Bullycide

[bookitty]

Very true about the pretty girl getting bullied. But it doesn't seem to be the case in Pheobe Prince.

In doing a little digging I found what I suspected. Unfortunately I'm sure I'm going to get slammed to the mat again for looking at this issue from a realistic stance, no matter how not glamourously sympathetic it may be. I am not interested in blaming the victim here, but finding out the truth of the pattern. There is the pattern in her case that I was discussing before.

(again I'm only discussing suicide as a result of bullying)

Patterns I've seen

An "odd bird" she just is a little different than the rest, smarter, prettier, is also "different" IMO since most teenagers are freaking morons.

Her mother and father had no idea what was going on. Her father is Ireland and the mother used to leave her alone one night a week in the apartment.

Psychological issues, Phoebe was a cutter and had attempted suicide before, prior to the bullying. She was also on two different kinds of prescriptions for mood disorders including Prozac, which she had stopped taking.

Taking things very personally and internalizing things that others might have an easier time letting roll of their back.

She also got in trouble for smoking pot and scarring herself with the pipe in a burn, and had it reported to her mother and was going to have to deal with that when she went home. She might have been pushed to the edge for this reason as well.

Now I was never seriously targeted as a "slut or a whore" at school so I'm not sure if I'd have been able to blow that off. I think that's slightly different in bullying. But I do know some people can take being called a slut and not give a damn but others would be horrified at it.


The DA is making a major case out of this and I think it's a good idea because I do think overall that we should criminalize bullying. I think the idea of prosecution could serve as a deterrent and also get parents more involved. However I'd be hard pressed to vote guilty for any of these students.

More here Not sure about the source, if anyone knows it's a crap source please let us know.

http://www.newser.com/story/96116/the-truth-about-what-happened-to-phoebe-prince.html

It is interesting that you linked to the more provocative summation and not the story it is referencing. The story in Slate is a rehashing of the same old victim blaming that can be found here. The article sets out to defend "the uncomfortable fact that Phoebe helped set in motion the conflicts with other students that ended in them turning on her." Yet there is only a single mention of Phoebe speaking to one of the teens charged in her death. In another example, Phoebe walks out of a bathroom without even making eye-contact - an obvious example of someone who is the weaker party in a power play.

In every other example of what Phoebe supposedly did, the other girls are the aggressor. They mocked her on Facebook, they called her whore in the hallways, one yelled at her in the class room and was suspended for two days, that same girl was overheard by a teacher "venting about Phoebe during class in a way that made him think a fight was looming." The day Phoebe died they drove by, screamed whore at her and tried to hit her with a soft drink can thrown from a moving vehicle.

The second part of the article attempts to show that the D.A. is far too aggressive in prosecuting bullies. Instead of this case, it focuses on a previous case in which a senior assaulted a junior classmate because he was gay.

This story started at prom. Martin (his middle name), then a 17-year-old junior, brought his boyfriend as his date. Other students treated them with respect. But soon after, when Martin was in line in the school cafeteria, he felt someone come up behind him and put a hand inside the back of his pants. He felt a finger in his buttocks, he later said. Martin turned around. He saw a senior named Max Keith, whom he'd never spoken to, wildly laughing. Another student yelled, "Faggot."

There is much hand-wringing about how the poor senior will now be on the sex offender registry and that his whole life is ruined. There is some cursory empathy for the victim but it comes from a quote made by the judge and not the writer herself.

There is far too little evidence for this to be anything other than an opinion piece. The author has obviously spent so much time speaking with the students that she has become biased to their point of view and has forgotten that Phoebe herself suffered because of those views.

 

[truethat]

I agree that it is an opinion piece. As you will notice I didn't say anything about the "accused bullies" other than I'd have a hard time convicting them. I also stated that I think criminal prosecution for bullying needs to happen.


I am concerned about the pattern of the victim's behavior as compared to other victims of bullying. I honestly didn't know about this girl very much when I was posting the things in the thread earlier.

But it does seem to match what I was saying. She seems to have had major psychological problems and it is this which combined with the bullying seems to have pushed her over the edge. (I'm also very concerned about the fact that she was on Prozac but that's another thread)

In addition her parents seemed distant and uninvolved. Big red flag. These sorts of things were puzzle pieces sitting there ready to be put together. But no one did. She had ALREADY prior to bullying, she attempted suicide. How in the world this girl fell through the cracks is beyond me.

 

[sgtbaker]

Psychological issues, Phoebe was a cutter and had attempted suicide before, prior to the bullying. She was also on two different kinds of prescriptions for mood disorders including Prozac, which she had stopped taking.
[/url]

The thing I really disagree with here, is that the article states that she began cutting herself while she was at the private school from which she was eventually moved, because of bullying. It also doesn't appear that the parents were completely clueless about what was going on. It appears that the mother was trying. It doesn't mention whether or not Pheobe and her father continued to speak. Very little goes into before her time at the Irish private school so it's hard to know if she was always suffering from a mood disorder or if it came on as a result of her life.

Also, I want to add, as a point, Kayla sounds like she has some serious issues. She seems like she had an unhealthy fixation with Pheobe. Sean and Kayla, for that matter. It happened a couple of months ago, they were back together and Pheobe was out of the picture. It seems like they had some coping issues that needed to be addressed.

 

[truethat]

The thing I really disagree with here, is that the article states that she began cutting herself while she was at the private school from which she was eventually moved, because of bullying. It also doesn't appear that the parents were completely clueless about what was going on. It appears that the mother was trying. It doesn't mention whether or not Pheobe and her father continued to speak. Very little goes into before her time at the Irish private school so it's hard to know if she was always suffering from a mood disorder or if it came on as a result of her life.

Also, I want to add, as a point, Kayla sounds like she has some serious issues. She seems like she had an unhealthy fixation with Pheobe. Sean and Kayla, for that matter. It happened a couple of months ago, they were back together and Pheobe was out of the picture. It seems like they had some coping issues that needed to be addressed.

I didn't mean to suggest I was blaming the parents. I was suggesting that if the school was better informed about the dynamics of peer group and pressures and typical profiles of bully victims who commit suicide, they should have been able to see she was basically and accident waiting to happen. It was simply a matter of time.

This is why it is important to educate the schools, the victims and the families about what this looks like. So they will take it seriously.

 

[Sabrina]

I don't think anyone is arguing that there wouldn't be other deep-rooted psychological issues when it comes to the cases of students committing suicide in response to bullying; I'd completely agree that there must be more to it than just the bullying. So I agree wholeheartedly with the "education" premise; it needs to happen. I also feel that students who are bullied desperately need for society as a whole to lift the stigma that has been placed upon mental illness so they can get the care they need. I'm aware that not everyone can afford a psychologist, so perhaps clinics can be set up where the students who are being affected psychologically can go to speak with someone who can help.

Slightly off-topic here, but I have to admit I am extremely tired of the idea that just because someone sees a psychologist that automatically means they're crazy, psycho, a nutjob, whatever. My undergrad degree is in psychology, and if there's one thing I learned, both from that and from my own life experience, it's that mental health is just as important as physical health when it comes to overall well-being, and simply because you've seen a mental health professional in the past shouldn't mean that you'll be denied opportunities that people who HAVEN'T seen one will get. I'm a case in point on that; I had a mild nervous breakdown once, and as a result my security clearance was temporarily suspended, but was later reinstated after it was determined that my mental health issues were more or less cleared up. In other words, just because I was briefly on Prozac and was seeing a counselor doesn't mean I'm incapable of protecting national security interests. I truly feel that if we are to deal with the issue of bullying, we also need to deal with the residual stigma that has been placed on individuals who seek help for their mental health issues.

 

[truethat]

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that at all. I use a lot of psychology in my line of work and also have tip toed close to the edge myself. I think pretty much everyone can have stress overloads that lead to mental health issues.

I think that it is important not to rely on interpretation of a certain behaviors as a guide to viewing bulying. So far we see that when teachers are expected to rely on interpretation they fail miserably or consider it "just normal teen age angst"

This is why zero tolerance is important and systems in place to track behavior. For example "pushing" is something that teachers didn't use to always identify as bullying.

Hmmm let me see if I can say this right,

If a group of kids are pushing one kid, either psychologically or physically it's considered bullying.

But if one kid pushes another kid physically a teacher is more likely to just tell them to knock it off. It's "interpreted" as not as dangerous.

Even though the kids that bullied Phoebe Prince are probably not going to get convicted on the more severe charges, I think the DA is doing the right thing. Because now parents are going to realize that if their kid bullies another kid they have the potential to have their entire lives ruined because of it.

For years victims of bullying have their entire lives changed because of trauma.

Setting out clearly to students and parents the consequences of bullying is a good step in the right direction. And a systematic plan of not just having the victim complain and having something done, but bystanders able to complain as well.

Here's the book the woman discussed in the article


http://www.amazon.com/Bully-Bullied...4603/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298818537&sr=8-1

 

[gnome]

Never fond of the concept of "zero tolerance" as it is usually applied. If it's to mean that once someone is actually found to have victimized another that there must be consequences, that's a good idea, but when you go with the "zero tolerance" model you wind up trying to enforce that WITHOUT any process... just insisting on throwing the consequence at any physical disruption. It winds up being used to avoid actually investigating what happened. Often the victims get punished for fighting back, just because they were the ones seen.

 

[sgtbaker]

Never fond of the concept of "zero tolerance" as it is usually applied. If it's to mean that once someone is actually found to have victimized another that there must be consequences, that's a good idea, but when you go with the "zero tolerance" model you wind up trying to enforce that WITHOUT any process... just insisting on throwing the consequence at any physical disruption. It winds up being used to avoid actually investigating what happened. Often the victims get punished for fighting back, just because they were the ones seen.

I think most would agree to that, as well. It seems like the general tone is to get to the bottom of the issue. If someone is bullying, it should be recognized as problematic behavior and addressed. Once you go to zero tolerance, at the level of which you are speaking, it becomes a matter of eliminating the behavior but avoiding the problem.

 

[truethat]

I think most would agree to that, as well. It seems like the general tone is to get to the bottom of the issue. If someone is bullying, it should be recognized as problematic behavior and addressed. Once you go to zero tolerance, at the level of which you are speaking, it becomes a matter of eliminating the behavior but avoiding the problem.

What is wrong with this? Isn't the goal to eradicate it? Eliminating the behavior and avoiding the problem seem to go hand and hand to me? Am I not understanding you correctly?

 

[sgtbaker]

What is wrong with this? Isn't the goal to eradicate it? Eliminating the behavior and avoiding the problem seem to go hand and hand to me? Am I not understanding you correctly?

I may not have worded that correctly, I mean avoiding dealing with the problem. Regardless of the reason behind the bullying, I feel it is indicative of a socially developmental problem; the child may be under the impression that they, themselves, set the standard for 'normal', the child may believe that nonconformists should be shamed into conformity, or that nonconformity is something to point and laugh at, the reasons why are endless. This is why a one sized fits all, zero tolerance consequence is wrong. It may teach the child not to torment that particular student but does nothing to teach the kid that oddity is undeserving of mockery.

 

[Sabrina]

I would have to agree with the wording as corrected, sgtbaker. Punishing a perpetrator is all well and good, but if nothing is done to correct the underlying issue, it doesn't accomplish much.

 

[sgtbaker]

I may sound like I am putting it all on the school to do this but this is the area where I think parental involvement and parental accountibility is an absolute necessity. As a parent, I can say with certainty that I don't think we realize how many bad behaviors we teach our children. Whether it be an accident with good intentions or simply being completely oblivious, we tend to teach our children, 'I don't agree with it, therefor, it's wrong." Kids don't know how to process and apply that information and they are certainly not known for their introspective abilities so for them it morphs into, 'point out what's not like me.'

 

[truethat]

I think wanting to correct the behavior is aiming too high at this point. Prevention is the key> Down the line we might want to examine more efforts, and certainly any steps towards prevention ought to by extension help to deal with causation. But at this point the key is to pre identify patterns and set standards based on those standards.

I thought of an interesting example today to illustrate what I mean.

Think of rear ending another car.

In the US the standard rule is to stay two (or maybe more) car lengths at a distance from the car in front. The reason being that if someone slams on their breaks you won't have time to stop.

Now nobody keeps this distance. We all drive and I'm sure you've never seen this distance. However, in certain situations it does create a "preventive" solution> That is that the person in the car that is driving knows that the person in the car in front of them is not liable if they suddenly slam on their breaks. Even if it's the other person's fault it doesn't matter. The driver behind knows they are liable.

These kind of "zero tolerance" rules make it nice and simple. Even if you argue that the other person should not have slammed on their breaks, you don't have a leg to stand on, you will be considered the driver at fault.

However, this doesn't mean that the driver in front should not pay attention to what is going on around them. Even if the driver behind them is at fault, the driver could be hurt or killed if they slam into them. The driver in the front car could be injured as well.

So even though one driver takes on the liability, the other driver is encouraged to be aware and protect themselves.

 

[gnome]

But what about the case where a bully attacks someone (slyly waiting until nobody is looking), and the victim attacks back and gets caught. The victim is punished, the bully is not.

That is one of the problems with a "zero tolerance" rule. Sometimes it's used to excuse the school administration from asking pertinent questions. They'd rather just have a rule they have to follow and be able to say "Sorry, nothing we can do about it. Zero tolerance policy."

 

[sgtbaker]

I think wanting to correct the behavior is aiming too high at this point. Prevention is the key> Down the line we might want to examine more efforts, and certainly any steps towards prevention ought to by extension help to deal with causation. But at this point the key is to pre identify patterns and set standards based on those standards.

It still comes back to the fact that the tendency is still there. The aggressor may just learn not to do it on school grounds or out of eye/earshot of authority figures where the situation can be debatable. When kids get punished for the act, without addressing the issue, they simply learn that getting caught is bad.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

I think wanting to correct the behavior is aiming too high at this point. Prevention is the key> Down the line we might want to examine more efforts, and certainly any steps towards prevention ought to by extension help to deal with causation. But at this point the key is to pre identify patterns and set standards based on those standards.

I thought of an interesting example today to illustrate what I mean.

Think of rear ending another car.

In the US the standard rule is to stay two (or maybe more) car lengths at a distance from the car in front. The reason being that if someone slams on their breaks you won't have time to stop.

Now nobody keeps this distance. We all drive and I'm sure you've never seen this distance. However, in certain situations it does create a "preventive" solution> That is that the person in the car that is driving knows that the person in the car in front of them is not liable if they suddenly slam on their breaks. Even if it's the other person's fault it doesn't matter. The driver behind knows they are liable.

These kind of "zero tolerance" rules make it nice and simple. Even if you argue that the other person should not have slammed on their breaks, you don't have a leg to stand on, you will be considered the driver at fault.

However, this doesn't mean that the driver in front should not pay attention to what is going on around them. Even if the driver behind them is at fault, the driver could be hurt or killed if they slam into them. The driver in the front car could be injured as well.

So even though one driver takes on the liability, the other driver is encouraged to be aware and protect themselves.

“That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way.”

Except that it doesn't even do that as the situations are not comparable. But it would, if there was a situation analogous to the distance rule. It's just that this situation ain't it.

Firstly, there are plenty of people who do keep the required distance while driving. Even my father, otherwise a scofflaw of senseless proportions, always followed the rules that aimed to protect himself. Such as the distance rule. So do, well - most drivers I know, come to think of it. Granted, they drive in Sweden and the UK, but bullying is an international problem, so we ought to keep the analogies international as well. Because in some places, bullying may be the equivalent of eating someone's last goat and in other places it would be refusing to eat the damn goat.

Further than that, there are situations, at least in Sweden, where the back car will not automatically be found liable. (For example where distance was held and the front car broke for no good reason. So the analogy isn't even consistent within itself.)

Then comes the bit where a bullying, or mobbing, situation is in no way analogous to a rearending.

A: Very few people rearend on purpose. I would say purposeful rearendings are outliers, mainly seen in Michael Caine movies and at carnies.
B: In most of the world, granted not in the US, but see my earlier point about an international problem requiring international analogies, drivers will as a matter of course be legal adults and the only people who have the power to arbiter between them in this situation are the police and their respective insurers. Kids are not insured against bullying and the people responsible to arbiter may pick the option of not getting involved at all - something your insurance company is unlikely to do, since they want to get away with paying you as little as possible and the police tend to actually want to know what happened.
C: Rearendings are usually one offs. If someone is repeatedly and purposefully rearending you, then that is harrassment and you are protected by the law. The situation "harrassment" supercedes the situation "rearending" and whether the police can get your rear-bandit or not he or she will find it hard to find insurance after four or five rears, in which case the police will take an interest as it is illegal to drive an uninsureed vehicle.

The analogy does not hold up.

Schools that have succesfully created a non-bullying environment have not used your proposed tactics. Schools that have failed, miserably, to curb bullying have however used it for almost 40 years. It doesn't work. It is tried and thoroughly tested. Without success.

Why should any school keep trying something that has failed, failed and failed again? Isn't it better if they try something that has actually worked somewhere?

 

[truethat]

When did Sweden become the benchmark for everything?

I'm just confused. I was assuming we are at the least discussing the way to deal with bullying in the US.

And the example about rear ending someone is not "wrong in every way possible." It is a good example of showing how the complications of liability can create a deterrent even if it's not fair. I can't imagine why you'd suggest I'm saying that people in cars are driving around rear ending other drivers on a regular basis? I mean? LOL

The zero tolerance policy is about a "COMPLAINT" not a witnessing of bullying. If the friend of the victim, parent or others turn in this complaint there is zero tolerance. There is no need to discuss "he said, she said." If the complain goes through the bullier is told that if he or she contacts the victim again immediate suspension.

There is no need for the victim to hit back and get in trouble. And if the bully turns in the victim or some other sort of suggestion about how this could be corrupted, all this will do is bring it to the attention of the parents and school officials.

The zero tolerance part makes it into a system from which there is no way out. I would think that parents of the students would get involved if they received a letter in the mail stating that their child has been accused of bullying and listing the potential consequences of a repeat incident.


Also you keep saying that schools that use my proposed tactics have not had success. I'm not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying or you are just basing your examples on Sweden. Because I can assure you that schools that DO use these tactics absolutely have shown a reduction in bullying. So where are you getting your statistics from? They are wrong.

 

[gnome]

What determines whether a complaint "goes through"... if every complaint must lead to action without even asking the stories of those involved... well awesome, I could have rid myself of several thorns in my side by submitting spurious "bullying" complaints.

 

[truethat]

What determines whether a complaint "goes through"... if every complaint must lead to action without even asking the stories of those involved... well awesome, I could have rid myself of several thorns in my side by submitting spurious "bullying" complaints.

Yep. And of course people are going to say "well then everyone is going to complain about bullying!!! even if it's not true."

But the evidence doesn't bear that out either. The important thing to me is that the complaint can also come from a witness.

 

[gnome]

Yep. And of course people are going to say "well then everyone is going to complain about bullying!!! even if it's not true."

But the evidence doesn't bear that out either. The important thing to me is that the complaint can also come from a witness.

I'm not trying to shut down complainers, I'm just trying to figure out why you advocate enforcement without fact-gathering. The potential for misunderstanding and abuse is staggering. Unless there's some qualifying information you haven't brought up, it may very well be unconstitutional. We teach students that suspects get an opportunity to be confronted with the evidence against them and present a defense. Why then should we treat the students themselves in a manner in opposition to this principle?