A psychologist's doubts about anti-bullying laws
Since South Hadley freshman Phoebe Prince committed suicide in January, following the apparent relentless bullying by a group of fellow students, the school, its administrators and teachers have come under attack for failing to protect the 15-year-old from the harassment.
In an April 18 issue of Psychology Today, Izzy Kalman, a nationally certified school psychologist (pictured at right), speaks out in defense of how South Hadley High School and schools across the nation have handled bullying.
Kalman, who writes a blog in Psychology Today called "A Psychological Solution to Bullying," maintains that anti-bully laws are ineffective in reducing bullying -- and merely open the door to parents to sue schools for failing to keep their children safe.
"How can the court hold schools responsible for the bullying that goes on between students," he asks, "when the programs offered by the world's most influential anti-bullying experts don't work very well?""
Kalman's website devotes a page to helping school principals and administrators ward off anti-bullying lawsuits. The outcome of the case against South Hadley High School will have repercussions for schools nationwide, he notes, because no school or classroom is completely free of bullying.
While the school's defense, he says, has been that school adminstrators and staff were not aware of the scope of the bullying Prince was facing, Kalman writes, the assumption is that, had they known, they could have protected her -- and hopefully saved her life.
But that assumption, Kalman argues, has no basis in scientific research on bullying, experience or even common sense. He cites an analysis of research on school anti-bullying programs (which, he says, are among those used by bullying consultant Barbara Coloroso, which advised the South Hadley school community on the subject) that showed that such programs have no benefit, or even made the problem worse. Kalman says these programs are flawed because they take a punitive approach in dealing with bullying.
"There is a very simple reason treating bullying like a crime doesn't work," writes Kalman. "Let's say you and I are kids in school and you are mean to me. Than I tell the teacher, who sends you to the principal, who in turn punishes you for bullying me. Is that going to make you want to be nice to me? You will hate me and want to beat me up after school! You will enlist all your friends against me! You will make me look like scum on Facebook and MySpace!"
And what does he recommend to help stop the torment faced by Phoebe Prince and others like her? Kalman says the best way to handle bullying is to teach children how to deal with it on their own.
He shares his advice on his website in steps such as how to handle rumors: "So what should you do if someone brings you a rumor? Don't be duped into the trap of defending yourself. Win the game by turning the tables on the rumor-bringer. Make him defend himself. How? By using the following four-word question: "Do you believe it?"
Phoebe Mitchell is an associate news editor at the Gazette.
Comments
Kalman - a credible resource or misguided professional?
In Response to Articles on the Anti-Bullying Theories of Izzy Kalman
I am all for exploring a variety of options for dealing with school bullying. But before we promote the works of any “professional” in the field, we better have a full understanding of their views. Our Valley is at a crucial stage in dealing with bullying. A law has been passed, and the clock has begun ticking down to the time when schools must have an anti-bullying policy and curriculum in place. The search for resources has begun. In the article above, and in another published by the same writer, the works of Israel “Izzy” Kalman have been mentioned. At first glance, Mr. Kalman seems like a credible expert on the subject of bullying, and his general line of advice sounds logical and appealing – “We need to teach kids to stand up for themselves when faced with a bully. Don’t let yourself be a victim. This perpetuates a victim mentality. If we don’t have victims, we won’t have bullies.” This also addresses the question being posed by many parents now: “In addressing bullying we are softening our children – preventing them from developing the thick skin they need to survive in the real world?” What we must remain mindful of is the difference between the everyday banter and disagreements between kids (which can get mean) and bullying. I am all for giving kids the tools they need to try and stand up to bullies, or at least defuse a situation. It needs to be part of our approach. And while it is true that a victim mentality is dangerous, this is where the value of Kalman’s advise ends. A deeper look into his work and opinions reveals a not so credible expert with a narrow and often aggressive point of view.
Mr. Kalman has been promoting his books, Bullies to Buddies: How to Turn Your Enemies Into Friends and How to Stop Being Teased and Bullied without Really Trying. The books aim to teach kids phrases to use in the face of an aggressor. The titles alone tell us that he does not understand the dynamics of bullying. Bullying involves an imbalance of power, a kid who is either socially or physically dominant using their power to intimidate someone they consider weaker. In real bullying situations, few words, if any, have the power to transform the tormentor into your friend, and rarely is either party interested in being friends. And “without trying?” – If it comes easy, you’re probably not in a real bullying situation. Kalman openly acknowledges that his approach is only geared toward conquering teasing remarks, rumors and such. He doesn’t claim to have solutions to bullying that gets physical or takes other damaging forms. Yet, he is currently touting his work as the “only solution to bullying,” which is clearly misleading to schools and parents. There is never a one-size-fits all solution to any complex problem.
The titles of his books are not the only things that demonstrates his lack of understanding of the issue at hand. Let me start with a widely accepted definition of bullying. It comes from Olweus, one of the top anti-bullying curriculums used in the U.S. and elsewhere. It is a definition that many schools and states have used as a starting point to draft polices:
Exposure, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more persons, to which a person has difficulty defending himself or herself. Three important components include: 1) aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative actions, 2) a pattern of behavior repeated over time 3) an imbalance of power or strength. Types of bullying include: verbal, social exclusion or isolation, physical, lies and false rumors, having possessions taken or damaged, being threatened or forced to do things by others, racial remarks, sexual remarks, and cyberbullying.
Quotes straight from Kalman himself show his lack of insight. Links to the articles with these quotes in full context are provided at the bottom. I encourage their viewing.
Kalman on the term “bully”:
“Anti-bully policies violate the (bully’s) First Amendment's right to Freedom of Speech, the cornerstone of democracy. "Bully" is not a diagnosis; it is an insult…We wouldn't refer to kids as "wimps," "suckers" or "losers." (Therefore) we have no business insulting kids by calling them "bullies" either…And why stop with "anti-bully" programs? Let schools have "anti-moron" programs to identify kids with learning problems….”
Just a small portion of the advice Kalman’s offers kids being bullied,
A kid calls you “gay.” Respond: “Oh, really? What about me makes you think I’m gay?”
A kid pushes you or hits you. Respond: “Are you mad at me?” If the person says he is not mad, he’ll realize he has no good reason to keep attacking you, and he’ll leave you alone. If he is mad, ask him why. Then apologize if you did something wrong.
Kids try to force you to choose between friends… “You can’t be my friend if you’re Jamal’s friend.” Respond: “I will always consider you my friend. However, if you can’t be my friend because of Jamal, that’s your choice.” You must refuse to choose. Make it clear that it is the other person’s choice, not yours. And enjoy all your friendships.”
Kalman on reporting bullying incidents to adults:
“Don’t report kids who bully you. They will dislike you even more. Instead, talk to them directly, they will respect you.”
“If a student tells me that `Johnny called me an idiot,’ I ask: `Do you believe it?’ Most of the time the kid quickly answers `no.’ Then I say `good,’ and the problem is over. The kid realizes nothing terrible happened, so there’s nothing to get upset about. If the kid answers, ‘yes’ (I believe it), it’s the kid’s problem for believing he’s an idiot…it places responsibility directly upon the victim's shoulders, where it should be.”
“Johnny tells you, “Billy hit me.” You respond, “Are you hurt?” If he has no injury, there is no problem.”
Kalman on choosing to be a victim:
“It's only bullying if I act like a victim…You can say the same thing to one person and they'll laugh about it, and you can say the same thing to somebody else and they'll get upset…if I get upset, then I'm a victim, I'm a loser, and you have a great time putting me down, then it becomes bullying….(So) don’t get upset….It’s impossible to keep picking on someone if it doesn’t upset them.”
Kalman’s advice to VICTIMS, not bullies mind you:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Be like Jesus, love and forgive. Don’t get mad at bullies.”
Kalman’s view on a new video game entitled Bully, which gives a player control over a troubled kid who violently retaliates against other troubled kids in a fictional school (Boston Globe):
At least one school psychologist has no problem with Bully, which he played for about an hour. The self-published author of ``Bullies to Buddies" and an acknowledged fan of violent games, Izzy Kalman of Staten Island says he was invited to preview Bully. ``I am comfortable recommending the game," he said. ``If it incites aggression, I'm pretty sure it would be play fighting."
It is evident from Kalman’s own words that he does not comprehend the complexities of real world bullying. His examples here (like his others on-line) don’t depict situations with power imbalances. Much of what he talks about are examples of interchanges between equal or at least semi-equal parties. He grossly underestimates the power that a real bully can have over a victim and others around them, and grossly overestimates vulnerable children’s ability to regulate their reaction to a bully. Further, the comebacks he recommends to kids, or “magic words” as he calls them, would never defuse a real bully. They would just provoke more laughing and tormenting. We are not dealing with diplomats here. Similarly, his suggestion to ignore bullies is also misguided. Any victim who has tried the “ignore them” approach knows it only eggs a bully on to see what it will take to get a reaction. Kalman also plays into the fear that many victims have that telling will only make it worse. In most cases, this isn’t true. Fear of consequences (now that we will have some) can have an effect on behavior. Think about speeding. Most often, when we realize we are going too fast, we slow down because we don’t want a ticket and insurance surcharges. Safety is usually our secondary thought. Of course consequences don’t alter everyone’s behavior, but it alters that of many. To the children, I say at least you have a chance of having things change if you tell an adult. There’s no chance if you remain silent.
Remember, we are talking about bullying, not isolated nasty comments or the occasional feeling of being left out. And, we are talking about children here, be them 5 years of age or 18. Most kids, especially young, vulnerable ones, do not have the insight and maturity to respond impassively in the face of a threatening situation. Guidance to both parties from adults is necessary – yet, Kalman discredits adult involvement too. He tells adults not to get involved and demonstrates how to cut a child’s conversation off. By suggesting we essentially glaze over a report, we are devaluing the feelings of the kids and ignoring a potentially harmful situation.
It also saddens me that Kalman so inappropriately use religious teachings and the U.S. Constitution to defend his stance. Telling victims that they should be more like Jesus and forgive and forget bullies not only places a feeling of guilt and fault on the victim, but unspeakably misuses the teachings of the bible. Bullying can have long-term, devastating effects. And while it is known among counselors that learning to forgive a perpetrator is an important part of the healing process, being forgiving does little to help a victim “in the moment.” As for the “freedom of speech” defense, it doesn’t hold up either. The First Amendment protects the rights of people to state their opinion on a subject, even if their manner of stating their opinion is harsh. It does not, however, protect the rights of people who knowingly and maliciously convey untrue or damaging statements about others. This is the law of defamation which protects people from slander and liable. I am not suggesting that kids start suing each other for slander. I am merely showing that our freedom of speech excludes the kind of statements often used by bullies.
Kalman also openly criticizes the formation of laws and school policies, claiming that research demonstrates that they don’t work and even make the situation worse. His backing for this? - a reference to one Canadian meta-analysis (the least accurate type of study, by the way) that attempted to measure the efficacy of all anti-bullying laws that have been created throughout the states. Kalman twists the results of the study to support his theory. The results showed an increase in reports of bullying after the laws were passed. This does not necessarily mean there were more incidents, it more likely means that more people were empowered to come forward and report incidents. Hence, the number of reports increased, not incidents.
Kalman promotes his work not only in books but through workshops. In his workshops, he relies heavily on role play to demonstrate the power of his methods. While role play can be a helpful teaching tool, we must acknowledge that a role play that attempts to mimic a bullying incident lacks the power true imbalance an a sense of threat. Additionally, the initiator of the role play can choose to play out a scenario in any way they want to prove their point. Kalman claims to have research that backs his methods. Yet, the only study completed on his work to date are small, informal studies which he has conducted himself. A larger study is being conducted, results of which he feels will be promising. Sure, if you tell kids not to report bullying, results will show a decreased rate of reports. Kalman also claims to have, as he puts it, “converted many adults to his thinking.” I can see that. There are plenty of adults who would be more than happy to be totally absolved of any responsibility to guide and protect a child and leave the situation on the “shoulders of the victim.” He also, in effect, absolves bullies from having any accountability for their actions. Is this the point of view we want people to have when it comes to our children?
We have experienced two terrible tragedies in our Valley. Wounds
are still open. Communities are still angry and critical. As we move forward in seeking appropriate curriculum and consultation, I recommend we choose very carefully.
www.ednews.org/.../an-interview-with-izzy-kalman-about-bullies-bullying-...
https://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1642&p...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/10/21/picking_a_fi...
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/izzy_kalman/
http://www.activityvillage.co.uk/bullying_solution.htm
http://educationinjapan.wordpress.com/education-system-in-japan-general/...
www.bullies2buddies.com