Don't be a Bystander-Spectator; be an Active Witness

There’s a world of difference between being an active witness to bullying and abuse, and being merely a bystander. A bystander has already decided to be an uninvolved spectator, to look the other way, to pretend ignorance if called upon.

A witness can make a tactical decision based on the circumstances – intervene now in some tactical way or speak up later.

At work, co-workers or bosses are bullies; at home, abusive parents will harass and bully one young child while lavishing goodies on the other; in addition, toxic parents will favor one adult child over another with love and inheritance on the line.

I’ll focus here on kids, but the larger implications should be obvious when you think about slavery or the Nazis or a hundred other public examples.

Often, at school and at home, mean kids will try to turn siblings or friends against each other.

For example, Charles’ friend, Brad, was relentlessly nasty to Charles’ sister Sarah.  He made fun of her, called her stupid, dumb and ugly, and, even though Sarah was tall and skilled enough to play with the older boys, he’d cut her out of their games or he’d intentionally knock her down.

Charles looked on in dismay but never interfered.  That was puzzling to Charles’ parents because, in one-to-one situations, Charles played well with Sarah and liked her.  Yet Charles had become a bystander; he wouldn’t step up to what he knew was right.

How come he didn’t protect Sarah from Brad?  Was Charles afraid that if he interfered he’d lose a friend or that Brad would beat him up?  Did Charles secretly want his sister out of the way?

More important than an analysis of “why,” was the potential effect on Charles of being a bystander.  What would be the cost to his character and mental and emotional well-being?  What would be the effect on his conscience and self-esteem if he played along and didn’t speak up against the abuse or if he colluded by joining in the harassment of his sister in order to make friends with Brad?

Without knowing the real answers to the “why” questions, the pain, shame, anxiety and stress of watching his sister tormented and the guilty laceration of his conscience finally drove Charles to choose which side he was on.  He stood up for his sister and for high standards of conduct, but then he had to solve another problem; Brad was a head taller and 30 pounds heavier than he was.

In front of Sarah, Charles got in Brad’s face and told him to cut it out.  If Brad wanted to be his friend and play with him, he had to be nice to Sarah…or else

Most of the Brad’s in the world would back down but this one didn’t.  Angry words led to shoving and Brad grabbed Charles and threw him down.  At this point Charles and Sarah’s advanced planning gave them a tactical advantage.  Sarah, as tall and heavy as Charles, jumped on Brad’s back and the brother and sister piled on Brad and punched and kicked him.

As with most kid fights it was over fast.  Brad got the message; he was facing a team.  If he wanted to play with them he’d have to play with both of them.  If he wanted to fight he’d have to fight both of them.  No parents were involved and Brad chose to play with them and be nice to Sarah.

As much as the incident helped Sarah, Charles was the major beneficiary of his choice.  His self-esteem soared.  He had been courageous and mentally strong.  And he learned that he and his sister could plan and stand firm together.

In a different situation, Ellen was popular and Allison, who was outgoing but had no friends, wanted Ellen all to herself.  At school, Allison put-down and cut out anyone Ellen wanted to play with.  If Ellen refused to follow Allison, Allison would get hysterical, cry and wail that Ellen was hurting her feelings.  Ellen didn’t want to hurt Allison but she wanted to play with whoever she wanted to play with.

The situation came to a head during the summer.  Allison wanted to play with Ellen every day.  And on every play date, Allison would be nasty to Ellen’ younger sister.  She’d mock Jill, order her to leave them alone and demand that Ellen get rid of her younger sister.  They were best friends and there was no room for a little kid.

Numerous times at their house, Ellen’ parents asked Allison to include Jill, but to no avail.  Allison would agree, but as soon as their backs were turned she’d be twice as nasty to Jill.

Ellen faced the same choice that Charles had; hurt her sister in order to collude with her friend or lose a friend and classmate.

Ellen didn’t agonize like Charles had.  Ellen was very clear; colluding is not how a good person would act.  However, her requests that Allison stop only brought on more hysterical anger and tantrums.

Ellen didn’t want to play with Allison any more but didn’t know how to accomplish this.  When she told Allison, Allison threw another fit – hurt feelings and crying.

This situation required different tactics from Charles’ because Ellen was younger and arrangements for them to play during the summer and after school had to be made by their parents.

Ellen’ parents could have gone to Allison’s parents and told them what Allison was doing.  However, they’d observed that Allison’s parents had never tried to stop her hysterics, blaming and finger-pointing at school.  They’d always believed Allison’s accusations about other kids and added their blame.  They demanded that teachers do what Allison wanted.

Ellen’ parents thought that raising the issue with Allison’s parents would only lead to negativity, accusations and an ugly confrontation, which would carry over to school.

They decided to use an indirect approach; they were simply always too busy for Ellen to play with Allison.  The rest of the summer they made excuses to ensure there would be no play dates.  When school started, they made sure there were no play dates after school, even if Jill wasn’t there.  They didn’t want their daughter to be friends with such a stealthy, manipulative, nasty, control-freak like Allison.

In addition, they told Ellen’s teacher what Allison was doing and asked them to watch if Allison tried to control Ellen and cut out other kids.

Most important, Charles stopped being spectator and became an effective witness-participant.  Ellen also would not remain a bystander.  She made her feelings clear and her parents helped intervene.  Both children learned important lessons in developing outstanding character and values.

Tactics are always dependent on the specifics of the situation.  As parents wanting to help and guide your children and grandchildren, remember that there’s no one-right-way to act.  The people involved get to choose where they want to start the process of standing up as witnesses and participants.  You can get ideas and guidelines from books and CDs but on-going coaching, to prepare you for your “moments of truth,” is essential.  You will need to adjust your plan in response to what happens at each step along the way.

For example, see the studies of Jake and Carrie in “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks.”

Transforming a Community in the Wake of School Abuse, Bullying and Suicides

Here’s a new slant on the cluster of suicides of four teenage girls from Schenectady High School, New York, that was stimulated by abuse and bullying in school and a war-zone environment outside school. Instead of working together to transform the school and the neighborhood environment, Rev. Veron House, pastor of the Life Changes World Ministries in Schenectady, and school superintendent, Eric Ely, are arguing over who was to blame and who should be responsible for fixing the problem.

Rev. House has been quoted as saying, “This is not a community problem, this is not a church problem, this is a school problem, and this is becoming a school epidemic because everyone that has done this is from Schenectady High."

On the defensive, Superintendent Ely responded, "We're not the parents of these children.  We have them a third of the time, parents have them two thirds of the time. We're going to do everything we can to keep it from happening. But ultimately, when a child goes home and takes their life, there's not a whole lot a school employee can do about that."

Who’s right?  Of course both of them are right.  But facing each other with finger-pointing makes both of them wrong.

The useful question is not who’s to blame and who should be punished, the people in the neighborhood or the principal and teachers in school.  The better question is how to bring people together after numerous and tremendously painful deaths, in order to create a community that simply won’t tolerate hate and violence in the school or on the streets.  Here in Denver, after the massacre at Columbine High School, it has taken 10 years for that healing spirit to become evident.

This question is not new.  The difficulty of establishing a safe and functional communal life after multiple, horrible deaths has been part of human struggles since the beginning of time.  For example, we see the same struggle in the families of Romeo and Juliet.

Even further back, the same subject and a wise solution are described in graphic detail in the three tragedies called the Oresteia, written by Aeschylus in 458 BC.  In the Agamemnon, the Libation Bearers and the Eumenides, the murders are for different reasons than in Schenectady and Columbine High School, but the end effect is the same.  Violent death rips apart the fabric of a community and people struggle with what to do.

Why do I bring up literature that’s 2,500 years old?  Because the violence of today has also been faced by people in all cultures, times and places, and we have recorded the approaches that only lead to more pain and also the wisdom that points the way to solutions.

Aeschylus shows that the age-old solution – pointing fingers, apportioning blame, imposing punishment, retribution and vengeance – only drives people into separate, warring camps and perpetuates the cycle of violence.  He also shows that only after the people involved have come together, having been transformed by the intense pain and suffering that everyone feels underneath their defensive and hostile poses, can they dedicate themselves to change the environment together.  One line from the tragedy is, “We must suffer, suffer into [wisdom].”

As community leaders, Rev. House and Superintendent Ely are failing in their responsibility.  Instead of analyzing and parsing out the blame, they must lead the community to come together to create a new spirit that will neither tolerate harassment, bullying and abuse at school nor the street violence that requires police and metal detectors at school doors.

Until Rev. House and Superintendent Ely rally a core of outraged students and parents to rid the area of violence, there are no tactics, plans and skills that will help them.  I’d expect Rev. House to know how rituals for painful grieving can transform the hearts of his parishioners into wisdom and determined action.  Only after they have united resolutely to clean up the school and the neighborhood, will expert tactical advice and guidance be productive.