Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Public apology by the bully, to the collected student body.

2. Not the school's business. Off property is off property.

3. Send letter to "victim":

"Dear Victim,

Upon review of the incident, it appears you and the alleged bully have been engaged in an ongoing battle of slurs. No punitive action will be taken at this time. If this continues on school property or during school events, you may both be subjected to [insert punishment here].

Caveat emptor,
The Administration

cc: Bully; Both sets of students' parents"

So if it's on campus the school "makes" the student apologize. Or else what? Follow your statement to the logical conclusion.

And if it's off campus, the school does nothing. FWIW, you're not alone. When I raised a similar issue about a year ago, there were others here who said schools have no authority to address behavior off-campus even where there's a demonstrated school impact. None of those people have really thought through what to do in a world where a student posts "Some people at school deserve what they're going to get tomorrow" on Facebook and everyone skips school for the next day, week, or month.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Because the actors are minors. Which is the same reason we don't try juveniles in adult courts.

You are calling for not "trying" juveniles at all for bullying.

The reason we don't try kids in adult courts (except when we do, which is a lot) is because juvie courts allow for confidentiality and thus some greater chance at rehab.

It calls for bars on liability claims against school officials for intervening to stop bullying. A parent of a bully should be barred from whining and hiring some bottom feeder to sue when the teachers shames the little bastard in front of other students for picking on a weaker kid.

Huh? You are now on the opposite side of the argument.

Again, they're adult boys. Apples and okra.

You are really sounding like a complete idiot on this. Your theory that discrimination based on race was unrelated to "racism" but rather caused by mere "laziness" and "comfort with one's own kind" actually made more sense, quite honestly.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You also seem to be saying that there is nothing we can do to reduce it. Is that really your position?

Oh, I'm all for school climate committees and inclusive sex ed curriculum — the levers than change culture. These things "reduce" bullying. They already have, and you know what? We're living in the midst of a bullying crisis, because now we hear from Nancy Grace whenever a teen commits suicide. Reductions in bullying have not translated into elimination of tragedy, which is how the public forms its opinions of the public school systems' safety and efficacy.

But I'm not depressed about it. Everyone thinks "the public schools" are teetering on the brink, but almost everyone loves their kids' teachers. The way everyone hates Congress but they keep reelecting the incumbent.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

B&b "meanest post ever!"

That still makes me illogically happy.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Which work great for private causes of action by the victim, just as well as any tort law.

Does Tinker apply to off-campus speech? Some federal judges say yes, others say no. The Supreme Court ducked the issue in Bong-Hitz-4-Jesus. What does Flower say?

Listen, my only point was to point out that Sebastian made an untrue statement. He was wrong, and I was right, and I am still owed an apology in the aforementioned format. But really, these laws work great for private causes of action and that's it? There are tons of criminal laws pertaining to non-defamatory cyber-speech. Thurgreed mentioned cyber-stalking. You can make terroristic threats on Facebook. Extortion. All the federal crimes GGG was alluding to. Are you being intentionally dense about this? I expect provocative absolutisms from Sebastian, that's his schtick. But I'm beginning to think you're a little too invested in this issue. Do you have a kid who suffered at the hands of some anti-bullying zealot? But back to my original point, all of the laws mentioned above, and many others, prevent me from saying whatever I want to about someone else on Facebook, even if my speech is non-defamatory. So where's my fucking apology?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Oh, I'm all for school climate committees and inclusive sex ed curriculum — the levers than change culture. These things "reduce" bullying. They already have, and you know what? We're living in the midst of a bullying crisis, because now we hear from Nancy Grace whenever a teen commits suicide. Reductions in bullying have not translated into elimination of tragedy, which is how the public forms its opinions of the public school systems' safety and efficacy.

But I'm not depressed about it. Everyone thinks "the public schools" are teetering on the brink, but almost everyone loves their kids' teachers. The way everyone hates Congress but they keep reelecting the incumbent.

I agree that these things have reduced bullying. I don't get caught up in the Nancy Grace-like bullshit. Perhaps that drives some public perception. I'm not sure that it's because she plays every teen suicide as bullying-related. Mostly, I think that scared of technology -- the avenues it opens up, and the rapidity of change -- and she plays off of that.

My own sense is that schools in my general area of the world have managed very well.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You are partly correct, but may not be privvy to all of it.

TM

Was she the one who turned out to be substantially less hot than she claimed to believe she was?

IIRC, I saw a photo. It was like me telling people I have a thick head of hair.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Listen, my only point was to point out that Sebastian made an untrue statement. He was wrong, and I was right, and I am still owed an apology in the aforementioned format. But really, these laws work great for private causes of action and that's it? There are tons of criminal laws pertaining to non-defamatory cyber-speech. Thurgreed mentioned cyber-stalking. You can make terroristic threats on Facebook. Extortion. All the federal crimes GGG was alluding to. Are you being intentionally dense about this? I expect provocative absolutisms from Sebastian, that's his schtick. But I'm beginning to think you're a little too invested in this issue. Do you have a kid who suffered at the hands of some anti-bullying zealot? But back to my original point, all of the laws mentioned above, and many others, prevent me from saying whatever I want to about someone else on Facebook, even if my speech is non-defamatory. So where's my fucking apology?

I'm all about "the First Amendment is not absolute." Ask the fucking Rosenbergs about "make no law." But: We Have A Law Against Thing 'A'; Logically We Can Have A Law Against Thing 'B' is definitely not a winning strategy. I read cases against school districts who impose discipline for pure speech acts, and they don't always come out like you'd expect.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

My own sense is that schools in my general area of the world have managed very well.

Then we are in full-throated agreement. I am not arguing for regression. I am arguing that further progress through legislation is window dressing.

I just got back from giving a mandatory training on workplace sexual harassment prevention that was signed into law by a governor who was fucking the maid, so I apologize if I'm hard to convince of the perfectability of human interactions through law.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Then we are in full-throated agreement. I am not arguing for regression.

Do keep in mind that I've spared my kids from the cesspool that is public school.

I am arguing that further progress through legislation is window dressing.

I get that now. Perhaps you get that you presented yourself as arguing something much more extreme?

A tip: When Sebby is saying "there is nothing we can do, kids just need to man up" and "kids are kids, and unless people are shooting each other we never ever regulate personal interactions," he may be agreeing with your argument, but that doesn't mean that you agree with his. If fish were Venn diagrams, you would be the remora on his shark.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Was she the one who turned out to be substantially less hot than she claimed to believe she was?

IIRC, I saw a photo. It was like me telling people I have a thick head of hair.

Yes. I arranged to meet her because she wanted someone to confirm her beauty. I told her in advance that I would relay actual my opinion and that she might not want me to do it. She was secure in her looks or thought I wouldn't be as blunt as I typically am.

I met her for a drink. She was very bubbly and somewhat nervous. I was very polite (nice, even). We did not talk about her looks at the meeting.

The next day I posted that she was short and fairly pudgy, not ugly, but definitely overweight, which, in my opinion affected her looks, and that she did indeed have nice hair (which I threw in because she was so fixated on it and I didn't want to shit all over her). I was way nicer than I could have been, because once I met her, I realized there was no need to trounce all over her.

Then she didn't like what I said and immediately lied about our meeting. She posted that I hit on her (which is a fucking joke) and said I dressed below my station (probably guilty as charged), and informed everyone that I should have been partner at that point (coming from a secretary, pretending to be a paralegal, that didn't really bother me much). The lie about me hitting on her really pissed me off and I probably ended up being meaner than I should have been from that point on.

She later publicly retracted the lie and sent me personal messages about various aspects of her life that she thought confirmed her beauty, but which really were just awful, disgusting things that I won't repeat.

And then she took over this board by becoming overwhelming annoying and I sent messages to everyone asking them to ignore her, which eventually got her to leave.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. I arranged to meet her because she wanted someone to confirm her beauty. I told her in advance that I would relay actual my opinion and that she might not want me to do it. She was secure in her looks or thought I wouldn't be as blunt as I typically am.

I met her for a drink. She was very bubbly and somewhat nervous. I was very polite (nice, even). We did not talk about her looks at the meeting.

The next day I posted that she was short and fairly pudgy, not ugly, but definitely overweight, which, in my opinion affected her looks, and that she did indeed have nice hair (which I threw in because she was so fixated on it and I didn't want to shit all over her). I was way nicer than I could have been, because once I met her, I realized there was no need to trounce all over her.

Then she didn't like what I said and immediately lied about our meeting. She posted that I hit on her (which is a fucking joke) and said I dressed below my station (probably guilty as charged), and informed everyone that I should have been partner at that point (coming from a secretary, pretending to be a paralegal, that didn't really bother me much). The lie about me hitting on her really pissed me off and I probably ended up being meaner than I should have been from that point on.

She later publicly retracted the lie and sent me personal messages about various aspects of her life that she thought confirmed her beauty, but which really were just awful, disgusting things that I won't repeat.

And then she took over this board by becoming overwhelming annoying and I sent messages to everyone asking them to ignore her, which eventually got her to leave.

TM

Ah, memories.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Then we are in full-throated agreement. I am not arguing for regression. I am arguing that further progress through legislation is window dressing.

I just got back from giving a mandatory training on workplace sexual harassment prevention that was signed into law by a governor who was fucking the maid, so I apologize if I'm hard to convince of the perfectability of human interactions through law.

Unless he had a home office that isn't workplace

Oh, but g.o.

[dtb]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

*I'm curious: will everyone here concede that they do? Or will these boards, like the country itself, prefer not to state anything of any real substance on the issue of disciplining a verbal bully until AFTER they know whether their child is the victim or the perpetrator? We're stuck in a Rawlsian hell of everyone saying "do something," particularly after a death.

While I cannot cite chapter and verse about why schools do (or do not) have jurisdiction over inter-student contact, even outside of school hours and off school property -- I have no idea what level of scrutiny applies to reviews of laws enacted that grant such jurisdiction, or what the common law says, even in my own state, if I were deciding the matter, I would find jurisdiction. However, I would gladly accept that schools should have jurisdiction over inter-student contact under those circumstances, as it speaks to the education of the child as a whole person/citizen, which doesn't stop at the schoolhouse door. As Bnb noted, private schools (I know, I know, different kettle of fish) exert jurisdiction in those circumstances on that basis.

I don't need any veil of ignorance in order to decide that the right thing to do is deny cover or excuses for children (or anyone, really) to degrade the humanity of another person. Why would the fact that my own child is the perpetrator change that choice?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. I arranged to meet her because she wanted someone to confirm her beauty. I told her in advance that I would relay actual my opinion and that she might not want me to do it. She was secure in her looks or thought I wouldn't be as blunt as I typically am.

I met her for a drink. She was very bubbly and somewhat nervous. I was very polite (nice, even). We did not talk about her looks at the meeting.

The next day I posted that she was short and fairly pudgy, not ugly, but definitely overweight, which, in my opinion affected her looks, and that she did indeed have nice hair (which I threw in because she was so fixated on it and I didn't want to shit all over her). I was way nicer than I could have been, because once I met her, I realized there was no need to trounce all over her.

Then she didn't like what I said and immediately lied about our meeting. She posted that I hit on her (which is a fucking joke) and said I dressed below my station (probably guilty as charged), and informed everyone that I should have been partner at that point (coming from a secretary, pretending to be a paralegal, that didn't really bother me much). The lie about me hitting on her really pissed me off and I probably ended up being meaner than I should have been from that point on.

She later publicly retracted the lie and sent me personal messages about various aspects of her life that she thought confirmed her beauty, but which really were just awful, disgusting things that I won't repeat.

And then she took over this board by becoming overwhelming annoying and I sent messages to everyone asking them to ignore her, which eventually got her to leave.

TM

God, what a thoroughly unlikable person. She was by far the biggest pain in the ass in administrating this board for nearly 11 years. Apparently, as administrator, I wasn't allowed to have a personal opinion about her.

Every now and then I'd feel a tiny bit sorry for her, and then she'd say something outrageous or offensive or ridiculous, and any sympathy I had would go flying out the window.