According to Thomas Aquinas, the Italian philosopher and theologian, "It is clear that the true object of law is to induce those subject to it to seek their own virtue" (Aquinas). It is not difficult to see that the law is the red line of morality. Therefore, since bullying violates and damages morality, it should be sanctioned by law. To uphold human rights, the United States government has created and propelled a series of laws on bullying. This paper will examine the effectiveness of those laws on bullying and its victims.
As early as half a century ago, the laws associated with bullying and protection from it had begun to be enacted. The civil rights laws in the United States have laid emphasis on protecting specific individuals identified as being vulnerable to discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is regarded as a landmark reform in the history of American civil and labor laws. It declared it illegal to discriminate against an individual based on their race, color, religion, sexuality, and country of origin. Later, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs (Cornell & Limber, 2015). Because discriminatory behavior is both a factor and a manifestation of bullying, these laws are also, to a degree, regulating bullying. Whereas since 1999, the frightening shooting at Columbine High School, which caused the deaths of 12 students and one teacher, further drew the attention of society to school bullying since the perpetrators seemed to be taking revenge for the bullying they had suffered (Cornell & Limber, 2015). The perpetrators’ stories of being bullied prevailed at that time and prompted states to implement anti-bullying laws. By 2015, every state had passed a law that directed school3 districts or individual schools to develop policies to address bullying (Cornell & Limber, 2015). It cannot but be said that the United States, at least on the surface, has indeed made efforts to ensure equal rights to guarantee the interests, especially both physical and mental health, of all individuals.
Besides laws, the policies that have been propelled thus far mainly concentrate on school administration. From the federal government to states and local governments, K-12 education policies, including anti-bullying policies, have been established (Mead, 2009). These policies not only give victims protection based on the law, but also oblige school administration to prevent bullying and maintain individual rights. For instance, according to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the government encourages schools to open more courses or give more guidance that make students aware of the importance and necessity of empathy toward different races, children with disabilities, or any group that may suffer from bullying (StopBullying.gov, 2017). Schools organize and train staff on what actions to take for victims and perpetrators, and to teach students and their families how to handle bullying and protect their rights. In his review of policies on school bullying, William Hall, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, indicated that "one advantage of policy interventions for bullying is that they can have an effect on the student, teacher, and administrator behavior as well as school organizational practices," and another is that "they are upstream interventions that provide a foundation for downstream interventions" (Hall, 2017). This means that, as policies, higher-level implementation clearly indicates the goals to be4 achieved and provide guidelines for lower-level implementation. The actions of focusing on and handling bullying will be more efficient due to some degree of pressure on school administration from the government. Moreover, a foundation that is provided from “upstream” to “downstream” can be spread more extensively since it follows and spoke-hub distribution. As a result, trends in bullying have decreased over time. The School Crime Supplement of the National Victimization Survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center of Education Statistics, shows that the percentage of students bullied dropped from 31.7% to 21.5% between 2007 and 2013 (Amar et al., 2016).
While the laws and policies implemented so far have had some effect, problems still exist in them. Since the conventional definition of bullying includes three characteristics (intentional aggression, power imbalance between aggressor and victim, and repetition of aggressive behavior), none of the characteristics can be defined and evaluated specifically, making bullying difficult to legislate (Olweus, 2013). For intentional aggression, this behavior itself, is subjective. When an individual is aggressive, especially verbally, it is not easy to discern whether their action or language reaches the level of bullying. During the subsequent investigation, the aggressor can deliberately misrepresent their behavior to be exonerated. For power imbalance between aggressor and victim, the issue of what is the true meaning of power imbalance arises. In many situations, power can be a more abstract and complex concept than just body strength or size. If the victim is being bullied because of their race for example the so-called power imbalance would be the subjective self-confidence imbalance caused by5 stereotypes shaped by social and family environment. For repetition of aggressive behavior, it is inhumane to the victim. If repetition is a standard of the definition of bullying, the victim will suffer many instances of violence before a conclusion is drawn since time is needed to judge whether the behavior can be identified as bullying. For example, according to the policy requirements from the Illinois State Board of Education, the evaluation standards include the frequency of victimization (Illinois State Board of Education, 2015). The consequences caused by the violence each time cannot be reversed, so it will not only harm the victim, but also increase the evaluator's moral burden.
Furthermore, the disadvantages of state policies and laws have been acknowledged by researchers. Each state law is more or less different. Law and psychology professor Dewey Cornell, famous for his research on youth violence and school security, indicates that these differences cause inconsistency between state legislative definitions of bullying and the criteria agreed upon by scholars (Cornell & Limber, 2015). In addition, there exists no direct evidence that shows which level of policy is higher than another level of policy (Hall, 2017). A state policy may have higher legal force, but a school policy may be more appropriate to its own situation.
Besides formal laws and policies, there are many unofficial organizations also devoted to preventing bullying. The largest and oldest bullying prevention project in the world is the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP). Different from government policies that focus on school management and strict evaluation of behavior, OBPP is a comprehensive approach that mainly focuses on the relationship between the individual and6 group to help build communication and a sense of belonging that creates a positive environment in schools and communities. OBPP has achieved some success through its approachable and subtle methods: a survey conducted in Western Pennsylvania by researchers from Clemson University and University of Massachusetts Memorial Children's Medical Center found that school violence declined by more than 40 percent in 2010-11 from the year before (Limber et al., 2018). Consequently, programs such as OBPP should be pushed into more schools to help prevent bullying.
Based on existing policies, laws, and the OBPP approach, some suggestions can be concluded for schools and society to attempt to enhance school procedures for handling bullying and protecting against it. Considering the work pressure of staff who also undertake the obligation to detect bullying and protect victims, schools should give them moderate salary increases or rewards to encourage positive attitude. Second, schools should quickly investigate any action that could be considered bullying to avoid more serious consequences. Third, schools should prioritize aggressors' psychological health education after catching them. Nonetheless, the punishments must be doled out according to the severity of the bullying. Next, schools should regularly examine the changes in bullying to evaluate and adjust their policies. Finally, as shown by "22 states using the terms harassment, intimidation, and bullying interchangeably, 14 restricting their definitions to bullying, two restricting their definitions to harassment, and eight including the terms harassment and bullying but defining them differently," state laws should clarify and unify the definition of bullying (Cascardi et al., 2014).
In conclusion, although the policies and laws on bullying in the United States are relatively efficient from the perspective of universality and attention, obvious and hidden loopholes still exist. How to balance the operation of the law for a fairer verdict with the extent to which victims are harmed by the judicial process, should be considered by legislators. Meanwhile, using OBPP as a reference, schools can develop better ways appropriate to the age and behavior of students to form a deeper sense of rejection of bullying. After all, the ways of bullying and the reasons for it change quickly. What the government and schools can do is monitor and enact more appropriate laws and policies.
References
Amar, A. F., Bradshaw, C., Flannery, D., Graham, S., Hatzenbuehler, M.,
Masiello, M., Moreno, M., Rivara, F., Sullivan, R., Todres, J., &
Vaillancourt, T. (2016). Preventing bullying through science, policy and
practice. Washington: The National Academies Press.
https://www.apa.org/act/resources/webinars/bullying-bradshaw flannery.pdf
Cascardi, M., Brown, C., Iannarone, M., & Cardona, N. (2014). The problem
with overly broad definitions of bullying: Implications for the
schoolhouse, the statehouse, and the ivory tower. Journal of School
Duke Law Journal, 61, 1025-1066. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-21013-001
Cornell, D., & Limber, S. (2015). Law and policy on the concept of
bullying at school. American Psychologist, 70(4), 333-343.
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0038558.pdf
Hall, W. (2017). The effectiveness of policy interventions for school
bullying: A systematic review. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8(1).
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/690565
Illinois State Board of Education (Ed.) (2015). Bullying Policy Requirements
https://www.iasb.com/policy-services-and-school-law/illinois-laws-
affecting-schools/bullying/
Limber, S. P., Olweus, D., Wang, W., Masiello, M., & Breivike, K. (2018).
Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A large
scale study of U.S. students in grades 3–11. Journal of School Psychology, 69, 56-72.9
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440518300529?via%3Dihub
Mead, J. F. (2009). The role of law in educational policy formation,
implementation and research. In G. Sykes, D. Plank, & B. Schneider
(Eds.), Handbook of education policy research, (pp. 286–295). Washington, DC: Routledge.
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some Important
Challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751-780.
https://scirp.org/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=1784443
StopBullying.gov (Ed.) (2017). Prevention-Prevention at School.
https://www.stopsullying.gov/prevention/at-school