Top 5 bullying myths: What you don't know about bullying

We all know that bullying is wrong but you may know even less about bullying than you originally thought. Monitor correspondent Stephanie Hanes debunks 5 popular misconceptions.

2. Zero-tolerance policies against bullying decrease bullying

Mary Knox Merrill/The Christian Science Monitor
Posters drawn by school children discourage bullying at Quashnet School in Mashpee, MA.

“Zero tolerance” policies became popular in the 1990s to deal with a host of school – and, for that matter, criminal justice – challenges, from drug use to violence to sexual harassment. Usually a zero tolerance policy includes an automatic penalty for a given infraction, regardless of who is involved or what the extenuating circumstances may be. The concept is that if kids know they’re going to get kicked out of school for bullying, they just won’t do it. This approach is still favored by many anti-bullying groups and websites. 

But researchers say there’s no evidence that zero-tolerance policies lower the incidence of bullying. There are, however, a number of studies that show a correlation between zero tolerance and increased aggression and harassment at school. Why? The American Psychological Association’s task force on zero tolerance said in 2008 that these policies did little to standardize punishment and did not take into account the best developmental approach for teenagers. Other researchers have said that zero tolerance does little to build needed compassion.

The other side of the anti-bullying spectrum is not necessarily always better, however. A comprehensive international review of anti-bullying initiatives by The Campbell Collaboration research network found that peer-based, or peer mentoring, anti-bullying programs often increased rates of victimhood, as well.  

2 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.