This kind of thing sounds wildly inappropriate

I would not recommend reading the comments, either. I do sometimes where where all those parents who say they homeschool find the time to post on all these message boards. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I didn’t think teachers and school administrators were allowed to divulge information like that (which I realize isn’t what’s going on here). If a child IS being bullied, they are not allowed to tell the victim’s family that the perpetrator is (for example) from a family where both parents just lost their jobs, or a sibling has cancer, or a parent has been deployed, or whatever.

Has anyone else heard of kinds having to do things like this? And what would ever possess a teacher to think this is any of their business?

That’s way too nosy. Another nosy thing of late are English class “writing prompts.” Questions like “What have you done that embarrassed you? Explain why you felt embarrassed.” and “What is something that makes you really angry?”

Nosy frickin’ people make me angry, and it’s no business of yours when or why I was embarrassed!
It’s no wonder kids don’t like to write.

No kidding. This is way out there. Way back when I had a writing assignment in High School - ‘Define or tell about your perfect date’ Not as in day of the year. Date, as in going out with someone. I got a C- :mad:

What kind of things? What is the Faux news article about?

Hmm, I saw this game “Cross The Line” on a documentary about anti-bullying campaigns at schools. I thought maybe on MTV but I’m having a hard time finding it.

In a very large and very serious session involving a wide cross-section of students (from jocks to preps to dweebs and weirdos), there were several exercises done to help the bullies connect with the bullied - of course without being like “John here is a bully and Tim gets bullied. Let’s talk.”

One of the exercises was this “Cross the Line” thing (from the article) where everyone stood on one side of the line and they would call out stuff like “cross the line if one of your parents drink” or “cross the line if your grandparents have died” or “cross the line if you’ve ever contemplated suicide.”

The goal, I believe, was to make the kids see that they are not alone with their weird lives. And/or have sympathy for kids they see have rough situations.

In the documentary I saw, the kids all cried and said it brought them closer together and helped them understand each other, to have compassion for the kids who were both weird and overly-tough.

Looked pretty benign to me. But it doesn’t take a whole lot to spin it completely a different way and report it to the news and get everyone in trouble. Whee!

A secondary article I found on Yahoo refers to the same questions ZipperJJ mentions, but it also includes another piece of information that seems pertinent: the principal claims the “game” was voluntary, but the mother of one student says her daughter was threatened with in-school suspension if she didn’t participate.

I knew I discussed this on this board before…

Here’s a thread from 2010, in post 6 dangermom gets pretty upset about a show on MTV about bullying and a seminar at a school that is like the seminar in question in this thread where they would have played the game mentioned in the OP. In the MTV show, at least, it’s a one-day program called “Challenge Day.”

In post 22 I talk about my impression of the show. Then I link to the MTV show in question here.

You can go to this episode, and skip to 20:30, to see “Cross The Line” in action.

You might want to watch the entire episode to get a sense of what they are trying to do. Might be that just watching that one bit will give you an incomplete idea of the game, as does the article in the OP.

But still - dangermom saw the whole episode and she was still freaked out by the game (as shown in the thread I linked to) so it can be considered a bad thing by some.

It seems pretty benign, but I still find this kind of stuff inappropriate. This may be my own neurotic hang-up, but I think anything that results in kids bawling their eyes out is best left outside the classroom. Especially when it’s in the context of bullying.

And I’m not even thinking about the kids who get emotional, but rather the kids who don’t. The ones who feel bad because the game is designed to make you feel sympathy/empathy, and for whatever reason, they don’t feel it. Because to them, the game is stupid and/or silly. Because they are just 13-year-old kids and picturing their parents getting drunk just makes them laugh. Or maybe it makes them so uncomfortable that they laugh. And then people look at them funny for not having the “right” emotion. And when all the “good” kids are crying and hugging each other afterwards, but they don’t feel anything…what do they internalize about themselves?

It’s probably just me, but still. This is why I wouldn’t like this exercise. I’m not a fan of coercive emotional experiences. If the kids are known bullies, fine. Play all the mind tricks on them that you want. But don’t give innocent kids a complex in an attempt to teach empathy.

This story is from a local Fox affiliate in Wisconsin, not Fox News.

So, what is it about?

Can you not figure it out from reading the rest of the thread?

I got this kind of thing once in a while. Dare I confess it after so many years - I just lied about it and made something up. I don’t think I would expect students who are really vulnerable to do that, however.

My daughter had this kind of thing in school, although I don’t know if she played the Cross the Line thing. She came home from school all bent out of shape and upset because she never had anything good to share - all the other students had divorced parents or siblings who did drugs or horrible family secrets.

I offered to get drunk and beat up her mother if it would help her grade in class, but she said No. It’s important to support your kids in their school work. :smiley:

All this touchy-feely stuff about bullying and self-esteem reminds me in a way of abstinence education. I’d like to see some hard evidence that it works, and until then, concentrate on reading and math and history and things like that. Of course, anyone who tried to bully my daughter or son would not have a great deal of success.


I can’t without going to more effort than I care to. The title isn’t descriptive and neither is the OP.

How about Zipper’s post that describes the activity and quotes some of the more intrusive questions, and my post that points out that students were allegedly pressured to participate in this case?

Yes. I hated assignments like that. So what I did was write complete fiction of an easy to tell and understand story for the instructor to grade. My private like is just that.

Reading to post #5 just to work out what the hell a thread is about is more than I can be bothered to do most of the time. It’s not like it’s a big deal. But a descriptive title and an OP where you don’t have to follow a link to get the gist of it, would go a long way.


Excellent damage control there, principal.

Yes, if the OP can’t be bothered to put more info, why should we? Admittedly it’s better than "Why do you guys think of this? (This being a link to a youtube vid).

It’s about lies. Fox lies. All Fox affiliates lie. Every word that comes out of a Fox affiliat “reporter” is a lie. Every word that comes out of their mouths was dictated to them by Republicans.

This is a lie:

Hall of Fame slugger Ralph Kiner is not dead. He is also not 91 years old. He is not even a man.

Yet you and bozuit can be bothered to come in and bitch about this thread multiple time through out the day.

I knew someone would be unable to resist saying this.

It’s simply good practice on a forum to make it clear what your thread is about. Yes, I’ve had time to just read the thread and work it all out instead of “bitching”. But time spent on one activity is not equal to time spent on another. I’m willing to spend 5 minutes explaining this, especially when I’m probably saving others the bother of doing the same, but not 5 minutes just trying to work out what a thread is about. Maybe the time spent doing so will be repaid in future threads that are a little more descriptive.

It’s in the interests of the OP to make the thread clearer too. Perhaps there are many people interested in the topic who ignore the thread because they have no idea what it’s about.