A Psychological Solution to Bullying

Ladakh: A Society with No Bullies–Or Victims!

Izzy Kalman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:24:49 +0000

I often say, "The place where no one bullies anyone is Heaven, and you have to die to get in." We are trying to get rid of bullying from our schools, but we are failing because we are alive, and living people are not angels. And the harder we try to force kids to stop being bullies, the bigger of a problem bullying becomes.

However, this doesn't mean we should despair. Bullying can be dramatically reduced. It just can't be done by trying to make people stop being bullies.

While there is no society on Earth where there is absolutely no bullying, there are, indeed, societies that come remarkably close. And if we wish to reduce bullying in our society, we need to do what they do. We can't do the opposite and expect to be successful.

A couple of years ago, I read what I consider to be one of the most important books ever written: Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh, by Helena Norberg-Hodge. A documentary by the same name was subsequently produced, and I highly recommend you watch it after reading the book (I think you will benefit more from the film if you read the book first).

Ms. Norberg-Hodge is a linguist who spent many years living with the Ladakhi people. Ladakh is a region of the Himalayas adjacent to Tibet with a population that has been steadily hovering around one hundred thousand people. Their climate is very cold, and there are only four months of the year during which it is possible to grow crops. They have no modern technology, yet they have everything they need. There is no litter, as everything they produce is used and recycled, and their houses and yards are pristine. They do not use money except for some luxuries they don't produce on their own, particularly jewelry. The Ladakhis take turns helping each other with planting and harvesting, and they have fun when they are working. They are followers of Tibetan Buddhism, a philosophy integral to their way of life.

How do the Ladakhis create a society without bullying? It is certainly not by passing anti-bully laws. In fact, they have no formal government. The way they accomplish a bully-free society is by teaching people not to think like victims!

They Ladakhis do not promote the foolish idea that they are entitled to a life in which no one is mean to them. Instead, they teach people not to get angry when people are mean to them or when bad things happen to them.

Norberg-Hodge never ceases to be amazed with the equanimity of the Ladakhis, how it is practically impossible to get them angry. Whenever she would ask a Ladakhi why he or she didn't get angry about some negative experience, the typical answer would be, "What's the point?"

In our modern anti-bully culture, we consider it terrible to stigmatize people. Except for bullies, of course. We freely say the nastiest imaginable about bullies, and we do this in the effort to convince people not to be bullies. In the Ladakhi culture, it is the opposite. They stigmatize victims! Their most serious insult translates as, "One who angers easily."

What few people understand is that anger is a victim feeling. We only get angry when people do things against us. By ridiculing people who get angry, they teach their people not to get angry, and that is, of course, the solution to bullying.

The book has a wonderful description of a typical Ladakhi response to bullying. I quote the following passage from the book. I believe it speaks for itself.

At the end of one summer, I went with Ngawang Palijor, a sixty-year-old thanka painter, to Srinagar in Kashmir. He was traditionally dressed in woolen goncha, hat, and yak-hair boots, and in the Kashmiri's eyes he was obviously from the "backward" region of Ladakh. Wherever we went, people made fun of him; he was constantly teased and taunted. Every taxi driver, shopkeeper, and passerby in some way managed to poke fun at him. "Look at that stupid hat!" "Look at those silly boots!" "You know, those primitive people never wash!" It seemed incomprehensible to me, but Ngawang remained completely unaffected by it all. He was enjoying the visit and never lost the twinkle in his eye. Though he was perfectly aware of what was going on, it just didn't seem to matter to him. He was smiling and polite, and when people jeeringly shouted the traditional Ladakhi greeting, "Jule, jule!" he simply answered "Jule, jule!" back. "Why didn't you get angry?" I asked. "Chi choen?" ("What's the point?) was his reply.

We in the modern world are trying so hard to solve the bullying problem, and we are getting nowhere. The reason should be obvious. We are teaching the exact opposite of what the Ladakhis teach. We are teaching that bullying is horrible. We are teaching that bullying is abnormal. We are teaching that bullying shouldn't be tolerated. We are teaching that bullies must be punished. We are demanding that people be outraged by bullying.

And until we learn from the Ladakhis, we will continue scratching our heads in bewilderment as to why bullying is a growing problem.

Wisdom, not foolishness, is the solution to bullying.

Who Really Killed 11 Year Old Jaheem Herrera?

Izzy Kalman — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 02:38:57 +0000

According to a new report, bullying did not kill Jaheem Herrera.

Jaheem Herrera is the tragic fifth grader from Georgia who committed suicide last April, supposedly because he was being called "gay" and "snitch" by kids in school. This happened a mere two weeks after another eleven-year-old boy, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, took his own life for the same reason. Jaheem's mother, Masika Bermudez, has made headlines appearing on shows like Oprah and testifying before the U.S. Congress in its hearings on school bullying. Anti-bully activists have had a heyday with these suicides, using then to promote their agenda of making schools legally responsible for the way students treat each other.

Ms. Bermudez is suing the school district for Jaheem's death, claiming that bullying killed her son and that the school is to blame for not making the bullying stop. The school did, in fact, have an anti-bully program in effect (the Anti-Defamation League's "No Place for Hate" program), and the school had on several occasions tried to resolve the hostilities between him and other kids, but it failed. Considering the dismal results of most anti-bully programs, it should not be surprising that the bullying did not stop. Still, the boy's mother, as well as anti-bully activists, are holding the school legally responsible for failing to stop the bullying, as though somehow the school should be able to succeed with anti-bully interventions that don't work.

The school district has just published a report claiming that it wasn't bullying that killed Jaheem, but other factors, including family problems within the home. It is not surprising that the school would want to absolve itself from blame. However, the school district doesn't dispute the underlying assumption is that if Jaheem did, in fact, kill himself because he couldn't tolerate the bullying, the school should be legally responsible.

The sad fact is that a small percentage of people take their own lives. The overall rate in the U.S. is about one in ten thousand. And for children, it is much lower, about one in a hundred thousand. Virtually all people who commit suicide do so because they can no longer tolerate the stresses of life. Are we to conclude that the stressors should be treated like murderers and be outlawed?

Let's say you own a company. Because of the recession you need to downsize, so you fire John Doe. Like many people today, Mr. Doe is in terrible financial straits because of his kids' college bills, his house has become worth less than the mortgage, and his retirement portfolio has lost half its value. To make matters worse, his wife has been threatening to divorce him because he is a lousy provider and his financial worries prevent him from holding an erection. In a bout of depression, he decides to end his misery via suicide.

Who killed John Doe? You? His wife? The stock market? His children's colleges? To prevent suicide, should we lobby for laws making it illegal to fire people? Do we make it illegal for spouses to threaten divorce? Do we pass laws forbidding stock and home values to decline? Do we make it a crime for schools to charge tuition? Who is to be sued when John Doe kills himself, and who is to do the suing?

You go out with Jane Doe. She feels you are her knight in shining armor, but after a few months you decide she is not the princess you've been dreaming for, and you break up with her. Jane has always felt herself to be the "black sheep" of her family. Her parents frequently criticized her and told her she would never amount to anything. Her already fragile ego could not tolerate the break up with you, and deciding that life was no longer worth living, she took an overdose of sleeping pills and now sleeps forever.

Who killed Jane Doe? You? Her parents? Do we lobby for laws against romantic break-ups, or for laws against criticizing children? Who is to be sued when Jane kills herself, and who is to do the suing?

Like John Doe and Jane Doe, Jaheem Harrera killed himself. No one made him do it. It was his own sad choice. The fact that he killed himself is a horrific tragedy regardless of whether the stressor that pushed him over the brink was bullying in school or fighting within his family. The school's anti-bullying program didn't solve the bullying problem because it couldn't. In fact, the program probably made the bullying even worse. The program taught him that insults cause terrible harm to people and should not be tolerated, so when he was insulted, he appropriately felt outraged, which of course made kids continue insulting him. In addition to "gay," he was called "snitch," probably because he did what his school's anti-bullying program told students to do-to tell. And few things will make people hate you more than telling on them to the authorities. So perhaps we should sue the organization that created the counteproductive anti-bully program?

Unfortunately, we live in an age when psychology has ceased being primarily a discipline of science and has become a branch of law enforcement. The psychological organizations are trying to promote mental health by lobbying for laws that make it illegal for anyone to upset us rather than by teaching us how use our brains to deal with the inevitable hardships of life. Psychologists seem to be unaware that when they call for laws against bullying, they are declaring the failure of psychology. It means they have no idea how to solve the problem psychologically, but need the legal system to solve it for them.

We need to be careful what we wish for. If you are happy to have laws that allow parents to sue schools for the misery caused when kids bully each other (and it is not even the staff that is bullying the kids, but their own peers) then you certainly should be happy to be sued for firing people or breaking up with them, for you are even more directly responsible for their misery than the schools are for the bullying among students.

Could the tragedy of Jaheem Harrera, and of all the others like him, have been avoided? Sure. With good psychology. According to the published accounts, Jaheem was an intelligent boy. Anyone who has become proficient with my techniques knows they could have easily taught him how to handle insults without having to snitch on anyone. Bullying would have ceased to be a problem for him, and he'd still be alive today-assuming his mother is right, and he killed himself because he was bullied.

***********

At my bullying seminars, I have been singing a song I wrote that shows the foolishness of school anti-bully laws. Many attendees have been asking for recordings. I have recorded it with musical accompaniment. You can listen to it and/or download it, and my two other psychological songs, at the following page by scrolling down to the section that says, "download songs." Hope you enjoy my beautiful voice! http://www.bullies2buddies.com/resources/download-free-manuals

The Real Reason Prof. Henry Louis Gates was Arrested

Izzy Kalman — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:26:00 +0000

Before I begin this article, I want it to be clear that there are few people who care about race relations more than I do. And please don’t accuse me of lack of sensitivity to race issues. Most of my relatives lost their lives in Europe during World War II for the terrible “crime” of being Jews. Unfortunately, race (I mean this in the broadest sense to refer to all group identifications) has become the most sensitive subject in American society, so one always risks the danger of being attacked as being racially insensitive whenever expressing unconventional views regarding race. Before you impulsively write enraged comments, please consider my point of view with an open mind. I am not trying to offend anyone, but to show the best path to reducing racism.

Important Addendum, August 6, 2009

I am adding this a week after I initially sent out the blog entry. Thanks to many astute readers, including my wife, I realize I made an error that went contrary to my own teachings. I fell into the trap of my own victim mentality and unfairly took out my resentments against police in a way that prevented me from applying my point of view correctly and understanding the police point of view. I was considering removing this blog entry altogether to avoid generating addtional hostility, but I will take the courageous path and leave it, as much of the analysis I believe is correct, and I shouldn't hide the feelings generated within me due to my experiences with police or deny what I wrote. All I request is that before you decide to turn against me upon reading the article below, please consider these clarifications.

In this blog, I describe police as the "biggest bullies," going against my own advice that we stop thinking of people in this insulting manner, "bully." I forgot my basic teaching that people who seem like bullies to us usually experience themselves as victims. "Bully," despite it's use by academics as if it were a diagnosis, is not a diagnosis and we have no business using this term scientifically. It is an insulting description of the way we experience others who we feel are dominating us. People are most dangerous both to themselves and to others not when they feel like bullies–which they rarely do–but when they feel like victims.

It was a mistake for me to call police bullies, though it is easy for us to experience them in this way because their job requires them to be able to intimidate the public or they wouldn't be able to function. When Sgt. Crowley arrested Gates, he did so because he felt like he was Prof. Gates' victim, and from his point of view, this is correct. Crowley was simply trying to do his job, and he was given a hard time by Gates. I continue to assert that I don't believe Gates' behavior warranted his being arrested in an enlightened republic, and I beiieve governement itself has been given way too much power by a population that increasingly looks to the government to solve their problems for them. However, I don't fault Crowley for arresting Gates for talking back to him this because that is what police are taught to do in our country. I believe that many governmental (including police) practices can be more enlightened, but police are following the procedures they are taught. If I were to write this blog over, I would have described both Crowly and Gates as victims of each other, and not of Crowley acting from a bully mentality. So please forgive me in advance for the error of my ways.

I also describe what happens to the mind of people when they are given the power of the badge and gun. Though this may not sound complimentary to police, it is simply human nature to acquire this attitude. This is supposed to be a psychological blog, and I hope you will see my analysis as an objective psychological one, not as a personal attack against police officers. We all have the same human nature, and I would acquire the same attitude if I were a policeman. Police R' Us.

The irony of the Prof. Gates arrest

This past week, we witnessed a remarkable irony. In the first year of the reign of the first Black president in US history, the country’s most prominent Black scholar, the brilliant and accomplished Henry Louis Gates of Harvard University, was arrested after breaking into his own home. Prof Gates claimed he was the victim of racial profiling. Ironically, the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, has the job of teaching police officers how to avoid engaging in racial profiling!

Another irony I will be revealing here is that Prof. Gates indeed was NOT being racially profiled, yet he would almost certainly NOT have been arrested had he not believed he was being racially profiled!

I also want to make it clear in advance that I am not faulting Prof. Gates. His behavior under the circumstances was completely understandable to me. And I adamantly insist that his arrest was an outrage. President Obama is being criticized by many people as having been too hasty in calling the arrest “stupid.” I agree with Obama on this one. In fact, Obama’s response was too mild. The arrest was much worse than stupid. It was more fitting for a totalitarian police state, not for an enlightened republic whose Constitution was created specifically to curtail the natural inclination of government to bully its citizens.

There are two factors that resulted in this contemptible arrest. One of them resides in the mind of the arresting officers. The other resides in the mind of the person being arrested (and in virtually all of us, as almost everyone today harbors the mentality I will be referring to).

1. Reason Number One: Police are the Biggest Bullies

Have you ever been confronted by police officers? How did it make you feel? Relieved? Unless you just happened to be chased by criminals at the moment the police appeared, your heart probably sank to your stomach. One of the most anxiety-arousing experiences in our routine lives is being confronted by policemen. You can be reasonably certain that when policemen face you, they are not looking to do something you look forward to.

What are police officers? They are literally the government’s bullies. They are ordinary people who are issued guns and granted the authority to enforce the will of the government. They aren’t necessarily any more saintly or wise than the average person, and neither is the government that hires them. Police are hired by the government to bully us, for better or for worse, forcing us to obey the law. My intention here is not to insult the police. Some of my best friends have been police officers. I am simply stating a fact. If I were a police officer I, too would be a government-employed bully or I wouldn’t be doing my job.

But there is something remarkable that happens to people when the government issues them a uniform and a gun. They acquire an incredible sense of power. And the rest of us immediately reinforce their sense of power. Just imagine that you are a police officer and wherever you go, people become extremely polite and self-effacing in your presence, walk on eggshells for fear of saying the wrong thing to you, and show incredible gratitude whenever you are nice enough to let them off with a warning. How can police officers not come to feel that they are entitled to do whatever they want and to be treated like gods? (The reason so many police officers and military men have terrible home lives and get divorced is that they are used to the entire citizenry treating them with fear and respect, and then they come home to face spouses and children who treat them like ordinary Joe Shmoes.) And how can police avoid developing the belief that no one is allowed to talk back to them, despite the fact that our right to talk back to them and even to curse them is guaranteed by the United States Constitution? In fact, a widely disseminated article makes it clear that the entire law enforcement establishment takes it for granted that they are entitled to arrest anyone who doesn't show them sufficient respect: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_schola...

Policemen are virtually the only people you can’t talk back to or you will find yourself in jail. Talk back to the President or your Congressman and you can go home. Talk back to the CEO of a major corporation and you can go home. Talk back to your clergyman, teacher, boss, doctor, spouse, parent or child and you can go home. But talk back to a policeman and you go right to jail. The only equivalent to police officers in this regard is judges. Talk back to them in court and you will also get carted off to jail. But it won’t be by the judge. It is a gun-wielding police officer that will do the dirty work.

The Gates incident is close to home

A personal irony is that the Gates arrest happened shortly after my own son, 23-year-old Yannai, spent 24 hours in jail for the same reason that Prof. Gates did: talking back to a policeman. And it happened over a measly two dollars. I am not justifying what Yannai did. It was foolish and he shouldn’t have done it even though he may have had some moral justification.

Yannai recently took public transportation to Manhattan from our home in Staten Island and jumped the subway turnstile on the way back, depriving the Transit Authority of $2.00. He had never done this before, as he is an honest young man. It was simply his way of trying to get back the $2.00 of which the Transit Authority had cheated him. On a previous trip, because of buses running behind schedule, the time limit for transfers had expired and his electronic Metro Card was charged an extra two dollars. So on the spur of the moment he figured he would get his two bucks back by jumping the turnstile.

To his misfortune, there were police officers on the other side of the turnstile, and Yannai was caught in the act. As an officer began issuing him a fine, Yannai tried to explain why he jumped the turnstile and offered to go back and pay the train fare. The officer would have none of this discussion. He immediately put Yannai into handcuffs and hauled him off to jail, where he spent the next 24 hours with no bed and almost no food.

It is completely understandable that Prof. Gates became distressed and even outraged when Officer Crowley and his colleagues treated him like a potential criminal in his own home. A humane police officer would have understood Prof. Gates’ agitation, quickly ascertained that Gates was indeed the resident, and then left, having completed his job of ensuring the public welfare. But Officer Crowley is obviously infected with the virus that gets transmitted along with the police uniform and gun, and arrested Prof. Gates for failing to treat him like a deity–or even a judge.

From what I know of both arrest situations, Yannai did not show anywhere near the level of disrespect to his arresting officer that Prof. Gates showed to Sgt. Crowley. However, young males are treated with even less patience than graying Black adults, and he, too, was arrested. Of course Prof. Gates and Yannai are considered innocent till proven guilty, but it sure doesn’t feel that way when you are thrown into a filthy jail cell. And if you’ve ever gone to court over a police summons, where it’s your word against the police officer’s, you probably discovered that the idea of being innocent till proven guilty is little more than a joke.

By the way, Prof. Gates' judge threw the case out. In such a high profile case involving a brilliant professor and public figure, the judge wasn't about to pretend the arrest was legal. Yannai wasn't quite so lucky. The judge supported the police officer's action, but let Yannai go home on a half-year probation.

Reason Number Two: The Victim Mentality

The first reason Prof. Gates was arrested is the more obvious one. The bully attitude that comes so readily with the job of police officer is well-known. In fact, Time magazine had an excellent article, The Stupidity of the Gates Arrest, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912778,00.html, making this very point.

But the second reason is a far subtler one, and I doubt you will read it anywhere but here. It is also what is likely to get some readers mad at me. That reason is the victim mentality that underlies our approach to racism in our country, as well as to interpersonal relations in general.

Prof. Gates immediately assumed he was the victim of racial profiling. But while the arrest of Prof. Gates was an outrage and a crime, he was NOT a victim of racial profiling in this case. The police were doing what they were supposed to do–responding to a report by a neighbor of a possible robbery in the Gates’ home. But because Prof. Gates believed he was being racially profiled, he became angry and indignant, resulting ultimately in Crowley arresting him. Had Prof. Gates simply thanked Crowley for doing his job, the incident would have quickly been over. But, like almost everyone in modern society, he has been inculcated with the victim mentality regarding racism and responded with anger.

What are the characteristics of a victim mentality? The following are some of them.
1. I am entitled to a life in which no one treats me badly.
2. Life is supposed to be fair.
3. If people are mean to me, it is not because of me; it is their fault.
4. I can’t trust people because I never know when they are going to be mean to me again.
5. Victims are good; bullies/abusers are evil.
6. Since I am the good one and they are bad ones, I don’t have to change, only they do.
7. People who abuse me deserve to be punished.
8. I deserve special treatment because of my victim status.

These beliefs are self-defeating. When you think like a victim, you are more likely to be victimized, so these beliefs become self-fulfilling prophecies. Unfortunately, these victim attitudes are being actively promoted by our society today, including our social scientists, who are trying to make the government responsible for providing us a life in which no one abuses, harasses or bullies us in any way. And this is the view that informs our treatment of racism: racists are evil, only racists need to change, and it's the government's responsibility to make racism disappear by punishing all racist feelings and expressions. People today have been led to believe that about the worst thing that can happen to a human being is for someone to say or do something against their race. And one of the greatest fears of people has become being accused of being racist.

The truth is, racial profiling is only a problem when racism also exists. Otherwise it is actually beneficial to everyone (except to the criminals!) For instance, I am a Jew. If it is known that a group of fanatic Jews is carrying out terrorist attacks, I would welcome law enforcement officers profiling Jews, for every time that a Jew gets away with a terrorist attack, it increases the public’s hatred of me and my fellow Jews. In fact, I would plead with the law enforcement agencies, “Please don’t waste time investigating everyone. Please, please, just investigate Jews before more attacks are committed.”

The are at least two reasons racial profiling is a problem only when there is racism:

1. When policemen are racist, they are, indeed, likely to target people for no other reason than that they belong to the race they hate. This harms not only innocent people, but the police as well, because it foments hatred of police officers, and that does not make their jobs any easier.

2. As a reaction to the real problem of racism that has plagued our country, we are trying to overcompensate by treating racism as the greatest crime possible. We tend to equate racism with genocide, as though someone who has negative feelings about another group is as evil as someone who has actually exterminated another race. So we are now trying to eradicate racism by criminalizing all expressions of racism. And racial profiling is one of those expressions that has become a crime. Consequently, when people feel they are being racially profiled, they react with increased outrage, as Prof. Gates did, as though someone is trying to kill their entire group. Their anger causes hostilities to escalate and unwittingly increases the likelihood that the police will arrest them. Had Professor Gates not been so indignant about racism in our society, the incident would have been quickly over.

In a few decades, we have gone from a country that officially condoned racism to one that treats racism as the most horrific of crimes. However, despite our intense efforts to get rid of racism, it still exists, and the Black community in our country is far from being on an equal level with the white majority. Why have we made such little progress in creating racial equality? As i will explain, it’s because we are stuck in the wrong approach to social problems and can't see the better alternative.

Two approaches to social problems

There are two ways of trying to solve social problems. One is the legal approach; the other is the psychological. A legal approach treats the problem like a crime and tries to get rid of it through punishment. One side is the perpetrator and is guilty. The other side is the victim and is innocent. Only the perpetrator is required to change.

The psychological approach involves helping people understand and handle the problems of life on their own. The one who is suffering feels like a victim, and the solution is for the person to take responsibility for their problem and stop thinking and acting like a victim. The suffering person cannot expect others to solve their problems for them.

The legal approach is necessary for dealing with behaviors like rape, theft, arson, and murder. However, it is a terrible way for trying to create positive relations between people, and this is equally true for relations between the races. For that, the psychological approach in needed.

Unfortunately, in today’s society, only one side is being employed, even by the psychological organizations, and that is the legal approach. And that is why we have hit a brick wall in improving race relations. We are trying to use the law to make people get rid of racist feelings. This can never work.

People aren’t going to change their racist attitudes just because a law is passed. If I hate your group for whatever reason, and then the law makes it a crime to have racist attitudes, am I going to think, “Oh, now I like and respect your group so much!” Of course not! Not only will I hate your group even more for getting the government to turn me into a criminal for my views, I will hate the government for trying to force me to like your group the same as my own.

If you are taught that racist feelings are a crime, will that help you get along better with people who express negative feelings about your group? Will you respond in a friendly, calm and rational manner? No! You will respond with outrage, as to a criminal: “You have no right to treat me that way! You are a racist! I will get the authorities against you!” They, in turn, will get angry back at you. They will insist that they are not racists, and try to prove that their negative attitudes toward your group are based on objective reality. They will feel justified in fearing your group because of your anger and because of the possibility that you might call the police on them. And they will have even less respect for you and your group because you look like an idiot when you get angry.

The ironic truth is that laws against racist feelings put a wedge between the races. As long as we consider racist feelings a crime, we will treat each others like criminals for our feelings about each others groups, we will walk on eggshells with each other, and we will never be comfortable with each other's groups.

The psychological approach

The other way of dealing with racism is the psychological approach. It means I have to understand the problems facing me and learn how to deal with them. Wishful thinking is not going to help me. Racism is one of the many unpleasant facts of life, like children’s defiance, unequal paychecks, and angry spouses. People aren’t angels, and it is human nature for people to favor their own group. I can’t expect the government to force everyone to feel the same way about my group as they do of their own. When people harbor negative views of my group, I need to realize this is not abnormal, for I, too, am not completely free of bias. If I want them to improve their attitudes toward my group, I have to be part of the process. I can’t expect laws to do it for me. I can’t get angry with people for being racist and expect them to want to be nice to my group. I can’t disrespect them for being racist and expect them to respect my group in return. I can’t try to get them punished for being racist and expect them not to hate and fear my group.

If I want people to respect my group, I need to show them respect–even when they disrespect my group. If I want them to stop being suspicious of my group, I need to treat them like friends–even when they treat my group like enemies. Eventually they will start thinking, “Maybe that group isn’t so bad after all. Yes, they are different, but they are nice and respectable and I have no reason to hate or fear them.”

Please don’t forget that this blog is in Psychology Today, not Law Enforcement Today. If you are enraged by my views because you insist that members of minority groups should not have to do anything about racism, I totally support your right to your view. But please understand you are taking a law enforcement approach, not psychological one. When we lobby for laws to solve social problems, we are actually declaring the failure of psychology. It means we don’t know how to solve the problem through psychological means; we need the legal system to do it for us. And don’t forget, the police are the muscle of the legal system, and policemen act the way that Officer Crowley did.

You may like the idea of living in a totalitarian police state, but I don’t. My parent’s families experienced it, and that was enough for me.

************
For those of you interested in the psychological solution to racism, I wrote a detailed manual, The Golden Rule Solution to Racism http://www.bullies2buddies.com/How-to-Stop-Racism, that is free on my website and can be accessed on the webpage with my other free manuals: http://www.bullies2buddies.com/resources/download-free-manuals. I wrote it with the specific instance of anti-Semitism, so that members of other groups won’t accuse me of not understanding their group, and complaining that I shouldn’t be telling them what to do. But I believe the lessons are universal and can be applied to any group.

Free Website Manual Saves Life of a Bullying Victim

Izzy Kalman — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:43:10 +0000

The modern world is trying so hard to find the solution for the suffering of victims of bullying, and we are doing it by trying to pass school anti-bully laws, as though a law can make bullying magically disappear from schools. In fact, now pressure is being put on the US Congress to do something about bullying. But how can Congress make bullying disappear from schools when anti-bully programs have a dismal success record? And does Congress even know how to get rid of bulling within Congress?

The truly ironic thing is that the solution has been known for thousands of years. It is called "wisdom." All wisdom is about using our brains to understand and solve problems. Expecting the government to help us by protecting us from bullies and by punishing them for us is not wisdom - it is foolishness.

And this is the basis of my approach: to provide people with the wisdom to solve their own problems. That this has become a revolutionary approach to bullying is mind-boggling to me. This is supposed to be the very basis of the psychological helping professions.

Anyway, every once in a while I get a wonderful letter from someone who benefited from the free material on my website. I created my webiste, www.Bullies2Buddies.com, so I could provide the simple, age-old solution to bullying to those who are suffering, and nothing makes me happier than to see that it is accomplishing its mission. A few months ago, I featured one such story. You can read it here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-bully-witch-hunt/200902/website-saves-victims-bullying

More recently, one of my blog readers who identifies herself as Concerned Parent wrote a comment that was so well written, and expresses just about everything I have been trying to teach about the wrong and the right way to deal with bullying, that I believe it deserves to be read by all my blog readers. (I left out a couple of sentences that I felt weren't particularly relevant to the story.)

I am happy to offer my experience -- the basis of "empirical evidence."
My son attends a large magnet school for academically-talented kids. The first year he was bullied I reported it to the vice-principal, who said, in no uncertain terms, that he would take care of it. He handled it according to policy (they have a "whole school policy") and things grew worse, for now not only was the group of 8 other boys bullying him but they let other kids know that they had gotten in trouble for it. Soon other kids joined in to bully him, and along with them an administrator/teacher who felt that my son deserved to be bullied. (One thing administrators don't get is that bullied kids often look as if they are troublemakers, because they are responding to being punched in the back, stabbed with pencils, books thrown to the floor, etc). In fact, this teacher started viciously bullying my son herself. Then I had to intervene with her and threaten action (she got quite out of hand with her bullying). When this happened, she mocked my son one last time and warned other teachers that my son was a "troublemaker." So then he was labeled by teachers and ostracized and bullied by kids, and it mushroomed and mushroomed out of control, including physical, verbal, cyber- and cell-phone bullying. His accounts were hacked, he was receiving ugly text messages and phone calls. Awful.
At this point other administrators got involved, and it continued to escalate until one day my son received a terrible death threat, detailed and gruesome, so ugly that he feared going to school. I reported it to the school and they followed procedure and brought the two boys together for "conflict resolution." Good lord. Now the kid who threatened my son became a hero, and more kids began to threaten and mock my son. Every intervention made things worse: mine, teachers, administrators, psychologists, on and on, auditorium programs, ridiculous health class exercises, classroom visits from high school kids. Meantime, I was madly reading everything I could lay my hands on about bullying -- I was up days and nights researching -- (I have a Ph.D. so know my way around the library). I also sought professional help--child psychologists, well-regarded--and their advice was the same as the literature: ineffective.
And when you watch your child sinking, helpless, into suicidal thoughts, panic, despair, I cannot tell you how terrible that is. Changing schools, in his condition, made little sense and was a huge gamble since, given the world we live in, the bullying was quite likely to find its way to any other school he attended, and I wasn't in a position to move out of the city.
In my son's darkest hour, I happened upon Mr. Kalman's website. It sounded crazy to me, but I was out of answers. He was the only one to sound a different note--it's remarkable how homogenous the bullying literature is. There was also a kind of common sense in his approach, a practical wisdom and understanding that the bullying literature simply doesn't have. The bullying literature is, in effect, literature about literature rather than observation and analysis of specific cases, generally. Those that look at empirical evidence invariably conclude that the approaches don't work
What I came to learn, personally and from the mountain of research I read, is that they DO NOT WORK. They exacerbate the problem. They make the bullied kid feel terrible about himself, and they excite and expand the ranks of the bullies.
But I can't say that I approached Mr. Kalman's method with great confidence. It seemed too straightforward.
My son tried it and it worked. It worked instantly. One day he was bullied, the next day it stopped. He didn't even have to wait it out the way Mr. Kalman predicted. Kids immediately (weirdly, almost magically) lost interest as soon as my son acted nonchalant in response to their mockery. Frankly, this experience has had a terrible effect on my own feelings about human beings: we are a bunch of monkeys, easily aroused and easily manipulated.

Let me add that Mr. Kalman's advice is not to "ignore" bullying. That's a naive reduction. Its real force is that it empowers the victim, teaches him not to take the attacks personally, not to own it. You must learn to respond to provocation with a different, empowered attitude--nonchalant, unaffected, even mildly amused or surprised by the bullying behavior. That's easier said than done when your self-esteem is being pummeled, but somehow my son managed. He pulled it off and it worked like a charm. Truly, like a charm. It has been several months now, and he is no longer the object of assault. Now and again he gets teased, but he blows it off and, as Mr. Kalman observes, the teasing moves on in search of another victim. He has learned to roll with, or roll off, the punches.
He's stronger, sadly, and less open to people, less the outgoing, funny, popular kid he was before all this brutality. No more panic attacks, no more depression. But he's back on honor roll, he is making--very tentatively--a few friends. He's taking an interest in his appearance and doesn't dread going to school, or no more than any teen-age boy.
I have the feeling that Mr. Kalman saved my son's life. Bravo, Mr. K. Glad to hear that someone is joining in this important work. Perhaps soon you can accumulate enough "empirical evidence" to have an impact on monkey island.

Concerned Parent, thank you so much for your letter, and I hope that it will spur others in a similar situation to visit my website and find the solution to their misery.

My free manual, How to Stop Being Teased and Bullied without Really Trying, as well as two other manuals, can be accessed here: http://www.bullies2buddies.com/resources/download-free-manuals

To further help victims of bullying, you can have them watch the following video clips": The Idiot Game: http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/139

Social Exclusion: http://www.bullies2buddies.com/?q=node/138

Best Wishes,

Izzy Kalman

The Tragic Death of Freedom of Speech and the Growth of Intolerance

Izzy Kalman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:41:45 +0000

Only July 4, the United States will be celebrating Independence Day, the birth of our nation. Unfortunately, the greatest freedom provided us by this new democracy has been dying and few people seem to be aware of it or care about it. And many others are even cheering it on.

The democratic world has made "tolerance" its number one social goal. Nevertheless, this goal has been elusive, as victimized groups continue to lobby for laws that remove the stigmas against them, and educators, social scientists and parents continue to proclaim the horrors of bullying. Despite decades of diversity education, members of the various races congregate largely with their own kind in our schools and neighborhoods.

The truly ironic thing is that the most essential element of a tolerant society has been with us for the past two centuries, as it is also the central element of democracy, but we are slowly but surely killing it. That element is in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is called Freedom of Speech. We need to be allowed to say what we want, as long as our words don't cause tangible harm to people's bodies or property, or society will stagnate and we will be prisoners in our own skulls, only permitted to say things that the authorities approve of. Without Freedom of Speech, we would never solve problems that require abandonment of current ways of thinking. Without Freedom of Speech, the government could be as despotic as it wishes, killing off any protestors without impunity. Where the concept of Freedom of Speech is absent, people believe they are entitled to kill others who say things they find offensive. Without Freedom of Speech, we would literally be living in the Dark Ages.

We Americans love to call our Constitution the greatest political blueprint ever created. It was formulated by wise, educated, brave men who studied philosophy and spent a great deal of time hashing out the principles for a system of government that maximizes human freedom and well-being. But the ultimate freedom, Freedom of Speech, is now dead.

Do you think I am exaggerating? Perhaps. But only a drop. Who teaches Freedom of Speech anymore? It is ignored from grade school through university. And if it is taught, is it ever given more than brief lip service? Is more than one paragraph ever allocated to it? Are its meaning, purpose and practice discussed? Even many journalists today, who owe their professions to Freedom of Speech, do not believe in it because they don't study and understand it.

As I repeatedly demonstrate at my seminars, in my videos and in my writings, Freedom of Speech is the key to peace among people. It is a wonderful principle not only for running a country. It is also a wonderful principle for interpersonal harmony. And though it is a wonderful psychological and moral principle, it is never taught in courses in psychology or morality.

Not only is no one teaching Freedom of Speech anymore, that precious freedom is being slowly but surely killed. It is being murdered by the growing social movement that has successfully brainwashed virtually everyone into believing that the solution to human emotional misery is to create, by force of law, a society in which no one says anything anyone else finds offensive, in which there is no stigma, and in which there are no imbalances of power. There is not one social movement in the history of the world that has enjoyed such unanimous support as the anti-bully movement. Not one religious or political group has criticized it, despite its being contrary to the basic philosophies of most religions and political groups. Not one psychological organization has criticized it, despite the fact that it violates the principles of almost all major schools of psychology. Neither the American Civil Liberties Union nor any other rights-advocacy group has criticized it, despite the fact that anti-bully laws violate the most basic democratic right, Freedom of Speech. Even organizations that are dedicated to promoting Freedom of Speech have failed to criticize this anti-free-speech movement.

The number one tool of science is logical thinking. 2,400 years ago, Aristotle said, "One thing no government can do, no matter how good it is, is to make its citizens morally virtous." Simple logic will lead anyone with a basic understanding of human nature to realize that a society in which everyone is always nice to each other is impossible. It has never existed-and will never exist-because it can't exist. Only in Heaven, if such a place exists, is such a society possible. And logic will lead thinking people to conclude, as Aristotle and our Founding Fathers did, that the attempt to create such a society by force of law can only cause more harm than good. But the social sciences, in their zeal to protect the feelings of people, have thrown logic out the window and are unwittingly creating a less tolerant society. We are in effect teaching: It is very important to be completely tolerant of everyone. And if anyone shows you any kind of intolerance, we will have no tolerance for them!

Ironically, some of the most intolerant, offensive people you can find are ones who most forcefully insist that we need to create a society in which no one is intolerant or offensive. As I am wont to say at my seminars, few people get insulted as much as I do. I have given seminars to tens of thousands of people, and I get evaluations at the end of the day. It never ceases to amaze me how nasty mental health professionals and educators can be! Thanks to my website and blog, I receive letters from people all over the world. Because I am the world's most visible critic of the anti-bully movement, I am also the world's leading recipient of the vitriol of anti-bully zealots. Many angry emailers naively accuse me of having no idea of what it's like to be bullied. They should read my email! They should read the threatening letters sent to Cross Country Education for daring to sponsor my seminars! They should have been there to witness the vicious attacks against me at a few of the presentations I have given in schools! They should read some of the nasty comments to articles about my work on the Internet! Very few people get bullied and cyberbullied as much as I do! (And i haven't tried to get any of my bullies punished!)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~Voltaire

Freedom of Speech requires me to respect your right to say what I don't like to hear--even to publicly insult and humiliate me--just as it requires you to respect my right to say what you don't like to hear. And just because we have ideas that are unacceptable to each other, it doesn't make us enemies. You may be giving me the best advice in the world but I don't realize it and find it offensive. Should you be prevented from, or punished for, saying it? We are supposed to love each other despite our opposing ideas. When I recognize your right to say things I don't like, I don't get angry at you for saying them. You, in return, respect me for acting respectable. Furthermore, since I don't get angry at you, you cannot have the pleasure of getting me angry, so you don't seek to torment me with words. All wise people throughout the world understand this. It is the most basic ingredient of peace.

Unfortunately, because Freedom of Speech is no longer taught, and our citizens have been indoctrinated with the very opposite, many people today cannot tolerate criticism, insults, or views opposite to their own. And that's why bullying has becoming a more serious problem during the very period that we have been trying hardest to get rid of it. Especially during the ten years since the Columbine massacre, the anti-bully movement has been teaching us that no one has a right to say anything to us that can cause us emotional or psychological distress. So when people say things that are offensive to us, we feel totally justified in getting angry, thinking self-righteously, "You have no right to say that!" and the situation escalates as they become even meaner back to us. And when we try to get them in trouble with the authorities, that's when they really want to kill us!

So that this won't be just theoretical, I would like to present you with a couple of recent examples of intelligent, educated people who would like to deny me Freedom of Speech.

I received the following email from someone identifying him/herself as Real Person, who had apparently read my article, The Psychological Solution to the Stigma of Obesity, and didn't like it. The article is written respectfully and is based on ideas that any decent Cognitive Behavior therapist or Rational Emotive therapist would whole-heartedly advocate. (I just reread it, and I happen to think it is quite good. I believe it will help any obese person who is willing to face reality.) The subject line of the email was, Sometimes the freest speech is silence. What this writer obviously wants, as you will see, is my silence, not his/her own, God forbid.

And the greatest freedom is to not have to listen to you! You know nothing. Some cute slogan and a soapbox and you're off... There needs to be an anti-bullying movement in every heart, everywhere! It's called common decency and respect for others. With your help, and the idiocy of bureaucrats, people have divorced their own actions from any sense of responsibility. Who are you to say that the stigma of obesity isn't worse than the obesity itself? Cruel words lead to cruel actions. It's just too bad that the gentlest souls far too often direct those actions toward themselves. Then idiots like you turn around and blame them. Do the world a favor and just shut up. Listen for a change. You might be surprised at what you haven't heard.

This person insists there must be decency and respect for everyone. Except, of course, to me, because she doesn't agree with me. She doesn't question her right to be as nasty and insulting to me as she wishes.

I received the following comment to my blog entry, The "Perfect" Anti-Bully Law, from someone identifying herself as Jeannette:

You have either no understanding or no experience - probably both - of any kind of bullying behaviour that reaches deeper than mild irritation. There are few people for whom the usual daily small and sometimes painful lessons of childhood - do not give them sufficient life skills to deal with the kind of bullying your 'booklet' describes. I checked out your infallible rules. Complete nonsense....I have listened with too much patience already to voices like yours, who recommend these simplistic solutions - ideas from people who - on finding themselves in any similar situation - would have not the slightest idea of any way to cope, and would be brought down very low by it....If you have never experienced that - you may not hope to understand how your article sounds, like nonsense, to anyone who has.
You have absolutely no right whatsoever to be making this attempt to harrass those who try to protect the lives of children and adults from one of the most pernicious ills of our time.

This intelligent writer believes that since I am criticizing the failing anti-bully movement, trying to wake the public up to the folly of anti-bully laws, and providing free advice that has helped countless people throughout the world successully deal with bullying, I am somehow "harassing" her. Have I ever done a thing to stop her--or anyone else--from trying to protect children from each other? It is not I who is fighting for laws that force us to think or behave in a certain way.

She says I "have absolutely no right whatsoever to be making this attempt..." Absolutely no right whatsoever?! How about the First Amendment?! But Freedom of Speech is dead, and even the most educated people today have forgotten it. These anti-bully activists who are so dead set against nastiness have no hesitation to be nasty to anyone they don't agree with. Only one point of view is permitted today. The only Freedom of Speech we have today is to say things that the anti-bully crusaders approve of. Three cheers for the demise of democracy!

If you haven't already viewed these videos, I invite you to see the power of Freedom of Speech in action. Two of the three sample videos from my Victim-Proof Your School program that can be viewed on my website demonstrate the power of Freedom of Speech to stop bullying. In each video scene, I first try to deny the other person Freedom of Speech; the second time I grant them Freedom of Speech.

The following is a scene in which a student is cursing a teacher: How Should Teacher Handle Being Bullied

The following is a medley of scenes of people calling me idiot (it would work with any other insult): The Idiot Game

I hope you are getting an increased appreciation for Freedom of Speech. If society were to spend a fraction of the time and effort teaching the meaning and practice of Freedom of Speech that it does fighting for anti-bully laws, we would achieve a greater reduction in bullying and a greater increase in tolerance and harmony than we can ever hope to achieve through the most intensive anti-bully laws!

Have a Happy Fourth of July!

**************************************************************

Here are some more great quotations on Freedom of Speech:

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. - George Washington

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. - John Milton

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky

The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum. - Adlai E. Stevenson

A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything. - Napoleon Bonaparte

The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with. - Eleanor Holmes Norton

The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think. - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdi

(I thank nonstopenglish.com for access to these quotations.)

The Solution to "Gay" Insults: Freedom of Speech

Izzy Kalman — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:06:39 +0000

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!

Interview on Bullying with Prof. Helene Guldberg

Izzy Kalman — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:58:55 +0000

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

A Voice of Sanity in the World of Anti-Bully Hysteria: Developmental Psychologist Helene Guldberg

Izzy Kalman — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:26:31 +0000

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.

***********

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

Tenth Anniversary of the Columbine Shooting

Izzy Kalman — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:59:44 +0000

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?

The Anti-Bully Operation was a Success but the Patient Died

Izzy Kalman — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:55:33 +0000

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–bullies. Rather than seeing people as basically similar but less-than-saints, they will think of anyone acting mean as a "bully," which, as the anti-bully experts are teaching them, means 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 from each other 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.