Jessie: Yes, I think that is a very important
question. The first thing schools could
do is start asking different questions.
Right now, superintendents are asking that schools report how many
incidents they have, who are the perpetrators, and what was the punishment. It would be much more worthwhile to ask
schools to document what they are doing to help students support one another,
bond with one another, communicate more deeply.
If they just changed what the goal would be in all of these policies
that are aimed at preventing bullying, I think we'd 1) Get more accurate
statistics, and 2) See some significant change. I think most schools are not
that willing to report the negative statistics, because, just like anybody
else, they fear they would get closed down, or some negative judgment will come
upon them as well. So, the negative
statistics that we are trying to get are rarely accurate, whereas positive
statistics, schools will be, I think, excited to report, and more likely to try
to accomplish. Further, they'll make
everybody feel more positive. Part of
what the positive part of all of this is that, since both adults and young
people are so isolated, and anxious, and depressed, just developing a little
bit of bonding and connecting is going to have an exponential effect on helping
people to feel more connected and supported.
I believe, if we just begin that work in schools, it can really snowball
into something very powerful. And then of course, second, it's hard to fathom
how we can prevent these kinds of atrocities without getting tighter gun
control laws. This has become a public
discussion again. We don't need people
to have assault rifles. We don't need to
have this easy access to guns. It is a
necessary but not sufficient solution.
If we could get rid of all the guns, that would certainly decrease the
fatalities, and that is not nothing, but we have a bigger problem; and that,
even without the guns and the mass murder, we would still have some horrible
symptoms, if we don't address these issues of trying to turn our bully society
into more compassionate communities.
Rob: You raised the idea of getting the schools to
be more open about their statistics. But
that reminded me, I recently had some conversations with some community groups
in Philadelphia, where there were huge problems in South Philadelphia High
School. This made national news, and the
Department of Justice was brought in, because Asian students at South
Philadelphia High School were being bullied and beat up. Had you heard anything about this?
Jessie: Not this specifically, but, I mean, I hear
horrible things like this all the time.
Rob: What happened was the leadership of the
school, the principle and even the school district superintendent, they
minimalized it, and said, "Well, this is what happens." They didn't do anything, and it took
community action and organizations, and a couple of dedicated teachers who
didn't go by what the principle laid down, which was "Leave it alone" (pretty
much), to literally go to the Department of Justice, and call for some kind of
legal action, which took place. There
were some solutions, but it ended up that most of the kids left the school who
were bullied, and the actual population of the school is now close to half what
it was. So, I'm just wondering if the
idea of schools being more open with problem statistics like this is realistic,
or is it something - maybe that's where the legislation needs to be -- to
actually get the stats on what is going on, and require collection and
reporting of them?
Jessie: Well again, I feel that reporting negative
statistics seems to me less productive than reporting what is actually being
done to try to create a more positive community, because I do think schools do
get around trying to report their negative statistics. I worked in schools for eleven years, so I
saw some of the internal workings of how that happens, because schools get so
worried about their reputations.
Whereas, again, I think if it was legislated that schools need to be
proactive about creating respect, about addressing racism, ethnic prejudice, heterosexism,
ableism, sexism, all the different kinds of prejudice that we see in schools,
if schools needed to report "These are the wonderful things we're doing to help
raise this kind of awareness and build respect," I think schools would be a lot
more likely to report that, and that's a more likely to have some impact. The other challenge that I think you are
raising is that many people do feel like there is nothing that can be done;
there are a lot of people who just feel "This is the way things are," and they
can't fathom that anything could shift.
It's not that they're bad people, it's that they've become resigned to
that perspective. So, part of the
challenge is for schools to begin to transform into more compassionate
communities, so that people who have that resignation can see all the
potential. Certainly, of course, through
our history, we've had slavery in this country, we've had a Civil Rights
movement, we've gotten people the right to vote, there is all kinds of activism
that has shifted our country in some very beautiful and important ways. So, we
certainly have the history to suggest that we are able to make changes in the
right direction.
Rob: There have been some comments that to me seem
like they are talking points provided by the NRA: "One of the reasons that the
school in Newtown suffered this problem was that it was a gun-free zone." And, there are others saying that all
teachers should carry guns, and that all schools should have an armed guard. Any thoughts on that?
Jessie: I feel like it's a hard statement to respond
to, because it seems so likely to create so much more atrocity, and so many
worse situations. If guns were more
accessible, you put them in the hands of teachers who are probably not
comfortable with them, with people who are working in so many different
directions, and have to make sure these things are locked, and put away in a
particular position; you have students who pride themselves at being able to
figure out how to get things that are put away.
It just seems to me a recipe for, not just disaster, but something we
can barely even imagine how horrific it would be. It seems to me to be a very unwise
recommendation.
Rob: It also would create an environment that is
totally the opposite of what you are calling for, one that is more connected
and community based, and less antagonistic.
Jessie: Right.
First of all, it would create a more dangerous situation. But, of course, second, it would be much
harder to create a community of trust and compassion and support ,when people
felt that if they did the wrong thing, somebody had a gun, and their lives
would be on the line. It seems to me on
every level the wrong decision to make, a devastatingly wrong decision to make.
Rob: This idea of a community of compassion and
trust to heal the current situation where we've lost so much empathy, and where
social isolation has tripled - what are some of your ideas on where this comes
from, the big picture story on what
brought us to this state?
Jessie: I think it's interesting that our statistics
have dropped since the 1980s: the social isolation that tripled, the depression
that rises, anxiety that's rising - and it's a time when we made a decision in
our country to become a less regulated capitalist society. Reaganomics was all about laissez faire
economy, dismantling social programs; you know, "We shouldn't be helping the
poor, we should be taking away these programs, because then they'll be more
likely to do everything on their own, otherwise they become lazy." That was the
whole perspective of the 1980s Reaganomics framework. I think since then, we have dismantled a lot
of our support programs, so both in reality and symbolically, we have sent the
message that "If you are having a hard time, we're not here to help you. You
have to do this on your own." Again,
many of the school shooters have said that they asked people for help, and they
were told if they were bullied or harassed, "You have to stand up for yourself,
you have to deal with this on your own."
And many adults right now, who are having a hard time with their health
care, with their elderly parents, just having a baby, needing to be home, the
message is just, "On every account, have to deal with this on your own," and
it's not a compassionate message; it's a rough message. I think our statistics have shown us that
dismantling social programs, both symbolically and practically, has created a
society where we have left people on their own, and the impact has been
devastating.
Rob: I like to really step back to get an idea of
where we are, and so I look - and I tend to use as a reference --
pre-civilization, indigenous tribal cultures. Now, there still are a couple
thousand of them left on this planet, and as long as five hundred years ago,
one third [1/3] of the humans on this planet were not "civilized." Our current civilization seems to be moving
us towards a billionaire culture that is dog-eat-dog, kind of like the jungle
culture that used to be what was used to describe uncivilized people. Now we have a civilization that is getting
meaner and meaner as you described it.
Jessie: Yeah, I think that's right. I think that is an accurate metaphor.
Rob: Are you talking about wanting schools and
communities to move more toward what humans had before civilization: tribal
culture and tighter connections with people?
Jessie: Again, I think how you word it or how you
frame it, different people see it different ways. I think one could consider a civilized
society more focused on relationships.
It's true in many countries where they are less developed and less
focused on productivity in part because they don't have those resources, they
do excel at having human relationships that are deep and meaningful and
connected. People are a lot happier and
more fulfilled, even though they don't necessarily have all of the products and
material things that we have here. One
could just redefine what it means to be civilized. Is it really civilized for us to be like
animals in the sense of survival of the fittest? Or is being civilized being
able to support people regardless of the whether or not they are "fit" or "less
fit?" That we, as a people, have the
capacity to support one another and to be there for each other, and to find
what is wonderful from one another, and help everybody develop their
potential. That is specifically
something we can do that is different from animals, so why revert back to only
what animals can do in terms of survival of the fittest?
Rob: Well, I don't know that it's animals, but
what it makes me think is that what you've described. this deregulation, and
the change in the approach toward taking care of the weakest members of our
culture, that seems to me to be barbaric.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
