TexasCHLforum.com

About Bullies, Bullying and Coping

This is a really interesting perspective given by a nationally certified school psychologist named Izzy Kalman which I believe has a direct bearing on the concealed carry on campus support and defense as it is the same safe schools initiatives that is preventing concealed carry on campus that is also creating the anti-bullying programs he opposes, as he says they create more anger, resentment, bullying, and violence because they create more victims.

In my own nutshell version, he seems to say that the current nationwide school policies for dealing with "bullies" are restricting constitutional rights where they should be promoted, that that is disempowering victims, and that the disempowering of victims in combination with the victimization is making more (not less) bullies who will do Columbine type things. He believes the answer is to teach people how not to be victims and to get the law out of the exercise of their constitutional rights so that they can effectively take care of the situation themselves, because he says the legal and psychological professions have not been effective in doing what the founding fathers so wisely prescribed.


I've not read his books or pamphlets, but from the articles I've read I think that his premise could be roughly summed up something like this...

• 1. There are two types of "bullying." One is teasing, exclusion, or any other behavior that makes another person get his feelings hurt. The other is a level of cruelty that bumps it up to the level of law enforcement involvement.
  
  2. He says that these two types of behaviors are being conflated and the job of psychologists, especially school psychologists, and law enforcement are in turn being conflated. He thinks this should stop. He says that it is the job of the psychological profession to address the former type and the job of the legal professions to address the latter. Psychologists shouldn't have to be investigators who assess blame and assign punishments while judges shouldn't have to be counselors who help kids work out disagreements. He says that the anti-bullying legislation and school-wide programs that became popular after Columbine do just that.
  
  3. He says that the current model of anti-bullying program came about because psychologists weren't doing a good job with helping the victims so they shifted to trying to help the bully and when they fail at that, they won't feel so bad because he was a bully, after all. But he says that this model of labeling people as bullies for showing dominance behavior is perpetuating a victim mindset which actually increases bullying. He said that if you talk to any person labeled as a bully, that person will tell you that he feels victimized. He said the more victims we create, the more bullish and outright criminal behavior we'll see. He says that's been shown in studies which show a rise in bullying since the anti-bullying programs have gone into effect.
  
  4. As he draws a firm line in the sand between his job and the job of law enforcement, he does not address legal responsibility or blame. He believes that should happen in those cases that rise to the level of requiring law enforcement involvement, but he leaves the talking about that point forward with its assessment and assignment of blame to them. (From what I've seen, he doesn't ever address concealed carry on campus. I would guess from what I've read, though I'm not sure, that he would say that how to deal with a criminal is outside his domain as a psychologist and falls into the domain of the legal professions.)
  
  5. He objects to the term bully. He says it is akin to school-wide programs for identifying morons or jerks. He says that isn't the job of a school psychologist and isn't professional. At a certain point they become criminals, but before then their boorish behavior is no different from any other boorish behavior.
  
  6. He believes in empowering the "victims" as the means of disempowering the bullies. He says that bullies can only have as much control over us as we allow them to have. He teaches children effective means of situational awareness, conflict resolution, avoidance, and how to address the problem head-on in order to take control of their lives and their friendships. He does not believe in making them feel like victims of bullying, but to give them the tools to defend themselves and feel confidant in doing so. He has similar sessions for adults dealing with workplace bullies.
  
  7. He says that he firmly believes in the first amendment as the means of decreasing bullying. He says that the current anti-bullying programs try to limit one's free speech by saying you can't talk about this or you can't talk about that because if you do, you'll hurt someone's feelings and be labeled a bully. He says what we need is MORE exercise of the first amendment, not less. We need to empower the one whose feelings are hurt to respond, and teach the person how to do so effectively in order to not feel victimized and not allow the bullying to control his life. It's when we take away all forms of equality and defense that a person feels victimized and hopeless and does crazy things, like Columbine. It's when he has confidence and does not feel victimized that he is able to respond with a cool and level head and not to be rash or irrational.

I did look up "conflated."

mgood wrote:I did look up "conflated."

As a wee lad in grade school I was singled out by another kid for bullying.

I told my Grandfather, and his advice was as follows:

"Son, the next time that boy picks on you, you wait until he is alone, walk up to him and punch him as hard as you can right in the face, and get out of there."

That's what I did.

The bullying stopped.

I learned from an early age that there are those that can NOT be reasoned with, and that violence is the ONLY thing that some will respect. That lesson has served me well throughout my life.

Thanks Grand Dad!!!!!

When I was in the third grade we had a bully named Lee Dievendorf. He liked to punch you in the arm as you passed him in the hallway. One day he punched me. I told him to meet me out by the bike racks after school and we'd settle it. He never showed up, so I finally left for home. On the way home, two guys jumped me and grabbed my arms. Then Lee came out from behind a tree and headed toward me. I waited until he was within range. Then I kicked him as hard as I could in the crotch. His two buddies split and left him laying on the ground moaning. I told him he'd better not ever punch me again, or he'd get worse. Then I left for home.

He never hit me again.

Bullies will only be bullies until someone calls their bluff.

Standing up to a bully usually is the only way to go. Even if you get tossed on your behind standing up to one, just the fact that you did it in the first place tends to make them start looking elsewhere for victims.

I like the approach that the author you cited advocates, Hoi. The addtiional problem, in some cases, is that the institution itself (school, etc.) not only encourages bullying but condones it. While it never reached the criminal state, I was bullied through high school with the full knowledge and support of one particular teacher. He and the bullies were of a particular political persuasion and anyone who didn't agree with them was labeled (mine was Communist) and publically and repeatedly ridiculed. My appeals to the administration above the teacher went unanswered and because of his position, I could not directly confront him. He allowed his minions free rein and handed out punishments to anyone who did challenge them. My actual poltical position was no where near Communism.

I don't think mine was an isolated case. As a teacher myself later, I found far too many of my fellow teachers who though that bullying was "cute" or "a natural thing" and refused to deal with it, even when the odds were overwhelming stacked against the victim. There was a case a couple of year ago at one of our local high schools where an athletic coach was involved in bullying that turned into hazing that turned into injury.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

mgood wrote:I did look up "conflated."

Hoi Polloi wrote:About Bullies, Bullying and Coping

This is a really interesting perspective given by a nationally certified school psychologist named Izzy Kalman which I believe has a direct bearing on the concealed carry on campus support and defense as it is the same safe schools initiatives that is preventing concealed carry on campus that is also creating the anti-bullying programs he opposes, as he says they create more anger, resentment, bullying, and violence because they create more victims.

In my own nutshell version, he seems to say that the current nationwide school policies for dealing with "bullies" are restricting constitutional rights where they should be promoted, that that is disempowering victims, and that the disempowering of victims in combination with the victimization is making more (not less) bullies who will do Columbine type things. He believes the answer is to teach people how not to be victims and to get the law out of the exercise of their constitutional rights so that they can effectively take care of the situation themselves, because he says the legal and psychological professions have not been effective in doing what the founding fathers so wisely prescribed.


I've not read his books or pamphlets, but from the articles I've read I think that his premise could be roughly summed up something like this...

• 1. There are two types of "bullying." One is teasing, exclusion, or any other behavior that makes another person get his feelings hurt. The other is a level of cruelty that bumps it up to the level of law enforcement involvement.
  
  2. He says that these two types of behaviors are being conflated and the job of psychologists, especially school psychologists, and law enforcement are in turn being conflated. He thinks this should stop. He says that it is the job of the psychological profession to address the former type and the job of the legal professions to address the latter. Psychologists shouldn't have to be investigators who assess blame and assign punishments while judges shouldn't have to be counselors who help kids work out disagreements. He says that the anti-bullying legislation and school-wide programs that became popular after Columbine do just that.
  
  3. He says that the current model of anti-bullying program came about because psychologists weren't doing a good job with helping the victims so they shifted to trying to help the bully and when they fail at that, they won't feel so bad because he was a bully, after all. But he says that this model of labeling people as bullies for showing dominance behavior is perpetuating a victim mindset which actually increases bullying. He said that if you talk to any person labeled as a bully, that person will tell you that he feels victimized. He said the more victims we create, the more bullish and outright criminal behavior we'll see. He says that's been shown in studies which show a rise in bullying since the anti-bullying programs have gone into effect.
  
  4. As he draws a firm line in the sand between his job and the job of law enforcement, he does not address legal responsibility or blame. He believes that should happen in those cases that rise to the level of requiring law enforcement involvement, but he leaves the talking about that point forward with its assessment and assignment of blame to them. (From what I've seen, he doesn't ever address concealed carry on campus. I would guess from what I've read, though I'm not sure, that he would say that how to deal with a criminal is outside his domain as a psychologist and falls into the domain of the legal professions.)
  
  5. He objects to the term bully. He says it is akin to school-wide programs for identifying morons or jerks. He says that isn't the job of a school psychologist and isn't professional. At a certain point they become criminals, but before then their boorish behavior is no different from any other boorish behavior.
  
  6. He believes in empowering the "victims" as the means of disempowering the bullies. He says that bullies can only have as much control over us as we allow them to have. He teaches children effective means of situational awareness, conflict resolution, avoidance, and how to address the problem head-on in order to take control of their lives and their friendships. He does not believe in making them feel like victims of bullying, but to give them the tools to defend themselves and feel confidant in doing so. He has similar sessions for adults dealing with workplace bullies.
  
  7. He says that he firmly believes in the first amendment as the means of decreasing bullying. He says that the current anti-bullying programs try to limit one's free speech by saying you can't talk about this or you can't talk about that because if you do, you'll hurt someone's feelings and be labeled a bully. He says what we need is MORE exercise of the first amendment, not less. We need to empower the one whose feelings are hurt to respond, and teach the person how to do so effectively in order to not feel victimized and not allow the bullying to control his life. It's when we take away all forms of equality and defense that a person feels victimized and hopeless and does crazy things, like Columbine. It's when he has confidence and does not feel victimized that he is able to respond with a cool and level head and not to be rash or irrational.

This gentleman sounds like a rare breath of fresh air in a profession dominated by folks who are intoxicated by the excessive intake of their own exhaust fumes.

I also suspect he'll be reviled by the rest of the profession because the law that it is socially unacceptable to be ahead of one's time is immutable.

And, for the record, I didn't have to look up "conflated."

Why the deep discussion over Conflation? Drink some Pepto and you are good to go!

For the most part, he makes a lot of sense. The main area where I think his approach may break down, is that in some cases - perhaps many cases - the two types of bullying he describes are getting conflated by the system precisely because they are occurring in tandem. The same group of people dole out both psychological and emotional cruelty as well as physical cruelty to the same individuals.

Teasing apart the actions that fall under one category for law enforcement and under the other category to empower the victims can be much more difficult to do than it may seem on paper.

The tortuous detail regarding bullies is unnecessary.

They aren't difficult to understand.

They want to dominate and humiliate.

As a kid, I attended over twenty-five different public schools in various parts of the U.S.

As the new kid, within the first day I would invariably be confronted by the or at least a bully. It was a pattern I soon came to learn.

The bully, accompanied by his hangers-on would start in with the verbal taunts. I was quite undersized for my age so I appeared the perfect victim. Before the physical part of the bullying began, that is within the verbal taunting stage, I would uncork the hardest punch I could land on the bully's nose or eye while his hands were still down.

It usually took only one punch and magically the bullying would stop.

Only two times did I actually get into a brawl with the bully. Though the two fracas's left me battered, after that encounter the bully would never bother me again. Word would get out - don't expect the new kid to knuckle under...

Bullies really don't want to receive punishment even if they win the fight when one demonstrates a willingness to stand up for themselves. The bullies move on the easier prey.

I never understood those willing to be bullied.

I still don't...

Abraham wrote: I never understood those willing to be bullied.

I still don't...

The situation can be more complicated than you may believe.

1. Some of us were raised in Christian homes where parents and grandparents constantly reinforced a "turn the other cheek" philosophy. If that is all that you know as a youngster, it is difficult to fight back. Many children are punished at home if they fight back, regardless of the circumstances.
2. Most children go through at least one point in their lives where they develop a poor self image. It isn't uncommon for boys and girls around puberty to accept the role of the victim because that is really how they feel about themselves at that point. Bullies can sense that and often take advantage of it.
3. Many of us, including me, lagged in physical development. I was one of the awkward kids who was always picked last for any physical sport and with valid reason. I'm not sure where I finally overcame being awkward and uncoordinated but it was somewhere post high school.
4. Some of us were thrust into small communities where we were the only outsiders. Every family knew every family and had for generations. The kids take their cues from adults who don't like outsiders. It is very difficult to fight against an entire high school that feels that way about you. Because my Dad was looking for a job, I got to do that in two different locations during high school.

As in my earlier post, I strongly believe that there is institutional bullying, too. It isn't that those in charge ignore bullying that they know is going on. Very few people have the inner strength to stand tall when the peer bullies are reinforced by those in authority. One doesn't have to look too far to find excellent examples at the college level of where professors lead the charge against students who have a different political viewpoint. Our colleges and universities have become hot beds of Progressive thinking and those who don't openly embrace it can pay the price for their intransigence.

mgood wrote:I did look up "conflated."

That's when you let the air out of one balloon, and put it in another.

Purplehood wrote:Standing up to a bully usually is the only way to go. Even if you get tossed on your behind standing up to one, just the fact that you did it in the first place tends to make them start looking elsewhere for victims.

Winston Churchill wrote:An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.