Scott Bullock said:
Kid Becomes "Little Zangief" in Response to Bullying
Glad to see that people are
finally getting the idea that
both kids got suspended. Early reports were saying "only Casey got suspended," and refusing to believe otherwise.
And, whether we agree or not, when there is a fight both kids
need to be suspended. The problem is that people see "suspended" as "punished; held at fault." That's not the case when it comes to fights, and few people outside of the public education system really understand why it's necessary. I'd like the opportunity to explain it clearly:
1. When there is a fight, the school
must demonstrate the policy that fighting is not an acceptable solution to a problem. If this student had been "teased his whole school life," but chose not to let the school's officials know this, he made a bad choice (bottle it up, and then unleash it on a single jackass). The school has to take the official stance that, while there is clearly an instigator who is primarily at fault, the fact that the situation became a fight shows that bad choices were made on both parts leading up to the event.
This, however, is the least important reason that both students should be suspended.
2. Where there is one fight, there will be more. Especially with kids. Emotions run high, pride is on the line, and people come back for revenge and bring more buddies with them. Happens all the time. However, it happens
a hell of a lot less when schools suspend both kids for at least a week of school. Both aggressor
and victim.
Why? Because the aggressor almost always has his little band of misfits that follow around, and they'll likely try to antagonize the victim the next day. Also, other kids
that had nothing to do with the fight will try to talk it up the next day. For them, it's just entertainment. Other times, it's a revenge thing (especially in a case where the victim "wins" the fight). But if you remove both sides for a week, you would be
amazed at how quickly the other students move on to other things (even with all the media coverage). They don't forget, but the frenzy dies down enough that repeats are far less likely. It's not about punishment, it's about prevention.
This is the most important reason to suspend both kids.
3. Liability. Casey could have
seriously injured that little dickhead. Yeah, he's a dickhead, but does that rate permanent disability? Luckily it didn't happen, but if it had... who do you think the kid's parents are going to sue? Casey and his family? Probably not. They're more sure to get money if they go after the
school for being complicit in "allowing" all of this to happen.
Now, if they can show that the school had prior knowledge, they might have a case. If they can show that the school failed to provide adequate supervision, they might have a case. But if they can show the school
was clearly on Casey's side? That's a big nail in the school's coffin right there. By suspending both kids, the school is avoiding a policy of taking sides (and thus giving a "thumbs up" to vigilante justice). Sorry, but in the current funding crisis, you'd better believe schools have to think about this kind of stuff.