Hacker News Reader

Comment by helge9210 | Hacker News Reader

We had an intern from Ohio (in Israel, I went to school in Soviet Union and Ukraine, so have no experience of US school system) who explained to me a concept of "zero-tolerance policy to bullying" as it was applied in his school: while only one person harasses/beats another it's OK; the moment the second one starts to fight back, the policy kicks in and in worst case the second will get suspended, in best case both get suspended.

I guess reasonable amount of mutual violence between peers will raise the price of bullying others for fun and profit.

View on HN

On the surface "zero-tolerance" sounds like well, "zero-tolerance".

In reality, it's just shirking of responsibility. Schools neither care about creating an environment where bullying will be reduced nor about actually resolving cases fairly. Their attitude to bullying is to just close their eyes, plug their fingers into their ears and go laah-laah-laah

Strictly speaking, "zero-tolerance" just means they have to deal with it. They can't just break up a fight and have that be the end of it. It doesn't mean that the individuals involved are immediately expelled or suspended or whatever, though in practice that's often how it's implemented, because it's easier.

A bully has control over when they'll bully, a bullied does not. Someone with something to hide has reason to watch the authorities.

As such a bully can time their actions; hitting a student just before the teacher walks in. This is exactly how bullies can turn authority against their victims.

In Soviet Union it was the first stage: the teacher was choosing the ones, who are predisposed to this kind of behavior.

Than at later stages (starting from year five, I think) teachers were using bullies to exert control on smarter kids, not unlike prison/camp (the actual source of the theoretical basis for Soviet education system) administrations were using organized crime to control inmates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com