The topic for the thread is whether or not children should be allowed to defend themselves at school if they are attacked by other students. Currently, most places will discipline both (or all) students involved in a physical altercation, even if one student was clearly not the aggressor and was only defending themselves.
Not so hypothetically, my son was jumped by a group of boys in the locker room at school today. He tried to leave, they stopped him, started hitting him, and that point he physically attacked the ring leader. He got a suspension.
My understanding, from watching the public schools and media for several years, is that this is how this normally works. If a student defends themselves physically, they will be punished the same as the student(s) who aggressed (minus any repeat offender bonuses).
This doesn’t seem appropriate to me. I’m not going to tell my son that he should not defend himself in these circumstances. He tried to get away and could not. Yes, I will remind him that he can call for help, but while he’s waiting for help I feel that he should be able to defend himself.
What do you all think?
I would also like to know from any educators out there, what is the rational for not allowing self-defense?
“It’s too much trouble to sort out who was the victim and who was the aggressor, so let’s pretend that their physical violence is the same and that both are equally at fault.”
Somebody hasn’t sued for a high enough amount and established a high enough legal precedent to the effect that the school is violating some student’s right/inflicting a tort. Failing that, schools are taking the “both of you stop it or I’m stopping this car and grounding you both” approach.
Also, children are treated as second rate citizens. Which makes sense for some purposes but can leave them treated unfairly in some cases.
It does seem to be a matter of policy, however. Today, for example, the school was quite clear that my son was not at fault. He was still suspended because he used physical force to respond instead of just letting them hit and kick while screaming for help. I don’t think we would expect a grown person to respond that way. I am really trying to understand why we expect an 11 year old to do it.
Velocity took the words out of my mouth - “who started it” is difficult to determine. Sometimes the victim gets punished the worse, since he is the one the teacher catches in reaction.
It would only be befitting if a school administrator got assaulted in a parking lot, tried to defend himself or herself, and ended up doing jail time just like the assailant.
Michael E Mouse yes, I think there’s something to the second rate citizen thing. I may be looking for a logical reason where there isn’t one.
Sometimes it sucks to be a parent. I like to be able to explain things to my kids. I’m not sure I can explain this one. Their school, their rules is one. Also, if you really hurt someone, you could be in trouble. It’s hard to explain that one to a kid though, especially if they are being hurt.
Yes, I could see this happening sometimes. It happens in my living room sometimes! This was not true here, per the school. They know what happened.
From what I have heard at other schools and districts I think this type of policy is not uncommon. I think this may be part of a larger zero tolerance policy against violence. I wonder if it ties back to bullying or even tragedies like Columbine. It seems like it would leave “good” kids defenseless.
You really need to raise an even more forceful fuss with the school. The fact that they *knew *that your son was the victim, and *still *saw fit to punish him anyway, is something that cannot go unaddressed. Write to the local newspaper, talk to someone higher up in education/administration but the school cannot be allowed to get away with this sort of thing.
Not knowing your school district’s rules, that would be my guess, too – that there is a zero-tolerance, black-and-white rule that mandates a suspension for striking another student, and doesn’t give the school administration any room for interpretation or acknowledging extenuating circumstances.
Yes, it does seem that they are pro-bully. But why? I can’t imagine that anyone consciously drafted policy to make them pro-bully. I would really like to understand the logic.
Because many or most of them are bullies themselves. They *like *the bullies, and admire bullying. They probably went into education in the first place because it gave them a captive population of children to bully.
Because many school administrators were (and are) bullies themselves (my high school principal had to leave after being charged with domestic abuse that left his wife and child in the hospital, he was also very tolerant towards bullies). They side with the “strong” kids, and are contemptuous of the “weak” kids. They believe that the bullied kids brought it on themselves, in these cases, I consider the “strong” kids to be unethical, and the “weak” kids to be ethical, and the entire point of rules is supposed to be to protect the ethical from the unethical, but there are many who don’t see it that way, and just see a weak kid getting what he deserves for being weak.
Not all are like that, and I like to think that that culture is changing, but it does seem that it is taking quite some time for it to get better.
**Velocity **explained the “logic” upthread - administrative laziness. I’d also add an element of administrative fear of bullies’ parents. Bullies learn their behavior somewhere, and “somewhere” is usually at home, from their parents. If the school punishes a bully, the bully’s parents are likely to come down hard on teachers or admins, who don’t want to deal with it. They count on victims of bullying, and on *their *parents, to not make waves.
As a former target of bullies, I urge you to stand up for your son. Tell the school that you don’t care what kind of zero-tolerance policy they have. Demand (politely) that any punishments or sanctions against your son be reversed (or removed from his record), and advise them that if this doesn’t happen, quickly, they’ll be sued. Don’t muck around. They’ve acknowledged that your son wasn’t at fault, they failed to provide a safe environment, but they punished him anyway.
It’s not so much pro-bully as easy to administer. It’s simple rules that don’t cause the people making the rule issues. Black and white “we don’t have any choice” rules are the friends of bureaucracies. It shifts the burden of decision making to the decision being made when most are not paying attention. Exercising judgement in the face of say, irate parents, causes stress and drama every time you either use that discretion or one party wants you to use it when you didn’t.
Of course that doesn’t mean you can’t make it a stressful situation for them anyway when they have admitted it was self defense. Sometimes that’s how rules get changed.
I once got into a fight in gym class when the teacher was out of the room. the other kid started it, and kept following me, and would not leave me be. Finally, I pushed him away, which knocked him down, this happened as the teacher came in. We both had to write an essay on what happened, and both of us were honest. He admitted, in writing, that I tried to walk away several times, and that he kept punching me, and jumping on my back to try to tackle me, and that my only action against him was to push him away. Even with the written confession from my bully that he was the entirety of the cause of the incident, and that I tried to de-escalate, I still got the same punishment as he did, a 3 day suspension. This was more than 20 years ago.
Sure, but would he have admitted that if the rules were different?
It sounds like (a) he got caught fighting with you, and (b) at that point, both of you are getting a 3-day suspension. So he gains nothing by saying it was self-defense, and loses nothing by telling the truth. So he can just mention it.
I figure the same for the OP: the school knows who did what, but only because the bullies have no reason to say “nuh-uh, he flipped out and started it.” If the school’s policy changes, so that they only suspend whoever is at fault, then it wouldn’t have been a conversation where school officials confide that they know exactly who’s at fault – because the kids who’d bully would lie about it, and would back up each other’s stories; they’d probably get a lot of practice at it.
Oh, but, yeah: the blameless kid should fight back; the alternative is awful.
I agree it’s unfair to punish both kids, but there aren’t really too many other options. If they didn’t punish both parties, it would be much easier for the bullies to get away unscathed. All they have to do is bring a friend or two to be witnesses when the victim is isolated. The bully and his friends can all lie and say the victim started it and the bully was just defending himself.
Anyone who is a parent to 2 or more kids has dealt with the sometimes impossible task of trying to figure out who hit who first and who was the instigator and who was the victim. “He hit me!” “Because she pushed me!” “Because you took my book!” “Because you took my pencil!” “That was my pencil!” “No it wasn’t!” “Yes it was!”…
Sometimes that’s how rules get changed.