Once Again, Teen Suicide….What could Her Brain Waves have told us?
Sadly, another teen, this one on Staten Island, has taken her own life, and both humiliation by peers and loss of relationship have contributed to her tragic decision. Amanda left a note—as if the comments on her facebook page weren’t enough.
Relatives, but not her school, knew of the bullying as well as her suffering.
What if doctors had known too?
Could neuropsychology come to play a role in helping the victims (even as we continue to address the problem itself?)
C. Nathan DeWall claims that research has found “common neural overlap between social and physical pain mechanisms.” In other words, the pain centers that light up in our brain when we experience social shame, rejection, and exclusion are the same pain centers that light up when we are physically injured. (This is probably evolutionary—rejection by a mother, and/or exclusion by the primary social group or tribe, would threaten survival as much as physical injury).
Which leads to the question, can medication designed to reduce pain-sensitivity—such as over the counter acetaminophen—help reduce the pain, thus preventing the suffer from reaching a threshold that is intolerable, and taking extreme action? Preliminary Research apparently indicates it can. Perhaps this fact needs to be added to our growing arsenal of tools attempting to address this social issue, and prevent tragedies like the one Amanda Cummings’ family is suffering.
“….yeah he found a six-shooter gun. In his dad’s closet hidden in a box of fun things, and I don’t even know what. But he’s coming for you, yeah he’s coming for you.
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks you better run, better run, outrun my gun.
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks you better run, better run, outrun my bullets…”
—Foster the People.
I was truly puzzled to hear all the criticism of this song….people not letting their children download it, complaining that it shamefully glorifies tragic school shootings, that it encourages copycats, etc.
The obvious response– ‘but isn’t that what we want our rock music to be—a social commentary?’ was quickly followed by the realization that no-one of my generation went to school with the thought of gun-violence secreted in the back of their brain. It never occurred to us that a classmate might bring a gun to school. So kudos to this generation for putting the issues of their generation on the table for processing—in the parlance of their generation. “Adults” have hardly been able to address the topic in productive ways, or in language that is meaningful to those who do have to process the possibility—if not reality—of school shootings every day. Why would we even think to do anything less than use the song to open and encourage dialogue around the topic—whether that is what the band intended or not.
MICHIGAN on way to MANDATING anti-bullying PROGRAMS in schools
Michigan’s senate voted today to require schools to adopt anti-bullying PROGRAMS.
Kudos on taking action, and requiring more than a vaguely-certified bullying point-person in each school.
The politicians did their work.
Now what?
What kinds of programs?
Will they be pre-emptive, or caught up with mediation and victim-services?
For K-12, or just targeted grades?
Is there funding allocated?
How extensive will they be? Are school assemblies considered ‘programs’??( What do you remember from school assemblies??) How about ‘poster-campaigns’ or ‘respect for all’ week? (Does anyone expect these type of initiatives to be “enough” to be effective?)
On what basis will such “programs” be adopted? (that is, who has answers and what are they?)
How long between the passing of this bill, the answering of these questions, the implementation of ‘programs’, and the assessment of their effectiveness?
In the meantime, what to do while we wait and watch?
Bills and Laws are great, but it really does take a village.
Teens (especially teen girls)…and their daily dramas….and the shocked remorse when the upshot is a suicide. We have begun ‘fixing’ the problem by affixing blame: it is ‘the bullies.’ We further assuage our consciences by becoming active in the outcry against the tolerance of relationally aggressive behaviors—especially at schools.
But still, people silently wonder—suicide? How could it have gotten that bad? I was (am) bullied. It seems it could only have gotten that bad if there was no support structure for the victim….But s/he could have gone to the guidance counselor, or to any of her teachers, or to me…I would have helped, so…… suicide? I Don’t Really Understand. Why didn’t she just…..
Gone to ‘helpful’ adults And What? asked them to step in and mediate, knowing all along that they might be able to address specific instances, but what of the daily nuances, what of the whole, what of the cumulative effect of the bullying, on top of all the other ‘stuff’ going on: on top of_____, as well as ______, and _____, and homework and parents and hormones?
It is a tangled web , as Hannah Baker explains in this extraordinary book.
Before she commits suicide. Read it.
As the scandal at Penn State continues to dominate the news, talk about why the key administrators and law enforcement ‘didn’t do more’ is accompanied by disgusted head-shaking: because of ‘fear of losing their jobs.’ Such speculation, while not wrong, has not taken into consideration ‘the bystander effect‘—which suggests that most of us would not have acted much differently.
Although the Huffington Post has already noted this angle, it bears repeating on a bullying blog site.
Of course they were afraid of losing their jobs, just as fourth grade bystanders are afraid of ‘telling’ on a bully, for fear of losing all that they have—their social standing in the schoolyard. But they also did what most bystanders do: they deferred responsibility, assuming that ‘someone else’ would take care of it. Paterno passed the buck to Curley, Curley to Schultz and presumably, Spanier. Spanier was let go immediately because as president, he should have stepped in. But as president, he must delegate, and he had Curley overseeing athletics…..and Curley of course deferred to the president….and round it goes…..each thinking the other was ‘handling’ the situation.
This is not to defend what they did, or to suggest that no cover-up was involved. But it is to add another consideration to our understanding of how and why it happened. Kitty Genovese had how many witnesses to her murder, all of whom deferred to the person in the next apartment, who might have seen something more….and ‘handled’ the situation.
It is a question of the cost of assuming responsibility in our society—how forgiving are we if someone ‘says something’ and is wrong? Not to mention, what is often (though clearly not in this instance!) the cost of being right?
Will the Supreme Court get to know Kara Kowalski?
Remember Kara Kowalski? Maybe not. 2005 was almost 7 years ago, and sadly, so many instances of cyberbullying like hers have been in the news since then. Kara, a cheerleader and reigning “Queen of Charm” at Musselman HS, created a MySpace page called S.A.S.H. and invited a number of her friends to check it out. In her deposition, Kara claimed that S.A.S.H. stood for Students Against Sluts Herpes, but her peers said otherwise. What it really stood for was Students Against Shay’s Herpes, Shay being a fellow student who was pictured on the page. Students posted photos, photoshopped them, left derogatory messages, and were, in general, demeaning and hateful. Kowalski , found guilty by the school officials of creating a ‘hate website’ which was against school anti-bullying policies, was suspended for 5 days, kicked off the cheerleading squad, and (ironically) prevented from crowning the next “Queen of Charm.”
Kowalski sued the school, claiming they violated her free speech and due process rights, and claiming the school had no authority to punish her, as she had created the website from her home.
She lost her case, and just this summer, lost her appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. This has not deterred her. She is now seeking Supreme Court Review—and, sooner rather than later, the Supreme Court is going to need to revisit the issue of student’s freedom of speech, which they ruled on in Tinker vs. Des Moines in 1969 (see my earlier blogs on cyberbullying).
Julie Hilden, writing for CounterPunch, is hoping she does not get it. Hilden discusses the complexities in the case, most notably the fact that legal remedies already exist to address Shay’s rights, a fact which fritters away her need for school authorities to intervene on her behalf, and the blurring of lines distinguishing a bullying case from a First Amendment case. While Hilden’s arguments are convincing, Kowalski’s behavior was heinous, and surely bullying behaviors which the courts will need to address will be complicated, and involve Freedom of Speech issues. AND, for precisely that reason, the court will need to sift the complex set of factors which are involved in this claim, and determine which to prioritize in setting legal precedent. That would seem to be half the battle in such cases—‘seem to be’ from the perspective of a concerned citizen, not a lawyer. Refresh your memory of the case Would you want your school to be able to sanction Kowalski if she created a MySpace page about your daughter, turning her into a social pariah at school? Would it be reasonable to claim such a page would interfere with her ability to learn? (Are my pandering, emotional appeals going to be left to dangle off a legal chessboard? Should they be?)
Guidance counselors, parents, and concerned teachers have traditionally consoled victims with the adage “s/he only picks on you because s/he’s insecure”. Perhaps. But is this the whole picture? Maybe bullies aren’t acting out of their insecurity, but reacting to some other factor— physical or psychological.
In a 1988 study, Jack Katz interviewed hundreds of prisoners, and analyzed hundreds of criminal acts (from property damage to extreme violence against individuals). In a majority of cases, he discovered that the perpetrator felt humiliated, and that the crime was caught up with this feeling. That is, their angry, violent actions were reactions. They were responses to the ‘inadequacies’ (and their shame over them) that the bully felt—by being ‘dis’ed’ by their victim, or by some other, unrelated event which publicly humiliated them. Perhaps it is this initial action that ‘triggers’ an insecurity, a (mis?) perception of how others ‘must see them’ that must be responded to—publicly.
Bert Baruch Wylen’s Interview with his bully, in an article entitled “What My Bully Taught Me” http://life.salon.com/topic/interview_with_my_bully/ , seems to support this theory. Think back on your own experiences—as victim, bystander, or bully. Does this fit? Make sense?
It is interesting.
One of the most damning labels a young girl can be branded with is ‘slut’—still.
And (even without intent to do so) we all remember the ‘slut’ of our HS, and return to our reunions hoping she will attend, wondering whether she is “trailer trash,” or a CEO who slept her way to the top…..
(but as long as we keep these ‘unbidden’ thoughts to ourselves, and give her opportunity to prove us wrong, we can’t be blamed).
My point exactly’. Once a slut, always a slut. So what is Slutwalk out to prove?
Or is it all about semantics? Like the epithets ‘bitch’ and ‘nigger’, are women taking back this word, becoming the only ones with the right use it? (or perhaps the aim is to eradicate the category / concept altogether?)
There are many things we have the constitutional right to do, but not all of them are in our best interests to do. Dressing needs to be about a personal choice, not about an entitlement—otherwise, it is a reaction to someone else’s opinions, as opposed to an action that is owned.
Dignity of All Students Act, Seth’s Law and Jamey Rodemeyer.
The auspicious start to the new School Year—in NY State, the Dignity of All Student’s Act in the process of implementation, Seth’s Law (passed in California in April) on the books, and a host of other anti-bullying initiatives in other states– was overshadowed by the tragic suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer. An early test of that law would be to pose a rhetorical question: could it have helped Jamey Rodemeyer?
Seth’s Law is California’s response to the ‘bullying-related’ September 2010 suicide of 13 yr old Seth Walsh. http://nclrights.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/seth%E2%80%99s-law-passes-key-california-legislative-committee/ The passing of the bill certainly would have played into Jamey’s belief that ‘it gets better’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pb1CaGMdWk and that there actually is support for young people struggling with bullying—especially around sexual identity. But how would it have translated on a daily basis? Would it have translated?
Maybe that is the question we need to start asking. It is certainly the question Boyd and Marwick have posed in their OpEd piece in the NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/opinion/why-cyberbullying-rhetoric-misses-the-mark.html and it was refreshing to see a piece that has the potential to move our discussions of bullying forward. As devastating as Rodemeyer’s suicide was, rehashing the sentiments and outrage put forth over Seth, Tyler, Zach and 8 other young people who took their lives last September –or even worse, becoming inured and deadened to the horror of teen suicide, as it is now ‘commonplace’,–will hardly help us develop perspectives that will truly be of service to our young people. We need a new language, a new understanding of the teen psyche around this issue, and new social narratives—ones that make sense of these dynamics on their level.
Perhaps the real question is, could adults have done anything that would have made a difference? Jamey had support. He also blogged, repeatedly, about his torment. Do we have anything close to an answer that could have changed his social reality? Given him more hope than his surprising belief ‘it will get better’ –a belief he seemed to have, and shared in order to be a support for others.
Apologies and Forgiveness: The Casey Hines Incident Revisited
Ever since I saw the ‘follow-up’ video interview of Casey Hines bully Richard Gale, I have been bothered by the ‘what next’ question. What is the next step for the bully?
Richard Gale is not initially sorry, and claims to be as much of a victim of bullying as Casey.
This honesty on his part cuts both ways:
On the one hand, it makes it easy to take sides, to continue to find fault with Richard, and to understand the “I hate Richard Gale” websites vilifying the young boy.
On the other hand, it creates complexity. He wasn’t sorry―as many bullies are not.
Should Richard (and all the other bullies) repudiate their actions anyway?
(I can already hear the automatic, unfelt “Sorry” ringing in my ears.)
Which value do we emphasize in this situation―honesty (which seems inappropriate, as attested to by Richard’s interview) or civility (you must go through the motions of apologizing even if you are not sorry).
Surely we expected Richard to apologize, perhaps weep, become self-deprecating―even if only to get out from underneath the ‘most hated kid on the internet’ status by repenting―and providing us, his judges, the option to forgive him. But he gave us little satisfaction on this front.
Is he not sorry because he simply does not understand that what he did was wrong―because we, as a culture, have turned a blind eye to it for so long?
Is the subsequent cyber- vigilante justice we all mete out to him OK? Are we all now entitled to become bullies ourselves, targeting, and harassing someone else who did not live up to our expectations (Gale himself) ? Aren’t we, the BYSTANDERS around the world, ‘speaking up for the victim’ here? Isn’t this what all the ant-bullying experts are encouraging us to do?