Bullies, Principals, and Parents: Joint Collaborators Against Student Victims
Remnant Review
This is the most important question for every institution: "Who's in charge here?" The second question is this: "To whom do I report?" Then there is this question: "What are the rules?" Then this: What happens if I either obey or disobey?" Finally, this: "Does this outfit have a future?"
To understand how these questions apply, consider this question. Should Rosa Parks have been excommunicated by her church for her open rebellion in 1955 against lawful civil authority? She refused to surrender her bus seat to a white male, when told to do so by the bus driver. This broke the law.
If she had been a member of a white church, she probably would have been brought under church discipline. But would this have been just? Would you trust a church that would do this?
There is a reason why I am raising this issue. I will get to this later.
TAKING A STAND BY WALKING AWAY
A bus driver, acting on behalf of the city's bus company, told her to give her seat to a white man. She refused. The driver called two policemen, who told her to do the same thing. She refused. Next, this:
Next, the blacks started a boycott of the bus system. This was illegal. No one was allowed to boycott the government-run bus company unless it was for a "just cause." The city arrested 89 boycott organizers. The boycott did not stop. This imposed negative financial sanctions on the bus company. Blacks were 75% of the riders.
Next, black car owners started driving others to work for as little as 10 cents a ride. Illegal! The city had previously mandated 45 cents, minimum. So, the car owners started driving people to work for free. They did this for just over a year.
A little over a year after Rosa Parks broke the law, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the practice of bus segregation was illegal. This decision came from an earlier refusal to surrender a seat, but Parks' name has always been associated with the Court's case. It overturned all state laws that had mandated segregation in public transportation -- a legal tradition that had imposed segregation on profit-seeking trolley firms, which had not segregated passengers. That was the end of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): "separate but equal" in public transportation. It was the beginning of the end of the Jim Crow South, which had been made Jim Crow by state laws. Fifteen years later, the Jim Crow South was gone. It no longer had any public defenders, in both senses.
Today, Parks' stand is usually seen as a courageous stand for justice against a corrupt civil government. It was in fact a courageous refusal to stand. It was an act of civil disobedience. So were the acts of the two women who had done the same thing earlier in the year.
She is still regarded as a lawless sinner in the opinion of Protestant legalists -- a woman deserving of excommunication. This movement commands obedience to all civil authorities, no matter what. She broke the law in trying to change the law. That, by the way, was exactly what Homer Plessy had done in 1892. The corruption began in the halls of the state and was extended to the free market: privately owned city transportation companies. All that the privately owned companies wanted was fares. They had no social agenda. The politicians in the 1890's had a social agenda. Rosa Parks pulled the plug in 1955, and the boycott kept it pulled. It nearly bankrupted the bus company.
When the initial resistance began, the city was in charge. The Supreme Court had said so in 1896. In December 1956, the Court reversed itself. The city was no longer in charge. There would be no legal segregation on the buses. There would be no more arrests of blacks who sat tight. It took a lot of lawbreakers to gain this reversal.
Then there is question number five: "Does this outfit have a future?" The Jim Crow South had no future. Its time was about to run out. It had been weighed in the balance and found wanting. "The state giveth, but the Feds taketh away."
Now I will extend this analysis to the case at hand: bullying in tax-funded schools.
THE VICTIMS CAN GAIN CONTROL
I have written for years about bullies in public schools. I have presented a series of strategies for the victims to use against the authorities who condone such bullying. You can read my materials here:
I recently produced a screencast on tactics that victimized students can and should adopt.
Inescapably, the victim's parents are responsible for allowing this bullying. Parents are responsible for educating their children. If parents voluntarily send their children into a public school, and the school refuses to bring permanent sanctions against bullies by permanent expulsion, then the parents have ways of intervening. I have described these tactics here. But, ultimately, there is only one effective means of intervention that is risk-free to the child: the parent pulls the child out of the public school.
There are a lot of reasons for parents to pull their children out of public schools, but bullying is surely the most obvious reason. The child has become a permanent victim. He is permanently terrorized by bullies who are given very close to free rein by the school's authorities. The schools do not want to tangle with the parents of expelled bullies. In contrast, they know that there will almost no major trouble, especially judicial trouble, from the parents of victimized children. School authorities take the path of least resistance. They promise the victim's parents that they will stop the bully. Then they tell the bully to stop it -- just as they have told him for years. He always agrees. Then he escalates the pressure on the child who turned him in. This sends a message to other victims, who may be tempted to bring in their parents.
The school authorities know this. The parents ought to know this. The victims know this. But there is a kabuki theater presentation that school authorities go through. They have been doing this for almost 200 years. The parents buy it. Why? Because it is easier on their budgets: mom stays at work.
The bully knows who is in charge: he is. He can impose meaningful negative sanctions. The school chooses not to impose negative sanctions on the bully: permanent expulsion. Why? Because the state government penalizes the local school system for reduced enrollment. When a bully is expelled, money from the state is cut off. School authorities will do almost anything possible, short of risking a lawsuit or risking exposure on the local evening news, to keep bullies enrolled. The bullies figure this out early.
It is all in Back to the Future. Biff and the vice principal have an unspoken arrangement. The vice principal reads Biff the riot act several times a week, but never expels him. The vice principal's function is public relations: play-pretend sanctions against real violence.
In my video, I give the example of a student who, after complaining, and after ditching school in order to escape the violence, is forced by his parents and the school authorities to go back into class. Under such circumstances, I know what I would do. I would stop taking any examinations. I would stop turning in any papers. I would get a college-level textbook in each course, and I would begin studying for college level placement exams (CLEP). At some point, I would get straight F's.
This is the final tactic against the parents. The parents are unwilling to reduce their discretionary income, even at the cost of turning their child into a permanent victim of a sadistic, violent bully. "Stand up to him. Don't be a coward." But, most of all, they don't want the expense of pulling mom out of the workforce, so that she can stay home to home school the victim. Even worse, the thought of having to send the child to a private school, where parents actually pay for their children's education, is appalling to the parents. They will go to any extent to keep their child in school. They -- meaning he -- will pay the required price.
Yet they are ultimately vulnerable. If the child quits taking examinations, he is going to flunk out of school. If the administration keeps him in school, he will become a straight-F student. The parents will be paralyzed with fear that the child is not going to get into college because he will not take his examinations seriously. In my view, within two weeks, the parents will capitulate. They will not stand the heat.
The child is completely in control of the situation with respect to the parents. There is nothing that the parents can do to get him to take any exams. They cannot beat him, because if they do, he can complain to Child Protective Services, which will be at their doorstep in hours. Legal fees will run about $200 an hour. Money is what counts with these parents, and legal fees count a lot more than any other kind.
The child has to put up with the bully. He does not have to put up with a violent parent. The parent can threaten the child, but it is an empty threat.
If the child flunks out, he achieves his purpose. He escapes the bully. But if the child is kept on the rolls, which is unlikely, he can spread the word to other victims of the bully about his tactic. The kid could become a true Gandhi-type figure on the campus. All of the victims of the bullies could stop taking exams, and the school's ranking in terms of academic performance would begin to decline. At this point, the school has an incentive to get bullies off the campus by expelling them permanently. Then the parents of the bullies, not the victims, can be terrified at the costs of educating their children.
Word of this will get to the media. This would be a truly juicy story. It would be irresistible.
I think you get the picture. Every institutional system has vulnerability points that are so painful that any consistent application of pressure on them will lead to capitulation on the part of the administrators. The trick is to find out where these weak points are, and then to devise a strategy based on the systematic application of pressure to these points of vulnerability.
This is nonviolent. It is a form of noncooperation. The bullies are violent. The way around this is a systematic program of nonviolence. But this pressure is not applied to the bullies; it is applied to the school's authorities and to the equally spineless parents, who value discretionary income above the safety of their child.
The parent sees what is coming if the victimized student refuses to take the exams and gets all F's. Maybe expulsion. Maybe no college. This means tut-tutting behind their backs by their peers, whose children are not victims of bullies, and who are college-bound.
There really is nothing the parent can do. If the child comes home every day while the parents are at work, Child Protective Services will get a call from the school's authorities. At that point, mom will have to quit work. The alternative is to have CPS assign the child to a foster family. The child will then repeat the procedure.
Ultimately, the parents are not in control. The school's authorities find it easier to bring sanctions against the victim's parents than the bully's parents. There is really nothing the victim's parents can do. The victim can get his way. All he has to do is imitate Gandhi: noncooperation with the authorities.
We have seen this before. "Stand up and give your seat to that white man." "No." "You're going to do what I say." "No." "I will call the police." "Call them."
The parents cannot win this one if the victim decides to fight the system through systematic noncooperation. It is safer for the victim to challenge his parents than to challenge the bully on the bully's turf: a public school.
FIGHT, THEN FLIGHT
You have heard the phrase, "flight or fight." My strategy is clear: "Fight, then flight." The fight is with the authorities, who are operationally subordinate to the bully. The bully is in charge of the spineless school authorities -- who want enrollment money from the state -- and the spineless parents, who want higher discretionary income.
The victim must fight the authorities. He ultimately fights the real authority: the bully. The bully is in charge. The wise strategy is to get out from under his authority. To do this, he refuses to cooperate with the economic and institutional agents of the bully: the school's authorities and his parents.
The parents will crumble first. They will think this: "No college for my kid: all F's." In fact, it isn't true. A student who gets above 50 on a CLEP gets full college credit in most schools -- if not, then above 60. He will get into college as a junior if he passes 10 CLEP exams or DSST exams for about $2,000. But the parents are oblivious.
Once the parents admit defeat and let him stay home, the student can get to serious work on CLEP and DSST exams. This will save them tens of thousands of dollars. He can also use a homeschool curriculum. The Khan Academy is free. The Ron Paul Curriculum is cheap. They are both video-based, not textbook-based.
PROTESTANT LEGALISM TO THE RESCUE!
Within a day after Lew Rockwell posted my video on self-defense tactics against spineless school systems and spineless parents, a self-appointed critic of my work responded. He had responded the day before to my views on success principles, which Rockwell had posted. I responded to his criticisms. Within a few hours, I received this. He lives in New Zealand.
23rd June 2015Dear Dr North,
I am again writing to you to complain about something you have contributed to LewRockwell.com, and I can hardly believe that it was only yesterday that I wrote my previous complaint. I am not sure whether it is because I am becoming a grumpy old man, or maybe it is because there is something wrong with your articles, or some other reason.
The one I am complaining about this time is the one on bullying. I was bullied in the fifties and sixties and I admit I did not work out how to handle it. I did not have to in the end because I had powerful friends. However your proposal seems to be that the student takes control of the situation and engineers homeschooling for himself.
I am all in favour of homeschooling and my wife and I have homeschooled all of our children, but your method of achieving the end seems fraught with problems.
The biggest problem I see with your plan is where the child refuses to do assignments and exams because he cannot convince his parents of the need for homeschooling. If his parents have asked him to perform these duties, which are not sinful, he should be obeying his parents. Perhaps he will continue to be bullied. As you say, parents have often said, (as indeed my father said), "Stand up to the bully". This is a problem because it contradicts the other inevitable parental directive to avoid fights. I do not think parents, in general, know how to handle the situation productively, and I too would recommend homeschooling.
However if the child succeeds in maneuvering his parents into homeschooling by disobeying them this is creating a dangerous precedent. If he succeeds he may use non-compliance as a method for achieving his own ends in other areas. Even worse he may become expert in using this tactic, and other children in the household will join the program. Chaos will ensue. The child may win the battle but lose the war, or more correctly win the battle and start the war. Perhaps you could redo your instructional video with an improved plan that includes full obedience to parents.
I have always enjoyed your contributions in the area of Christian economics and economic history, but I note that these presentations I find fault with are outside your normal area of expertise. I believe you are at your best when you stick to your knitting.
Yours sincerely
Richard B.
PS. Imagine this conversation where Johnny is confronted by his mother. It is over the top but you will get the point:-
"Johnny, why is it you have always been so obedient but with this bullying issue you have been so adamant that you will not work hard at school any longer? What has caused this change?"
" I listened to Dr North. He told me to do things this way so I can be homeschooled."
" You mean he told you to adopt these tactics?"
"Yes".
"You mean he told you to disobey your parents to get your own way?"
" No, he told me to obedient but not to do assignments and exams".
" But we have recently discussed the sin of Saul, the sin of partial obedience. You remember that in the eyes of God partial obedience is rebellion, don't you?"
"Yes, but Dr North said it would be good to do because it will achieve a good result. I now understand that the end justifies the means. It is all his fault. I believe in liberty for me now. I played his bullying video over and over again, memorised it and now I hear his voice in my head telling me what to do."
"Well, we will have to put a stop to that. We will add his website to our home internet blacklist and also submit it to the parental control software makers. While we are at it we better make sure that Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul sites are blocked also. We did not realise that promoters of liberty promoted such rebellious behavior. Has he worked this stuff into the Ron Paul curriculum also? We need to warn homeschoolers. Maybe we should start our own website, StopGaryNorth.com. We will need Youtube videos, social media etc just like he recommends on his website if we are to get our message out to as many people as possible."
This mentality would have led Protestants in the Netherlands in 1943 to report on anyone hiding Jews. Hiding Jews was against the law.
This outlook is called legalism. Legalists say that the Bible demands absolute obedience to the law, no matter how corrupt the law is, as long as you are allowed by the state to go to church. It demands absolute obedience to the authorities. It demands absolute truthfulness when dealing with the authorities.
The Bible says no such thing.
COLLABORATION WITH WHICH SIDE?
In Appendix 5 of R. J. Rushdoony's book, Institutes of Biblical Law (1973), I responded to this line of reasoning. I presented a defense of Rahab's lie to the civil authorities of Jericho. She pretended to be a collaborator. She lied about where the spies from Israel had fled. The authorities fell for it. She had in fact verbally broken covenant with Jericho. She got the spies to establish a covenant with her and her family. She could not escape choosing sides. A showdown was coming. She chose the right side. She was a true collaborator with Israel. She was a fake collaborator with Jericho. She survived. They perished.
The midwives of Israel in Egypt had done the same thing when told by Pharaoh to kill the infants. They responded: "The Hebrew women are delivered too soon. We just can't get there in time." Pharaoh might have said: "Then how do you make any money if you never get there on time? Is this a recent development?" But he fell for it. For a supposed god walking on earth, he was not too fast on the uptake. They appeared to be collaborating with him. They were in fact collaborating with the Israelites.
Then there is one of my favorite passages in the Bible, Jael's execution of General Sisera. She used her husband's covenant with the enemies of Israel as a wonderful opportunity to complete Deborah's expulsion of the occupying Canaanites.
17 Howbeit Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite: for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite.18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.
19 And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him.
20 Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and enquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No.
21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.
22 And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will shew thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples.
23 So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel.
This passage presents an enormous headache for Christian legalists. "But she broke the law." "Amen, brother!" "But she violated her husband's lawful authority." "Hallelujah!" The legalists are aghast. They have been aghast for millennia.
The judicial/covenantal issue is this: is collaboration with institutional evil supposed to continue, for theology's sake? The answer is no. When a righteous person can get free of the system, should he, even if he disobeys agents of the system? The answer is yes.
Jael had a clear understanding of this. She nailed it.
EXPULSION
When the authorities are corrupt, the best strategy is to separate yourself from their corruption. This takes courage. But staying in a public school where a bully is determined to make your life miserable also takes courage . . . needless courage.
What can the public school authorities do to a student who refuses to cooperate with the testing system? Either expel the victim or expel the bully.
The best thing for the victim is to get expelled. The bully will not retaliate. "Out of sight, out of mind."
What about the victim's parents? They are collaborators. I call them Heberites. After World War II, they were called Quislings. They are in league with the school authorities, who are in league with the bullies.
There are theological defenders of Heberites: legalists. I recommend ignoring them.
CONCLUSION
The bully has collaborators: the school's authorities and the victims' parents. Some Protestant parents want moral support for their collaboration. Christian legalism has long supplied this support. The midwives knew better. Rahab knew better. Jael knew better. They understood who is at the top of the covenant: God, not the state.