http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Reporter Chris Jansing posed the question on NBC Nightly News last Wednesday (Sept, 7, 2011). Her report focused on the implementation of New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, signed into law January 6, 2011, by Gov. Chris Christie.
Both houses of the New Jersey legislature passed the anti-bullying bill in November 2010, with strong bipartisan support and wide margins. Driven by the highly publicized case of homophobic cyber-bullying, resulting in the suicide of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, the law is considered the strongest, most comprehensive anti-bullying legislation passed so far in any of the 50 states, as governments attempt to address social problems with stringent laws.
Several sources included in Jansing’s report cited the unintended consequence of adding strain on school systems imposed by the new anti-bullying bill — systems already dealing with a host of social problems in addition to violence and bullying in schools. Specifically, they pointed to the additional training requirements, the appointment of anti-bullying specialists in each school and the manadatory requirement to report all incidents of bullying. [pullquote]Is zero tolerance blocking flexibility right up front?[/pullquote]
The issue not addressed so far is whether yet another “Zero-Tolerance” policy is the wisest approach to social problems. In its laudable, swift passage of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, did the legislators have to impose a zero-tolerance policy, which inherently diminishes the ability of teachers and administrators to use wisdom and discretion in incidents which are unique and complex?
Is the zero-tolerance approach to social problems just another example of “get tough on crime” laws which provide emotional satisfaction to voters and policymakers, but which bring a host of unintended results and court orders? One need look no further than the crisis in prison overcrowding, which can be traced directly to the passage of “get tough” policies such as “three strikes and you’re out,” or mandatory sentences for specific offenses.
Certainly, bullying in schools and communities, cyber-bullying and violence of all kinds demand swift and wise responses. But the question should be asked: why not address child welfare through a range of options — including mediation, peer counseling, anti-bullying curricula such as this and this, and books — as part of broader focus on creating what Dr. Tom Cavanagh has called a “culture of care” in schools?
Raising these issues about zero tolerance policies is not intended to detract from the value of the landmark legislation now being implemented in New Jersey. I applaud this bold and comprehensive effort to address the range of social problems posed by bullying, harassment and violence system-wide. In fact, maybe these actions in New Jersey will play a role in “helping seat-of-the-pants peacemakers see they are not alone.”
Pingback: 'Zero Tolerance' of bullies? Hungary's take on conflict mediation | fairnessworks
Research, if not our own common sense and experience, has conclusively shown that zero tolerance policies DO NOT achieve the desired outcome for which they are typically set in place. In fact, schools with strict, punitive policies generally have more problems with violence, disruptions, attendance and achievement. We are so steeped in our collective mindset that a bigger stick and a louder voice will keep everyone in line we fail to stop even to think about that to which we ourselves respond best–and therefore, what our children and youth will respond to. We keep implementing the same punitive measures thinking that one of these days it will work and suddenly our schools and the students and staff housed in them, and the families they return to at the end of each school day will suddenly transform into loving, kind, cooperative, peace-filled people who smile at each other all day long and work out their differences with brilliant grace.
Rules, regulations, threats of punishment, and punishment itself does not change peoples hearts. Nor do policy manuals, or affirmation posters. Without a change of heart and mind, there will be no lasting change in behavior. If we want change, we must begin with ourselves, and then with the environment we are co-creating with our colleagues and in the case of schools, our students. If as much energy and time was put into aiding teachers in creating healthy, welcoming and emotionally/physically safe classroom cultures as we are putting into training them when and how to punish their students, we might actually see improvement. But that’s the catch, isn’t it? Few of us want to take the time or do the work that change of mind and heart and habit require–especially when we are already overworked and stretched to what feels like our absolute limit.
Mediation and restorative justice methods, excellent and needed though they are, are still like treating those who have become ill from drinking contaminated water when what we must do, is go to the source–clean up the water. If we wish to resolve the bullying issue, adults and the children they are teaching must look together at what bullying is exactly, and at how everyone can work together to create a respectful environment in which all can thrive.
How do we convince them to make the time for such individual and collective introspection and then to do the work change actually requires?
Pingback: Ending ‘Zero Tolerance’ excesses in Colorado schools – Jeannette Holtham urges restorative justice practices | fairnessworks