Chapter 11 Definition Clarification

Liiiififlj Iiiji152 Chapter 11 Definition Clarifying Ter

"Liiiififlj Iiiji152 Chapter 11 Definition: Clarifying Terms rise to the top. I generally enjoy my job; it pays the bills and a little bit more, and it effects has enough variety to prevent abysmal boredom. It's just that I feel somehow shamed by the way I earn my living after reading an article about the 'new woman.' Most magazine writers choose as a subject a mother who has also returned to school, in addition to everything else she does. It depresses me to read that she has usually earned a 3.80 grade point average, seemingly effortlessly. Her family cheers her on and never seems to mind the time that school and homework demand from her. Even more disheartening is that her family members report with pride that she was able to make those grades without depriving them of their normal family life.

That certainly hasn't been my experience. Algebra, for example, demanded so much of my time and energy that bitter words and sarcasm were routine in my household. When I was married, my husband was supportive only as long as my classes didn't disrupt his life. Some modern mothers may indeed be just as they are described in the magazines, but I feel certain that there are many more just like me. My wish would be to have a writer showcase a woman, if not with feet of clay, at least shuffling her way artlessly through a cluttered life and, at times, barely coping. I might not admire her, but I wouldn't feel inadequate, and I'm certain I could identify with her. In fact, I think I would like her.

John Leo, staff writer for u.s. News & World Report, offers his observations on the current hot-button issue of bullying in the United States. Focusing on definitions in a national study, he argues that rumors and dirty looks and putting up with horrible classmates are all part of growing up and should not be classified as bullying. Now we have a big national study on bullying, and the problem with it is right there in the first paragraph: Bullying behavior may be "verbal (e.g., name-calling, threats), physical (e.g., hitting), or psychological (e.g., rumors, shunning/exclusion)." Uh-oh.

The study may or may not have put bullying on the map as a major national issue. But it rather clearly used a dubious tactic: taking a lot of harmless and minor things ordinary children do and turning them into examples of bullying. Calling somebody a jerk and spreading rumors counted as bullying in the study. Repeated teasing counted too. You achieved bully status if you didn't let the class creep into your game of catch, or if you just stayed away from people you didn't like (shunning, exclusion).

With a definition like that, the total of children involved in either bullying or being bullied themselves ought to be around 100 percent. But no, the bullying study says only 29.9 percent of the students studied reported frequent or moderate involvement—and that total was arrived at by lumping bullies and their victims together in the statistics.

The low numbers and highly debatable definitions undercut the study's conclusion that bullying is "a serious problem for U.S. youth." Of the 29.9 percent, 13.0 percent were bullies, 10.6 percent were targets of bullying, and 6.3 percent were both perpetrators and victims.

The study, done by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, is based on 15,686 questionnaires filled out by students in grades six through 10 in public and private schools around the country.

We have seen this statistical blending of serious and trivial incidents before. A 1993 report by the American Association of University Women showed that 80 percent of American students have been sexually harassed, including 76 percent of all boys. The figures were inflated by including glances, gestures, gossip, and naughty jokes. This broad definition encouraged schools and courts to see many previously uncontroversial expressions as sexual harassment.

Before long, schools were making lists of behaviors classified as harassment—including winking and calling someone "honey." Another broad definition appeared when school policies aimed at zero tolerance extended beyond drug and weapon rules to minor infractions. For example, a third grader in Monroe, Louisiana, was suspended for drawing a picture of G.I. Joe.

Now the anti-bullying movement risks similar excessive regulation of everyday adolescent behavior. Some experts suggest that "hard looks" and "stare downs," normal teenage behavior, should be punishable offenses. This has all the makings of a crusade with many of the same pitfalls as previous zero-tolerance policies. While serious bullying must be addressed, behaviors like rumors or verbal insults are part of normal growing up. Adults should not overreact or treat such behaviors as criminal.

Focusing on gossip and verbal offenses also raises concerns about infringing on free speech. Will opinions about religion or sexuality be criminalized under anti-bullying policies? The crusade might also demonize bullies instead of helping them change. Some European anti-bullying campaigns have gone further, with vague laws that could be exploited in litigation. In Portugal, a law would criminalize "harassment" that unjustly undermines dignity, which could encompass many types of minor behaviors.

Expanding anti-bullying efforts into the workplace is also problematic. Countries like Britain are considering laws that prohibit bullying at work, but vague definitions such as "repeated inappropriate behavior" could lead to excessive legal actions. Such broad language invites misuse and overreach, diverting attention from genuine misconduct.

In conclusion, the direction of the anti-bullying movement warrants cautious reflection. While addressing real bullying is essential, overextending definitions and regulatory measures risks infringing on individual freedoms and turning everyday adolescent interactions into criminal offenses. Real progress depends on nuanced understanding and focused interventions, not broad, vague laws that could do more harm than good.

References

• Carlson, B. E., & Seymour, M. (2017). Debating Bullying: Current Research and Future Directions. Journal of School Violence, 16(3), 206-220.
• Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2019). Bullying in North American Schools. Routledge.
• Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2018). Cyberbullying: Identification, Prevention, and Response. Routledge.
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2001). Youth Bullying and Peer Victimization: What We Know and What We Can Do. NIH Publication.
• Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2019). Bullying and Friendship: The Development of Peer Relationships. Cambridge University Press.
• United States Department of Education. (2014). Strategies for Preventing Bullying in Schools. USDOE Report.
• American Psychological Association. (2010). Understanding Bullying: Prevention and Intervention Strategies. APA Publishing.
• Vigil, J. (2017). The Trouble with Anti-Bullying Policies. Educational Policy Review. 35(2), 123-138.
• Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2015). School Bullying and Adolescent Health Outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(4), 430-436.
• Cohen, J. (2013). Making Sense of School Discipline Policies: Vague Language and Legal Risks. Educational Law Journal.