This is a really interesting perspective given by a nationally certified school psychologist named Izzy Kalman which I believe has a direct bearing on the concealed carry on campus support and defense as it is the same safe schools initiatives that is preventing concealed carry on campus that is also creating the anti-bullying programs he opposes, as he says they create more anger, resentment, bullying, and violence because they create more victims.
In my own nutshell version, he seems to say that the current nationwide school policies for dealing with "bullies" are restricting constitutional rights where they should be promoted, that that is disempowering victims, and that the disempowering of victims in combination with the victimization is making more (not less) bullies who will do Columbine type things. He believes the answer is to teach people how not to be victims and to get the law out of the exercise of their constitutional rights so that they can effectively take care of the situation themselves, because he says the legal and psychological professions have not been effective in doing what the founding fathers so wisely prescribed.
I've not read his books or pamphlets, but from the articles I've read I think that his premise could be roughly summed up something like this...
- 1. There are two types of "bullying." One is teasing, exclusion, or any other behavior that makes another person get his feelings hurt. The other is a level of cruelty that bumps it up to the level of law enforcement involvement.
2. He says that these two types of behaviors are being conflated and the job of psychologists, especially school psychologists, and law enforcement are in turn being conflated. He thinks this should stop. He says that it is the job of the psychological profession to address the former type and the job of the legal professions to address the latter. Psychologists shouldn't have to be investigators who assess blame and assign punishments while judges shouldn't have to be counselors who help kids work out disagreements. He says that the anti-bullying legislation and school-wide programs that became popular after Columbine do just that.
3. He says that the current model of anti-bullying program came about because psychologists weren't doing a good job with helping the victims so they shifted to trying to help the bully and when they fail at that, they won't feel so bad because he was a bully, after all. But he says that this model of labeling people as bullies for showing dominance behavior is perpetuating a victim mindset which actually increases bullying. He said that if you talk to any person labeled as a bully, that person will tell you that he feels victimized. He said the more victims we create, the more bullish and outright criminal behavior we'll see. He says that's been shown in studies which show a rise in bullying since the anti-bullying programs have gone into effect.
4. As he draws a firm line in the sand between his job and the job of law enforcement, he does not address legal responsibility or blame. He believes that should happen in those cases that rise to the level of requiring law enforcement involvement, but he leaves the talking about that point forward with its assessment and assignment of blame to them. (From what I've seen, he doesn't ever address concealed carry on campus. I would guess from what I've read, though I'm not sure, that he would say that how to deal with a criminal is outside his domain as a psychologist and falls into the domain of the legal professions.)
5. He objects to the term bully. He says it is akin to school-wide programs for identifying morons or jerks. He says that isn't the job of a school psychologist and isn't professional. At a certain point they become criminals, but before then their boorish behavior is no different from any other boorish behavior.
6. He believes in empowering the "victims" as the means of disempowering the bullies. He says that bullies can only have as much control over us as we allow them to have. He teaches children effective means of situational awareness, conflict resolution, avoidance, and how to address the problem head-on in order to take control of their lives and their friendships. He does not believe in making them feel like victims of bullying, but to give them the tools to defend themselves and feel confidant in doing so. He has similar sessions for adults dealing with workplace bullies.
7. He says that he firmly believes in the first amendment as the means of decreasing bullying. He says that the current anti-bullying programs try to limit one's free speech by saying you can't talk about this or you can't talk about that because if you do, you'll hurt someone's feelings and be labeled a bully. He says what we need is MORE exercise of the first amendment, not less. We need to empower the one whose feelings are hurt to respond, and teach the person how to do so effectively in order to not feel victimized and not allow the bullying to control his life. It's when we take away all forms of equality and defense that a person feels victimized and hopeless and does crazy things, like Columbine. It's when he has confidence and does not feel victimized that he is able to respond with a cool and level head and not to be rash or irrational.
