Reading the ongoing coverage of the scandal in the Miami Dolphins locker room, I find myself struggling to maintain a politically correct attitude. For those of you unfamiliar with the situation, you really need to read the papers more. But here's what happened:
Last October, Jonathan Martin, an offensive tackle for the Dolphins, abruptly left the team, claiming that ongoing taunting by his teammates, chief among them Richie Incognito, had become intolerable. Incognito was subsequently suspended indefinitely from the team, and, when Martin's accusations went public, a spate of handwringing about the bullying, homophobic culture in NFL locker rooms ensued. Yesterday, a report commissioned by the NFL described the situation as a "classic case of bullying."
Now, let me stipulate: From everything I have read and seen, it seems Richie Incognito is a class-A schmuck, an asshole of epic proportions, and someone who could benefit from nothing so much as a swift punch to the face. That being said, am I alone in wishing that, rather than leaving the team, Jonathan Martin had administered said swift punch?
And while Incognito and others certainly are bullies, I'm not completely convinced that Martin was bullied. Because, look: What do people say to bullies when trying to get them to change their obnoxious ways: "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?" Well, when it comes to Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin, that is exactly what Incognito did! Jonathan Martin, for all his apparent sensitivity, was hardly defenseless: He was no 98-pound weakling--much less a place-kicker! He was, in fact, quite literally the same size as his tormentor: 6'5" and 312 pounds, compared to Incognito's 6'3 and 319. If Martin had, in response to Incognito's torments, reared back and clocked Incognito, does anyone doubt that the bullying would very likely have stopped? Moreover, the bullying of other people in the locker room, including an assistant trainer who was certainly less able to defend himself than Martin, might have diminished as well.
Should someone have to put up with incessant taunting at one's workplace? No. But Jonathan Martin chose to accept a generous salary to play a sport that is inherently violent and filled with players not exactly known for their emotional maturity. I don't excuse Richie Incognito's behavior, and I think it would be great if NFL locker rooms were less hostile places to work. But in addition to sensitivity training for the more Neanderthal members of the NFL family, a great way for the culture to change would be for everybody to remember the standard advice--or at least what used to be the standard advice--about dealing with bullies: If you stand up to a bully, he will often back down.
And if Michael Sam--the NFL prospect who just came out as gay--finds himself in a locker room with Richie Incognito, is there anyone who thinks Sam will back down or leave the team in the face of homophobic taunts?
Showing posts with label Bullying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bullying. Show all posts
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Monday, October 15, 2012
Mix It Up
Eleven years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center inaugurated "Mix It Up Day," a nationwide event where students are encouraged to eat lunch with students with whom they would not normally eat. I know: Pretty gay, right?!?
Actually, no. Not at all. Not in any sense of the word. But that hasn't stopped the American Family Association from condemning "Mix It Up Day" as a nefarious attempt to recruit unsuspecting schoolchildren into the hedonistic ranks of the creeping homosexual subculture. The conservative activist group--and thanks, right-wing troglodytes, for turning "family" into code for ignorant bigotry--has called on parents to keep kids out of school on October 30--lest their children come home all gayed up!
The event, of course, has nothing to do with homosexuality, except perhaps in an incidental way. The "Mix It Up" program "is not about sexual orientation but rather about breaking up social cliques, which are especially evident in a school cafeteria." "Mix It Up" is part of the SPLC's "Teaching Tolerance" project, which seeks to combat bigotry and, obviously, intolerance wherever it may crop up. Sure, on "Mix It Up Day someone will presumably end up dining with a gay student; someone else will dine with a bunch of science geeks; and someone else will finally get the chance to talk to Charlene, the cheerleader he has pined for since freshman year but who never knew he existed so she could never see that they were meant for each other and he could love her in a way that Chad the wide receiver never could and--
Sorry, I got distracted.
The American Family Association seems to labor under the kind of misconception that has caused paleoconservatives to react with atavistic dread to the concept of same-sex marriage: The fact that people CAN marry people of the same sex does not make it MANDATORY to do so. The fact that people will be "forced" to eat lunch with a relative stranger on October 30 does not mandate that the new lunch buddy be gay. I hasten to point out that the program calls for students to dine WITH--not ON--each other.
Furthermore, conservatives are terrified at the thought that dining with a gay student could turn a straight kid gay. But by that reasoning, isn't it equally plausible that dining with a straight kid could bring the poor benighted deviant child back into the good graces of God and community? Or is the lure of homosexuality just so great that no one can hope to resist? For a group that hates gay people, the AFA sure does give them a lot of credit.
Look, AFA, talking to or eating with--or even, dare I say, befriending--a gay person will not make a straight person gay. In much the same way, if I were to dine with any representative of your group, I wouldn't turn into a moron. Luckily, the world doesn't work that way.
Actually, no. Not at all. Not in any sense of the word. But that hasn't stopped the American Family Association from condemning "Mix It Up Day" as a nefarious attempt to recruit unsuspecting schoolchildren into the hedonistic ranks of the creeping homosexual subculture. The conservative activist group--and thanks, right-wing troglodytes, for turning "family" into code for ignorant bigotry--has called on parents to keep kids out of school on October 30--lest their children come home all gayed up!
The event, of course, has nothing to do with homosexuality, except perhaps in an incidental way. The "Mix It Up" program "is not about sexual orientation but rather about breaking up social cliques, which are especially evident in a school cafeteria." "Mix It Up" is part of the SPLC's "Teaching Tolerance" project, which seeks to combat bigotry and, obviously, intolerance wherever it may crop up. Sure, on "Mix It Up Day someone will presumably end up dining with a gay student; someone else will dine with a bunch of science geeks; and someone else will finally get the chance to talk to Charlene, the cheerleader he has pined for since freshman year but who never knew he existed so she could never see that they were meant for each other and he could love her in a way that Chad the wide receiver never could and--
Sorry, I got distracted.
The American Family Association seems to labor under the kind of misconception that has caused paleoconservatives to react with atavistic dread to the concept of same-sex marriage: The fact that people CAN marry people of the same sex does not make it MANDATORY to do so. The fact that people will be "forced" to eat lunch with a relative stranger on October 30 does not mandate that the new lunch buddy be gay. I hasten to point out that the program calls for students to dine WITH--not ON--each other.
Furthermore, conservatives are terrified at the thought that dining with a gay student could turn a straight kid gay. But by that reasoning, isn't it equally plausible that dining with a straight kid could bring the poor benighted deviant child back into the good graces of God and community? Or is the lure of homosexuality just so great that no one can hope to resist? For a group that hates gay people, the AFA sure does give them a lot of credit.
Look, AFA, talking to or eating with--or even, dare I say, befriending--a gay person will not make a straight person gay. In much the same way, if I were to dine with any representative of your group, I wouldn't turn into a moron. Luckily, the world doesn't work that way.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Youthful Indiscretions
As President Obama strides two steps forward in the history of civil rights with his endorsement of gay marriage, Mitt Romney takes us one step back. It has recently come to light that, as a senior at Muffington Central Prep School (or something), Romney may have engaged in a bit of playful gay-bashing. He and some of his good buds ganged up on a schoolmate, John Lauber, who had the temerity to return from Spring Break with his hair dyed blond.
Now, I know what you're thinking: Little freak had it coming. I know! But, you know how the lamestream media is: Give them a story about a future presidential candidate bullying a gay teenager, and they're all over it!
In Romney's defense, he claims he was not bullying Lauber because Lauber was gay; indeed, Romney says--and personally I believe--that he wasn't even aware that Lauber was gay. So, there, it's cool: Romney's not a homophobe; he's just a jerk.
Honestly, I don't think anyone should worry too much about things that presidential candidates might have done in high school, which in Romney's case was almost fifty years ago. Hell, when I was in tenth grade, I killed and ate a local electrician. Nobody's going to hold that against me now, right?
What?
Oh.
Well, just forget I said anything.
Now, I know what you're thinking: Little freak had it coming. I know! But, you know how the lamestream media is: Give them a story about a future presidential candidate bullying a gay teenager, and they're all over it!
In Romney's defense, he claims he was not bullying Lauber because Lauber was gay; indeed, Romney says--and personally I believe--that he wasn't even aware that Lauber was gay. So, there, it's cool: Romney's not a homophobe; he's just a jerk.
Honestly, I don't think anyone should worry too much about things that presidential candidates might have done in high school, which in Romney's case was almost fifty years ago. Hell, when I was in tenth grade, I killed and ate a local electrician. Nobody's going to hold that against me now, right?
What?
Oh.
Well, just forget I said anything.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Bully Pulpit
From today's Times.
As one who in his youth was far more likely to be bullied than bullying, the Solipsist has no sympathy for those who exploit the weak or torment those deemed unsatisfactorily "normal." We agree in principle that schools should be safe-havens, inasmuch as we agree that people in general and children in particular should have an expectation of physical, mental, and emotional safety wherever they are. Certainly, when a teacher (or, really, anybody) witnesses an egregious instance of interpersonal cruelty, he has an obligation to intercede. This law, however, goes too far.
Bullying is hardly a new phenomenon. What has changed is the level of media saturation in society, as well as the technology bullies can employ. This Jersey statute seems to us an overreaction to a few heinous but ultimately isolated incidents. A 13-year-old girl commits suicide after receiving a series of vicious posts from an online "friend." A college student kills himself after his roommate "outs" him online (the case mentioned above). Interestingly, this law would probably not have prevented either of these cases: the Clementi incident because it happened at a university, the case of the 13-year-old because it was actually the PARENT of another child who was doing the "bullying." How will these new mandates imposed on already overwhelmed school faculty and administrators prevent such actions. And is effectively criminalizing standard schoolhouse dynamics really in anybody's best interest?
At the risk of sounding like a red-state family-values type, we think that anti-bullying efforts begin--and for the most part should end--at home. Let parents teach their children well the morals and values of civilized society. Leave teachers alone to teach the rest.
Image from The Santa Clara County Library
"The [New Jersey] law, known as the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, is considered the toughest legislation against bullying in the nation. Propelled by public outcry over the suicide of a Rutgers University freshman, Tyler Clementi, nearly a year ago, it demands that all public schools adopt comprehensive antibullying policies (there are 18 pages of “required components”), increase staff training and adhere to tight deadlines for reporting episodes."Great. Now teachers are the anti-bullying police. Like we have nothing better to do with our time. Never ceases to amaze us how politicians one daytrash teachers as feckless incompetents beholden to corrupt unions only to turn around the next day and declare us the front-line defense against a potentially lethal plague of bullying.
As one who in his youth was far more likely to be bullied than bullying, the Solipsist has no sympathy for those who exploit the weak or torment those deemed unsatisfactorily "normal." We agree in principle that schools should be safe-havens, inasmuch as we agree that people in general and children in particular should have an expectation of physical, mental, and emotional safety wherever they are. Certainly, when a teacher (or, really, anybody) witnesses an egregious instance of interpersonal cruelty, he has an obligation to intercede. This law, however, goes too far.
"Each school must designate an antibullying specialist to investigate complaints; each district must, in turn, have an antibullying coordinator; and the State Education Department will evaluate every effort, posting grades on its Web site. Superintendents said that educators who failed to comply could lose their licenses."An "antibullying specialist"? "Antibullying coordinators"? Whatever happened to after-school specials? Back in our elementary-school days, we received the standard set of instructions: Bullies are essentially cowards and/or insecure; the best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him (or, in the case of certain cousins, her--you know who you are!). Whether this advice is inherently sound, we don't know: We were always too scared to follow it. Nevertheless, this wisdom has survived through the ages and would seem to be sufficient for 95% of bully-related incidents.
Bullying is hardly a new phenomenon. What has changed is the level of media saturation in society, as well as the technology bullies can employ. This Jersey statute seems to us an overreaction to a few heinous but ultimately isolated incidents. A 13-year-old girl commits suicide after receiving a series of vicious posts from an online "friend." A college student kills himself after his roommate "outs" him online (the case mentioned above). Interestingly, this law would probably not have prevented either of these cases: the Clementi incident because it happened at a university, the case of the 13-year-old because it was actually the PARENT of another child who was doing the "bullying." How will these new mandates imposed on already overwhelmed school faculty and administrators prevent such actions. And is effectively criminalizing standard schoolhouse dynamics really in anybody's best interest?
At the risk of sounding like a red-state family-values type, we think that anti-bullying efforts begin--and for the most part should end--at home. Let parents teach their children well the morals and values of civilized society. Leave teachers alone to teach the rest.
Image from The Santa Clara County Library
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)