Election 2016’s “Teachable Moment” About Bullying

This article is part of a series in which Nancy Willard debunks some common misconceptions about bullying and explores a new approach to tackling the issue.

The 2016 election season has provided an excellent opportunity to gain a greater understanding of bullying behavior. As a professional in this field, I would like to offer some insights and suggest an approach to begin to remedy the significant harms.

This article will focus on bullying behaviors demonstrated by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. However, this should not be considered partisan or criticism of his supporters. Members of both parties, as well as some corporate leaders, public advocacy groups, and the press, also engage in bullying.

Numerous commentaries have bemoaned the harm that has occurred to our society and schools due to the vitriol spewed by Mr. Trump. There is an alternative perspective. Our schools and our society has always been harmed by the hidden and unconscious biases that people hold about others, especially those who are considered “different.” The actions of Mr. Trump have “pulled open the curtain” on these hurtful biases. Mr. Trump has held a mirror up to our society—with all of its fear and feelings of disconnection.

Concerns about bullying of students who are perceived to be “different” have been amply reported in the research literature. Those most injured by these biases include most of Mr. Trump’s targets—women, immigrants, racial minorities, religious minorities, those with disabilities, or with weight challenges. Mr. Trump’s actions appear to have created a climate of stigmatization and marginalization where many others feel more comfortable in openly expressing their biases.

Of additional concern are staff members who hold hidden or unconscious biases against certain kinds of students that causes them to disparage these students or look away if those students are treated badly by their peers. The Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network's 2013 National School Climate Survey indicated that 51% of LGBT students reported hearing homophobic remarks from their teachers or other school staff. While the majority of students who were harassed or assaulted in school did not report the incident to school staff, 62% of the students who did report an incident said that school staff did nothing in response.^[1]

In order to address this troubling apparent increase in bias-based behavior, schools must make a concerted effort to increase the cultural competency of both students and staff. The resources from Teaching Tolerance can be exceptionally helpful to this effort.

Mr. Trump’s status in society raises attention to the fact that there exists a serious misunderstanding about those who engage in bullying. Most often those who bully are described as “at risk,” violent, and likely headed to prison.^[2] As the recent National Research Council report, Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice, stated:

(S)tudies suggest that most children and youth who bully others wield considerable power within their peer network and that high-status perpetrators tend to be perceived by peers as being popular, socially skilled, and leaders. High-status bullies have also been found to rank high on assets and competencies that the peer group values such as being attractive or being good athletes; they have also been found to rank low on psychopathology and to use aggression instrumentally to achieve and maintain hegemony.^[3]

As this report makes clear, while there are concerns associated with “at risk,” aggressive students, the primary source of bullying in our nation’s schools are socially skilled, privileged students who feel they are entitled to denigrate others—those who are “different” or considered to be rivals. This is ethological-based behavior that emerges more significantly as puberty approaches. The strategies to address the concerns of “at risk” aggressive students will not be effective in reducing the hurtful behavior of the high-status hurtful students. A focus on positive norms and a concerted effort to direct those students who demonstrate leadership traits onto a path of positive leadership is necessary.

Those who engage in bullying, often rationalize their hurtful comments. Dr. Bandura has identified four common “mechanisms of moral disengagement” people use to rationalize their hurtful behavior.  Mr. Trump’s comments, when confronted with concerns about his statements, provide a textbook example of these rationalizations.

• Reconstructing conduct through euphemistic labeling. “It was just locker room talk.”
• Denying personal responsibility. “This election is being rigged by the media pushing false and unsubstantiated charges.”
• Denying the harm. “It’s just words. Words don’t matter.”
• Blaming the victim. “I said tough things to her and I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her.”

How often have educators heard, or made, the following kinds of statements rationalizing hurtful behavior: “It was just a prank.” ”Someone else started it.” “It was no big deal—she is overreacting.” “He’s weird—he deserves it.” If all members of the school community—staff, students, and parents—were more attentive when any member of the community rationalizes hurtful behavior, such rationalizations would lose their effectiveness.

As a "high-status perpetrator" with a propensity to smear his accusers, Mr. Trump has the same advantages as socially dominant students who denigrate their peers. The women who were allegedly assaulted by Mr. Trump apparently told friends and family, but they did not report the alleged assault to someone in a position of authority. The majority of students do not report that they are being bullied to the school.^[4] Multiple studies indicate that students do not think school staff will effectively intervene or that they would make things worse.^[5]

This is a serious concern because the current bullying prevention strategy relies on such reporting. Given that the major source of bullying in schools comes from high social status students, reporting is highly risky—too great a chance that school staff would not believe that this “popular” student was hurtful. Also, a high risk that the more powerful student will retaliate. Under these conditions, placing primary reliance on student reporting will not effectively reduce bullying in schools. Increasing the effectiveness of staff in intervening in the hurtful situations they witness or report must be a high priority—as is increasing staff understanding of the dynamics of hurtful behavior by socially skilled, high-status students.

Socially dominant individuals frequently attract loyal followers. These followers believe that by aligning themselves with an “alpha” person, they will be protected and be able to increase their social status and power. This explains why socially dominant students often attract a group of supporters. This unfortunately reinforces to targeted students the idea that many students are against them. Reducing bullying in school will require interventions with the supporters of those who are hurtful.

The key thing to remember is that the vast majority of students do not approve of this kind of bullying behavior. It will be necessary to empower this “caring majority” to address the challenges that have been exposed. Additionally, because students interact with each other in environments without adult supervision, including when using digital technologies, it is essential to empower students with the insight and skills to independently foster positive relations and embrace civility. Ensuring all students are career or college ready must include that all students have the insight and skills to prevent and respond to hurtful interactions—as a witness, target, or one who was hurtful.

Implementing an empowerment approach requires reinforcing the positive values held by the majority of students and helping students gain critically important relationship insight and skills. The five critical skill areas I have identified are:

• Reach Out. Be kind to those who are treated badly or left out and help resolve conflict.
• Say “Stop.” Help those who are hurtful to stop, accept personal responsibility, and remedy the harm.
• Report Concerns. Report serious concerns to an adult who can help.
• Stop, Own it, and Fix It. If you were hurtful, stop yourself and remedy the harm.
• Be Positively Powerful. Respond effectively if someone is hurtful and become positively powerful.

As we come out of this election season, it is highly probable that there will continue to be reverberations related to the profound level of uncivil public discourse that has been generated and the impact of this harm will be evident in schools. Educators are strongly encouraged to fully engage students in the effort to ensure a positive school climate where all students feel welcomed, to increase student skills in fostering positive relations and embracing civility, and to address concerns associated with the biases of staff and effectiveness of staff interventions.

^[1] Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.

^[2] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Kids Who Bully Others. StopBullying.Gov. Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/effects/index.html#bully

^[3] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

^[4] National Center for Educational Statistics. (2015). Student Reports of Bullying and Cyber-Bullying: Results from the 2013 School Crimes Supplement to the National Crimes and Victimization Survey. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015056.pdf

^[5] Kosciw et al. (2014).