for life by bullying it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sadly, those who have been rather abusive in reaction to what I am saying may have been damaged for life by their hurtful childhood experiences. But maybe they wouldn't have been if they hadn't internalized the very negative message of today's anti-bullying campaigns.

The more constructive criticisms have been useful as it has helped me refine my arguments. I am not saying that adults should never intervene to help a child who is being incessantly picked on and attacked by other children. But I am warning that there is a real danger that by intervening an adult can make the situation worse. It both can blow the incident out of proportion and create a more permanent wedge between the ‘victim' and the ‘bullies'. Also, it may do children no favours in the long run as it undermines the child's ability to manage the situation themselves. Therefore we really should have more trust in teachers who know their pupils, to make the really hard decisions. Of course, some teachers will ignore situations that they shouldn't ignore. But the negative consequences of anti-bullying campaigns far outweigh the negative consequences of teachers who haven't got the capacity to appreciate when things have gone out of hand and they need to do something to try to resolve the situation.

Izzy: Have any other chapters of your book been criticized as much?

Helene: No, not at all.

Izzy: Why not?

Helene: As I point out in Reclaiming Childhood, while some voices in recent years have spoken up to challenge the safety-first culture surrounding children today, drawing attention to the problem of raising a generation of cosseted, ‘cotton wool' kids and arguing the need for children to be able to take more physical risks, one rarely hears any objection to the notion that children increasingly need to be protected from the ‘emotional risks' posed to them by their peers in the form of bullying. It therefore wasn't surprising to me that the chapter on bullying provoked such a reaction.

Izzy: Your name sounds Jewish. If so, what was your family's experience during the Holocaust?

Helene: My name's Norwegian. As far as I know, it is not Jewish.

Izzy: I have heard the Holocaust referred to as "bullying"? Have you? How does that make you feel?

Helene: I haven't. But if it was I must say that would be very insulting. One cannot compare childhood spats with the systematic killing of millions of Jewish people.

References:

David Smith, Barry H. Schneider, Peter K. Smith, Katerina Ananiadou (2004), ‘The Effectiveness of Whole-School Antibullying Programs: A Synthesis of Evaluation Research', School Psychology Review, Vol. 33, 2004

Peter Fonagy, Stuart W. Twemlow, Eric M. Vernberg, Jennifer Mize Nelson, Edward J. Dill, Todd D. Little, and John A. Sargent (2009) ‘A cluster randomized controlled trial of child-focused psychiatric consultation and a school systems-focused intervention to reduce aggression', Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Volume 50 Issue 5, Pages 607 - 616

I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Helene Guldberg for taking the time to answer my questions, and I invite my readers to look into her work. She is the Managing Editor of a fascinating website called spiked, and her writings there are both thoughtful and thought-provoking. She is currently working on a book to be published in 2010, ‘Just Another Ape?' that challenges much of the recent scientific thinking on the similarity between apes and human. She claims that the difference between humans and the other apes is far greater than what has been presented to us in recent years by the world's leading primatologists and evolutionary psychologists.

*******

For those readers who aren't familiar with my work other than through this Psychology Today blog, I would like to inform you that I do more than just criticize the anti-bully movement. I provide better solutions--psychological solutions--and much of what I offer is free on Bullies to Buddies. There are free manuals for kids and for adults that can be used for solving the bullying problem both in school and at home.

More recently, I put a few video clips from my whole-school bullying reduction program, Victim-Proof Your School, on the website. These are a few of the most useful scenes from the program, and you can use them to teach students and teachers how to handle some serious but common problems. I hope you will find them not only useful but also humorous. If you like them, please pass on the links to anyone else you believe will find them of value.

The scenes are:
The Idiot Game http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/139
Social Exclusion http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/138
How should teachers handle being bullied http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/137

Hope you take the time to watch them!

For anyone interested in my upcoming seminar schedule for Bully-Proofing Made Easy, you can access it here. I will be returning to New England next week. You will notice that I will also be giving several presentations of Anger Control Made Easy in the summer months.

Best Wishes,
Israel (Izzy) Kalman

In my last blog entry, I wrote about a recently published book,  Reclaiming Childhood: Freedom and Play in an Age of Fear, by developmental psychologist, Helene Guldberg. This book, as far as I can tell, is the only one so far in existence that seriously challenges the wisdom and effectiveness of the anti-bully movement. She has discovered, as i have long ago, that you can't challenge this movement without getting massively attacked. Dr. Guldberg was nice enough to be wiliing to answer my questions about the anti-bully movement and her experiences being critized for her views.

Izzy: Do you know of any social scientists criticizing the anti-bully movement?

Helene: I don't know of any social scientists criticizing the anti-bullying movement. There are some who have investigated the efficacy of anti-bullying campaigns, admitting that there is little evidence of their efficacy. Lead author of a study published in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Professor Peter Fonagy, from University College London, conceded: ‘while school anti-bullying programmes are widely used, there have been few controlled trials of their effectiveness' (Fonagy et al, 2009). And Associate professor at the University of Ottawa, J. David Smith, points out ‘The majority of programs evaluated to date have yielded nonsignificant outcomes' (Smith et al, 2004) [detailed references provided following interveiw].

Izzy: Why do you think there is so little criticism of the anti-bully movement from academic psychologists despite its apparent failure to reduce bullying in schools?

Helene: Bullying has become one of those taboo issues that many believe one just shouldn't question. The notion that children can be damaged for life as a result of insults hurled at them by their fellow pupils has become accepted as common sense. As a result, the raft of behavioural codes that now regulate playground behaviour, and the increasingly interventionist role of adults in children's disputes, is seen as a necessary and humane development that should not be questioned.

Sadly there are not enough academics that are prepared to tackle controversial issues and question current orthodoxy.

Izzy: I read a news article about your book. The article was called ‘Bullying' can be good for you - leave pupils to sort out spats, says expert. Most of the space of the article was dedicated to critics of your ideas about bullying. What is the general response you have gotten to your views on bullying?

Helene: As the idea that children should never be faced with potentially emotionally damaging situations is getting stronger and stronger, it is no surprise that it is the chapter on bullying that has caused the greatest controversy. The Daily Mail ran with the headline ‘Bullying can be good for Kids' - the day after my book launch, and the article was republished in the Daily Telegraph, Hindustan Times, Las Ultimas Noticias in Chile and other papers in India, Pakistan and China. Also, I was inundated with requests from local, national and international radio stations wanting me to explain my case.

It is interesting that the initial response of radio producers and journalists was one of disbelief: they could not comprehend that anyone should question the need for anti-bullying campaigns. But once we debated the issue they often started to accept that maybe this is an issue that does require more critical debate. The response of some readers and listeners were rather polarised: either they were incredibly abusive - for example suggestion I needed to be punched in the face - or grateful that at last someone was willing to question the obsession with bullying. Also, I have been pleasantly surprised by the positive response I have received from many teachers - at the talks I have been doing - who feel that the anti-bullying campaigns have gone far too far.

Izzy: How do you handle the criticism?

I ignore the personal attacks. The attacks often come from those who claim they have ‘been scarred for life' by bullying - and as a result would like to see me picked on, victimized and ridiculed, to see whether I still think ‘bullying can be good for you'. I have never said that bullying is good for children: my argument is that some children can come out of frightening and hurtful experiences to become stronger and more confident, while for others it was a very nasty and unpleasant experiences that has done them no good. But that does not mean it necessarily has damaged them for life.

What is sad is that so many have internalized this idea of ‘being scarred for life'. This is a phrase that is used incessantly by anti-bullying campaigners and I do believe that if we keep telling children they can be scarred for life by bullying it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sadly, those who have been rather abusive in reaction to what I am saying may have been damaged for life by their hurtful childhood experiences. But maybe they wouldn't have been if they hadn't internalized the very negative message of today's anti-bullying campaigns.

The more constructive criticisms have been useful as it has helped me refine my arguments. I am not saying that adults should never intervene to help a child who is being incessantly picked on and attacked by other children. But I am warning that there is a real danger that by intervening an adult can make the situation worse. It both can blow the incident out of proportion and create a more permanent wedge between the ‘victim' and the ‘bullies'. Also, it may do children no favours in the long run as it undermines the child's ability to manage the situation themselves. Therefore we really should have more trust in teachers who know their pupils, to make the really hard decisions. Of course, some teachers will ignore situations that they shouldn't ignore. But the negative consequences of anti-bullying campaigns far outweigh the negative consequences of teachers who haven't got the capacity to appreciate when things have gone out of hand and they need to do something to try to resolve the situation.

Izzy: Have any other chapters of your book been criticized as much?

Helene: No, not at all.

Izzy: Why not?

Helene: As I point out in Reclaiming Childhood, while some voices in recent years have spoken up to challenge the safety-first culture surrounding children today, drawing attention to the problem of raising a generation of cosseted, ‘cotton wool' kids and arguing the need for children to be able to take more physical risks, one rarely hears any objection to the notion that children increasingly need to be protected from the ‘emotional risks' posed to them by their peers in the form of bullying. It therefore wasn't surprising to me that the chapter on bullying provoked such a reaction.

Izzy: Your name sounds Jewish. If so, what was your family's experience during the Holocaust?

Helene: My name's Norwegian. As far as I know, it is not Jewish.

Izzy: I have heard the Holocaust referred to as "bullying"? Have you? How does that make you feel?

Helene: I haven't. But if it was I must say that would be very insulting. One cannot compare childhood spats with the systematic killing of millions of Jewish people.

References:

David Smith, Barry H. Schneider, Peter K. Smith, Katerina Ananiadou (2004), ‘The Effectiveness of Whole-School Antibullying Programs: A Synthesis of Evaluation Research', School Psychology Review, Vol. 33, 2004

Peter Fonagy, Stuart W. Twemlow, Eric M. Vernberg, Jennifer Mize Nelson, Edward J. Dill, Todd D. Little, and John A. Sargent (2009) ‘A cluster randomized controlled trial of child-focused psychiatric consultation and a school systems-focused intervention to reduce aggression', Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Volume 50 Issue 5, Pages 607 - 616

I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Helene Guldberg for taking the time to answer my questions, and I invite my readers to look into her work. She is the Managing Editor of a fascinating website called spiked, and her writings there are both thoughtful and thought-provoking. She is currently working on a book to be published in 2010, ‘Just Another Ape?' that challenges much of the recent scientific thinking on the similarity between apes and human. She claims that the difference between humans and the other apes is far greater than what has been presented to us in recent years by the world's leading primatologists and evolutionary psychologists.

*******

For those readers who aren't familiar with my work other than through this Psychology Today blog, I would like to inform you that I do more than just criticize the anti-bully movement. I provide better solutions--psychological solutions--and much of what I offer is free on Bullies to Buddies. There are free manuals for kids and for adults that can be used for solving the bullying problem both in school and at home.

More recently, I put a few video clips from my whole-school bullying reduction program, Victim-Proof Your School, on the website. These are a few of the most useful scenes from the program, and you can use them to teach students and teachers how to handle some serious but common problems. I hope you will find them not only useful but also humorous. If you like them, please pass on the links to anyone else you believe will find them of value.

The scenes are:
The Idiot Game http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/139
Social Exclusion http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/138
How should teachers handle being bullied http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/137

Hope you take the time to watch them!

For anyone interested in my upcoming seminar schedule for Bully-Proofing Made Easy, you can access it here. I will be returning to New England next week. You will notice that I will also be giving several presentations of Anger Control Made Easy in the summer months.

Best Wishes,
Israel (Izzy) Kalman

Bullying has become the number one worry of parents, as recent polls are showing:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:le5oEzQMX8kJ:bullyingcourse.c...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=...

Countries throughout the modern world are complaining that bullying is becoming an escalating problem. Meanwhile, these very same countries have been waging an escalating battle against bullying. Amazingly, few professionals in the world see any connection between the intensification of the problem and the intensified efforts to combat the problem. You can do a Google search of critics of the anti-bully movement and, other than my own writings, you will come up with almost nothing.

Bullying is the least controversial social issue on the planet. Every other issue has people on both sides. Yet despite the fact that the anti-bully movement is obviously failing, everyone in the world, with almost no exception, is calling for intensified anti-bullying efforts. Hardly anyone can imagine that there could be anything wrong with anti-bully campaigns.

I recently found an exception: Helene Guldberg, a Norwegian-born developmental psychologist residing and working in England. She has written a book called, Reclaiming Childhood: Freedom and Play in an Age of Fear. It is dedicated to reducing the hysteria that society, including mental health professionals and organizations, has been promoting regarding our children. Despite the fact that children in the modern world are safer than ever in history, parents worry more than ever about the welfare of their kids. We are overprotecting them from life, raising a generation of what the book calls “cotton wool" children (and I have been calling “emotional marshmallows”). Despite all our worries, the sky hasn’t come crashing down on our heads yet. Our children aren't developing all that badly.

Truth is, this is not the first or only book of this nature. But I believe it has the distinction of being the only such book that seriously criticizes the anti-bully movement. Dr. Guldberg has a long chapter called “The Bullying Bandwagon.” She says many of the things I have been saying over the years, and says it more professionally. And, in contrast to other psychologists who write about bullying, she thinks like a psychologist rather than a law-enforcement officer.

The following are some excerpts from the chapter, “The Bullying Bandwagon.”

“Today children are pushed to look upon their everyday encounters with their friends or enemies through the prism of potential violence and abuse, and encouraged to seek help from teachers or other adults. This leads to a situation where children can become unwilling to, and incapable of, resolving their own problems with their peers: a process that damages children’s development, and their relationships with each other, far more than the odd stone thrown or insult shouted.”

“Once…a teacher gets involved [in a problem between kids], it becomes an issue of much greater significance, driving a more permanent wedge between the putative victim and that week’s bullies, and making it far harder for the spontaneous dynamics of playground life to resolve themselves.”

“So if the message to children who are being bullied is ‘When bad things happen to you, your life could be destroyed for ever’ could this response not be more damaging to children in the long run than the bullying itself? If we treat children as if they could not possibly cope with hurtful experiences, we are more likely to undermine their confidence and make them less likely to cope with difficult events in the future.”

“In an extreme example of how the desire to protect children from bullying can prevent them from forming relationships altogether, [one school in England] proposed that it should not build a playground. Staff insisted that this would help protect pupils falling victim to playground bullies...A similar trend can be identified in the US, where many schools have already been built without playgrounds.”

“Unless children are given the opportunity to engage with each other without adults hovering over them they won’t really learn the consequences of being clumsy, nasty or thoughtless, or how to cope with good-natured teasing or spiteful and hurtful behaviour.”

In Reclaiming Childhood, Guldberg deals with a lot more than bullying. Using common sense backed by research, she challenges our fears about many aspects of children’s development, such as their risk-taking behaviors, the influence of popular media, electronic communication between kids, the need for perfect parenting, stranger-danger and other issues. If you are a parent and consider stress-reduction a worthwhile expense, this book will be worth every penny!

And if you need to convince your school to stop putting so much effort into counterproductive anti-bullying policies, you'll be hard-pressed to find a better resource than this.

By the way, when Googling Reclaiming Childhood, I was thrilled to discover an earlier book (2003) by the same title written by none other than my college psychology professor, Dr. William Crain of the City College of New York. (He's still teaching there after close to four decades!) The subtitle, though, is different. His book is called Reclaiming Childhood: Letting Children Be in Our Achievement Oriented Society. (It also happens to be referenced in Dr. Guldberg’s book.) Dr. Crain’s book is geared to reducing parents’ pressure for turning their children into high-achieving adults, showing how these efforts are often counterproductive. He argues that we should let our children enjoy their childhoods, and rely on them to develop according to their biological programming. Mother Nature knew what she was doing. We need to put more trust in her wisdom.

And, as social scientists, we need to get away from our law enforcement approach to children's behavior and return to a scientific/psychological one that understands our place in the web of life and our biological programming for dealing with it. We do our children no great service by trying to protect them from each other and punishing those who make them upset.

***********

For those readers who aren't familiar with my work other than through this Psychology Today blog, I would like to inform you that I do more than just criticize the anti-bully movement. I provide better solutions--psychological solutions--and much of what I offer is free on Bullies to Buddies. There are free manuals for kids and for adults that can be used for solving the bullying problem both in school and at home.

More recently, I put a few video clips from my whole-school bullying reduction program, Victim-Proof Your School, on the website. These are a few of the most useful scenes from the program, and you can use them to teach students and teachers how to handle some serious but common problems. I hope you will find them not only useful but also humorous. If you like them, please pass on the links to anyone else you believe will find them of value.

The scenes are:
The Idiot Game http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/139
Social Exclusion http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/138
How should teachers handle being bullied http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/137

Hope you take the time to watch them!

For anyone interested in my upcoming seminar schedule for Bully-Proofing Made Easy, you can access it here. You will notice that I will also be giving several presentations of Anger Control Made Easy in June and July.

Best Wishes,
Israel (Izzy) Kalman

Bullying has become the number one worry of parents, as recent polls are showing:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:le5oEzQMX8kJ:bullyingcourse.com/file...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10570736

Countries throughout the modern world are complaining that bullying is becoming an escalating problem. Meanwhile, these very same countries have been waging an escalating battle against bullying. Amazingly, few professionals in the world see any connection between the intensification of the problem and the intensified efforts to combat the problem. You can do a Google search of critics of the anti-bully movement and, other than my own writings, you will come up with almost nothing.

Bullying is the least controversial social issue on the planet. Every other issue has people on both sides. Yet despite the fact that the anti-bully movement is obviously failing, everyone in the world, with almost no exception, is calling for intensified anti-bullying efforts. Hardly anyone can imagine that there could be anything wrong with anti-bully campaigns.

I recently found an exception: Helene Guldberg, a Norwegian-born developmental psychologist residing and working in England. She has written a book called, Reclaiming Childhood: Freedom and Play in an Age of Fear. It is dedicated to reducing the hysteria that society, including mental health professionals and organizations, has been promoting regarding our children. Despite the fact that children in the modern world are safer than ever in history, parents worry more than ever about the welfare of their kids. We are overprotecting them from life, raising a generation of what the book calls “cotton wool" children (and I have been calling “emotional marshmallows”). Despite all our worries, the sky hasn’t come crashing down on our heads yet. Our children aren't developing all that badly.

Truth is, this is not the first or only book of this nature. But I believe it has the distinction of being the only such book that seriously criticizes the anti-bully movement. Dr. Guldberg has a long chapter called “The Bullying Bandwagon.” She says many of the things I have been saying over the years, and says it more professionally. And, in contrast to other psychologists who write about bullying, she thinks like a psychologist rather than a law-enforcement officer.

The following are some excerpts from the chapter, “The Bullying Bandwagon.”

“Today children are pushed to look upon their everyday encounters with their friends or enemies through the prism of potential violence and abuse, and encouraged to seek help from teachers or other adults. This leads to a situation where children can become unwilling to, and incapable of, resolving their own problems with their peers: a process that damages children’s development, and their relationships with each other, far more than the odd stone thrown or insult shouted.”

“Once…a teacher gets involved [in a problem between kids], it becomes an issue of much greater significance, driving a more permanent wedge between the putative victim and that week’s bullies, and making it far harder for the spontaneous dynamics of playground life to resolve themselves.”

“So if the message to children who are being bullied is ‘When bad things happen to you, your life could be destroyed for ever’ could this response not be more damaging to children in the long run than the bullying itself? If we treat children as if they could not possibly cope with hurtful experiences, we are more likely to undermine their confidence and make them less likely to cope with difficult events in the future.”

“In an extreme example of how the desire to protect children from bullying can prevent them from forming relationships altogether, [one school in England] proposed that it should not build a playground. Staff insisted that this would help protect pupils falling victim to playground bullies...A similar trend can be identified in the US, where many schools have already been built without playgrounds.”

“Unless children are given the opportunity to engage with each other without adults hovering over them they won’t really learn the consequences of being clumsy, nasty or thoughtless, or how to cope with good-natured teasing or spiteful and hurtful behaviour.”

In Reclaiming Childhood, Guldberg deals with a lot more than bullying. Using common sense backed by research, she challenges our fears about many aspects of children’s development, such as their risk-taking behaviors, the influence of popular media, electronic communication between kids, the need for perfect parenting, stranger-danger and other issues. If you are a parent and consider stress-reduction a worthwhile expense, this book will be worth every penny!

And if you need to convince your school to stop putting so much effort into counterproductive anti-bullying policies, you'll be hard-pressed to find a better resource than this.

By the way, when Googling Reclaiming Childhood, I was thrilled to discover an earlier book (2003) by the same title written by none other than my college psychology professor, Dr. William Crain of the City College of New York. (He's still teaching there after close to four decades!) The subtitle, though, is different. His book is called Reclaiming Childhood: Letting Children Be in Our Achievement Oriented Society. (It also happens to be referenced in Dr. Guldberg’s book.) Dr. Crain’s book is geared to reducing parents’ pressure for turning their children into high-achieving adults, showing how these efforts are often counterproductive. He argues that we should let our children enjoy their childhoods, and rely on them to develop according to their biological programming. Mother Nature knew what she was doing. We need to put more trust in her wisdom.

And, as social scientists, we need to get away from our law enforcement approach to children's behavior and return to a scientific/psychological one that understands our place in the web of life and our biological programming for dealing with it. We do our children no great service by trying to protect them from each other and punishing those who make them upset.

***********

For those readers who aren't familiar with my work other than through this Psychology Today blog, I would like to inform you that I do more than just criticize the anti-bully movement. I provide better solutions--psychological solutions--and much of what I offer is free on Bullies to Buddies. There are free manuals for kids and for adults that can be used for solving the bullying problem both in school and at home.

More recently, I put a few video clips from my whole-school bullying reduction program, Victim-Proof Your School, on the website. These are a few of the most useful scenes from the program, and you can use them to teach students and teachers how to handle some serious but common problems. I hope you will find them not only useful but also humorous. If you like them, please pass on the links to anyone else you believe will find them of value.

The scenes are:
The Idiot Game http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/139
Social Exclusion http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/138
How should teachers handle being bullied http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/137

Hope you take the time to watch them!

For anyone interested in my upcoming seminar schedule for Bully-Proofing Made Easy, you can access it here. You will notice that I will also be giving several presentations of Anger Control Made Easy in June and July.

Best Wishes,
Israel (Izzy) Kalman

I’m sending this blog entry a couple of weeks after the 10th anniversary of the Columbine shooting. That date–April 20–is important to me because the Columbine shooting was the event that made me realize my mission to teach the world a better way to understand and deal with the problem of bullying. I never expected this mission to be such a difficult one, and so far I have been far from successful. Even though schools are actually the safest place for kids to be, far safer than their own homes, the anti-bully witch-hunt has been so phenomenally successful that bullying in school has become the biggest fear of parents. In the weeks since the Columbine Anniversary, the media has bombarded us with horrible stories about victims of bullying taking their own lives, causing the public to continue growing in fear and loathing of bullies.

Though I was hoping to have something earth shattering to write for the 10th Columbine Anniversary, I ran into writer’s block. How can I write something meaningful that I haven’t already written ad nauseum? I have been warning for ten years about the mistake of targeting bullies, and documenting the harm the anti-bully movement is causing to our children, schools and society. Still, the anti-bully bulldozer forges ahead full speed. 40 of our 50 states now have school anti-bully laws, and no one wants to consider the possibility that increased anti-bullying efforts may be responsible for the increased bullying in schools. I feel like I am beating a dead horse.

As most of you are aware, Columbine launched the modern world’s war against bullies. Our experts concluded that since the great majority of school shootings are perpetrated by victims of bullying, we need to get rid of bullies. If we can only make bullies disappear, no kids will be victims, and no one will have any motivation to shoot up their schools. So with ten years of massive anti-bully education, why is bullying becoming a more intensive problem? Why isn’t it going down?
 
In case you have been oblivious to recent news, the month-and-a-half period preceding the 10th Columbine anniversary had more high profile mass shootings than any six-week period in history. The most horrific took place in the city of Binghamton, New York, where my own son happens to go to college. Without exception, every one of these shootings was committed by someone feeling like a victim…of their ex-spouse, of their boss, of other students, of the economy. Why are so many people going on angry shooting rampages?

Of course the following cannot be the only explanation for these shootings, because each shooter has his own history, constitution and motives, but the massive anti-bully education we have been getting since Columbine can only have served to contribute to people’s anger towards, and desire for revenge against, their perceived bullies. After years of hearing endlessly that bullies are incredibly dangerous, that bullies shouldn’t be tolerated, that bullies should be punished and expelled, and that society must protect us from bullies, is it any wonder that some of us eventually crack when society fails to protect us from bullies, and pick up guns to solve our problems once and for all?

(Before I continue, I must ask you to please refrain from making the ridiculous complaint that I am “pro-bully” and “anti-victim.” No one cares about victims more than I do. But “bully” and “victim” are not objective diagnoses. They are subjective experiences. We are all bullies and victims. It just depends whose point of view we are looking from. Whenever we are angry at people, we feel we are their victims, but they are likely to feel we are their bullies.)

Amazingly, no matter how many events are screaming in our faces, “PEOPLE WHO COMMIT HORRIFIC ACTS FEEL LIKE VICTIMS,” we refuse to get the message and intensify our campaign against bullies. Even though Columbine woke up the modern world to the plight of victims of bullying, since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebald so dramatically portrayed themselves as victims, there has been a strong–and blazingly successful–attempt to re-characterize the Columbine killers as bullies rather than victims. There is a good chance you happened across the following news story, which the media bombarded us with in honor of the tenth Columbine anniversary, informing the world that the Columbine killers were not victims at all, but bullies. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N....

The anti-bully establishment couldn’t have been happier with this story. The idea that Harris and Klebald are victims has been a thorn in the side of the anti-bully movement. Victims are supposed to be saintly innocents who need protection, and bullies are supposed to be cold, cowardly psychopaths who pick on the weak. But how can victims be angelic when they can commit horrific school shootings? What a relief, then, to discover that these monsters were after all, bullies, and not victims. With this new characterization of the Columbine killers as bullies, we can continue on our anti-bully witch hunt unencumbered by doubt.

The article talks about a new book, Columbine, by Dave Cullen. The book paints the Columbine killers as full of rage; paranoid; cold-blooded, predatory psychopaths; and super-terrorists. This sure makes them sound like bullies.

But paranoia is not a bully feeling. Paranoia, the feeling that everyone is against us, is the ultimate victim feeling. Being a psychopath and feeling like a victim are not mutually exclusive. If a psychopath feels victimized by you, you had better watch out!

Rage is not a bully feeling; we go into a rage when we feel victimized.

Terrorists feel like victims; they want revenge against the great powers that have victimized their people.

No one commits mass shootings and then turns their guns on themselves because they want to bully people. They do it but because they feel like victims. (Again, I am not “anti-victim.” The bullies and victims are us, and we are most dangerous when we feel like victims.)

The article says about this new book:

It's a portrait of Harris and Klebold as a sort of In Cold Blood criminal duo — a deeply disturbed, suicidal pair who over more than a year psyched each other up for an Oklahoma City-style terrorist bombing, an apolitical, over-the-top revenge fantasy against years of snubs, slights and cruelties, real and imagined.

“Revenge fantasy against years of snubs, slights and cruelties, real and imagined.” Is this the thinking of people who feel like a bullies or victims?

By the way, have you read the terrific book, In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote? It contains the psychiatrist's lengthy description of Perry Edward Smith, the member of the pair of robbers who committed the horrific killings. It is a perfect depiction of a person with a victim mentality.

The article goes on to say about Eric Harris:

One of Harris' last journal entries read: "I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no don't … say, 'Well that's your fault,' because it isn't, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no. No no no don't let the weird-looking Eric KID come along."

Are these the words of someone who feels like a bully or a victim?

It says about Dylan Klebald:

Klebold, on the other hand, was anxious and lovelorn, summing up his life at one point in his journal as "the most miserable existence in the history of time."

And:

Klebold also was paranoid. "I have always been hated, by everyone and everything," he wrote.

Are these descriptions of someone who feels like a bully or a victim?

The article says:

The U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Education Department soon began studying school shooters. In 2002, researchers presented their first findings: School shooters, they said, followed no set profile, but most were depressed and felt persecuted.

“Felt persecuted.” Bully feeling or victim feeling?

How many shootings will it take before we learn that we are most dangerous not when we feel like bullies but when we feel like victims? Will we never learn?

I’m sending this blog entry a couple of weeks after the 10th anniversary of the Columbine shooting. That date–April 20–is important to me because the Columbine shooting was the event that made me realize my mission to teach the world a better way to understand and deal with the problem of bullying. I never expected this mission to be such a difficult one, and so far I have been far from successful. Even though schools are actually the safest place for kids to be, far safer than their own homes, the anti-bully witch-hunt has been so phenomenally successful that bullying in school has become the biggest fear of parents. In the weeks since the Columbine Anniversary, the media has bombarded us with horrible stories about victims of bullying taking their own lives, causing the public to continue growing in fear and loathing of bullies.

Though I was hoping to have something earth shattering to write for the 10th Columbine Anniversary, I ran into writer’s block. How can I write something meaningful that I haven’t already written ad nauseum? I have been warning for ten years about the mistake of targeting bullies, and documenting the harm the anti-bully movement is causing to our children, schools and society. Still, the anti-bully bulldozer forges ahead full speed. 40 of our 50 states now have school anti-bully laws, and no one wants to consider the possibility that increased anti-bullying efforts may be responsible for the increased bullying in schools. I feel like I am beating a dead horse.

As most of you are aware, Columbine launched the modern world’s war against bullies. Our experts concluded that since the great majority of school shootings are perpetrated by victims of bullying, we need to get rid of bullies. If we can only make bullies disappear, no kids will be victims, and no one will have any motivation to shoot up their schools. So with ten years of massive anti-bully education, why is bullying becoming a more intensive problem? Why isn’t it going down?
 
In case you have been oblivious to recent news, the month-and-a-half period preceding the 10th Columbine anniversary had more high profile mass shootings than any six-week period in history. The most horrific took place in the city of Binghamton, New York, where my own son happens to go to college. Without exception, every one of these shootings was committed by someone feeling like a victim…of their ex-spouse, of their boss, of other students, of the economy. Why are so many people going on angry shooting rampages?

Of course the following cannot be the only explanation for these shootings, because each shooter has his own history, constitution and motives, but the massive anti-bully education we have been getting since Columbine can only have served to contribute to people’s anger towards, and desire for revenge against, their perceived bullies. After years of hearing endlessly that bullies are incredibly dangerous, that bullies shouldn’t be tolerated, that bullies should be punished and expelled, and that society must protect us from bullies, is it any wonder that some of us eventually crack when society fails to protect us from bullies, and pick up guns to solve our problems once and for all?

(Before I continue, I must ask you to please refrain from making the ridiculous complaint that I am “pro-bully” and “anti-victim.” No one cares about victims more than I do. But “bully” and “victim” are not objective diagnoses. They are subjective experiences. We are all bullies and victims. It just depends whose point of view we are looking from. Whenever we are angry at people, we feel we are their victims, but they are likely to feel we are their bullies.)

Amazingly, no matter how many events are screaming in our faces, “PEOPLE WHO COMMIT HORRIFIC ACTS FEEL LIKE VICTIMS,” we refuse to get the message and intensify our campaign against bullies. Even though Columbine woke up the modern world to the plight of victims of bullying, since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebald so dramatically portrayed themselves as victims, there has been a strong–and blazingly successful–attempt to re-characterize the Columbine killers as bullies rather than victims. There is a good chance you happened across the following news story, which the media bombarded us with in honor of the tenth Columbine anniversary, informing the world that the Columbine killers were not victims at all, but bullies. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm?se=...

The anti-bully establishment couldn’t have been happier with this story. The idea that Harris and Klebald are victims has been a thorn in the side of the anti-bully movement. Victims are supposed to be saintly innocents who need protection, and bullies are supposed to be cold, cowardly psychopaths who pick on the weak. But how can victims be angelic when they can commit horrific school shootings? What a relief, then, to discover that these monsters were after all, bullies, and not victims. With this new characterization of the Columbine killers as bullies, we can continue on our anti-bully witch hunt unencumbered by doubt.

The article talks about a new book, Columbine, by Dave Cullen. The book paints the Columbine killers as full of rage; paranoid; cold-blooded, predatory psychopaths; and super-terrorists. This sure makes them sound like bullies.

But paranoia is not a bully feeling. Paranoia, the feeling that everyone is against us, is the ultimate victim feeling. Being a psychopath and feeling like a victim are not mutually exclusive. If a psychopath feels victimized by you, you had better watch out!

Rage is not a bully feeling; we go into a rage when we feel victimized.

Terrorists feel like victims; they want revenge against the great powers that have victimized their people.

No one commits mass shootings and then turns their guns on themselves because they want to bully people. They do it but because they feel like victims. (Again, I am not “anti-victim.” The bullies and victims are us, and we are most dangerous when we feel like victims.)

The article says about this new book:

It's a portrait of Harris and Klebold as a sort of In Cold Blood criminal duo — a deeply disturbed, suicidal pair who over more than a year psyched each other up for an Oklahoma City-style terrorist bombing, an apolitical, over-the-top revenge fantasy against years of snubs, slights and cruelties, real and imagined.

“Revenge fantasy against years of snubs, slights and cruelties, real and imagined.” Is this the thinking of people who feel like a bullies or victims?

By the way, have you read the terrific book, In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote? It contains the psychiatrist's lengthy description of Perry Edward Smith, the member of the pair of robbers who committed the horrific killings. It is a perfect depiction of a person with a victim mentality.

The article goes on to say about Eric Harris:

One of Harris' last journal entries read: "I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no don't … say, 'Well that's your fault,' because it isn't, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no. No no no don't let the weird-looking Eric KID come along."

Are these the words of someone who feels like a bully or a victim?

It says about Dylan Klebald:

Klebold, on the other hand, was anxious and lovelorn, summing up his life at one point in his journal as "the most miserable existence in the history of time."

And:

Klebold also was paranoid. "I have always been hated, by everyone and everything," he wrote.

Are these descriptions of someone who feels like a bully or a victim?

The article says:

The U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Education Department soon began studying school shooters. In 2002, researchers presented their first findings: School shooters, they said, followed no set profile, but most were depressed and felt persecuted.

“Felt persecuted.” Bully feeling or victim feeling?

How many shootings will it take before we learn that we are most dangerous not when we feel like bullies but when we feel like victims? Will we never learn?

The entire modern world is complaining that bullying is becoming an escalating problem in schools. Meanwhile, the effort to combat bullying in schools has also been escalating. No one seems to be putting two and two together. Isn’t it possible that bullying is escalating because the effort to fight it is escalating? The most intensive program of all is the classic Olweus program which is often referred to as the “gold standard.” What you are not likely to read anywhere, though I’ve heard similar things from many school personnel over the years, are things like the following:

I am an elementary teacher who is in charge of our new Olweus anti-bullying program. From some minor Internet searching, I couldn't find anything to dispute anti-bullying program successes.  Finally, I found your site.  The things you wrote about how such programs can make things worse were astonishing to me.  Those things are exactly what are going on in my school now.  The problem is worse.  I feel like such a fool for championing this program.  Thank you for being out there.

The reason the Olweus-inspired programs are so unreliable should be obvious to anyone who has studied human dynamics. For some reason that is unfathomable to me, I am the only one in the world who has written anything explaining what is wrong with the psychology underlying this program.

The intervention that has become the absolute darling of the anti-bully movement is enlisting bystanders to stand up for victims against bullies. It is widely touted as the most effective solution. But is this intervention really as wonderful as its proponents insist?

I’ve often said that this intervention is certainly better than punishing bullies, but it is far from an unmitigated good. It has both pluses and minuses. However, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone writing about the minuses, as though it can’t possibly have any.

Standing up against bullies hardly did 17 year-old Sharif Abdullah any good. The New York Daily News recently carried the tragic story of this teenager who was killed in Brooklyn after he stood up for the honor of a girl who was being taunted by other kids. And while we should certainly admire him for his bravery, the girl whom he stood up for, as the Daily News article relates, wasn’t in any apparent danger. She wasn't even upset. She said, "They were just being jerks .... I didn't even care." But Sharif did what the bullying experts recommend that we all do, and he paid with his life. His young life was wasted for no good reason.

How about the research? What does it show about the effectiveness of bystanders defending victims from bullies? A recent study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, conducted by University College London in conjunction with US researchers, showed the results of a program called CAPSLE (Creating a Peaceful School Learning Environment), which is centered on bystanders protecting victims from bullies. (Click here to get the University's official report on the study results.) A second group in the study used a different anti-bullying approach. A third group used none (though this is probably not accurate, because all schools do something about bullying, whether they use an organized formal program or just haphazardly handle bullying incidents and complaints.) Guess what happened? Bullying increased during the three-year trial period!

What’s truly remarkable, though, is that the program was declared a resounding success! Reminds me of the saying, “The operation was a success, but the patient died.”

How could anyone declare an anti-bullying program a success if bullying increased during the trial period?

Because bullying in the two comparison groups went up even more! The researchers concluded that social conditions in the geographic area in which the study was conducted created an increase in bullying in general, but since the bullying in the intervention group increased less than in the other two groups used for comparison, it was a wonderful success.

What exactly happened in this geographic area in the course of three short years? Had it been a stable middle class neighborhood in which everyone suddenly got fired and moved out, and violent gangs quickly moved in to take their place?

Perhaps. But maybe a better explanation is that what the other two groups did about bullying was even worse than what the intervention group did. After all, bullying isn’t escalating only in the area the study was done. Bullying seems to be escalating in all geographic regions that are battling bullying. But researchers don’t consider the possibility that the anti-bully efforts are the cause of the escalation in bullying. They are so certain that their anti-bully interventions must be beneficial that they will praise them as successes despite their own evidence to the contrary.

For those of you who are interested in a realistic assessment of the supportive-bystander approach rather than a gushy, blind love affair with it, I will provide it here.

First, what are the pluses of teaching bystanders to stand up for victims?

1. It will succeed in stopping some incidents of bullying.
2. Victims will feel emotional relief that others are standing up for them.
3. Those standing up for victims will feel proud of themselves.
4. Kids will learn that it is good to help people who are suffering.

What are the minuses of this approach? This list is longer than the list of pluses.  Admittedly, it might reflect my own bias, but as far as I know, this is the only place in the world where you will read these explanations. So I hope you will thank me for it despite my possible bias. This list should help you understand why the wonderful intervention in the research study failed to have a wonderful outcome.

1. It puts bystanders in the role of judge. As any judge will tell you, it is not always obvious who is the innocent party and who is the guilty one. Many people use their weakness to manipulate others. How are students supposed to acquire the wisdom to judge who is the good one and who is the bad one in every situation?
2. Judging is serious business. A judge, at best, can make one side happy. Both sides still hate each other, and one side hates the judge, too. Judges do not win popularity contests. There have been judges who were killed by people whom they judged against.
3. It reinforces kids for playing the victim role. They will learn that by showing distress, others step in to help them. So they will become further entrenched in their victim role.
4. Having learned that it pays to get upset because others step in to help them, kids are likely to continue getting upset when they are bullied. But getting upset is precisely what fuels the bullying. Furthermore, they will be more brazen in taking on their bullies, knowing that others will step in to take on their bullies for them, so even more bullying incidents will follow.
5. Kids will learn that it is not their responsibility to handle social difficulties on their own, but should expect others around them to solve their problems for them. What will they do when there are no bystanders around to help them? Who will be there to take their side when they grow up and are tormented by their spouses, children, in-laws, colleagues and bosses?
6. We want children to develop self-confidence and self-esteem. How can they possibly develop these traits when they are told they can’t handle bullies on their own, but need to depend upon others to help them?
7. When kids stand up against bullies, the hostilities can escalate. Is there any guarantee that the bullies will quietly give in and leave the victims alone? Just as victims are enlisting help of allies, the bullies may enlist their own allies. This is what happened to Sharif in the news story cited above.
8. Instructing kids to stand up against bullies encourages them to think of others in this demeaning manner. Rather than seeing people as basically similar but less-than-saints, they will think of anyone acting mean as a bully, which is being taught to them by the anti-bully experts is a cowardly, evil person who gets pleasure in causing pain to those weaker than themselves. Such an attitude towards people can only hurt their future interpersonal relationships.
9. Kids who are taught in school that the morally correct thing is to stand up for victims against bullies are likely to continue doing so throughout their lives. But professionals who understand interpersonal dynamics know that protecting people usually causes more harm than good. It is often referred to as “enabling.” When the kids grow up and become parents, they will protect their younger children from the older ones, which will cause endless sibling rivalry, destroying the home atmosphere and making themselves and their children miserable. When they feel their spouse is bullying their child, they will take their child’s side against the spouse. But this is precisely what leads many kids to become defiant. They discover that when they get one parent mad at them, the other parent defends them. Then the two parents fight each other, so it’s “divide and conquer” for the child. And this dynamic sometimes leads the couple to divorce.
10. This intervention does what anti-bully education in general does: encourages the irrational belief that we are entitled to a life in which no one is ever mean to us. This belief is likely to make us feel angry and vengeful whenever we are faced with the inevitable reality that people are often mean to us.

So, before you blindly support an intervention, consider the potential minuses as well as the pluses.

Note: To avoid misunderstandings, please be aware that my own favored approach is not "to do nothing"; it is to empower kids with the wisdom of how to handle bullying without anyone's help. But "doing nothing" is certainly better than doing something that makes the problem worse. I would wager that if the world were to get rid of all anti-bullying policies, laws and programs (including mine!) and delete the insulting word "bullies" from our school vocabulary, we would get a decent reduction in bullying. It would go down to the level of bullying that existed before we embarked upon our world-wide anti-bully crusade.

The entire modern world is complaining that bullying is becoming an escalating problem in schools. Meanwhile, the effort to combat bullying in schools has also been escalating. No one seems to be putting two and two together. Isn’t it possible that bullying is escalating because the effort to fight it is escalating? The most intensive program of all is the classic Olweus program which is often referred to as the “gold standard.” What you are not likely to read anywhere, though I’ve heard similar things from many school personnel over the years, are things like the following:

I am an elementary teacher who is in charge of our new Olweus anti-bullying program. From some minor Internet searching, I couldn't find anything to dispute anti-bullying program successes.  Finally, I found your site.  The things you wrote about how such programs can make things worse were astonishing to me.  Those things are exactly what are going on in my school now.  The problem is worse.  I feel like such a fool for championing this program.  Thank you for being out there.

The reason the Olweus-inspired programs are so unreliable should be obvious to anyone who has studied human dynamics. For some reason that is unfathomable to me, I am the only one in the world who has written anything explaining what is wrong with the psychology underlying this program.

The intervention that has become the absolute darling of the anti-bully movement is enlisting bystanders to stand up for victims against bullies. It is widely touted as the most effective solution. But is this intervention really as wonderful as its proponents insist?

I’ve often said that this intervention is certainly better than punishing bullies, but it is far from an unmitigated good. It has both pluses and minuses. However, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone writing about the minuses, as though it can’t possibly have any.

Standing up against bullies hardly did 17 year-old Sharif Abdullah any good. The New York Daily News recently carried the tragic story of this teenager who was killed in Brooklyn after he stood up for the honor of a girl who was being taunted by other kids. And while we should certainly admire him for his bravery, the girl whom he stood up for, as the Daily News article relates, wasn’t in any apparent danger. She wasn't even upset. She said, "They were just being jerks .... I didn't even care." But Sharif did what the bullying experts recommend that we all do, and he paid with his life. His young life was wasted for no good reason.

How about the research? What does it show about the effectiveness of bystanders defending victims from bullies? A recent study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, conducted by University College London in conjunction with US researchers, showed the results of a program called CAPSLE (Creating a Peaceful School Learning Environment), which is centered on bystanders protecting victims from bullies. (Click here to get the University's official report on the study results.) A second group in the study used a different anti-bullying approach. A third group used none (though this is probably not accurate, because all schools do something about bullying, whether they use an organized formal program or just haphazardly handle bullying incidents and complaints.) Guess what happened? Bullying increased during the three-year trial period!

What’s truly remarkable, though, is that the program was declared a resounding success! Reminds me of the saying, “The operation was a success, but the patient died.”

How could anyone declare an anti-bullying program a success if bullying increased during the trial period?

Because bullying in the two comparison groups went up even more! The researchers concluded that social conditions in the geographic area in which the study was conducted created an increase in bullying in general, but since the bullying in the intervention group increased less than in the other two groups used for comparison, it was a wonderful success.

What exactly happened in this geographic area in the course of three short years? Had it been a stable middle class neighborhood in which everyone suddenly got fired and moved out, and violent gangs quickly moved in to take their place?

Perhaps. But maybe a better explanation is that what the other two groups did about bullying was even worse than what the intervention group did. After all, bullying isn’t escalating only in the area the study was done. Bullying seems to be escalating in all geographic regions that are battling bullying. But researchers don’t consider the possibility that the anti-bully efforts are the cause of the escalation in bullying. They are so certain that their anti-bully interventions must be beneficial that they will praise them as successes despite their own evidence to the contrary.

For those of you who are interested in a realistic assessment of the supportive-bystander approach rather than a gushy, blind love affair with it, I will provide it here.

First, what are the pluses of teaching bystanders to stand up for victims?

1. It will succeed in stopping some incidents of bullying.
2. Victims will feel emotional relief that others are standing up for them.
3. Those standing up for victims will feel proud of themselves.
4. Kids will learn that it is good to help people who are suffering.

What are the minuses of this approach? This list is longer than the list of pluses.  Admittedly, it might reflect my own bias, but as far as I know, this is the only place in the world where you will read these explanations. So I hope you will thank me for it despite my possible bias. This list should help you understand why the wonderful intervention in the research study failed to have a wonderful outcome.

1. It puts bystanders in the role of judge. As any judge will tell you, it is not always obvious who is the innocent party and who is the guilty one. Many people use their weakness to manipulate others. How are students supposed to acquire the wisdom to judge who is the good one and who is the bad one in every situation?
2. Judging is serious business. A judge, at best, can make one side happy. Both sides still hate each other, and one side hates the judge, too. Judges do not win popularity contests. There have been judges who were killed by people whom they judged against.
3. It reinforces kids for playing the victim role. They will learn that by showing distress, others step in to help them. So they will become further entrenched in their victim role.
4. Having learned that it pays to get upset because others step in to help them, kids are likely to continue getting upset when they are bullied. But getting upset is precisely what fuels the bullying. Furthermore, they will be more brazen in taking on their bullies, knowing that others will step in to take on their bullies for them, so even more bullying incidents will follow.
5. Kids will learn that it is not their responsibility to handle social difficulties on their own, but should expect others around them to solve their problems for them. What will they do when there are no bystanders around to help them? Who will be there to take their side when they grow up and are tormented by their spouses, children, in-laws, colleagues and bosses?
6. We want children to develop self-confidence and self-esteem. How can they possibly develop these traits when they are told they can’t handle bullies on their own, but need to depend upon others to help them?
7. When kids stand up against bullies, the hostilities can escalate. Is there any guarantee that the bullies will quietly give in and leave the victims alone? Just as victims are enlisting help of allies, the bullies may enlist their own allies. This is what happened to Sharif in the news story cited above.
8. Instructing kids to stand up against bullies encourages them to think of others in this demeaning manner. Rather than seeing people as basically similar but less-than-saints, they will think of anyone acting mean as a bully, which is being taught to them by the anti-bully experts is a cowardly, evil person who gets pleasure in causing pain to those weaker than themselves. Such an attitude towards people can only hurt their future interpersonal relationships.
9. Kids who are taught in school that the morally correct thing is to stand up for victims against bullies are likely to continue doing so throughout their lives. But professionals who understand interpersonal dynamics know that protecting people usually causes more harm than good. It is often referred to as “enabling.” When the kids grow up and become parents, they will protect their younger children from the older ones, which will cause endless sibling rivalry, destroying the home atmosphere and making themselves and their children miserable. When they feel their spouse is bullying their child, they will take their child’s side against the spouse. But this is precisely what leads many kids to become defiant. They discover that when they get one parent mad at them, the other parent defends them. Then the two parents fight each other, so it’s “divide and conquer” for the child. And this dynamic sometimes leads the couple to divorce.
10. This intervention does what anti-bully education in general does: encourages the irrational belief that we are entitled to a life in which no one is ever mean to us. This belief is likely to make us feel angry and vengeful whenever we are faced with the inevitable reality that people are often mean to us.

So, before you blindly support an intervention, consider the potential minuses as well as the pluses.

Note: To avoid misunderstandings, please be aware that my own favored approach is not "to do nothing"; it is to empower kids with the wisdom of how to handle bullying without anyone's help. But "doing nothing" is certainly better than doing something that makes the problem worse. I would wager that if the world were to get rid of all anti-bullying policies, laws and programs (including mine!) and delete the insulting word "bullies" from our school vocabulary, we would get a decent reduction in bullying. It would go down to the level of bullying that existed before we embarked upon our world-wide anti-bully crusade.

One of the saddest things in the world is when children take their own lives. While there are many reasons that people do such things, it is usually because they feel like victims and they can no longer take the pain.

Some people think that I don’t care about victims because I am against anti-bully laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are few people in the world who truly care about victims more than I do. That is why I stayed up until the middle of the night for months after the Columbine shooting, learning to use computer programs and creating my website that teaches kids how not to be victims. It's why i have devoted my professional life to this cause.

A great tragedy happened last summer. An article on Cincinnatti.com from March 22 [http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090322/NEWS01/903220312/-1/TODAY] tells of Jessica Logan, a lovely 18 year old girl, who took her own life. She took a nude picture of herself and sent it to her boyfriend, who then sent it on to others, and it reached hundreds of eyes. She was then endlessly tormented by kids for being a “slut, porn queen, whore.”

Her parents, rightly so, want to educate teens about the dangers of “sexting,” of sending pictures of a sexual nature over cell phones and other electronic media. They are also actively campaigning to have laws passed against this practice. This law, by the way, will hold schools responsible for the sexting that kids do, as though the schools are making kids do it!

One part of what they are doing has my full support: the educational part. People need to understand the potential consequences of their actions so that they won’t do harmful things. What is done in fun or with good intentions can have the most horrific outcomes.

The part that is mistaken is lobbying to have laws passed against sexting. It is so tempting to believe that laws are the solutions to all social problems. It would be wonderful if this were so. We wouldn’t need psychology or education. Just pass enough laws and before we know it, we will be living in Utopia. However, philosophers have known for thousands of years that this is impossible. Have laws against street drugs solved the problem of drug usage? Have the No Child Left Behind laws solved the country's education problems? The more laws we pass, the more we turn our country into a police state.

What a new law does is create another class of criminal. And it also creates employment for lawyers and law enforcement officers. This, of course, is great for lawyers. The USA has the highest ratio of lawyers to population of any major country, and lawyers need to earn a living. It can also be good for law enforcement officers if the laws are accompanied by increases in crime-fighting budgets. As it stands, law enforcement agencies rarely have enough money to do a good job at what they are currently supposed to do. If they did, they wouldn’t have to instruct policemen to give so many traffic tickets to raise money.

The solution to most social problems is not law but education. Couples cannot be made to get along by making it illegal for them to get angry at each other. But they can go to marriage counselors to learn how to handle marital issues without getting angry. Parents can’t be forced to be better parents by making it illegal to have child-rearing problems, but they can go to parenting classes to learn how to be better parents. Kids can’t be made to get along with each other by making it illegal for them to be mean, but they can be taught how to handle social problems.

If anyone thinks that making sexting a crime will make life better, just click on the links on the right hand side of the Cincinnatti.com article [http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090322/NEWS01/903220312/-1/TODAY] and you will see how many headaches are arising from law enforcement getting involved in sexting incidents. These are the articles currently listed:
Teens sue over 'sexting' charges (3/26/2009)
Cops: Sex images found on boy's phone (3/19/2009)
Girl admits sending nude photo of self (3/14/2009)
'Sexting' leads to charges (3/5/2009)
Charges filed in 'sexting' case (3/4/2009)
Cell phone violation reveals 'sexting' (3/4/2009)
Mason investigates 'sexting' incident (3/3/2009)

It is too late now, but Jessica Logan could have been taught how foolish it is to send nude pictures of herself, even to her boyfriend. Had she never sent the picture, she would still be alive. Even after she had done this foolish act and begun being tormented by her peers, she could have been taught how to handle it in a more effective manner. And she would still be alive today. But the education was missing.

If you have ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, you know how miserable your life becomes until the suit is over, and even afterwards, especially if you are the loser. Had Jessica had the legal authorities involved investigating, interrogating and prosecuting her peers for spreading the picture she took of herself, her life would hardly have been any more pleasant, and it is doubtful whether it would have saved her life. How would she and her family have dealt with the defendants’ inevitable defense that she herself took and sent the nude picture?

Mr and Mrs. Logan, please believe me, I do sincerely grieve for you and your precious lost daughter. I, too, am a parent and am thankful that I have not had to experience what you are going through. I can’t even begin to imagine the torment. But please do the right thing. Say "yes" to education but "no" to law. Publicize your tragedy so that no one will ever have to go through what your daughter has. I pledge to help you with this. I will soon write instructions for kids on sexting and put it on my website so that  kids will not have to suffer the way Jessica did.

One of the saddest things in the world is when children take their own lives. While there are many reasons that people do such things, it is usually because they feel like victims and they can no longer take the pain.

Some people think that I don’t care about victims because I am against anti-bully laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are few people in the world who truly care about victims more than I do. That is why I stayed up until the middle of the night for months after the Columbine shooting, learning to use computer programs and creating my website that teaches kids how not to be victims. It's why i have devoted my professional life to this cause.

A great tragedy happened last summer. An article on Cincinnatti.com from March 22 [http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090322/NEWS01/903220312/-1/TODAY] tells of Jessica Logan, a lovely 18 year old girl, who took her own life. She took a nude picture of herself and sent it to her boyfriend, who then sent it on to others, and it reached hundreds of eyes. She was then endlessly tormented by kids for being a “slut, porn queen, whore.”

Her parents, rightly so, want to educate teens about the dangers of “sexting,” of sending pictures of a sexual nature over cell phones and other electronic media. They are also actively campaigning to have laws passed against this practice. This law, by the way, will hold schools responsible for the sexting that kids do, as though the schools are making kids do it!

One part of what they are doing has my full support: the educational part. People need to understand the potential consequences of their actions so that they won’t do harmful things. What is done in fun or with good intentions can have the most horrific outcomes.

The part that is mistaken is lobbying to have laws passed against sexting. It is so tempting to believe that laws are the solutions to all social problems. It would be wonderful if this were so. We wouldn’t need psychology or education. Just pass enough laws and before we know it, we will be living in Utopia. However, philosophers have known for thousands of years that this is impossible. Have laws against street drugs solved the problem of drug usage? Have the No Child Left Behind laws solved the country's education problems? The more laws we pass, the more we turn our country into a police state.

What a new law does is create another class of criminal. And it also creates employment for lawyers and law enforcement officers. This, of course, is great for lawyers. The USA has the highest ratio of lawyers to population of any major country, and lawyers need to earn a living. It can also be good for law enforcement officers if the laws are accompanied by increases in crime-fighting budgets. As it stands, law enforcement agencies rarely have enough money to do a good job at what they are currently supposed to do. If they did, they wouldn’t have to instruct policemen to give so many traffic tickets to raise money.

The solution to most social problems is not law but education. Couples cannot be made to get along by making it illegal for them to get angry at each other. But they can go to marriage counselors to learn how to handle marital issues without getting angry. Parents can’t be forced to be better parents by making it illegal to have child-rearing problems, but they can go to parenting classes to learn how to be better parents. Kids can’t be made to get along with each other by making it illegal for them to be mean, but they can be taught how to handle social problems.

If anyone thinks that making sexting a crime will make life better, just click on the links on the right hand side of the Cincinnatti.com article [http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090322/NEWS01/903220312/-1/TODAY] and you will see how many headaches are arising from law enforcement getting involved in sexting incidents. These are the articles currently listed:
Teens sue over 'sexting' charges (3/26/2009)
Cops: Sex images found on boy's phone (3/19/2009)
Girl admits sending nude photo of self (3/14/2009)
'Sexting' leads to charges (3/5/2009)
Charges filed in 'sexting' case (3/4/2009)
Cell phone violation reveals 'sexting' (3/4/2009)
Mason investigates 'sexting' incident (3/3/2009)

It is too late now, but Jessica Logan could have been taught how foolish it is to send nude pictures of herself, even to her boyfriend. Had she never sent the picture, she would still be alive. Even after she had done this foolish act and begun being tormented by her peers, she could have been taught how to handle it in a more effective manner. And she would still be alive today. But the education was missing.

If you have ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, you know how miserable your life becomes until the suit is over, and even afterwards, especially if you are the loser. Had Jessica had the legal authorities involved investigating, interrogating and prosecuting her peers for spreading the picture she took of herself, her life would hardly have been any more pleasant, and it is doubtful whether it would have saved her life. How would she and her family have dealt with the defendants’ inevitable defense that she herself took and sent the nude picture?

Mr and Mrs. Logan, please believe me, I do sincerely grieve for you and your precious lost daughter. I, too, am a parent and am thankful that I have not had to experience what you are going through. I can’t even begin to imagine the torment. But please do the right thing. Say "yes" to education but "no" to law. Publicize your tragedy so that no one will ever have to go through what your daughter has. I pledge to help you with this. I will soon write instructions for kids on sexting and put it on my website so that  kids will not have to suffer the way Jessica did.

There is something very few people understand. I’ve written about this before in my newsletters, but I’ve become acutely aware of it again thanks to many of the critical comments I’ve gotten to my Psychology Today blog entries.

So many believe that people should not have to deal with bullying, and certainly not with sexual and racial harassment. They believe there should be laws against these things so that we should not have to experience them, and if we do, the legal authorities should handle these problems for us.

Of course there are actions that must be treated as crimes. Objective harm to people’s bodies, property or liberty is considered crime by all societies. It is the job of the authorities to protect us from such harm and to apprehend, try and punish perpetrators. (Please realize, though, that the law enforcement authorities cannot guarantee that crimes will never happen, only that they will attempt to protect the population and to bring criminals to justice).

This is a blog on Psychology Today. “Psychology” is the key word. Psychology is a branch of science, not of law enforcement. So I attempt to think like a scientist, and readers of Psychology Today blogs should also be thinking like scientists–psychological scientists in particular.

When psychologists call for laws to solve social problems, they are in effect declaring the failure of psychology. It means, “We don’t know how to solve this problem through psychological means. We want the legal/law enforcement system to solve it for us.” The legal/law enforcement approach is a very simplistic one, and it is not based on science or psychology. We simply decide that these behaviors are crimes and those who do them must be punished.

But scientific research has been showing that a criminal approach to social problems doesn’t work and makes things worse. Yet, when it comes to bullying and harassment, psychologically oriented organizations continue to lobby for laws to deal with these problems. It is because they do not realize that there is a fundamental difference between law and psychology. And why should they realize it? I never learned this in any psychology course, and I have never read it in any psychology book or article. Chances are you never did, either.

When there is a law against a behavior, it means, “I don’t have to know how to deal with this by myself. Other people are supposed to handle it for me.” But isn’t it our goal as psychological scientists to have people increase their understanding of and ability to handle the difficult situations life inevitably presents us? Laws relieve us of this need and allow us to be psychologically dumber. Of course we need to be smart enough to avoid committing these crimes so that we won't get punished. But as psychologically oriented scientists we also want people to enhance their moral development. When we avoid certain behaviors for fear of punishment, we are not being moral. We are acting in self-interest.

The terms “bullying” and “harassment” are extremely general and encompass the whole gamut of attacks, from words and gestures to serious physical injury. To deal with problems meaningfully, we need to make a distinction between types of attacks.

Physical injury, rape and unwanted sexual touching are objective attacks. Preventing people from working or living where they wish because of the group they belong to is objective harm. By “objective,” I mean that it is something you are doing to me. My attitude towards what you are doing does not change the fact that it is you who is causing the harm. There should be laws against such behaviors. (Remember, also, that just because something is a crime, it doesn’t necessary mean that we need to report it and get the legal authorities involved. We still may wish to let the incident pass, or to deal with the perpetrator directly.)

But most of the behaviors that fall into the categories of bullying and harassment cause subjective harm; meaning that whether the act hurts me depends upon me, not upon you. For instance, if you call me an idiot and I get upset, I really upset myself. And even for a disgusting sexual or racial remark, it is still up to me whether the words hurt me. Your acts may be immoral and despicable, but to treat them as crimes inevitably harms both society and the individual.

For us to be psychologically healthy, we need to be able to handle such attacks on our own. The less we are able to do this, the weaker our psychological make-up. And the more laws we pass to deal with these kinds of attacks, the weaker both the individual and the society becomes. When a subjective act becomes a crime, we increase the likelihood that people will respond counterproductively. Instead of not getting upset, the person thinks, “Oh my God! They have just committed a crime against me!” So the person gets angry, which intensifies the situation. True, making subjective harm a crime creates more employment for lawyers and law-enforcement personnel, but their financial well-being should not be our concern here. This is “Psychology Today,” not “Law Today.”

But the nice thing is that the most acts of bullying and harassment are simple to deal with on our own. We just need to learn how to do it. I teach this on my website as well as in my seminars. The legal way is actually the difficult way, and if you have ever gone to lawyers to solve your problems, you know how difficult this process is.

One more point before I close: I have no objection to teaching moral behavior. Teaching is a psychological, not a legal, activity. It is fine to teach young people that verbal sexual or racial attacks are immoral and to explain why. This will make them psychologically healthier and help ensure they will have more successful relationships in life, as well as contribute to a healthier and more moral society. But when we punish people for these behaviors, that’s when the problems really begin.

To read more about the difference between law and psychology, please read my article, The Bias Shackling Psychology: http://www.bullies2buddies.com/The-Bias-Shackling-Psychology

There is something very few people understand. I’ve written about this before in my newsletters, but I’ve become acutely aware of it again thanks to many of the critical comments I’ve gotten to my Psychology Today blog entries.

So many believe that people should not have to deal with bullying, and certainly not with sexual and racial harassment. They believe there should be laws against these things so that we should not have to experience them, and if we do, the legal authorities should handle these problems for us.

Of course there are actions that must be treated as crimes. Objective harm to people’s bodies, property or liberty is considered crime by all societies. It is the job of the authorities to protect us from such harm and to apprehend, try and punish perpetrators. (Please realize, though, that the law enforcement authorities cannot guarantee that crimes will never happen, only that they will attempt to protect the population and to bring criminals to justice).

This is a blog on Psychology Today. “Psychology” is the key word. Psychology is a branch of science, not of law enforcement. So I attempt to think like a scientist, and readers of Psychology Today blogs should also be thinking like scientists–psychological scientists in particular.

When psychologists call for laws to solve social problems, they are in effect declaring the failure of psychology. It means, “We don’t know how to solve this problem through psychological means. We want the legal/law enforcement system to solve it for us.” The legal/law enforcement approach is a very simplistic one, and it is not based on science or psychology. We simply decide that these behaviors are crimes and those who do them must be punished.

But scientific research has been showing that a criminal approach to social problems doesn’t work and makes things worse. Yet, when it comes to bullying and harassment, psychologically oriented organizations continue to lobby for laws to deal with these problems. It is because they do not realize that there is a fundamental difference between law and psychology. And why should they realize it? I never learned this in any psychology course, and I have never read it in any psychology book or article. Chances are you never did, either.

When there is a law against a behavior, it means, “I don’t have to know how to deal with this by myself. Other people are supposed to handle it for me.” But isn’t it our goal as psychological scientists to have people increase their understanding of and ability to handle the difficult situations life inevitably presents us? Laws relieve us of this need and allow us to be psychologically dumber. Of course we need to be smart enough to avoid committing these crimes so that we won't get punished. But as psychologically oriented scientists we also want people to enhance their moral development. When we avoid certain behaviors for fear of punishment, we are not being moral. We are acting in self-interest.

The terms “bullying” and “harassment” are extremely general and encompass the whole gamut of attacks, from words and gestures to serious physical injury. To deal with problems meaningfully, we need to make a distinction between types of attacks.

Physical injury, rape and unwanted sexual touching are objective attacks. Preventing people from working or living where they wish because of the group they belong to is objective harm. By “objective,” I mean that it is something you are doing to me. My attitude towards what you are doing does not change the fact that it is you who is causing the harm. There should be laws against such behaviors. (Remember, also, that just because something is a crime, it doesn’t necessary mean that we need to report it and get the legal authorities involved. We still may wish to let the incident pass, or to deal with the perpetrator directly.)

But most of the behaviors that fall into the categories of bullying and harassment cause subjective harm; meaning that whether the act hurts me depends upon me, not upon you. For instance, if you call me an idiot and I get upset, I really upset myself. And even for a disgusting sexual or racial remark, it is still up to me whether the words hurt me. Your acts may be immoral and despicable, but to treat them as crimes inevitably harms both society and the individual.

For us to be psychologically healthy, we need to be able to handle such attacks on our own. The less we are able to do this, the weaker our psychological make-up. And the more laws we pass to deal with these kinds of attacks, the weaker both the individual and the society becomes. When a subjective act becomes a crime, we increase the likelihood that people will respond counterproductively. Instead of not getting upset, the person thinks, “Oh my God! They have just committed a crime against me!” So the person gets angry, which intensifies the situation. True, making subjective harm a crime creates more employment for lawyers and law-enforcement personnel, but their financial well-being should not be our concern here. This is “Psychology Today,” not “Law Today.”

But the nice thing is that the most acts of bullying and harassment are simple to deal with on our own. We just need to learn how to do it. I teach this on my website as well as in my seminars. The legal way is actually the difficult way, and if you have ever gone to lawyers to solve your problems, you know how difficult this process is.

One more point before I close: I have no objection to teaching moral behavior. Teaching is a psychological, not a legal, activity. It is fine to teach young people that verbal sexual or racial attacks are immoral and to explain why. This will make them psychologically healthier and help ensure they will have more successful relationships in life, as well as contribute to a healthier and more moral society. But when we punish people for these behaviors, that’s when the problems really begin.

To read more about the difference between law and psychology, please read my article, The Bias Shackling Psychology: http://www.bullies2buddies.com/The-Bias-Shackling-Psychology