Gay teen faces expulsion for defense via stungun

[Ghostbear]

You're right -- that wasn't dependent, but I'm going to bother arguing what "really" works and what doesn't. I doubt there's much data going in either direction, so yeah -- I'm playing by "common sense" of things like "the less risk you expose yourself to, the less likely you are to get hurt".

The likelihood of "toning it down" being successful is very relevant to whether it's a valid piece of advice. The potential personal ramifications of such are relevant. Whether or not it would actually expose him to less risk is relevant. That's what those points dealt with.

If it was such common sense, the student would have done it himself. He made a decision that the potential outcomes of that action would not be positive to himself. Looking at the situation that is presented to us through the article, I think there's approximately fuck-all that he could have done to make himself less of a target -- the bullies had already chosen him as a target, they already knew he was gay, and any changes on his part would just be presenting a weakness to them.

My point though is that there's nothing offensive (or "VICTIM BLAMER!!!!11" worthy) about advising people to lay low in such a situation. Even if laying low wouldn't produce the relevant results.

Sure, but it also tends to drift into victim blaming with little difficulty. And it does amount to victim blaming if it's the most significant idea that the administration had for solving this issue and we still hold the student accountable for the end results.

[BattleMoose]

You're right -- that wasn't dependent, but I'm going to bother arguing what "really" works and what doesn't. I doubt there's much data going in either direction, so yeah -- I'm playing by "common sense" of things like "the less risk you expose yourself to, the less likely you are to get hurt".

The likelihood of "toning it down" being successful is very relevant to whether it's a valid piece of advice. The potential personal ramifications of such are relevant. Whether or not it would actually expose him to less risk is relevant. That's what those points dealt with.

If it was such common sense, the student would have done it himself. He made a decision that the potential outcomes of that action would not be positive to himself. Looking at the situation that is presented to us through the article, I think there's approximately fuck-all that he could have done to make himself less of a target -- the bullies had already chosen him as a target, they already knew he was gay, and any changes on his part would just be presenting a weakness to them.

Avoiding being a target is very much a prevention strategy, once you are a target generally I think there is fuck all that one can do. So, he finds himself in a very shit situation, brandishes a stun gun, gets in serious trouble with the administration and here I am thinking that that is probably the best outcome he could achieve for himself, considering the hostility of the students and the administration, although to be fair, the administration may not actually be hostile, just negligent. At least now it is an issue. And students may pause before messing with him again, if he doesn't get expelled or perhaps a reputation will follow up? Full on prison attitude going on here. Its fucked up but he is in a fucked up situation.

So, I am curious to learn what other people think he should have done to achieve the best outcome he could for himself?

[yoni45]

In this case, 'controlled' means school-sponsored and nonviolent. Why can't we pull the bullies' parents in? Talk to them, get them to talk to their kids? If that doesn't work, level some serious threats the bullies' way? Why not form a teacher-sponsored (but student-run) anti-bullying club, relying on positive popular kids to level their pull against bullies? If a kid wants to wear feminine clothes, and lots of kids are going to bully him, why not round up some of the kids who think that's nonsense (I'm sure not everyone is against it) and convince them to all wear feminine clothes too? Bring supportive parents in on the notion.

The point here is, when a kid makes it clear they want to go forward--they want to express themselves--you back them up. You make noise. You don't tell the kid 'shhh, be quiet'--you bring out the cymbals and you start hammering as loud as you can. That's what support means; instead of sweeping it under the rug, you pull it out into the sunshine.

I think that if the administration had responded to this by making noise and throwing weight behind the kid in question, things would have played out much differently. Don't you?

I think we can both agree on the administration being quite shitty on all counts. That's not remotely in question. And you're absolutely right: all that stuff is what I would do. But I'm not there, and I'm not in that position. All that stuff is what the administration and some (all) of the peers should have done, but didn't.

So the question becomes, given that, what should the student have done. We're (probably) all in agreement that everyone else failed miserably.

And in terms of what the kid should've done, is *not* escalate the situation in the manner that he did. That's essentially the opposite of "lay low", and I'd say the suggestion is warranted given the significantly higher stakes involved when the situation is escalated into (relatively) serious weaponry.

The likelihood of "toning it down" being successful is very relevant to whether it's a valid piece of advice. The potential personal ramifications of such are relevant. Whether or not it would actually expose him to less risk is relevant. That's what those points dealt with.

I wouldn't say so -- I'm not arguing the validity of the advice as much as I am the offensiveness of the advice. Not to say that the advice isn't valid (although really, good luck finding hard evidence either way), but regardless of the advice being valid my point is that it's not inherently offensive.

Sure, but it also tends to drift into victim blaming with little difficulty. And it does amount to victim blaming if it's the most significant idea that the administration had for solving this issue and we still hold the student accountable for the end results.

I'm not actually arguing for the administration here, my point is more so against Nordic's tirade against Dream.

So, I am curious to learn what other people think he should have done to achieve the best outcome he could for himself?

If the threat against the student was serious enough to warrant a stungun, then I'd say the student should've just stayed out of school. Find a way to transfer out, finish by correspondence, etc. I'm not that familiar with the American school system, but is there really no way out of that school? Or, if getting expelled is an easy way out and into another school, then perhaps calculated use of that stun gun was actually a prudent strategy.

[morriswalters]

For informational purposes only. There were alternative placements available within the school system, I posted a link earlier. He could have taken it up the chain in appealing the his stated lack of support to higher authorities in the Indianapolis School System, there is a mechanism. There are LGBT organizations in the Indianapolis area that he could have contacted for support, I posted a link earlier. He could have gone to court. He could have tested out using the GED program. He could have home schooled. And I am sure that there are others that I didn't mention. I am gone again.

[Lucrece]

Home schooling or testing out by GED places you at a significant disadvantage for university admissions, and we have no indication that he was a crappy student to begin with. He could have applied to a transfer, but how close are his transfer options, who will pay for them? Nobody is taking into account the adjustments he'll have to make in transportation and scheduling, and after all is said and done the transfer wouldn't even guarantee things are different in another Indianapolis high school. And why should he suffer those burdens and be deprived of his right to a safe public education at his assigned local school just because some people have issues with his gender expression? Will minorities have to ghettoize themselves everytime a majority wishes to push them out of the public square?

[Роберт]

For informational purposes only. There were alternative placements available within the school system, I posted a link earlier. He could have taken it up the chain in appealing the his stated lack of support to higher authorities in the Indianapolis School System, there is a mechanism. There are LGBT organizations in the Indianapolis area that he could have contacted for support, I posted a link earlier. He could have gone to court. He could have tested out using the GED program. He could have home schooled. And I am sure that there are others that I didn't mention. I am gone again.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-h ... ach-other/

#3. We Put Ourselves in Other People's Shoes

Getty

"But wait," you might think. "Isn't that exactly what we're supposed to do? Isn't it a good thing?" The problem, as I see it, is it only gets you halfway there. Too often you put yourself in someone else's shoes -- but you stay you. You basically Quantum Leap yourself into someone else's situation with all your knowledge and emotional resources.

In this awful, well-meaning article, a middle-aged white writer talks about what he would do if he were a poor black kid, and about how he would take advantage of all the resources and options available to poor black kids who have the memories and knowledge of a middle-aged white guy implanted into their brains.

ITT: I lose most of my ability to take morriswalters seriously, but still respect Dream. (One of them seems to actually understand what's going on, and the other clearly suffers from Alzheimer's)

[The Great Hippo]

And in terms of what the kid should've done, is *not* escalate the situation in the manner that he did. That's essentially the opposite of "lay low", and I'd say the suggestion is warranted given the significantly higher stakes involved when the situation is escalated into (relatively) serious weaponry.

If you're asking me if the kid chose wrong, I really can't say. I don't know the situation nearly well enough.

And I don't think 'did he choose wrong?' is a useful question. Clearly, he felt threatened enough to defend himself with violence--so if the choice is that--'lay low' versus 'express yourself and possibly have to defend yourself with violence'--I think we can all agree that that's a pretty shitty choice, right? It's not one I'm particularly interested in criticizing. People shouldn't have to make choices like that. Particularly not kids in a learning environment.

I mean, what are you arguing here? 'Given the failure of the school, the administration, the teachers, and his class-mates around him, faced with two incredibly shitty choices, he chose one which I think was slightly more shitty than the other'?

I'd rather people take this as a learning opportunity about a school's responsibility concerning the safety of its students rather than an opportunity to criticize the steps--irresponsible or not--one student took to allow themselves to feel safe in a very hostile environment.

[Роберт]

I mean, what are you arguing here? 'Given the failure of the school, the administration, and the class-mates around him, faced with two incredibly shitty choices, he choose one which I think was slightly more shitty than the other'?

Win.

[Ghostbear]

I wouldn't say so -- I'm not arguing the validity of the advice as much as I am the offensiveness of the advice. Not to say that the advice isn't valid (although really, good luck finding hard evidence either way), but regardless of the advice being valid my point is that it's not inherently offensive.
[...]
I'm not actually arguing for the administration here, my point is more so against Nordic's tirade against Dream.

Fair enough on the latter part -- fast moving threads like this can make it easy to lose the original part of a sub-discussion -- but I don't think it's an easy claim that it's not insulting. It's either going to be very likely useless advice (if the person has already been chosen as a target by bullies) or it's going to be telling a person that in order to be safe from the chance of being beaten by their peers, then need to be a completely different person than who they are. Now, yes, I'd agree it's not inherently offensive -- if it's just given as a basic info dump and doesn't otherwise preclude the person receiving support -- but the problem is that such scenarios are not common. Most of the cases where we see it being offered as advice, it's, more or less, the only solution provided, and then leads to victim blaming. It isn't automatically offensive nor does it always result in victim blaming, but I'd say the chances for both are sufficiently high that we call it out unless specifically given information contrary to it being used poorly.

ITT: I lose most of my ability to take morriswalters seriously, but still respect Dream. (One of them seems to actually understand what's going on, and the other clearly suffers from Alzheimer's)

Now now, you shouldn't insult Alzheimer's patients like that.

[Princess Marzipan]

I'd rather people take this as a learning opportunity about a school's responsibility concerning the safety of its students rather than an opportunity to criticize the steps--irresponsible or not--one student took to allow themselves to feel safe in a very hostile environment.

This sums up my frustrations here really well.

[Роберт]

ITT: I lose most of my ability to take morriswalters seriously, but still respect Dream. (One of them seems to actually understand what's going on, and the other clearly suffers from Alzheimer's)

Now now, you shouldn't insult Alzheimer's patients like that.

Psh, I'm not being ableist. I linked to factual information.

[Chen]

I have to wonder what else the school is supposed to do about bullying in cases such as these. The article stated he couldn't even identify some of the people that were bullying him. Aside from a teacher catching them in the act, how are they supposed to go about these things? I don't mean this rhetorically but in actuality. We say that the school has a responsibility to its students, but how are they supposed to monitor these things? CCTV everywhere? Assigning someone to follow the students around if they have complaints? I also wonder what they do if no one witnessed the event, the victim tells them person X did it and then person X denies it. Presumably it gets even worse if its a group of people since they can ALL deny it which tends to make the victim look worse. Most bullies are not stupid with regards to their bullying. They won't do it in front of a teacher/camera. I mean from http://www.indystar.com/article/2012050 ... m-gave-him

we have:

Young and other witnesses were not able to identify the students who surrounded him, and the school's investigation hasn't yielded any leads, Yarrell said.

What are you supposed to do in a case like this where NO ONE can identify the aggressors? Now clearly a lot of this is likely people not wanting to be thought of as snitches but even in criminal cases there's not terribly much you can do if someone says they don't remember (as long as they didn't say they did remember previously, and even then...).

[Elvish Pillager]

ITT: I lose most of my ability to take morriswalters seriously, but still respect Dream. (One of them seems to actually understand what's going on, and the other clearly suffers from Alzheimer's)

Now now, you shouldn't insult Alzheimer's patients like that.

Psh, I'm not being ableist. I linked to factual information.

You're insinuating that morriswalters was in 15.5% of a nursing home in 2004?

[morriswalters]

ITT: I lose most of my ability to take morriswalters seriously, but still respect Dream. (One of them seems to actually understand what's going on, and the other clearly suffers from Alzheimer's)

I literally don't care what you think, in my mind you are no better than the kids who supposedly threatened the young man. And bluntly I don't care about him accept as an abstraction. Thousands of kids will suffer much worse than him and they will never receive any attention here or on CNN. Everything here has been mostly hot air with people promoting their own agendas. None of it very useful to anyone reading this hoping to garner some useful information. The people closest to him may have failed him, but the only evidence that is readily available is that his mother failed him most of all. This tight little group has condemned the whole school of failing him, that would appear to be more than fifty people, if you count all the employees, and an untold number of his peers. The students shouldn't get as pass.

His risks are manifold, being Gay in a community where trendsetters can be openly homophobic, being at greater risk of homicide merely because he is black, to being saddled with a mother whose best solution was to arm him and send him off to school. I sleep well because he is not my problem.

One last thing. His specific risk is of course unknowable, it depends on factors which can not easily be pinned down, but his aggregate risk is certainly easy to assess, and they exist for him in addition to his specific risk. This would be no different then the risk faced by a smoker. His specific risk is unknowable, but we accept that that aggregate risk, that can be calculated, makes it a fools errand to smoke, no matter his specific risk. This is no different.

Edit
Now I have already communicated to at least on person to let it go however if you choose not to do so then of course I will engage. I can rewrite in a thousand different ways what I just wrote, or I can leave it alone. If any mods wish to do anything about it they are welcome to do whatever up to banning me, I find that currently that idea is not really very bothersome. I don't like bullies no matter where I find them, here or elsewhere.

[Роберт]

in my mind you are no better than the kids who supposedly threatened the young man.

Great! What is your metric? I don't even understand how the two things are even remotely comparable. Or are you saying that people calling you out for using bad logic on a nerdy forum is putting at risk of suicide and making your required education less effective?

being at greater risk of homicide merely because he is black, to being saddled with a mother whose best solution was to arm him and send him off to school. I sleep well because he is not my problem.

One last thing. His specific risk is of course unknowable, it depends on factors which can not easily be pinned down, but his aggregate risk is certainly easy to assess, and they exist for him in addition to his specific risk. This would be no different then the risk faced by a smoker. His specific risk is unknowable, but we accept that that aggregate risk, that can be calculated, makes it a fools errand to smoke, no matter his specific risk. This is no different.

Did you know that getting a GED increases your risk of smoking?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5444a2.htm


Risk doesn't work the way you think it does. But you've said previously that you don't really care that you're logic is wrong, so I don't think I'll bother pointing out why.

[Griffin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Aj9W0ntUMI Slapping a hefty trigger warning on this. ~~Felstaff

Meanwhile, some schools make super-stunguns official school policy. o_o

(not for the kids to use of course, but as the go to punitive measure, cattleprod directly to the brain)

Not really super relevant to the thread, I just appreciated the contrast, and lets be honest, this thread isn't going anywhere.

[Роберт]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aAj9W0ntUMI

Meanwhile, some schools make super-stunguns official school policy. o_o

(not for the kids to use of course, but as the go to punitive measure, cattleprod directly to the brain)

Not really super relevant to the thread, I just appreciated the contrast, and lets be honest, this thread isn't going anywhere.

From Wikipedia:

It has 900 employees and annual revenues exceeding $56 million, charging $220,000 a year for each student.

Um, wow. That's pretty expensive tuition.

[Griffin]

Torture is a lucrative business!

Especially when dealing with kids that no one else wants.

(which is part of the reason I'm not a big fan of expulsion, it often ends up with the student falling through the cracks and ending up in a pretty bad place. And this is, all to often, the sort of place where those students end up. No legitimate school WANTS people who are expelled, after all.)

[The Great Hippo]

I have to wonder what else the school is supposed to do about bullying in cases such as these. The article stated he couldn't even identify some of the people that were bullying him. Aside from a teacher catching them in the act, how are they supposed to go about these things? I don't mean this rhetorically but in actuality. We say that the school has a responsibility to its students, but how are they supposed to monitor these things? CCTV everywhere? Assigning someone to follow the students around if they have complaints? I also wonder what they do if no one witnessed the event, the victim tells them person X did it and then person X denies it. Presumably it gets even worse if its a group of people since they can ALL deny it which tends to make the victim look worse.

...

What are you supposed to do in a case like this where NO ONE can identify the aggressors? Now clearly a lot of this is likely people not wanting to be thought of as snitches but even in criminal cases there's not terribly much you can do if someone says they don't remember (as long as they didn't say they did remember previously, and even then...).

I think one of the first 'big steps' is to remember that this isn't (hopefully!) a criminal case; the point is to end the threat, not to punish the 'responsible parties' (except when punishing clearly helps!). In that instance, I think you do have options--although I quickly would add I'm not a professional, I'm not intimately familiar with this situation, and anything I say on the subject should be taken with prescription-grade salt.

But, for example: Why not pull his parents in? Have a sit-down about the situation, work with them and the student to figure out what they think should be done. Talk to teachers and ask them if they have any idea of who it could be. And, yeah--you can have people watch him--obviously not professionals, but you could make it clear to administration that he's a vulnerable target, and teachers should take steps to keep an eye out for him. Even make this an 'official' stance, generate some paperwork demonstrating that teachers are keeping an eye out for him for bully-targeting behavior, so when people say 'well what did you do?' you can produce that paperwork and show that the answer was better than 'not much'. You might even manage to work out a rotating 'buddy system' of some kind--make sure he's never alone, always another student around, so if anything does happen you have two witnesses to the event. One thing I've always been interested by is the idea of an anti-bullying club run by students (but I have no idea how well this would work! Possibly not at all!) which could help a lot with that.

These are ideas from a layman with, again, not a lot of experience on addressing these sorts of things. I also don't know if any of these things were done (from what I'm reading, no--which is a shame). I think the primary problem with all of these solutions is they involve at least some investment of time and resources, and schools don't like burning through those things without good reason. But creating a safe, stable environment must always be priority one.

I will agree that you're right to imply there are rarely easy solutions in these sort of situations, and most of them involve a lot of work.

I literally don't care what you think, in my mind you are no better than the kids who supposedly threatened the young man.

I understand you're frustrated here, and I don't approve of you getting insulted, but... buh?

[Роберт]

I literally don't care what you think, in my mind you are no better than the kids who supposedly threatened the young man.

I understand you're frustrated here, and I don't approve of you getting insulted, but... buh?

To clarify, I'm not actually intending to insult morriswalters - I don't actually think he has Alzheimer's, and I don't think Alzheimer's patients are always incapable of logical discussion.

I AM intending to point out how flawed his arguments are. Maybe I'm not able to word it as well as you. I didn't take time to individually respond to each and every post, but it is a direct response to arguments morriswalters has made ITT. (Irrelevant CDC links and all.)

[The Great Hippo]

I didn't flip through all the previous replies to see where morriswalters was actually insulted, I just kind of assumed someone must have said something that really insulted them (because that's the only thing I could imagine prompting that response!). Pardon if that wasn't the case.

[morriswalters]

Okay let's go. Risk works exactly the way I have stated. Let's see if I can help you with this. Tell your life insurance agent that you base jump. He won't ask for details, he won't care about your equipment, he will simply look into his book and mark you down as a poor risk. He got fucked being born black, that's unfortunate but true. Over the long term it will get better as our society becomes colorblind, if they can determine the causes, no such luck currently, and wealth and education only help so much. Overall the trend for violence has been downward because the overall trend has been downward. Do you need me to read that to you, or are you up to it. That risk exists no matter what unless he removes himself from the black community because most of that violence which will engulf him if his number comes up, is black on black, except for the risk of suicide. You can debate why that is so, good luck on that. I have at least four links that you can have if you wish. That is at least one of his risk factors. His second is that he is gay. That's shameful I suppose, but well fuck, what you gonna do. You would die if I related all the jokes, behind your back sniggers, and generally piss poor behaviors from supposedly well educated whites on blacks and gays. Liberals I might add. Not to mention the Rap culture that has a distinct homophobic tilt. And just to pile it a little deeper he belongs to a age group that has to pay more for auto insurance, has a greater chance of being a victim of crime, and generally speaking acting like what they are which is adventurous risk takers.

Now none of this is his fault. It's a damn shame, and I'm glad it's not me. Now we add into the mix a weapon, and let us look at the outcome. He is suspended, he may be expelled. No matter what his level as a student this has got to hurt, It's close to the end of term so that even if it ends up being a suspension and not an expulsion he's lost time. If he goes back I think it is fair to assume that his circumstance will be much like an endangered species. He will end up in a hothouse at school assuming that he returns to the one he is in presently, watched over like a snail darter, and protected by isolation. Which won't change one damn thing when he walks out the door. Not to mention that the press coverage has almost assured that no matter where he lights he is going to stand out like a sore thumb. How do you think that will work for him? If he gets expelled he moves to an alternative placement, which will probably be safer because it is locked down. Of course his classmates are potentially much more dangerous since in all likelihood they got expelled for behavior issues too, depending on those specifics your talking about. Am I missing an upside here? Three weeks from now everybody will have forgotten, here. He on the other hand will still be there. And I still don't care, I have family of my own to take care of.

Someone told me they were trying to use social pressure to teach me, guess what?

[The Great Hippo]

Okay? I don't see what you're saying beyond 'this situation really sucks, people!'.

If that's all you're saying, total 100% agreement here.

[Роберт]

Okay let's go. Risk works exactly the way I have stated.

Okay, from this post it seems like you are trying to actually have a productive conversation, so I'll go with it.

Risk does not actually always work exactly the way you have stated it. Not all the variables are independent. I'm sure this is controversial, and I'm not saying I agree with it*, but let me throw something very specific down from Wikipedia (I know it's not a valid citation for a research paper, but bear with me. It's not like my argument hinges on this being true.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_c ... ted_States

According to Jensen, when crime rates are compared between races while adjusting for IQ, they are approximately the same. Thus, Jensen proposes, the disparity in crime rates between races can be explained by the proportions of each group with IQs in the range at greatest risk for antisocial behavior.

If true, can you see that being black and low in IQ would not independently add together? Jenson is proposing that the only reason black crime rates differ from white crime rates is because it acts as a proxy for other factors. Since it is acting as a proxy, it does not add risk along with the other factors.

Similarly, if I said that people with GEDs were more likely to develop lung cancer, I might be telling the truth. Because GEDs are a proxy used for how likely you are to smoke. If you already have information on whether or not the person smokes, the GED information becomes completely useless.

*I don't personally think Race and intelligence are directly linked. I think that "race" is a pretty sketchy concept anyway and there are other reasons for the gaps in IQ scores.

[Chen]

I think one of the first 'big steps' is to remember that this isn't (hopefully!) a criminal case; the point is to end the threat, not to punish the 'responsible parties' (except when punishing clearly helps!). In that instance, I think you do have options--although I quickly would add I'm not a professional, I'm not intimately familiar with this situation, and anything I say on the subject should be taken with prescription-grade salt.

While ending the threat is ideal, the problem is that's exactly what they tried to do via telling him to tone down his flamboyance. Clearly not a great solution, but how else do you end this threat without punishing (or threatening punishment) on the offenders? They're likely not going to listen to any type of "stop bullying" speeches.

But, for example: Why not pull his parents in? Have a sit-down about the situation, work with them and the student to figure out what they think should be done. Talk to teachers and ask them if they have any idea of who it could be. And, yeah--you can have people watch him--obviously not professionals, but you could make it clear to administration that he's a vulnerable target, and teachers should take steps to keep an eye out for him. Even make this an 'official' stance, generate some paperwork demonstrating that teachers are keeping an eye out for him for bully-targeting behavior, so when people say 'well what did you do?' you can produce that paperwork and show that the answer was better than 'not much'. You might even manage to work out a rotating 'buddy system' of some kind--make sure he's never alone, always another student around, so if anything does happen you have two witnesses to the event. One thing I've always been interested by is the idea of an anti-bullying club run by students (but I have no idea how well this would work! Possibly not at all!) which could help a lot with that.

These are ideas from a layman with, again, not a lot of experience on addressing these sorts of things. I also don't know if any of these things were done (from what I'm reading, no--which is a shame). I think the primary problem with all of these solutions is they involve at least some investment of time and resources, and schools don't like burning through those things without good reason. But creating a safe, stable environment must always be priority one.

Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head here with not having the resources to implement things like this. This is the case of a bullied child that got noticed. But I can't imagine how many other bullied children there are in a large school. This solution can't possibly be applied on a large scale. For a small private school or something sure it seems reasonable. But for a large and likely underfunded public school? I can't believe its feasible. Again though I suspect (or at least hope) teachers are already on the lookout for bullying behavior. Its just they cannot be everywhere at once. This incident apparently happened when walking to another building which seems to imply a fairly big campus for a high school. They even mention cameras but none in that particular area.

[EdgarJPublius]

*I don't personally think Race and intelligence are directly linked. I think that "race" is a pretty sketchy concept anyway and there are other reasons for the gaps in IQ scores.

In terms of crime/anti-social behavior, 'race' and 'IQ' are probably both proxies for a variety of socio-economic factors which are understood to varying degrees and are much harder to measure.

[Роберт]

*I don't personally think Race and intelligence are directly linked. I think that "race" is a pretty sketchy concept anyway and there are other reasons for the gaps in IQ scores.

In terms of crime/anti-social behavior, 'race' and 'IQ' are probably both proxies for a variety of socio-economic factors which are understood to varying degrees and are much harder to measure.

Exactly.

My point being: "being black" is not likely much a real risk that will add to the other specific factors involved in chances of violence, except for the possibility of a higher risk of racially motivated hate crimes. I was just giving that specific example from Wikipedia because it seemed simple enough to understand and it wasn't something I was making up on the spot.

[Heisenberg]

Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head here with not having the resources to implement things like this. This is the case of a bullied child that got noticed. But I can't imagine how many other bullied children there are in a large school. This solution can't possibly be applied on a large scale. For a small private school or something sure it seems reasonable. But for a large and likely underfunded public school? I can't believe its feasible. Again though I suspect (or at least hope) teachers are already on the lookout for bullying behavior. Its just they cannot be everywhere at once. This incident apparently happened when walking to another building which seems to imply a fairly big campus for a high school. They even mention cameras but none in that particular area.

I don't think the school is impotent in the bullying arena. Right now the School Counseling world is aflutter with different anti-bullying strategies and programs. And while we can't implement a fool-proof strategy, there are many steps the school and its counselors and psychologists can take to reduce bullying and identify and respond to occurrences.

As far as this specific case, Arsenal Tech has around 2000 students, which I don't consider that huge, and is in multiple buildings because it's an old arsenal. Honestly, the larger the school is, the more resources they should be able to devote to anti-bullying campaigns.

[morriswalters]

I'll try this again, literally the argument is what is best for the student, there is a sub argument on the Zero Tolerance Policy. Start with the first. While the risk is not additive, it can be calculated. The part of the risk that I am talking about is independent of any other factors, it is what it is. The question is does introducing another variable like a weapon into the calculation increase his overall risk or decrease it? That is a very difficult calculation. You can look at it by an example, although I hate to do it since it invites quibbling. When is a police officer at less risk? In the morning, in his house or after he goes to work and puts on his weapon? And does putting on his weapon increase his risk or decrease his risk. The simple answer to the first is he is safer if he stays home. The answer to the second question is the one I'm interested in. My answer would be that it is does neither, what it does is help him to manage his risk. His risk as a Police Officer is greater than mine by definition. But the caveat lies in his training. The weapon is useful because he has rules of engagement and training. That is that he can identify when it is useful and when it is not. And knows how to use it when he needs to. Otherwise, I would contend that it simply adds to the overall risk and makes the situation more complex, and in its worse cases can lead to escalation in a situation where it would otherwise not. A stun gun is not the same as a gun weapon, but the calculations are the same. So my contention would be that what the mother did was simply add one more variable in what was already a complex situation. Any increase in his risk factor is intolerable considering how high it is already. She increased his risk without doing anything to make his situation better overall. Nothing was solved.

I really can't do anything if you can't accept this line of reasoning, and at this point I've had enough personal abuse to last me awhile, so I would ask if you would simply do what it is that you are told to do if you run into a troll, don't feed me. You can be sure if my name doesn't come up that I will not have anything more to say. But as long as people come at me then I will be compelled to answer, a glaring character flaw of mine.

edit

[Роберт]

The question is does introducing another variable like a weapon into the calculation increase his overall risk or decrease it? That is a very difficult calculation. You can look at it by an example, although I hate to do it since it invites quibbling. When is a police officer at less risk? In the morning, in his house or after he goes to work and puts on his weapon? And does putting on his weapon increase his risk or decrease his risk. The simple answer to the first is he is safer if he stays home. The answer to the second question is the one I'm interested in. My answer would be that it is does neither, what it does is help him to manage his risk. His risk as a Police Officer is greater than mine by definition. But the caveat lies in his training. The weapon is useful because he has rules of engagement and training. That is that he can identify when it is useful and when it is not. And knows how to use it when he needs to. Otherwise, I would contend that it simply adds to the overall risk and makes the situation more complex, and in its worse cases can lead to escalation in a situation where it would otherwise not. A stun gun is not the same as a weapon, but the calculations are the same. So my contention would be that what the mother did was simply add one more variable in what was already a complex situation.

See, I don't really have a problem with what you said here. It seems reasonable.

Of course, the way the student "used" the stun gun in this case seemed very good. He went weeks without touching it, then managed to diffuse a bad situation by displaying it.

However, I think the following is your (valid) point. Let's say that nobody said anything to the authorities about his stun gun. What would have happened next? Would the bullies have stopped bothering him so much, or would they have retaliated the next week with an escalation? It's hard to say. It's perfectly valid to think that carrying and displaying the stun gun was a bad choice.

But, as was succinctly put earlier, why are we worried about which choice of the multiple bad choices this particular student had was the worst? I'm hoping to discuss the policies and enforcement that led to this situation in the first place.

Zero-tolerance policies are certainly ripe for discussion. They touch on an interesting portion of the bigger picture. I find discussing what an appropriate response from the school would be more interesting than discussing what an appropriate response from the student would be.

[The Great Hippo]

I'll try this again, literally the argument is what is best for the student

Isn't that a question the student and their parents should be answering? Hard data is good, and I think people should have access to that data to make better decisions about what's best for them, but in the end, the answer to 'What is best for me' is really only answerable by me.

I at least agree that bringing the stun gun into the equation complicates things, and I'm not sure if it's really a reasonable response--but I find it of secondary concern (the circumstances which prompted someone to feel the need to bring a stun gun to school interest me more than the actual presence of the stun gun).

[Lucrece]

I don't think anyone is cheering that he got to the point of bringing a stun gun. The irritation is with "How stupid of him; he deserves to be expelled!" when you are incapable of appreciating his situation not only because you weren't there, but because also you've never been a bullied gay teen and still have no fucking clue about the real institutional and social slights gay people face. Administrators time and again have been shown to display malice toward unpopular minorities like gay people because, surprise, administrators tend to be part of the privileged majority. And in this case, bullying toward gay people stems mainly from religious animus and gender policing cultivated through the Abrahamic religions. The majority of these administrators are straight white Christians from Indiana, and as a whole these people aren't known to be bothered to care about the well-being of gay people, and in fact may purposely contribute to efforts that deny the targets of their contempt the same protections they'd be willing to extend to their own group members.

[morriswalters]

I'll try this again, literally the argument is what is best for the student

Isn't that a question the student and their parents should be answering? You're citing hard data, which is good, and I think people should have access to that data to make better decisions about what's best for them, but in the end, the answer to 'What is best for me' is really only answerable by me.

I at least agree that bringing the stun gun into the equation complicates things, and I'm not sure if it's really a reasonable response--but I find it of secondary concern (the circumstances which prompted someone to feel the need to bring a stun gun to school interest me more than the actual presence of the stun gun).

Hippo I've cited the data that I just cited or data more or less like it through the course of this discussion. I speak of the we because while a child is in the custody of the school system they are the arbiter of what is best for the student. That a legal fact not mine. Their custody is not unlimited, but then neither is the parents. This is complicated by the fact that in some schools that the number of students could go well over 500. They must balance the interests of them all. I hope that is not contentious.

The answer to the why of bringing the gun into school, may be as much about culture as danger. The assumption overall seems to have been that he was at a very great risk. While there is no way for me to know for sure, I am unconvinced that was the case, but there is no way to know for certain. I suggest without being able to produce any evidence that the stun gun could have been a product of a personality(the mothers) that saw force as an appropriate response, rather than a response dictated by the actual physical danger. From the speed of the response by the Police, unless I misunderstood what I read there may have been a Police presence at the school which would lead me to believe that the school was well monitored. Schools are hypersensitive to this. While it is certainly possible that he did face some kind of risk that I am not aware of I'm not sure what it could be. Had he ever been injured severely enough on campus to leave evidence in terms of bumps, contusions, abrasions, or broken bones, I find it difficult to believe the authorities would have ignored it. That requires me to make a leap I am not prepared to take. My experience raising my children leads me to believe that there is a certain amount of hyperbole any time this type of thing occurs. Again this is speculation on my part. To the best of my knowledge no one at the school in the student body has stood up and said anything to support it or deny it. But with the confidentiality issues it's hard to tell.

Роберт the Zero Tolerance Policy may well be flawed, but while it is policy than I expect the schools to enforce it. As fairly and correctly as possible, but enforce it. If they change it, then as long as they are consistent, I can get behind it. What I see as wasteful is not having any policy or not enforcing a policy that exists. My belief is that in that direction lies disaster. It might also be helpful if people knew what it meant. I claim better knowledge of this because my daughter got caught by it over an asthma inhaler. Look up the definition of condescending.

Lucrece, I know nothing about anyone there. Not him, not them. They are an abstraction to me. No one deserves to be expelled and in a perfect world they wouldn't be. But the worlds not perfect, not by a long shot. If you choose to assume that everybody who does something you don't like is biased against gays I won't even bother saying anything else because you are as closed minded as the people you seem to hate. Hate me if it makes you feel better.

Now I am done. Period.

[The Great Hippo]

Lucrece: I don't have a lot of experience with school administrations, but I've had some--enough to at least point to fear, frustration, and powerlessness being factors in why things aren't being done. Teachers are afraid of enforcing or contradicting controversial policies; administrators feel like there's nothing they can do--and everyone already feels like they've got enough on their plate to begin with. For them, telling a homosexual student to try keeping their head down might be the safest, easiest alternative.

I'm sure there are teachers and administrators who are genuinely opposed to homosexuality, and that informs some of their decisions as far as this goes, but I also suspect there's more complexity to the issue than anti-gay sentiment.

The assumption overall seems to have been that he was at a very great risk.

Oh, no. That's not my assumption at all. My assumption is that he thought he was at very great risk. Huge difference, and a very important one!

Now I am done. Period.

Okay? I still have no idea what you were on about but you seem to believe whatever it is very passionately. Good luck with it.

[gmalivuk]

The part of the risk that I am talking about is independent of any other factors

Is the part of the risk you're talking about his being black? Because I guarantee you that is not independent of all the other factors. Or is it bringing a weapon? Because that is also not independent of other factors, since it *is* possible for the presence of a weapon to make someone safer. When it's needed for self-defense, for example.

Now I'm not saying it was needed in this case, necessarily, I'm just denying your claim that it's so easy to ignore all the other circumstances and just broadly proclaim that weapons are always universally risk-increasers and being black always universally puts someone at greater risk for violence.

[M.C.]

I don't think anyone is cheering that he got to the point of bringing a stun gun. The irritation is with "How stupid of him; he deserves to be expelled!" when you are incapable of appreciating his situation not only because you weren't there, but because also you've never been a bullied gay teen and still have no fucking clue about the real institutional and social slights gay people face. Administrators time and again have been shown to display malice toward unpopular minorities like gay people because, surprise, administrators tend to be part of the privileged majority.

And if you are capable of appreciating hid situation and still think that's a stupid idea? (Luckily Australia is far less religious than the US, so it wasn't a complete nightmare)

I just can't lose the idea that by bringing a weapon, he's shown vulnerability rather than strength? Bringing a weapon says to me that "This is getting to me and I can't take it much longer", which is a great message for the bullies. I dunno, I guess everyone has there own way of dealing with this, but choosing an option that could get you expelled (I have a hard time believing he didn't know the risk of carrying it) seems like the wrong option. Unless getting expelled was your aim of course.

[The Great Hippo]

I just can't lose the idea that by bringing a weapon, he's shown vulnerability rather than strength? Bringing a weapon says to me that "This is getting to me and I can't take it much longer", which is a great message for the bullies. I dunno, I guess everyone has there own way of dealing with this, but choosing an option that could get you expelled (I have a hard time believing he didn't know the risk of carrying it) seems like the wrong option. Unless getting expelled was your aim of course.

It's hard to navigate this sort of thing, because on one hand you feel terrible that someone is in a situation where they genuinely feel they need to carry a weapon to guarantee their safety, but on the other hand you obviously don't want to see that weapon get used--you don't want the situation to escalate to violence--and the presence of a weapon creates a context where that feels almost inevitable. As a rule, I'm opposed to violence, and I'm opposed to the tools of violence, but I'm also opposed to kids feeling genuinely threatened by their peers, so hell if I know what the right move was here.

I don't think violence should be celebrated--in any form. The fact that he brought a stun-gun to school isn't a brave decision; the fact that he used it isn't something to cheer about. I don't know if it was a genuinely bad decision, and I'm glad that I don't have to make that call (I'm also thankful that it isn't a decision I find myself faced with, and I sympathize with the fact that he was faced with it). All I can say for sure is that we should strive to make it so people aren't faced with decisions like these.

And when they are, we should strive to understand the context of that decision, why it happened, and how we can make sure it doesn't happen again. I mean, really--show of hands! Who here wants kids to use stun-guns on other kids? Who here wants kids to feel like they need to use stun-guns on other kids?

We all want the same thing. We want bullying to stop--well, there are things we can do to move toward that. The whole 'did this kid make the right decision?' question seems like such a red herring to me. He's a kid; he clearly felt threatened. What do we expect?

His situation was an incredibly shitty one, and he was left with nothing but incredibly shitty choices. He picked one; maybe it wasn't the best one, but he shouldn't have had to make it in the first place. Why can't we leave it at that?

[Lucrece]

I don't think anyone is cheering that he got to the point of bringing a stun gun. The irritation is with "How stupid of him; he deserves to be expelled!" when you are incapable of appreciating his situation not only because you weren't there, but because also you've never been a bullied gay teen and still have no fucking clue about the real institutional and social slights gay people face. Administrators time and again have been shown to display malice toward unpopular minorities like gay people because, surprise, administrators tend to be part of the privileged majority.

And if you are capable of appreciating hid situation and still think that's a stupid idea? (Luckily Australia is far less religious than the US, so it wasn't a complete nightmare)

I just can't lose the idea that by bringing a weapon, he's shown vulnerability rather than strength? Bringing a weapon says to me that "This is getting to me and I can't take it much longer", which is a great message for the bullies. I dunno, I guess everyone has there own way of dealing with this, but choosing an option that could get you expelled (I have a hard time believing he didn't know the risk of carrying it) seems like the wrong option. Unless getting expelled was your aim of course.

The problem with that is that there are so many ways to interpret the psychology behind it. Maybe instead he finally felt empowered to ascertain his safety, and maybe the bullies finally realized that the stakes for picking on this particular kid were rising and they might just move on. We just don't know, and I don't think you can interpret shrugging off abuse and assault as a sign of strength anymore than being resourceful in meeting violence thrown at you, and his method worked to dispel the bullies that day.

It wasn't the greatest idea to bring a stun gun, but it only makes it more appalling on the administration's part that a kid was driven to bring a stungun as a solution because the administration made him feel like he was between a rock and a hard place. I mean, how normal is it for a kid to bring a stun gun to school to feel safe? Quite some time passed and this hadn't been his initial approach to the bullying, but the bullying got so bad and the administration's response was "be less flamboyant" -- the kid went to his mom for guidance, and his mother gave him in his own limited understanding the path she thought would make it safer for him, and I can't fault her for that. It's not uncommon for minority people of lesser income to feel like they have to enforce their own protection because the institutions only give a shit about protecting the interests of the more popular and privileged people. For all purposes and intents his mother might have grown under the same culture where if people are fucking with you, and nobody does anything, you have to take it into your own hands. I'll say it was not an uncommon notion in Latin America as well that when kids are beating you up, and the administrators can't/aren't doing shit, the parents help the kids arm themselves with whatever means to displace bullies by becoming a threat they want to avoid.

[Chen]

I don't think the school is impotent in the bullying arena. Right now the School Counseling world is aflutter with different anti-bullying strategies and programs. And while we can't implement a fool-proof strategy, there are many steps the school and its counselors and psychologists can take to reduce bullying and identify and respond to occurrences.

As far as this specific case, Arsenal Tech has around 2000 students, which I don't consider that huge, and is in multiple buildings because it's an old arsenal. Honestly, the larger the school is, the more resources they should be able to devote to anti-bullying campaigns.

Fair enough, I'm not a school administrator so I am not familiar with the anti-bullying strategies that are being used (or being thought up). That said, everyone here is saying how the school is the one that actually failed because this happened. Is there any actual evidence the school didn't implement these policies? Or that they weren't doing anything? From the articles I've seen the administrators are saying they have tried investigating but in circumstances where the victim and witnesses can't/won't identify the students, I don't know what they're supposed to be doing. Now I'll grant its possible the admins are just lying but without evidence of that, it doesn't seem like a reasonable position to take.

[BattleMoose]

I don't think the school is impotent in the bullying arena. Right now the School Counseling world is aflutter with different anti-bullying strategies and programs. And while we can't implement a fool-proof strategy, there are many steps the school and its counselors and psychologists can take to reduce bullying and identify and respond to occurrences.

As far as this specific case, Arsenal Tech has around 2000 students, which I don't consider that huge, and is in multiple buildings because it's an old arsenal. Honestly, the larger the school is, the more resources they should be able to devote to anti-bullying campaigns.

Fair enough, I'm not a school administrator so I am not familiar with the anti-bullying strategies that are being used (or being thought up). That said, everyone here is saying how the school is the one that actually failed because this happened. Is there any actual evidence the school didn't implement these policies? Or that they weren't doing anything? From the articles I've seen the administrators are saying they have tried investigating but in circumstances where the victim and witnesses can't/won't identify the students, I don't know what they're supposed to be doing. Now I'll grant its possible the admins are just lying but without evidence of that, it doesn't seem like a reasonable position to take.

Bullying is part of a culture of a school. The school can either accept it or actually try and change the culture, now its not going to be an easy thing to do. But certainly the school could go on a serious anti-bullying campaign, announcements in assembly (if they do that) , have the teachers talk to their classes and perhaps not only punish those identified in bullying but actually talk to them because they are the ones that really need to talk to a school counselor.

How a school should go about changing the bullying culture is going to be school specific, its up to the school to rise to the challenge. Now if there was a host of things that they tried, and still failed, that at least could be understood, but when asked what the school did, the answer we are getting, from the article is essentially, fuck all. Perhaps the article didn't represent the schools efforts, perhaps, but thats what we are going on. Considering that the school did effectively nothing, is why the blame is being placed solely on the school administration.

Also, I cannot believe that the student doesn't know who is bullying him, perhaps if they were all in a mob, he might not be able to identify all of them but he knows. And maybe he is too scared to tell, for fear of being a "tattle-tale" but then again, talk to him. Address those fears, et cetera. And perhaps the school is actually even partially implicit in the bullying.

EDIT:

From personal experience. The school I was at had a big culture of, initiation, which is effectively a traditional construct for bullying, of the seniors onto the juniors. And there was a strong tradition that after the house dinner, (essentially the whole house gathered and ate food and socialized and stuff) , that the seniors would throw the juniors into the pool, not particularly extreme but that's not the point. Everyone knew what was supposed to happen. But our housemaster put an end to it, right there and then, with a very stern announcement about consequences afterwards, I guess he must have been new and didn't approve of this tradition. Things can change and not trying to change things can be condemnable.