Teaching children to rely on authority teaches helplessness

Great Debates
61

Well, this is a debate that rages in my house, not in terms of outside authority, but in terms of parental ability. My husband would like my daughter to obey him unquestioningly. I would like her to do what is right no matter what authority states. Since KellyM agrees with me, and my daughter is one smart cookie, my way has been winning. Recently he saw that maybe, just maybe, we are right. I asked her to play a small prank on him and she told me, "No, I do not think that would be appropriate. She was right, it was not at all appropriate.

She is also learning that sometimes you do need to trust without understanding the reasons, but we try to make it very clear when we are asking that. We also are hanging that trust not on our position as her parents, but on her knowing us and knowing that we steer her right. She uses her judgment, and we do our best to shape it so that she will do what is right. Yes, this means that she will not blindly obey anyone, but I don’t think that is a bad thing.

62

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
And teachers somehow used to manage this. Before there was all this zero-tolerance nonsense, teachers exercised their judgement.
[/QUOTE]

I’m a bit confused by your argument. Is your claim that teachers used to use their judgment and therefore there was less bullying, etc.? When was this?

63

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I’m a bit confused by your argument. Is your claim that teachers used to use their judgment and therefore there was less bullying, etc.? When was this?
[/QUOTE]

I think it was at the very same time when gym teachers were being partisan in favor of jock bullies and leaving the room for long periods of time. Also, at the same time when kids were told just to man up and deal with their own problems, or ignore bullies and they would go away. Or punch them in the nose, show 'em what’s what. Some mythical time when things were better, except of course when they were much, much worse.

64

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Some mythical time when things were better, except of course when they were much, much worse.
[/QUOTE]

I’m 36 years old and I still haven’t experienced a longing for the Good Old Days. I must be a mutant.

65

I’m just gonna chime in with the experiences I have from the zero-tolerance policy in my school district.

Here, if there’s a fight, both parties are punished. Even if one party doesn’t fight back and simply gets pummeled. There was a kid here who got the absolute crap beat out of him at school. He didn’t fight back, and he got suspended just like the bullies. He spent his suspension time in the hospital with his jaw wired shut. His parents appealed the suspension and lost.

I got into a fight my senior year of high school. It wasn’t a real fight. Some girl was trying to pick on me and I knew better than to fight her because I outweighed her in muscle mass alone by at least 2-1. I could have snapped her in half, literally. She tried to hit me, I blocked. She rushed me, I pushed her off of me and sat down.

Suspended for a week and had to go to court because I was over 18. The DA tried to get me for assault on a minor until three fellow classmates came forward as witnesses that I did not start the fight.

Zero tolerance doesn’t work, and teaching kids not to defend themselves doesn’t work in the face of it. If you’re going to get suspended, you might as well not wind up in the hospital over it.

~Tasha

66

[QUOTE=tashabot]
I’m just gonna chime in with the experiences I have from the zero-tolerance policy in my school district.
[/QUOTE]

And I know of kids who were physically attacked, only blocked/defended, and the defender received no consequences. ZT is not a prescription for a non-negotiable one size fits all policy; I’ve provided cites to back that up. That’s the choice of the individual district, and a bad one at that.

67

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
What if you have enough evidence to convict both, because both kids hit? Then you have to prove one of them did it in self-defense, so that’s OK, but punish the other kids who hit. You need evidence of some kind to make a judgement here. I’m wondering what would constitute that evidence to people who think that teachers should “just KNOW” who did what.
[/QUOTE]

My point is that courts in the US wish to avoid convicting innocent people. Thus they tend to acquit if there isn’t enough information to “prove” what happened. This is the opposite of what zero tolerance policies attempt to achieve, since they tend to assume that both sides must have had something to do with the altercation, and only overwhelming evidence to the contrary will prove someone’s innocence.

My critique is fairly limited in scope; I only intend to point out that your example involving courts supports the side that says ZT is bad.

68

[QUOTE=Yag Rannavach]
My point is that courts in the US wish to avoid convicting innocent people.
[/quote]

My point is, if both people are significantly injured, one could legitimately argue that neither party is innocent.

“Overwhelming evidence to the contrary”? No, not really. Just your word won’t be enough, but I don’t know in what situation it would be enough if you inflicted a meaningful level of bodily harm on another person.

69

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
My point is, if both people are significantly injured, one could legitimately argue that neither party is innocent.
[/QUOTE]

This:

[QUOTE=rubystreak]

You’re a lawyer. Without evidence, how do you determine innocence or guilt?

[/QUOTE]

is a strange way to make that point. Muffin was arguing that punishing people who defend themselves makes it less likely for them to trust you. You counter by saying that, when you can’t determine innocence or guilt, you should punish both. In making that counter you invoke the US court system by saying “you’re a lawyer”.

I then assert that ZT policies tend to force people to prove their innocence, which is the opposite of the way US courts are supposed to work. Therefore, using the US court system as a model is deterimental to your cause. My argument does not have much to do with Muffin’s point.

The key phrase in the part you quoted from me is “prove your innocence”. As long as you accept that ZT policies require someone to prove their innocence, then the operating theories behind them and the US court system are in opposition.

70

[QUOTE=Yag Rannavach]
The key phrase in the part you quoted from me is “prove your innocence”. As long as you accept that ZT policies require someone to prove their innocence, then the operating theories behind them and the US court system are in opposition.
[/QUOTE]

You still haven’t answered my question: if both people are meaningfully injured, do you think schools can let both of them off with no consequences? What would constitute evidence to let one kid off and punish the other kid, in your opinion?

Aren’t these bullies also innocent until proven guilty? People are saying teachers should know who they are and give them consequences and let the innocent kid off. How is that sound logic?

71

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
You still haven’t answered my question: if both people are meaningfully injured, do you think schools can let both of them off with no consequences? What would constitute evidence to let one kid off and punish the other kid, in your opinion?
[/quote]

I have no opinion on the debate at large. At least, no opinion I’m going to share at the present moment.

Again, I am not supporting either side of the debate. I am merely pointing out that the theory behind the US court system supports the side opposed to ZT policies.

72

[QUOTE=Yag Rannavach]

Again, I am not supporting either side of the debate. I am merely pointing out that the theory behind the US court system supports the side opposed to ZT policies.
[/QUOTE]

Does it? If two adults got into a fist fight and both were injured, and the authorities got involved, wouldn’t they both be arrested? If neither one could prove self-defense, you think they would both be acquitted? I don’t think an unproven claim of self-defense negates the mutual assault. That seems to be what you are saying. Or have I misapprehended your point?

73

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Does it? If two adults got into a fist fight and both were injured, and the authorities got involved, wouldn’t they both be arrested? If neither one could prove self-defense, you think they would both be acquitted? I don’t think an unproven claim of self-defense negates the mutual assault. That seems to be what you are saying. Or have I misapprehended your point?
[/QUOTE]

Who gets punished is up to the juries and prosecutors to decide. There are two easy ways to compare the court system with the system that ZT policies create. One: Compare the process. How you ‘convict’ someone under ZT vs how you convict someone in a court. Or Two: Compare the theory behind them. What is the driving theory behind courts and what is the driving theory behind ZT?

I suppose there’s a third way to compare them; What is the result of applying each?, but I think that comparison is flawed. I think it’s flawed because we’re trying to compare the two and hold up one as better than the other. In such a case we must look, not only at the results of the system, but at the why behind it. In one, someone who is innocent being considered guilty is an unfortunate accident which must be avoided, in the other, it’s an expected result.

The theory behind US courts is that people are innocent until they have been proven guilty. The theory behind ZT policies is that people are guilty until they have proven themselves innocent. The second is my assertion. I don’t get the feeling that you disagree with it, since you haven’t yet, but…

74

[QUOTE=treis]
So yeah, a very small minority of people will react heroically in a dangerous situation, but most of the people will run and hide.
[/QUOTE]
That isn’t the question. The question is which response we want to hold out as the preferred, normative response (and thereby encourage).
And you are profoundly ignorant of the dynamics of firearms in actual use. Handguns are only accurate to a couple dozen yards, even in the hands of trained police/military. That distance can be crossed in a few seconds. Even if a gunman was lucky enough to hit and stop (let alone kill) the first charging attacker, he would be almost unable to turn, locate and hit another attacker charging from a different direction.

That stuff where the guy with the pistol takes out multiple assailants with one shot each is pure Hollywood bullshit. In the real world, cops who train constantly for years (and who are usually not aiming at moving targets) still miss the majority of the time when under duress.

75

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Does it? If two adults got into a fist fight and both were injured, and the authorities got involved, wouldn’t they both be arrested?
[/QUOTE]

IANAL, but usually, no they wouldn’t both be arrested. If both were fighting and neither one is significantly more injured than the other, I believe that’s what’s called a “mutually combative incident” and nothing happens.

I hang out at a lot of dive bars, so I see a lot of bar fights.

76

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
My point is, if both people are significantly injured, one could legitimately argue that neither party is innocent.
[/QUOTE]

A ridiculous assertion. If I am attacked by a mugger, and I manage to break his nose by swinging my briefcase in his face, would you 'legitimately argue that neither party is innocent"???

Just to be straight about who is/isn’t innocent:

  1. The child who initiates violence is guilty.
  2. The child who defends himself with an appropriate level of violence in return is innocent.

Whether the first child was injured is irrelevant. Even if the only injury sustained is that of the bully’s, the second child is still innocent. Say, if the bully goes to push a kid to the ground, and the victim sidesteps and uses the bully’s weight to take him down, perhaps scraping the bully’s knee or bloodying his nose in the process.

Frankly, your attitudes here are both baffling and indicative of what’s wrong with schools. So far, I’ve heard from you that A) children are guilty unless proven innocent, B) when you can’t tell who’s lying, punish both, C) any violence is worthy of punishment, regardless of the circumstances, and D) if a child defends himself against a bully and in so doing hurts the bully in some way, the child is guilty and should be punished.

Is that about right?

77

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Does it? If two adults got into a fist fight and both were injured, and the authorities got involved, wouldn’t they both be arrested? If neither one could prove self-defense, you think they would both be acquitted? I don’t think an unproven claim of self-defense negates the mutual assault. That seems to be what you are saying. Or have I misapprehended your point?
[/QUOTE]

If charges are filed, it will be up to the government to prove that one person assaulted the other. If both claim the other person started it, and there are no witnesses, both walk free. It’s called the presumption of innocence.

In 90% of such cases, the police respond by using their good judgement. If it’s a typical bar-room brawl, or a couple of hot-heads duking it out after a few too many beers, they won’t bother filing charges. They might take them in to the drunk tank for the night to cool off, and release them in the morning.

Imagine that - people using their judgement.

The same thing used to happen in my school, btw. If the playground monitor saw a couple of kids arguing, and the argument turned into a wrestling match, they’d usually just wade in and yell, “break it up!”. Then they’d ask who started it. If there were bystanders, they’d ask the bystanders. If it was clear who the aggressor was, he’d get detention. If it wasn’t, they’d be told to shake hands and make up. If the playground monitor had a good idea what was going on, he’d take the innocent kid aside later and say, “Look, I know that bully was picking on you. I know you can’t say so in front of his friends. But next time he gives you trouble, come to me. I’ll help you.”

Mind you, this is a particularly male attitude, and it seems like there aren’t a lot of males left in schools. In fact, the number of male teachers in primary school is now at a 40 year low of 9%. A shame. And I think boys are suffering for it.

Back then, the weak kids felt like the school might actually be on their side. Today, the school is an impersonal force set up with zero-tolerance rules. I wonder how much this nonsense will contribute to the cynicism of the next generation of adults. I know if I were expelled from school for giving a friend a tic-tac, I might grow up with a pretty dim view of authorities and institutions.

Frankly, I think the school system has responded to liability claims by barricading itself behind a wall of arbitrary rules, equally applied to all without judgement. This has left kids out in the cold.

78

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
The same thing used to happen in my school, btw. If the playground monitor saw a couple of kids arguing, and the argument turned into a wrestling match, they’d usually just wade in and yell, “break it up!”. Then they’d ask who started it. If there were bystanders, they’d ask the bystanders. If it was clear who the aggressor was, he’d get detention. If it wasn’t, they’d be told to shake hands and make up. If the playground monitor had a good idea what was going on, he’d take the innocent kid aside later and say, “Look, I know that bully was picking on you. I know you can’t say so in front of his friends. But next time he gives you trouble, come to me. I’ll help you.”

Mind you, this is a particularly male attitude, and it seems like there aren’t a lot of males left in schools. In fact, the number of male teachers in primary school is now at a 40 year low of 9%. A shame. And I think boys are suffering for it.

Back then, the weak kids felt like the school might actually be on their side.

[/QUOTE]

When and where are you talking about? Because I was born in 1971, so I was in school from 1976-1989 in Ohio and this isn’t remotely my experience. It wasn’t zero-tolerance. It was look-the-other-way-itis unless someone got really hurt in which case they’d essentially pick someone (using their “judgment” to punish). Punishments were random and based on things kids had no control over. And then the kids would get sent home and punished again.

I realize that you apparently grew up when men were men and women were delicate flowers needing protection, but your frame of reference is very far from mine.

79

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
A ridiculous assertion. If I am attacked by a mugger, and I manage to break his nose by swinging my briefcase in his face, would you 'legitimately argue that neither party is innocent"???
[/quote]

Do you really think that school fights are this cut and dry? If they were, there’d never be a problem determining innocence and guilt. The fact that there is should indicate to you that it’s often not a clear-cut case of mugger with weapon robbing regular joe walking down the street.

If you know who initiated the violence, then you’re golden. The term “appropriate level of violence” is obviously laden with ambiguity, and is up to someone’s judgement to decide. Surely you agree with that?

If it’s as flagrantly obvious as you are depicting, then there’s no problem. When it’s not, then ajudication is required. And the first child’s injuries could very well be relevant: if he’s badly hurt, if he’s your kid and he swears up and down he didn’t start it, if there’s no witnesses to the incident, etc.

Frankly, your stubborn inability to see the quandary schools are in and to insist on a black & white world is indicative of someone who doesn’t have a lot of experience in this setting. I am not indicative of what’s wrong with schools. I find such an accusation offensively personal for GD. If this were the Pit, I’d tell you exactly what I thought of it.

Wrong. Sorry. Try again. If both kids are injured, standing there pointing the finger at the other child saying, “He hit me first!” then an investigation must ensue. Both kids cannot just walk away scot-free in that situation, for legal reasos if nothing else.

If both kids have harmed each other, and evidence exhonerates neither… what would you do?

Nope, never said that. As a policy, no, the school cannot tell kids it’s OK to hit other kids. If the reasons for that are not obvious to you, then I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse.

No, clearly, it’s totally about wrong. Very, very frustrating how people want to twist my position into a draconian and utterly compassion free stance when all I’m telling you is… it’s rarely as easy to deal with these things as you want to paint it, and anyone who disagrees with you is a despotic asshole who wants to be unfair to kids.

80

[QUOTE=Eonwe]
Is it true that, on the whole, people are helpless when the system fails them?

It’s my impression that there have been and always will be people who use and abuse “the system,” either maliciously or because that’s just the way they are.

I just don’t see it as endemic in our society.
[/QUOTE]

Spoken like someone privileged to not be paying attention.