JOSEPH N. BELL -- The Bell Curve

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the Newport-Mesa Unified School

District policy against bullying, which -- for quite different reasons --

allied me briefly with trustee Wendy Leece.

But it isn’t conflict with the 1st Amendment that concerns me, as it

does Leece. Rather it is the encouragement for young people to rely on

authority to settle matters that in my growing up and early adulthood

years were handled by the individuals involved.

When I was in public school, my family moved every year between my

fourth and 10th grades. My father’s work required this, and in those

Great Depression years we were just grateful that he had a job. This

meant that every September for six years, I was the new kid in school.

And this meant that inevitably I was tested. I was neither big nor

combative, but in those years I learned various ways to defend myself --

not always, but sometimes, by fighting, which I didn’t do very well. But

as soon as the other kids saw these qualities, I was accepted, which

meant they would stand with me if the odds were skewed.

The same thing was true of the military, at a more sophisticated

level. We dealt collectively with antisocial behavior among our ranks. It

would never have occurred to us to take our complaints to higher

authority. And these experiences in both youth and the military provided

me with tools to deal with a frequently cutthroat society without

allowing it to take the edge off the truly good things in life. It is the

fear that the likelihood of developing such skills is eroded by the

creation of formal bullying policies that makes me uneasy with them.

That’s why, when the Newport-Mesa school board a few weeks ago renewed

its determination to intervene if “gestures, comments, threats or

actions, either written, verbal or physical, which cause or threaten to

cause bodily harm or personal degradation” take place on school property,

I got uneasy all over again. So I sat down with Supt. Robert Barbot and

school board trustee Dana Black to find out why the people who share my

views shouldn’t feel uneasy too.

They began by explaining that there are two rather widespread

misunderstandings about the bullying policy. First, it is taken verbatim

from the California Education Code and is therefore the policy of every

school district in the state. The differences among districts grow out of

how this policy is observed and enforced. Second -- and Barbot was

concerned that this be clear -- there is no connection between

Newport-Mesa’s zero tolerance and its newly renewed policy on bullying.

“There are two other points that need especially to be stressed,” said

Barbot. “There is not one thing in this policy that would take away any

civil rights from a child, nothing here that we haven’t legally exercised

before. And the total thrust of the bullying policy is to put things on

the table to help the young people in this district.

“It is clear to us that kids are being bullied who don’t have the

skills to counter. And it is also clear that the bullies need help, not

punishment. Otherwise this could lead to the kind of violence we’ve seen

at other schools. This policy gives us the opportunity to offer that

help.

“Primarily it provides guidelines for kids to use who are confused

about how to treat one another. They have been reluctant to talk to

administrators before because of a great fear that confidentiality might

be broken. This policy is almost entirely dedicated to providing a safe

way for miserable kids to get help.”

Barbot says he remembers his childhood much the same way as I remember

mine, but the climate for settling disputes today is much different than

it was then. “We have many more kids who need help,” he said, “especially

since they now have such resources as cars, drugs and guns to carry out

their frustrations.

“There are other important differences. Kids move more often; over a

four-year period, we have a 30% turnover in our high schools. Our kids

have fewer options. A great many of them live in single-parent homes, and

it’s not unusual when we need to send word home that they tell us to

check with their housekeeper. There are higher expectations across the

board for kids; never has such a high proportion had trouble solving

problems on their own.”

The change he noted that concerned me most was the disinclination of

today’s young people to help the victim of a bully. In my day, that’s how

we kept bullies in check. “But now,” said Barbot, “kids don’t help

because they’re afraid attention will turn on them and they will be the

next victim.”

So who, I asked, decides whether a “gesture, comment or action” is

threatening?

There are, I was told, layers of response. All district employees are

to intervene if they observe what they regard as an act of intimidation.

If they can’t resolve the matter by talking to the victim and offender,

it is reported to a school administrator for investigation by a

multidisciplinary team. Consequences -- ranging from parent conference

and counseling to suspension -- depend on the results of that

investigation.

I’m still dubious -- but not as dubious as I was. Young people,

especially boys, speak a language and act out behavior that could be seen

as intimidation and is frequently just bravado. I’d have a tough time

telling the difference. But of one thing I’m now sure.

The bullying program and those enforcing it are dedicated first and

foremost to helping young people -- both offenders and victims -- in

trouble.

Barbot offered to turn me loose with a mixture of kids who would talk

openly about my concerns. I plan to take him up on that offer soon.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.