The Fraud of Anti-Bullying Prevention

From the socio-swindlers that brought you D.A.R.E., Ritalin, and Reefer Madness, comes the latest innocuous attempt at solving an exaggerated childhood epidemic: Anti-Bullying Prevention.

Despite a multitude of studies showing the ineffectiveness of these programs (such as Vreeman’s 2007 entry in Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine “A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying”, and Smith’s 2004 “The effectiveness of whole-school anti-bullying programs: a synthesis of evaluation research” from School Psychology Review), their prevalence in the public school system only grows stronger. Parents, ever conscious of neglect, find their authority trumped by a formidable coalition of non-profits, lawmakers, school administrators, and celebrity PSAs that easily lead them by flute into the river down which they’re sold.

Bullying is typically defined as repeated, inescapable acts of aggression involving an imbalance of power. StopBullying.gov claims that bullies and their victims are at greater risk for behavioral problems. Signs that a child is being bullied include: unexplained injuries, changes in eating habits, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, depression, missing items, and a fear of school.

The problem with addressing these signs under the umbrella of anti-bullying, is that they may also indicate a child or teen is bulimic, depressed, or the victim of physical or sexual abuse. In other words: serious, complex problems that require the attention of mental health professionals.

Historically, “bullying” was a generalization for the many ways in which one imposes their will on another. Now that the professional crisis crowd has legitimized a slang term by transforming it into a prognosis complete with prevention program, words and actions with more severe connotations have been enveloped into it.

Teens who have had property stolen are no longer victims of theft. Beatings are no longer assault. Threatening phone calls are not harassment. And calling a black student “nigger” or a gay student “faggot” ceases to be termed hate speech. These actions are now called “bullying”. The intention behind this was to stop all instances of bullying by lending them the sobering credibility of the grimmest offenses. Instead, a vacuous and silly generalization has helped to water down serious and alarming activity, similar to what the failed D.A.R.E. program did to drug use in the 1980’s and 90’s. It’s no wonder that anti-bullying prevention programs have produced little to no results.

According to Smith’s study published in a 2004 edition of School Psychology Review, which analyzed seven different whole-school anti-bullying programs, 86% of victimization cases culminated in negligible results or worse, with the remaining 14% showing slightly positive effects.

Why have schools travelled down this fruitless path? That requires a basic understanding of how public funding works. When outrageous or tragic incidents become news fodder (ex. School shootings, teen suicides, gang beatings), public concern rises, and letters get written to lawmakers. Those legislators, be it your Congressman, State Senator, or Town Council member, hastily draw up bills to deal with the issue, so that their names become attached to any and all made progress. These bills are almost always centered on enforcement and prevention procedures, for which public funding is then made available. Public schools, often the bearer of funding cuts, are the first to apply. But in order to qualify, they must first devise enforcement and prevention programs. Non-profit organizations, the majority of which are publicly funded to the tune of 80-90%, and whose executives often make salaries in excess of a quarter-million dollars, appear on the scene like spring-heeled Jacks, ready to assist schools in program implementation. Regardless of how ineffective anti-bullying programs have been proven to be, they continue to occupy precious time and funding in the flat attempt to solve a vastly overstated crisis.

Lawmakers, non-profits, and school administrators triangulate a public concern they helped to create, achieving the equivalent to a monumental fete of “busy work”, and everybody goes home happy. This is how it worked for Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), abstinence education, and the hyper-diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder (A.D.D.), leading to the mass-drugging of children on Ritalin.

The campaign to end bullying in our schools is as ludicrous and flighty as campaigning for world peace – a futile quest for the “cure” at the expense of effective treatment. For insight into school bullying, look no further than the values of our country. This is a nation that embraces the imposition of unchallenged willpower, in every facet of life, from the boardroom to the courtroom, in politics and law enforcement. Steve Jobs bullied his way to the entrepreneurial pantheon. Bookshelves are filled with manifestos from gurus in “no-means-yes” power-ties, giving you the blueprints to strangle the competition after you’ve stolen their crops and burnt their house down. Anti-bullying is practically anti-American.

Instead of working to build individual confidence in youth, we instill in them a sense of victimization that carries over into adulthood where no such protection from bullies is found. Programs that push team-building exercises, suggestion boxes, and false awareness force children back into a context where reliance on links in the social chain is their only protection; the very thing that isolated them in the beginning. Team concepts work on the football field – they do nothing to protect the psychological integrity of the individual. One might say martial arts is the oldest and most effective anti-bullying program in the world, because it builds confidence, teaches mental discipline, and anybody can learn it regardless of affliction.

Institutions that value the team over the individual are incapable of protecting and enhancing the latter. If the public schools value your children’s wellness, they will work to address root causes of old problems instead of rolling them up into new ones, at which the government is happy to throw your money.

Will Ferraro is a social media and policy analyst, and the Editor of The Influence. You can follow him on Twitter @FerraroW