Zero tolerance for bullying in school

Infjente

Infjente

Permanent Fixture
MBTI
Infj
Recently in my country, there's a new law that says there will be zero tolerance for bullying in school age 5-16. Anyone who works in school directly related to the children are obligated to intervene or/and rapport anything that can be considered offensive, harassing or bullying, and deal with it until the school environment feels safe for the children. They risk jail time if they overlook an obvious situation or in any way violate the decisions in this law. What's considered offensive, harassing or bullying is strictly up to the child's subjective experience of the situation, the social worker, teacher or school principal can not override this, and interpret if it is bullying or not.

What do you think about this?
 
It sounds like the legislators are overstepping their boundaries. There should be checks and balances to prevent such legislation as unconstitutional. By passing such a law, stating that the subjective experience is enough to send a third party into prison for negligence, the legislators are effectively ignoring both the judiciary and the executive system: the judiciary branch should have room for interpreting the situation, judges having the power to decide whether negligence has taken place, and the executive branch, in this case in the form of civil service, i.e. teachers and the police, should have the freedom to investigate. Basically it seems that the parliament ignores the separation of powers and assumes that they can stop bullying by a simple law that is applied the same way in every situation without the need to gather evidence.

Since everybody is against bullying it's possible to silence the opposition by claiming that all objections are about advocating bullying. Of course no-one wants children to be bullied. Unfortunately there's been pressure in the media in the recent years to pass these kind of laws that basically assume that all situations are black or white and that the experience of being offended should be enough to convict someone. The term "zero tolerance" in itself seems suspicious now because it so often means that the systems we have are opened to abuse by individuals in the name of some good cause. The way you describe the law it seems certainly possible that one frustrated 16-year-old will be able to send a disliked teacher into prison without anyone else having a say in whether bullying has actually taken place. If a law makes it easier to convict innocent people, it shouldn't be passed, even if the intentions are good.
 
I'm from a country where schools rarely want to get involved when someone is being bullied. And with social media, kids don't even get a break when they leave school anymore. They would really have to define what constitutes as bullying. Maybe they can legally treat it like harassment but at least in US, harassment is only illegal in cases where the person is being bullied based on a protected characteristic; sex/gender, race/ethnicity, religion, disability... Would the allegations require evidence? (Social media posts and texts, witnesses, etc.)

This law does seem a bit extreme though. Why should bullying be everyone else's fault except the bully and their parents? Personally I think that a bully's parents are the ones who should be held accountable for their kid's shitty behavior. I think if a kid is being bullied to kill themselves day in and day out at school and online or relentlessly harassed then the bullies and their parents should have to do some sort of community service and counseling sessions. So the school should be involved with trying to mediate and then maybe the school or victim and family can pursue something legally if that goes nowhere. But I think it's a bad idea to make criminals out of people who don't report it. Maybe better training is needed in schools on bullying? I wouldn't advocate for jail time for anyone.
 
Last edited:
Bullying (and by the same token being bullied) is sort of an integral part of human nature. Preventing people from learning how to handle stressful situations -within reason- will most certainly create negative long term consequences. Schoolyard antics are definitely within reason if lives aren't being threatened. A zero tolerance policy for certain kinds of bullying makes sense, but to have a blanket policy for all bullying is idiotic, short sighted and absolutely fucking ignorant.
 
Hope this doesn't sound too obscure, but the Peter/Wolf analogy seems to best explain this issue.

Not everyone who cries wolf has seen a wolf or been attacked by one. But if someone who is attacked by a wolf is constantly being ignored, then few townspeople will be left who can and will defend the town if a wolf goes on a rampage. Telling Peter that facing the wolf head on without support or guidance may just lead Peter to develop PTSD and become suicidal. However, ignoring the wolf doesn't change the fact that it's still there terrorizing the townspeople especially if it's constantly lurking in the shadows without any accountability. At some point, the townspeople have to say, "We have a wolf, so let's hunt, capture, and punish or reform, tame".

People need to be very careful of the idea that someone needs toughening up with their supposedly well-intention-ed "toughen up, life is hard, and you just need to get over someone bullying you". That just gives abusers, people with anger problems, or just plain douches the chance to claim they're helping someone get thicker skin with so called false versions of "tough love". Bullying is bullying. Quit calling it something else.

Last but not least, bullying among children will never end if bullying among adults continues. How can you expect children to not bully each other, when adults do it to each other everyday?
 
Wyote said:
Bullying (and by the same token being bullied) is sort of an integral part of human nature. Preventing people from learning how to handle stressful situations -within reason- will most certainly create negative long term consequences. Schoolyard antics are definitely within reason if lives aren't being threatened. A zero tolerance policy for certain kinds of bullying makes sense, but to have a blanket policy for all bullying is idiotic, short sighted and absolutely fucking ignorant.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, too. It absolutely amazes me that they either didn't see that, or that they simply ignored it.
 
Gaze said:
Telling Peter that facing the wolf head on without support or guidance may just lead Peter to develop PTSD and become suicidal.
Click to expand...

I laughed out loud because of the sheer amount of truth :laughing:
 
Also as a side note- I feel like this is a timely discussion, as a large number of people in the online social media Facebrain™ seem to be contemplating fairness levels of punishment for things in people's past. Does a ten year old "bully" deserve to be crucified and outcast the rest of their life? Does a 40 year old deserve to be fired for telling a joke to the wrong person?

Things are complicated. Bullying can be a grey topic sometimes.
 
Fidicen said:
It sounds like the legislators are overstepping their boundaries. There should be checks and balances to prevent such legislation as unconstitutional. By passing such a law, stating that the subjective experience is enough to send a third party into prison for negligence, the legislators are effectively ignoring both the judiciary and the executive system: the judiciary branch should have room for interpreting the situation, judges having the power to decide whether negligence has taken place, and the executive branch, in this case in the form of civil service, i.e. teachers and the police, should have the freedom to investigate. Basically it seems that the parliament ignores the separation of powers and assumes that they can stop bullying by a simple law that is applied the same way in every situation without the need to gather evidence.

Since everybody is against bullying it's possible to silence the opposition by claiming that all objections are about advocating bullying. Of course no-one wants children to be bullied. Unfortunately there's been pressure in the media in the recent years to pass these kind of laws that basically assume that all situations are black or white and that the experience of being offended should be enough to convict someone. The term "zero tolerance" in itself seems suspicious now because it so often means that the systems we have are opened to abuse by individuals in the name of some good cause. The way you describe the law it seems certainly possible that one frustrated 16-year-old will be able to send a disliked teacher into prison without anyone else having a say in whether bullying has actually taken place. If a law makes it easier to convict innocent people, it shouldn't be passed, even if the intentions are good.
Click to expand...

I only found out about this a couple of days ago, and haven't really studied the law yet. But from what I've read so far, sanctions and prison is potential punishment if something wasn't done when it should have been, based on the child's subjective experience. Before this law, in cases where the court decided the school "should have known" a compensation financially could have been given.

It's just crazy :disappointed:
 
Wyote said:
Also as a side note- I feel like this is a timely discussion, as a large number of people in the online social media Facebrain™ seem to be contemplating fairness levels of punishment for things in people's past. Does a ten year old "bully" deserve to be crucified and outcast the rest of their life? Does a 40 year old deserve to be fired for telling a joke to the wrong person?

Things are complicated. Bullying can be a grey topic sometimes.
Click to expand...

Scary! The other way around also, leaving a 10 year old with basically the power send someone to jail for something they later in life realiz was just the way of life as it should be.

Maybe it's a replacement for religion's fear based social control? People obviously need to be afraid to relax ... my ISFJ mother is addicted to peace threatening headlines for instance.
 
Infjente said:
Maybe it's a replacement for religion's fear based social control? People obviously need to be afraid to relax
Click to expand...

Sounds conspiratorial though still not outside the realm of possibility as an eventuality. Also I disagree with your second statement to an extent. I'm not very fearful at all beyond what are natural human fears, and I'm pretty chill. Perhaps your environment lends itself to creating that idea.
 
Gaze said:
Hope this doesn't sound too obscure, but the Peter/Wolf analogy seems to best explain this issue.

Not everyone who cries wolf has seen a wolf or been attacked by one. But if someone who is attacked by a wolf is constantly being ignored, then few townspeople will be left who can and will defend the town if a wolf goes on a rampage. Telling Peter that facing the wolf head on without support or guidance may just lead Peter to develop PTSD and become suicidal. However, ignoring the wolf doesn't change the fact that it's still there terrorizing the townspeople especially if it's constantly lurking in the shadows without any accountability. At some point, the townspeople have to say, "We have a wolf, so let's hunt, capture, and punish or reform, tame".

People need to be very careful of the idea that someone needs toughening up with their supposedly well-intention-ed "toughen up, life is hard, and you just need to get over someone bullying you". That just gives abusers, people with anger problems, or just plain douches the chance to claim they're helping someone get thicker skin with so called false versions of "tough love". Bullying is bullying. Quit calling it something else.

Last but not least, bullying among children will never end if bullying among adults continues. How can you expect children to not bully each other, when adults do it to each other everyday?
Click to expand...

I got way too little tough love when I was younger, so little that I remember every occasion to this day. I appreciate them all, even the really unfair ones. I guess that makes me a little blind to those who got way too much of it. But I really believe that "soft" (in lack of the right term) love can be just as good/harmful. The same goes for false "soft" and tough love, I see them as equally harmful.

I think this new law is false "soft" love from politicians who wants to please parents. And no-one really knows how to argue against it. Parents buy it. Besides, they would never vote for a party that placed the responsibility on them.

I totally agree with you, parents should definitely have most of the responsibility, but I would be super anxious as a parent if it was up to the other kids to decide if they were bullied or not, and I would be held responsible regardless.
 
Wyote said:
Sounds conspiratorial though still not outside the realm of possibility as an eventuality. Also I disagree with your second statement to an extent. I'm not very fearful at all beyond what are natural human fears, and I'm pretty chill. Perhaps your environment lends itself to creating that idea.
Click to expand...

To add to the conspiracy; there is more than just tracks of the past, it's like there's a vacuum from a period of too much openness and free thinking that seems to create a need to threaten people back in place.

The reason I think (many, maybe most?) people need fear to function is simply because it is a natural motivator. When we had no reason to fear lions and wolfs, they probably had to be replaced by something else for people to move forward. I'm definitely not motivated by fear, and it's probably the reason why I'm a huge slob compared to my mother who has everything in order and is always prepared. I do think I function better than her though, although she thinks I'm totally careless and doesn't function at all :wink:

I guess the logic is that if people need fear to get things done, they will allow to be controlled with fear by others also?
 
Last edited:
Infjente said:
there is more than just tracks of the past, it's like there's a vacuum from a period of too much openness and free thinking that seems to create a need to threaten people back in place.
Click to expand...

I don't really know what you are referring to here but I generally agree with the rest of the stuff you said
 
Wyote said:
I don't really know what you are referring to here but I generally agree with the rest of the stuff you said
Click to expand...

As for a replacement of the collective fear of going to hell, or that "God sees you" that has been used for social control for so long. l guess internet, globalization etc has opened for everyone to think more freely without any real risks. Since God isnt that popular anymore, at least in europe, those who are motivated by fear need something else to fear, and those who need to control the people need something else to scare people with.

:relaxed:
 
Infjente said:
God isnt that popular anymore
Click to expand...

That is actually false. There's been an increased interest in recent years, from a global perspective anyway.
God is not dying, far from it. But spirituality on a whole may be maturing a bit.
 
Infjente said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Well I haven't asked everyone personally :laughing:
Look into it I guess, decide for yourself.
I will say, since the beginning of humanity basically, spirituality has always been a thing that waxes and wanes.
Take that for whatever you will ;)
 
Wyote said:
Well I haven't asked everyone personally :laughing:
Look into it I guess, decide for yourself.
I will say, since the beginning of humanity basically, spirituality has always been a thing that waxes and wanes.
Take that for whatever you will ;)
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, the only time I get spiritual is when I'm scared :neutral: I always become irrational when I'm scared ...
 
Wyote said:
Bullying (and by the same token being bullied) is sort of an integral part of human nature. Preventing people from learning how to handle stressful situations -within reason- will most certainly create negative long term consequences. Schoolyard antics are definitely within reason if lives aren't being threatened. A zero tolerance policy for certain kinds of bullying makes sense, but to have a blanket policy for all bullying is idiotic, short sighted and absolutely fucking ignorant.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I come from a don't tattle generation, but not an easy lesson to learn... If you want to know what I mean watch "hacksaw ridge" powerful movie... True story...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top