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.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.