Bullycide

[CplFerro]

Sorry but I disagree - teaching a child that violence is the right answer is wrong. (That does not of course equate to saying that someone should not defend themselves from violence.)

Dear Darat,

You've just contradicted yourself. The proper solution to violence is self-defence, which clearly implies defensive violence.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

I agree with Darat; violence in response to violence is never the right answer. Teaching a child defensive measures is absolutely acceptable, but in addition to this the child should be taught that their only objective should be to disable their abuser, never to deliberately injure them.

Dear Sabrina,

Are you a Quaker? Self-defense includes in its repertoire intentionally inflicting pain and tissue damage on one's attacker. If you deny this, you are wrong, factually and morally.

Violent self-defense is certainly good and right. Don't spread nonviolent propaganda that will hinder me or mine from defending ourselves properly.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

 

[I Am The Scum]

Dear Darat,

You've just contradicted yourself. The proper solution to violence is self-defence, which clearly implies defensive violence.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

You're equivocating.

It is very clear that some are advocating an escalation of violence. On the other hand, Darat is advocating a minimizing of violence, which is the fundamental principal of self-defense.

 

[CplFerro]

You're equivocating.

It is very clear that some are advocating an escalation of violence. On the other hand, Darat is advocating a minimizing of violence, which is the fundamental principal of self-defense.

Dear Scum,

I don't know what dogma of self-defense you're referring to. I'm not part of the parish.

If A is attacked, A has the right to stop that attack by any means necessary.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

 

[GreyArea]

Since I'm going to end up asking more questions than giving answers, I'd like to thank whatthebutlersaw, Wudang, and Sabrina for their ideas, and Darat for pointing out that at least in Britain this issue is finally getting some serious attention.

I would also like to try to reply in the spirit of LibraryLady's original request.

Often, the victim is somehow different than the majority, perceived as gay, atheist, or otherwise not the "norm."

We are a community, a community of skeptics. Is there something that we as a group can do to help alleviate this problem? If the answer is no, what should we be doing as individuals? Or is this not an issue we should deal with at all? I am open to that answer.

The problem is not always one thing or the other, it takes changing cultures to stop the behavior.

I agree that some of what is needed is further broad social change, especially with adult/official acceptance of (former) out-groups. That work takes time, however, and it's still early days.

And I hate to say it, but I think that if the JREF Forums are any guide not even "the skeptic movement" is sufficiently on-board with respect for young "nerds" and "dorks", let alone young gays, lesbians, and atheists.

However, many schools as workplaces and as government agencies already have policies and regulations against violence, abuse, and harassment between their employees. Not all do, and not all who do also adhere to them. That's one level of change which is worth making anyway. But then it's necessary to extend these standards among students and enforce them.

Cultural change around bullying has been happening since Columbine and has grown with the recent spate of well-publicized suicides of young people, especially young LGBT people. Policy change may take even longer to be refined and widely-distributed. And it will be harder to make sure it leads to support for those minorities that even the adults hate, such as LGBT kids or atheists. This obstacle also includes parents who want to preserve their children's right to express religiously-justified bigotry.

I think that changing attitudes may be just as much a product of skeptics' and freethinkers' society-wide visibility and respect efforts, as they will be from specific policy-based campaigns before boards of education and school districts.

Here's one place to start: Do you all know the bullying and harassment policies of your local schools? Do you know if they are followed? Do you know how to force the adults there to follow them? Finding out what the current expectations are is necessary before expanding them.

Also, it may be necessary to understand the opposition. What board members, staff, and parents support violence and abusive behavior in school? What justifications do they use? Which of these people are likely to oppose attempts to curtail abuse? What kind of power do they have in the community? The treatment of Constance McMillen by so-called adults provides a glimpse of the kind of mentality in some communities.

Talk to the educators who are already with you on this. What tools do they need that they don't currently have to address bullying and abuse? What kinds of public and institutional support will they need to do this job?

Meanwhile, does anyone know if gay-straight alliances mitigate gay-bashing in the high schools that have them? If so, how does that happen? Is the experience of such groups something from which organized skeptics can learn, if we want to protect "our" kids? How do we protect more than just the geek kids and nerdlings? I mean, all students should actually be safe enough to absorb their lessons.

That's a lot of questions, but maybe it's food for thought.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Dear Scum,

I don't know what dogma of self-defense you're referring to. I'm not part of the parish.

If A is attacked, A has the right to stop that attack by any means necessary.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

Yes, stopping the attack. That's the point.

Others have advocated initiating attacks where none are present. Do you see why this matters? Do you realize that this is not self defense?

 

[Cainkane1]

Bullying really is bad. I have a friend who suffers the effects of polio and here 51 years later he still complains bitterly about an incident where he was playing touch football and when he caught a pass a larger boy elbowed him hard behind. My friend fell violently forward and he had a bloody nose.

My friends main concern is that he was obviously crippled wearing a metal brace and he walked with a pronounced limp. I can empathise with him as I also had obvious handicaps as a kid and I was pushed around also.

It has been 51 years though. He has raised two children and is retired with his wife. He has grandchildren to occupy him and perhaps he dwells on this too much.

Its hard to forget someone who craps on you though.

 

[truethat]

No one is arguing how common it is. That doesn't mean that anyone who feels that more needs to be done than teaching the victim to deal should be handwaved away as being dramatic.



Am I reading you correctly? Are you saying it makes more sense to educate potential victims how to deal with their abuser than it is to figure out how to deal with the abuser?

YES

I am not quite sure what this has to do with anything other than it sort of sounds like you are blaming my mother for marrying an abuser. According to my mother, he was a completely different person, until they got married. He didn't get abusive until she disagreed with him. Their marriage lasted a total of two months.



Okay, and you are free to continue blaming the victim.

This is an interesting dynamic. Because the way it comes across to me, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW YOU ARE NOT SAYING THIS, is that your mother was too helpless, ignorant, blind etc. to realize that she was marrying an abuser.

People are not completely different before they got married. It is an impossibility except in the rare cases of split personality or sociopath. Most women clearly have clues to see what's going to go down.

I have personally watched girlfriends of mine sing the praises of some misogynistic jerk. Starry eyed love and whatnot. Meanwhile my mind is doing the reality check

Ex.

Still lives with the parents
Hasn't had a steady job in years
Makes sexist comments ALL the time
Puts down things the woman is excited about
Rolls his eyes during conversation
Orders dinner for her
Very jealous
Is disrespectful about family members
Is rude to waiters and other service people
loses his temper easily
etc etc etc

I can't tell you the number of times I've watched a woman sashay into an abusive relationship only to claim to be "blindsided" later. Meanwhile the whole time I was telling her it was going to happen. After a while I begin to hold my tongue because they are not going to listen.

I'm sorry that your mother went through this. I'm sorry so many women go through this. And yes of course they are victims. But I suppose I wonder why that pattern is so startling high. I just don't get it. AT ALL.

And again, why the appeal to emotion? What anecdotes have I used to justify your self help group sympathy rant? I've shared my experiences as evidence to explain my own personal perspective. You are throwing yours down as some sort of evidence. The evidence for me is that its the same pattern over and over again.

My question is why is it that people seem to freeze intellectually once emotions are involved???????????????????????????????? (Hope that's enough question marks for people to realize it is a question)

Also, saying I'm blaming the victim because I ask a legitimate question, is in my mind the kind of thinking that perpetuates victimhood.

Why does it bother you so much to look at the reality of the situation? It seems like that the most important thing to you is to "protect the victim"

My goal is to "Prevent the victim."

 

[CplFerro]

Yes, stopping the attack. That's the point.

Others have advocated initiating attacks where none are present. Do you see why this matters? Do you realize that this is not self defense?

Dear Scum,

Seeing as how this latter method, un-Scum-approved, is how my father successfully dealt with a bully when he was a young teenager, no, I do not, and will not, realise that this is not self-defense.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

 

[Chaos]

Yes, stopping the attack. That's the point.

Others have advocated initiating attacks where none are present. Do you see why this matters? Do you realize that this is not self defense?

Who says anything about "attacks where none are present"? Indeed, who says attacks are not present?

Besides, if I can prevent year after after of near-constant abuse by a single punch in the face, I have very much minimized the use of violence.

 

[I Am The Scum]

People are not completely different before they got married. It is an impossibility except in the rare cases of split personality or sociopath. Most women clearly have clues to see what's going to go down.

Yes, because nobody has ever been deceptive on issues of romance. It just does not happen.

Dear Scum,

Seeing as how this latter method, un-Scum-approved, is how my father successfully dealt with a bully when he was a young teenager, no, I do not, and will not, realise that this is not self-defense.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

Nobody's saying you have to like it. The point was that a clear distinction between the two actions does exist. There's an honest discussion to be had in this regard, but you have avoided it. Whereas you had the option of saying, "I believe that aggression can be justified because of X, Y, and Z," you instead chose to go the route of playing with words and confusing the issue altogether. Typically, this is an indication of someone who has no argument to make.

The fact remains that beginning a violent act where none exists is, by definition, not self defense. If you think that in some cases it may be justified to do so, even though it's not self dense, I'd be glad to hear your reasoning.

 

[truethat]

Oh geez. Another thread about bullying turns into quibbling over the definition of "victim."

In schoolyard bullying, there is an aggressor or an aggressive group who target an individual. The aggressor is in a position of power (stronger, more popular, or a better manipulator of adults) If they were not, there would be no aggressive action or the aggressive action could be immediately dealt with by the target. So using the word "victim" to define the person who the object of this aggression is applicable.

And yet, the word itself always seems to bring out a knee-jerk reaction. Don't call them victims! We're making everyone a victim! There are no victims! Just people who won't take responsibility for their own choices, you know like battered adult women!

If we're talking about middle-school or high school, this imbalance of power is localized. It is only within that specific social dynamic that the aggressor has any control. If the social dynamic is changed, the aggressor loses the edge. One way to do this is suspensions for bullying. Especially in cases where there are aggressive groups of children. Like any repeat offense, multiple suspensions for bullying lead to expulsion.

An adult stepping in to take the targeted child's side corrects the imbalance of power. Taking the targeted child aside and explaining to them that this is really just a natural, socially accepted response to that which is "other" and they should suck it up, does not address the imbalance of power. Yes, it explains it but it does not give the targeted child any specific strengths or tools.

I would like to challenge this statement. When I was bullied I was so isolated I really thought something was wrong with me. Years later I saw movies such as "Never Been Kissed" and others and it struck me as odd. In those movies the odd balls became the champion. At the end of the movie they pointed out the successful potential of those students. Temple Grandin has pointed out, for example, that without Aspergers we'd not have the likes of Bill Gates, Einstein and others.

The tools I am thinking about would need to be specific. I think a "nerd" group of kids can gain a sense of dominance or control by understanding that they are more intelligent than their peers, and this is what makes them the "odd bird."

Likewise homosexuals often have support in understanding that their community is narrow minded and religious. Society has tried to match that understanding in the media. For example the show "United States of Tara"

There are many resources for kids who understand why they are being targeted. It doesn't make it go away to understand it, but in feeling a sense of bigger picture it helps create a solidarity outside the paradigm of school life.

To me, this is the most prudent approach because it catches the attention of the student who is actively involved in being victimized by bullies. Others are not going to care. Seriously they are not. Think back to your life in highschool. Who did you even notice?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Who says anything about "attacks where none are present"? Indeed, who says attacks are not present?

We had this one bully in school. One of those rare genetic wonders that makes them a foot taller than everyone else their age. I was his target for quite some time. I'd get beaten up from time to time. One day I got sick of it, so I retaliated. I happened to be going down a stairwell, and he was right in front of me. I kicked him in the back of the knee and gave him a bit of a shove, sending him sprawling forward. I jumped on his back and rode him to the bottom like a toboggan. At the bottom I just started swinging like crazy. I did end up losing that fight, despite my early advantage. Pretty badly, actually. The next day I did it again. And lost. The day after that, I did it again and the fight was broken up by teachers. Still, I kept at it. Neither of us did any real permanent damage beyond some rather heavy bruising. Finally he asked me (summarizing, and it was a loong time ago so my memory isn't perfect) what it would take for me to leave him alone. I told him "Don't talk to me, don't talk about me, don't even look at me. As far as you're concerned, I don't exist. As far as I'm concerned, you don't exist. Deal?" Deal was set. After that I didn't get bothered by anybody.

So, here's an example of Mister Earl initiating a fight. Initiating a fight is not self defense.

 

[fuelair]

The physical aspects of bullying, the pushing and shoving and the like, are only a small element of bullying and I suspect most bullying between children is not of this type once they've reached high-school age. And I'm sorry but the bravado of those tales about standing up to "the bully" is misplaced, all it shows is that if you can physically intimidate someone, in other words bully them then they will leave you alone. Which given how our societies work is a terrible lesson to learn going into adulthood since such behaviour in adulthood is not only frowned upon but is often illegal.

.

Not so much in the US, except in a few places. Here the bully handler is less likely to face the kind of silliness of laws preventing carrying of defensive devices/material as are found in places that appear to care less about their citizens right to life amd safety than about the welfare of coshers and knifers. I tend to the other position. The police cannot and make no effort to be every place. Legally armed citizens (and those who just happen to have a large wrench, crowbar, bat, hunk of metal, swift opening pocket knife (not a switchblade, that would be illegal, just fast opening - I generally have two about my person - made by the lovely folks at Leatherman) are fine here - and I honestly prefer that.

Doesen't stop them all, but it makes them more nervous and stops some of them. One likes to do the best one can!!

 

[Sabrina]

Dear Sabrina,

Are you a Quaker? Self-defense includes in its repertoire intentionally inflicting pain and tissue damage on one's attacker. If you deny this, you are wrong, factually and morally.

Violent self-defense is certainly good and right. Don't spread nonviolent propaganda that will hinder me or mine from defending ourselves properly.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

No, I am not a Quaker. In fact, I am a current member of the US Army, rank of Captain, and if you actually hold that rank in your user name, you'd be better off addressing me as "ma'am".

I am well aware that self-defense may very well include tissue damage and pain inflicted upon the person that is attacking; my point was to state that the person who is engaging in self-defense needs to be taught very strenuously to not take it any further than they have to. I stated quite plainly that the attacker would need to be disabled so they could no longer attack, but at that point the person who is defending themselves needs to STOP. Pushing the counterattack any further, whether it started in self-defense or not, does nothing but perpetrate the cycle. In other words; not to attack for the sake of violence, but simply to disable the attack and then walk away. You and others here SEEM, from my own interpretation of your posts, to be advocating a philosophy of "an eye for an eye".

There are all kinds of bullying; not all of it is physical. Most is verbal, in fact; all the bullying I was subjected to when younger was verbal. I was never, to my recollection, physically attacked, and cannot recall anyone doing so to another person while I was in middle and high school, nor even yet elementary school. From what I am seeing, you and several others here seem to think that a physical attack on the person who is bullying is the only answer; it is not. There are other alternatives. That is what I and Darat (Darat, forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth and feel free to correct me) are trying to explain; it is quite right and acceptable to teach a child that, if they are physically attacked, they can and should disable their attacker if they are able to, but they are NOT to continue the attack once the attacker is disabled and should instead get an authority figure to mete out appropriate punishment. HOWEVER... it is better to teach children from the get-go that bullying, be it physical or verbal, is unacceptable behavior to begin with, and then the physical means by which someone can defend themselves would become unnecessary.

I'm hardly a pacifist; I'm quite willing to fight if it's necessary. But I am a firm advocate of working to make it unnecessary from the start, and only fight as a last resort.

 

[fuelair]

So far I have learned that:

* It is perfectly feasible to elevate your own experience to ideal, just as long as you were bullied yourself. If anyone else's experience is different from yours then they are either whining or the solution is not applicable to them and no other solution is proffered. Your experience is the only one that counts. Natch.
* Behaviour that is illegal between adults is perfectly ok between kids or teens.
* Bullies have no responsibility to alter their behaviour and there should be no attempts to try to force them to.
* Anyone trying to address the problem is a whiny bitch and should shut up and let the bullies get on with it. It's only kids, after all, and if they weren't so damn different it wouldn't happen to them, it would happen to some other kid and who cares what happens to some other kid? The problem isn't the bullying. It's that it's happening to X. Once it happens to Y, the problem is solved.
* There is absolutely no way to harrass, stalk or hurt someone over the internet.
* Only the physical part of bullying counts. The slow erosion of self worth, confidence and sense of self is piffle. Being hated by everyone in your known universe has no effect on anyone ever. People don't really need all that once they reach "the real world".
* A state in which a person resides for at least ten to twelve years of their life is not "the real world". Its transitory state means that anything can be endured. Kids aren't really people after all. That's why it's AOK to Abu Graib them until they hang themselves. By this logic, I have still to live in the real world for as long as I existed in that world, but hey - at least I'm a real person and not a kid.

Did I miss anything?

My friend Nika obviously had it coming for not just fighting off the hockey dudes who liked to throw cans at her. Her scoliosis, and the hereditary degenerative disease which caused all the joints in her body to meld and stopped her growth at 4'10" is no *********** excuse not to learn karate. (Actually, she did take Judo as part of her physical therapy. Didn't help much against a 200lbs hockey forward.)

I fought those ******** for her. But do you know what? I shouldn't have had to. And I damn well shouldn't have had to be at the principal's office once or twice a week getting a lecture on why it isn't ladylike to get into fights and how it was no excuse that I was defending Nika - because that meant they weren't mean to me, so I had NO reason. (Well, that resolved itself when they started picking on me for standing up for Nika. Except that it turned out that defending myself wasn't a good enough reason for a girl to fight after all.) I don't think it is acceptable that Nika would have to take a week off from school every spring when I went skiing with my parents, because with no madzer to bite the kneecaps off her bullies around, she was fair game. (And also had no one who thought the fact that she was intelligent and knew **** made her worthwhile, to counterbalance the pure hate from everyone who didn't like people with their arms in weird metal straighteners.)

It felt extremely good to fling her most detested pest into a radiator (didn't aim for the radiator, accident) and strand him at home for two days with a concussion. That time, I got into no trouble because he was bloody well not admitting to being maimed by a 5' girl.

Still shouldn't have had to. Adults should have seen, acted and handled before I had to do that.

So what if sticking out makes you an obvious target? (and I'm not agreeing to that either, lots of cases start out with a normal conflict and the craziest party sets the agenda afterwards) Still isn't OK, and we shouldn't allow kids to think it is.

What we are doing, letting the bullies set the agenda, demanding that the victims modify their behaviour, forbidding people to talk about it later in life, by calling them whiny and scaring anyone still in that situation from telling anyone - what we are doing by that is letting the maddest define reality.

We are a society. Not an anarchic pseudo-Darwinist biodome set up to study ferrets in their natural habitat.

Bullying is by its nature not a conflict. It's abuse. Treating it like a conflict is double punishing the victim. There ARE schools in Norway who have had good results with a zero tolerance on both conflict and abuse - nothing is ever allowed to escalate. The tiniest scuffle leads to a trip to the principal, who does not hand out punishments, but tries to find the root to the conflict and negotiate an agreement. (It's a bit like a punishment though, because it likely bores the **** out of the culprits.) All the grown ups in a school environment need to be a presence in the kids' lives and bullying needs to have immediate and proportionate response. At the best schools (from bullying prevention point of view) I went to, janitors and dinner-staff where as much a presence as the teachers - and the headmaster wasn't hiding in his chambers, but made himself visible all through the day.

A small pet peeve of mine is the architecture of most schools. There are far too many secluded spots and odd corners. It ought to be possible for only a couple of adults to surveil a big area and wtf is up with all these schoolyards with different kinds of thorny bushes as the only green? Do they WANT the bullies to have somewhere thorny to push people? A surveiled recess area for quiet pursuits could prove a haven for persecuted kids. At mine and Nika's school that was the school library, until it was closed over lunch recess when staff was cut from two librarians to one.

They really thought all the librarians did was guard the books? Hell, the librarians were the angels of the bullied. Unlike teachers, they never accepted any bullying in their library, and had the authority to send the bullies packing, as long as there were two of them.

Well done!! One of the most fun times I ever had in a courtroom was testifying exactly what I had seen a large boy do to a small girl in my library. Middle School - I was a librarian at that point. Had caught him, called him off her, walked him to the office of our female AP and presented him to her. Police were called, parents pressed charges, we testified and we and the girl got to watch that piece of crap walk out chained, in his orange jumpsuit, headed for juenile incarceration!!! It was not the first time he had done this- but it was the first where there were people willing to testify.

 

[MatildaGage]

I've dealt extensively with many types of bullies in childhood and adulthood. The most success I've had is using policies/rules/laws to stop the behavior.

Many human beings, by their nature, are mean. Adults have the responsibility to teach children to behave better, and to teach the victims they don't deserve it & how to appropriately assert their rights.

I've got a lot of stories too....once I scarred a bully (premeditated on my part) after years of physical and verbal abuse, because our parents all said it was "just teasing". He is 50 and still has the scar. I got beaten and injured by my mother for fighting back. I am not sorry--at the time I told her I would not ever be sorry my entire life, no matter how much she beat me. She told me Jesus said turn the other cheek. The bully got the satisfaction of knowing I was beaten for it, but he never touched me again. Of what benefit was that approach? To anyone? I did what I had to do but the adults should have handled it properly.

As an adult I reported an employee to the police for harassing and threatening me and her coworkers. She escalated after I fired her, then got convicted by trial. She didn't stop until the trial--a grandmother spent a night in jail and even that wasn't enough to make her quit! The conviction is what made her stop. To me that indicates all the other ways I might have handled it would have been ineffective.

Obviously using the legal system was the better approach.

 

[CplFerro]

Yes, because nobody has ever been deceptive on issues of romance. It just does not happen.



Nobody's saying you have to like it. The point was that a clear distinction between the two actions does exist. There's an honest discussion to be had in this regard, but you have avoided it. Whereas you had the option of saying, "I believe that aggression can be justified because of X, Y, and Z," you instead chose to go the route of playing with words and confusing the issue altogether. Typically, this is an indication of someone who has no argument to make.

The fact remains that beginning a violent act where none exists is, by definition, not self defense. If you think that in some cases it may be justified to do so, even though it's not self dense, I'd be glad to hear your reasoning.

Dear Scum,

We permanently disagree. If I live under the gun of an oppressor, and I initiate an attack against him, even if he isn't immediately pointing the gun at me, that's self-defense. Your sophistry can go hang.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

No, I am not a Quaker. In fact, I am a current member of the US Army, rank of Captain, and if you actually hold that rank in your user name, you'd be better off addressing me as "ma'am".

I am well aware that self-defense may very well include tissue damage and pain inflicted upon the person that is attacking; my point was to state that the person who is engaging in self-defense needs to be taught very strenuously to not take it any further than they have to. I stated quite plainly that the attacker would need to be disabled so they could no longer attack, but at that point the person who is defending themselves needs to STOP. Pushing the counterattack any further, whether it started in self-defense or not, does nothing but perpetrate the cycle. In other words; not to attack for the sake of violence, but simply to disable the attack and then walk away. You and others here SEEM, from my own interpretation of your posts, to be advocating a philosophy of "an eye for an eye".

There are all kinds of bullying; not all of it is physical. Most is verbal, in fact; all the bullying I was subjected to when younger was verbal. I was never, to my recollection, physically attacked, and cannot recall anyone doing so to another person while I was in middle and high school, nor even yet elementary school. From what I am seeing, you and several others here seem to think that a physical attack on the person who is bullying is the only answer; it is not. There are other alternatives. That is what I and Darat (Darat, forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth and feel free to correct me) are trying to explain; it is quite right and acceptable to teach a child that, if they are physically attacked, they can and should disable their attacker if they are able to, but they are NOT to continue the attack once the attacker is disabled and should instead get an authority figure to mete out appropriate punishment. HOWEVER... it is better to teach children from the get-go that bullying, be it physical or verbal, is unacceptable behavior to begin with, and then the physical means by which someone can defend themselves would become unnecessary.

I'm hardly a pacifist; I'm quite willing to fight if it's necessary. But I am a firm advocate of working to make it unnecessary from the start, and only fight as a last resort.

Dear Sabrina,

You and I agree that any physical attack merits physical defense, up to and including whatever pain and tissue damage is necessary. I do not advocate revenge, but, as I wrote above, preemptive strikes are fair game, if that's what it takes to get a given bellicose individual to STAY THE HELL AWAY. I will not be moved on that regard.

Yours,

Cpl Ferro

 

[LibraryLady]

Thank you, GreyArea for responding to my query. I truly appreciate it. It's a strange thing, but I am so emotional on this topic that contacting the school board never occurred to me. Here is the official policy on bullying. Since my own being bullied experienced happened in this area, albeit 43 years ago, I'd be interested in how things have changed, in terms of the policy and the implementation. I'm going to look into this.

For those of you who haven't read my experiences in other threads, intervention with the bully in question might not have helped me, but it might have saved her life.