Sawyer Rosenstein, 12 -year-old seventh grader from New Jersey, was bullied for months until the bully punched him and left him paralyzed.  He received a settlement of $4.2 million from the school district.  A claim against the bully has also settled, but details are confidential.  And, Sawyer is still paralyzed for life. Reports from the New York Daily News and the Morristown Personal Injury Blog make clear that:

  • Three months before the final incident, Sawyer reported previous incidents of being bullied to the school in writing, but no responsible adult – principal, teachers, therapists, district administrators – stopped the school bullying.
  • "Additionally, the same bully that injured the boy had previously injured another student, yet no serious action was taken."
  • New Jersey has a strong anti-bullying law.  Nevertheless, his experience “shows that schools have a great responsibility to make sure that these laws are enforced in order to prevent students from being injured by bullies on school property.”

“The Board of Education released a statement Wednesday denying any wrongdoing and saying that it was the district’s insurance carriers that decided to enter into the settlement and will pay it out.  ‘The district’s character education and harassment/intimidation/bullying initiatives and reporting practices are leading edge,’ the statement said. ‘All programs in this area far exceed all of the criteria established by the state of New Jersey.’ … The board said the settlement did not include any admission of liability or fault on the part of the district.”

What’s wrong with the school board’s basic assumptions?

Of course, the local Board of Education has washed its hands of all responsibility, claiming that they followed the correct procedures.  Thy used the same type of defense that the do-nothing principal and district superintendent used after the suicide of Iowa teen Kenneth Weishuhn.

The people on the Board of Education, the principal, teachers, therapists and district administrators seem to feel that having a process; a program, initiatives and reporting practices is enough to cover them.  If negativity, harassment, abuse, or physical, mental and emotional violence occurs, it’s not their responsibilityIf they victimize students, it’s not their responsibility.  They were just following orders and procedures.

They think they’re not responsible for results, only for process.  They think they’re not responsible for stopping school bullying, only for pushing paper.

That lack of accountability may work for adults in education but for the rest of us, with real jobs, results count.  Even the kids taking tests are held accountable for performance and results.

Obviously laws are never enough.  It’s the people who administer the laws who are responsible for protecting us.  Or these incompetents settle for ineffective responses and leave it at that.  They lack the will to stop bullies.

Little children usually can get away with charm, potential and promises.  But as we cross past approximately 5th grade, we enter the time when those qualities count less and less, and results count more and more.  That’s a hard transition for many people to make.  When we get to be adults, we’re evaluated by the results we produce.

Obviously, the 12-year-old bully was in the transition, but how about the adults who were responsible for protecting all their students?  When are they going to be held personally responsible?

Following the rules or processes is a minimum standard.  The correct standard, by which school authorities should be judged, is whether they get results. Thomas Alva Edison once said, “Hell, there are no rules here – we’re trying to accomplish something.”  Of course large organizations like school districts need rules and processes.  But those are judged by whether they produce the desired results, not by whether they’re being followed.  Following processes is never enough; results count.

What can you do if you’re a parent trying to protect your child from such irresponsible incompetents?

For some examples, see the case studies in “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids,” available fastest from this web site.

Since all tactics depend on the situation, expert coaching by phone or Skype helps.  We can design a plan that fits you and your situation.  And build your will and skill to carry it out effectively.

My last post focused on children, teenagers and adults facing moments of choice when they’re targets of or bystanders-witnesses to harassment, bullying and abuse.  People who repeatedly turn away from that call to step up usually develop terrible long-term consequences including increased stress, insecurity, discouragement and depression; increased blame, shame, guilt and negative self-talk; and loss of self-confidence and self-esteem. The valor of Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger focuses us on a different but just as critical a set of choices our kids and teens face as they grow up.

In a Wall Street Journal article, Jeffrey Zaslow, co-author, with Captain Sullenberger, of his book, "Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters," Captain Sullenberger faced a number of difficult situations when he was growing up.  He responded to these moments with powerful choices that led him to be prepared to act effectively in the moment when both engines of his Airbus A320 on US Airways flight 1549 went out and he ditched the plane safely in the Hudson River.

Sullenberger’s choices did not begin when danger was thrust on him; they began when he prepared himself for the dangers of real-life, long before he developed his flying skills.

His youthful choices led him to develop the character and skill he needed when a moment of truth was thrust upon him and lives were at stake.  Some of the choices he made long before he captained that flight:

  1. Act when someone is helpless in the face of danger.  For example, when he was 13 he watched the news about Kitty Genovese, a New York woman who was stabbed to death while her neighbors ignored her screams and didn’t even act to call the police.  Sullenberger decided then “that if I was ever in a situation where someone such as Kitty Genovese needed my help, I would choose to act.  No one in danger would be abandoned.  As they’d say in the Navy: ‘Not on my watch.’”
  2. Work hard to protect people’s lives; don’t be a bystander.  Sully says that after his “father killed himself in 1995, ‘His death had an effect on how I view the world.  I am willing to work hard to protect people’s lives, not to be a bystander, in part because I couldn’t save my father.’”
  3. Accept what’s happening and work to better the situation.  After their struggles with [his wife’s] infertility and the arduous journey of trying to become adoptive parents, Sully says, “The challenges [we] faced made me better able to accept the cards I’ve been dealt.”
  4. Be prepared.  Study how things can go wrong and plan ahead to overcome potential problems.  In order to see what went wrong and to figure out what to do better, he examined many plane wrecks in person and read many transcripts of cockpit vice recorders taken just before crashes.  The lessons he chose to learn: “Be vigilant and alert.”  He saw that Charles Lindbergh’s “success was due almost entirely to preparation, not luck.”
  5. Develop the right mindset.  He says, "In so many areas of life, you need to be a long-term optimist but a short-term realist… You have to know what you know and don't know, and what your airplane can and can't do in every situation."
  6. Sacrifice lower priority goals for more important ones.  "By attempting a water landing," he says, "I would sacrifice the 'airplane goal'—trying not to destroy an aircraft valued at $60 million—for the goal of saving lives."
  7. Compartmentalize.  Focus on the immediate task; don’t be distracted by extraneous thoughts.  “Sully says his family did not come into his head. ‘That was for the best. It was vital that I be focused; that I allow myself no distractions. My consciousness existed solely to control the flight path.’”

Captain Sullenberger is justly praised for what he did as an adult on the day he saved 155 lives.  And I see a hero in the 13 year-old boy who started and continued to make wonderful choices in response to the difficult situations he faced; preparing himself for the moment when the duty to respond was thrust on him 40 years later.

We never know how many lives will be on the line when our call to action comes; we must develop the will and also the skill so that we can respond effectively.  We must also prepare our children to recognize and respond successfully when their calls to higher duty come.  Facing bullies or witnessing bullying is only one of those situations.

In his recent ABC news opinion column, “Want to Stop Bullies?” Lee Dye cites new studies that claim that:

  1. Girls are more likely than boys to intervene to stop bullying than boys are.
  2. Girls intervene more because they’re expected to by their parents, best friends and favorite teachers.
  3. Popular males are more likely to pick on weaker boys, while unpopular, weaker but aggressive boys are more likely to pick on girls.

Of course.  So what?

I’m glad Mr. Dye is speaking out and I share his desire to stop bullies and harassment, bullying and abuse in schools.

The reason I’m sarcastic is that I think these studies, done by interviewing 269 middle school students in four schools in North Central Florida, are typical of the thought process and pseudo-scientific research that says that if we knew more we could design better programs to stop bullies.  And they imply that we can’t have successful anti-bullying programs until we have more research.

However, this research adds nothing we didn’t already know.  And the generalizations are contradicted by evidence from the recent suicide deaths of four girls in Schenectady, New York.

We already know that getting the kids involved in anti-bullying programs is critical.  We already know that it’s crucial to teach children what to do when they are bystanders and see bullying.  In order to incorporate that knowledge into anti-bullying programs, we don’t need to wait until there’s more pseudo-science research to prove that point.

In summary, we know that it’s everyone’s job to stop bullying in schools and everyone’s help is necessary, especially the kids.  No one group can make a program work if the other members of the local community resist or are uncaring.  The programs in New Hampshire are only the latest reports documenting what we know already.

Successful programs have the seven elements crucial to success:

  1. The programs specify acceptable and unacceptable behavior
  2. Children are taught specifically what to do if they’re bullied or if they’re bystanders
  3. The programs involve everyone – school board members, police, principals, teachers, administrative staff and bus drivers, the kids, and at least a vocal, core group of parents.
  4. Consequences are clear and effective action rapid
  5. Courageous and proactive administrators, school principals and teachers
  6. Kids are also trained at home not to bully and how to stop bullies
  7. All steps are implemented simultaneously

Anti-bullying laws are necessary to force reluctant or uncaring district administrators and principals to act.  They’re also necessary to protect principals and teachers who do act from bullying parents who defend their little terrorists and threaten to sue the principal and school for harassing their little bully.  That’s like in the Harry Potter series where Lucius Malfoy protects his vicious son, Draco.

The biggest problem in stopping bullies is not the lack of research about bullying: It’s the lack of skillful effort being put forth by the most caring people.  At many schools, well-meaning principals and teachers need to join forces with a core group of parents to get programs in motion.  At other schools, frustrated and angry parents need to rally other parents in order to force uncaring or cowardly school district administrators and principals to make effective school policies and then take act promptly and strongly.

Here’s a new slant on the cluster of suicides of four teenage girls from Schenectady High School, New York, that was stimulated by abuse and bullying in school and a war-zone environment outside school. Instead of working together to transform the school and the neighborhood environment, Rev. Veron House, pastor of the Life Changes World Ministries in Schenectady, and school superintendent, Eric Ely, are arguing over who was to blame and who should be responsible for fixing the problem.

Rev. House has been quoted as saying, “This is not a community problem, this is not a church problem, this is a school problem, and this is becoming a school epidemic because everyone that has done this is from Schenectady High."

On the defensive, Superintendent Ely responded, "We're not the parents of these children.  We have them a third of the time, parents have them two thirds of the time. We're going to do everything we can to keep it from happening. But ultimately, when a child goes home and takes their life, there's not a whole lot a school employee can do about that."

Who’s right?  Of course both of them are right.  But facing each other with finger-pointing makes both of them wrong.

The useful question is not who’s to blame and who should be punished, the people in the neighborhood or the principal and teachers in school.  The better question is how to bring people together after numerous and tremendously painful deaths, in order to create a community that simply won’t tolerate hate and violence in the school or on the streets.  Here in Denver, after the massacre at Columbine High School, it has taken 10 years for that healing spirit to become evident.

This question is not new.  The difficulty of establishing a safe and functional communal life after multiple, horrible deaths has been part of human struggles since the beginning of time.  For example, we see the same struggle in the families of Romeo and Juliet.

Even further back, the same subject and a wise solution are described in graphic detail in the three tragedies called the Oresteia, written by Aeschylus in 458 BC.  In the Agamemnon, the Libation Bearers and the Eumenides, the murders are for different reasons than in Schenectady and Columbine High School, but the end effect is the same.  Violent death rips apart the fabric of a community and people struggle with what to do.

Why do I bring up literature that’s 2,500 years old?  Because the violence of today has also been faced by people in all cultures, times and places, and we have recorded the approaches that only lead to more pain and also the wisdom that points the way to solutions.

Aeschylus shows that the age-old solution – pointing fingers, apportioning blame, imposing punishment, retribution and vengeance – only drives people into separate, warring camps and perpetuates the cycle of violence.  He also shows that only after the people involved have come together, having been transformed by the intense pain and suffering that everyone feels underneath their defensive and hostile poses, can they dedicate themselves to change the environment together.  One line from the tragedy is, “We must suffer, suffer into [wisdom].”

As community leaders, Rev. House and Superintendent Ely are failing in their responsibility.  Instead of analyzing and parsing out the blame, they must lead the community to come together to create a new spirit that will neither tolerate harassment, bullying and abuse at school nor the street violence that requires police and metal detectors at school doors.

Until Rev. House and Superintendent Ely rally a core of outraged students and parents to rid the area of violence, there are no tactics, plans and skills that will help them.  I’d expect Rev. House to know how rituals for painful grieving can transform the hearts of his parishioners into wisdom and determined action.  Only after they have united resolutely to clean up the school and the neighborhood, will expert tactical advice and guidance be productive.

A rash of teen suicides (4 in the last six months) has alarmed a Schenectady, New York school district.  At least two of the suicides have been directly attributed to abuse and bullying, especially girl to girl harassment.  However, the school superintendent has been quoted as spreading the blame, “The community is also beginning to understand that these activities are embedded within neighborhoods and even in the homes across our city and across our country.”  He has also made the point that educators aren’t parents and that their influence and control are limited. I was interviewed by Steve Van Zandt and Jackie Donovan on their Daybreak program on Radio WROW in the Albany-Schenectady area.  Our focus was what the school district could and should do.  Steve and Jackie are great in presenting the issues and fielding calls.

Of course, the superintendent is right, but I’d like to see him step up and tell what part of the problem he’s going to attack with speed, intensity and determination.

First, he sounds like he’s leading a debate down the pathway of analyzing all the factors involved and describing the ones he might label as the most important.  He’s an “educator,” which means he’ll get stuck in “analysis paralysis.”

But he doesn’t have to analyze or solve the whole problem of teen abuse and bullying in society.  He simply has to take responsibility for the number one task of his school district and of each principal.  The number one task is not education, it’s safety and security.  Only when he can guarantee pretty good safety and security, can the principals and teachers in his district do their second task of education.

Second, he doesn’t have to continue analyzing what’s wrong at school, the kids know and each teacher, principal, administrative assistant and bus driver also should know.  One brave middle school student spoke up at a community meeting pleading, “Just help us.  We need help.”  The four suicides, all in the same high school should be a wake-up call to him.

The superintendent is also wasting the summer; his best opportunity to get programs developed and installed.  Summer is the best time to do the behind-the-scenes work to get an anti-bullying, anti-abuse campaign ready so they begin resolutely on the first day of school.  A few straightforward, but sometimes difficult steps are for the superintendent, principals and a core group of committed parents are to:

  • Develop programs complete with detailed descriptions of what’s considered abuse, harassment and bullying, and with swift, firm processes to impose consequences including expulsion.
  • Get support from teachers and staff.
  • Get buy-in from the community and a majority of parents.
  • Train teachers and staff in what to recognize and how to respond effectively.
  • Kick the program off with the students when school starts.  Teach them what to do if they’re picked on or if they see bullying or abuse happen to someone else.  Teach them how to be bully-proof.

Notice that I haven’t said anything about educating, therapeutizing or rehabilitating bullies.  That succeeds only after anti-abuse, anti-bullying programs are implemented.

Wall plaques saying that students must respect each other are nice but ineffective by themselves.  A detailed program with clear consequences, implemented strategically, firmly and continually can solve 90% of the problems at school.  That’s the best that schools can do

Also, that would be teaching children and teenagers that the adult authorities will actually fulfill their responsibility.  New York may also need laws to force this superintendent to do his job.

A recent article in the New York Times illustrates attempts of one middle school of privileged kids in Scarsdale, New York, to teach empathy for those less privileged.  The less privileged included examples from great literature, of old, disabled and autistic people, and even of those students who didn’t get invited to last weekend’s social activities by the “in-crowd.”  Similar efforts are being considered by many other middle and high schools. Can such programs succeed?  Should schools engage in social engineering?

Education, in the root of our word and from its earliest time, was based on “cultivation” in the sense of cultivating a crop of good and virtuous citizens capable of leading a society that does good and supports the virtue of all citizens.  Leading was usually the vocation of only the privileged.  Education of the less privileged also emphasized creating good and virtuous citizens, but was focused more on what we might call vocational training for productive labor.

We can’t convert all schools – elementary, middle or high schools – into strictly vocational training and expect to produce good and virtuous citizens, capable of self-government.  In our democratic society, we treat all kids as privileged in the sense that they get training in virtue and being a good citizen.  They all also have the potential of serving at the highest levels of government, instead of such service being the privilege of only those born to privilege.

Empathy is a necessary element of being a good citizen, as well as a necessary component of great leadership and management.  For example, it’s one of the leadership and management training sets promoted by all business schools.  And the current economic recession or depression has a large component of greed and unethical and un-empathetic behavior at its core.

Parents should be teaching empathy to their children even before they’re developmentally capable of it, instead of thinking that a course as part of an M.B.A. training will ever do any good.  Since many parents don’t teach empathy, and also in support of those who do, I’m glad that elementary and middle schools are intentionally making that a part of the curriculum, in addition to academic subjects.  The key to teaching empathy and virtue is the character of the teacher, not the syllabus or lesson plan.

But teaching at home and in programs at school can’t be expected to solve the problem for every one, even though results in schools in the south Bronx are also encouraging.  Many children and teenagers will get it; others won’t.  One of the most famous examples of the impossibility of teaching everyone is Alcibiades, a brilliant, rich boy taught by Pericles at home and Socrates at school, who grew up to be unethical, unscrupulous and un-empathetic.

Humans do have free will, but that doesn’t man we stop trying to teach them.  We simply try with our eyes wide open.  Even in Scarsdale, as the article says, “mean girls are no less mean, and the boys will still be boys.”  Also, there’s still “name-calling, gossip and other forms of social humiliation.”  Bullies and bullying will always exist.

But now the schools make clear that such behavior is frowned upon.  Punishing it can be very difficult because it’s such a tricky area to find appropriate responses.  However, the clarity with which we label uncaring and unacceptable behavior gives every student a clear chance to judge the perpetrators and decide whether to try to join the in-crowd, ignore them or stand up for the students who are targeted..

We can’t and shouldn’t count on schools to protect our children from hurt feelings all the time.  We must help our children know what’s important to them and whose opinion matters to them.  We must also help them develop the inner grit and resilience to know how to protect themselves from verbal harassment as well as from physical abuse.

As reported by Reid Epstein in Newsday, New York teenager, Denise Finkel has sued Facebook for $3 million because, she claims, it carried a fictitious Facebook chat group to bully, ostracize, ridicule, abuse and disgrace her.  The lawsuit states that former high school classmates, Michael Dauber, Jeffrey Schwartz, Leah Herz, and Melinda Danowitz created the chat room in which they falsely claimed that she had “inappropriate conduct with animals,” and had AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. I want to focus on two related areas that I think are more important in the long run.

Of course there will be a lot of furor over whether any or all of the accused four did it and whether Facebook is liable for content that’s not obviously pornographic.  Did Finkel complain to Facebook and did Facebook turn a deaf ear to Finkel’s complaints?  And are the four people guilty as accused?

The first area that I think is more important in the long run is the ongoing effort to make new laws in response to new crimes, especially using new technology.  The natural way that we make new laws begins when some people commit acts not specifically covered under the old laws that have terrible consequences.  We respond by specifically labeling those new actions as crimes, and attach what we feel are appropriate criminal penalties.  Then we see, by trial-and-error, where to draw better lines.  The legal system is inevitably slow, inefficient and never perfect.

Given the increasing number of lives ruined by cyber bullying, emotional harassment and abuse, especially in schools, and the number of suicides stimulated by cyber bullying, I think that our society will make laws specifically stating that false and malicious statements and postings, in addition to pornography, are illegal.  I don’t think we’ll hold carriers like Facebook, MySpace, etc. liable for their postings.  But I think we’ll hold them liable for ignoring complaints about specific chat groups and postings that they continue to carry.

Many states and school districts, including Kansas, Oregon and California are considering such laws to protect children and teenagers from cyber bullying.

One stumbling block in making such laws is where to draw the lines and the hidden assumption that cyberbullying laws can and should be made “just right” for all situations – never too lax, never too harsh.  But the letter of the laws can never cover all situations with “just right” justice.  We always depend on human wisdom in the law’s application to specific situations.  That’s just the way it is – for better or for worse.

And I think that in this area, safety should triumph over cyber freedom.

The second area that I think is more important in the long run is parenting for the specific situations involving our kids and teenagers.  Our job is to monitor our children:

  1. Do they look like they’re having a hard time (maybe being attacked by cyberbullies)?  How can we help them stop bullying on their own or do we need to intervene?
  2. Are they witnessing cyber bullying and are they struggling to know whether or how to intervene?
  3. Are they cyber bullies?  How do we stop them and help them develop the character to make amends and do better next time?
  4. Should they even be on MySpace or Facebook or any social networking sites?  What else would be a better use of their time and energy?

And of course there are no easy answers.  No one is really dumb enough to think there are easy solutions.

There are no safe environments.  Schools and the real world have never been safe.  Schools and social networks are testing grounds for the real world.  And the real world is not and should not be safe.  Facing risks and danger helps us develop good sense, good character and the qualities necessary to survive.  Imagine growing up on a farm, in a wilderness village or in the middle ages.  Not safe.  I grew up in New York City.  Not safe.  Millennia ago we had to learn what a saber-toothed tiger’s foot prints looked like and how long ago they were left.  The world still requires survival skills, even if different ones.

Our job as parents is to teach our children the skills and grit to survive in whichever jungle or battleground they live, and to protect them when they’re over-matched.

For practical, real-world tactics designed to stop school bullies and bullying, please see “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks,” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids.”  Individualized coaching can design action plans to fit your specific situation.  Also, the strong and clear voice of an outside speaker can empower principals, teachers and other students to stop bullying and abuse.