First Place/1996/Research Writing

A Culture Threatened

by:  Amy Hall
Instructor: Bill Ransom 




	Every generation seems to have to fight its own battles over the 
relationship of art to society in general and to government in particular.  
Even Geaorge Washington irked Congress by comissioning artists to cover 
the Capitol's interior with murals.  Perhaps that disagreement served as a 
foretaste of recent and ongoing efforts to cut public funding for the National 
Endowment fot the Arts.  Hoever, careful consideration of the importance of 
the arts shows this misguided attempt to eliminate funding for the art would
have consequences, both far-reaching and more personally relevant than
most people may realize.
	Recent legislative events show the downward spiral which the
funding of arts is taking.  In May of 1995, the House Economic and
Educational Opportunities Committee approved a bill (HR 1557) that
would phase out the National Endowment for the Arts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) by fiscal year 1999.  These two
organizations distribute federal grants to states and communities for
cultural events, programs and projects.  The chief sponsor of the bill told
members they had two choices:  re-authorize programs at gradually
reduced levels or face appropriator's possible refusal to allocate any funds
at all.  Steve Gunderson expressed some members' legitimate concerns
when he said, "The promotion of the arts is more important now than it
has ever been.  If we as a nation cannot promote the arts and balance the
budget, we have failed." (Wells 1331).  
	In August of 1995, the attack on the NEA and NEH was slowed
when the Senate approved a 30 percent cut for both endowments, but
voted to keep them alive.  The Senate also approved an amendment to give
each a budget of $110 million, which is $11 million more each than from
the House bill.  Along with the increase came restrictions which prohibit
the endowments from supporting projects that depict or denigrate, in a
patently offensive way, sexual or excretory activities or organs.  Also
forbidden would be financing works that denigrate the objects or beliefs of
the adherents of a particular religion (Burd 28).  This brings up the
question of how to define what is patently offensive, and to whom, not to
mention the debate over the First Amendment.  
	Walter Berns assesses the First Amendment question accurately
when he writes, "Congress may not be able to place restrictions on its
grants to artists but there is nothing in the Constitution that requires it to
make such grants in the first place" (3).  In reality, defunding the NEA
altogether does not interfere with the First Amendment.  And non-renewal
of grants does not threaten artists' rights because recipients are as free to
express themselves as if they never received an NEA subsidy.  More
specifically, Congress can advise the NEA not to use its grants to fund
obscene art as long as it makes clear the connection to the Supreme
Court's decision on obscenity in Miller v. California, (1973).  However, the
NEA must exercise caution on its decision of who gets money - namely
discriminatory decisions based on race, gender, or ethnic background can
become constitutionally suspect (Reynolds 36). 
	President Bill Clinton offered hope for the pro-NEA cause when he
stated his support for the arts saying, "With our continued efforts ... we
can maintain our great artistic institutions ... and we can also encourage
emerging artists and organizations who bring energy and fresh ideas"
(Davis 2).  The most decisive and promising step was taken with Clinton's
reinvigoration of the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities,
since this committee of private citizens can seek private as well as public
funding.  Rayna Skolnik reports that, "Individual and foundation giving
remains steady.  That's where the future of fund-raising is" (18).  This
group of competent members was given the task to report on the state of
culture in our country, including the "Implications for the arts and
humanities of the information infrastructure ... greater access to all the
arts ... and ... international cultural exchanges" (Davis 16). 
	Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, is one
outspoken critic of the arts, proposing the complete elimination of the
NEA.  The view of some on the right-wing end of politics is demonstrated
by his remarks, "We have to say to the counter-culture:  Nice try. You
failed.  You're wrong.  And we have to calmly, patiently, methodically
reassert American civilization" (Davis 8).  The fundamentalist 
conservative movement helped to make itself known to the public when it 
flooded the White House and Congress with letters and videotapes 
characterizing the NEA as dedicated to the destruction of Christian values.  
Unfortunately for these fundamentalists, not all Americans exercise or are 
even aware of Christian values.  Patrick Buchanan made the comment that 
"our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity," which exposes 
a glaringly ethnocentric viewpoint.  In relation to both the right and left-sided
complaints is the primary issue of making funding judgements based on
content.  Walter Berns reports that thanks to Congress, the NEA has the
impossible duty of distinguishing between art and obscenity, and thanks to
the arts community, it is forbidden to distinguish between art and trash
(2).  An attempt to do either of these provokes a legal battle with civil
libertarians which can be difficult to resolve, and could only be done so by
the courts because they can inflict punishment in the form of withholding
funds or forbidding public display of an artist's work.  The Independent
Commission on the NEA made this view semi-official in its recent report to
Congress:  "Congress, as it said, may refuse to fund works of art, but not
because it views their content as obscene, or objectionable, or dangerous." 
One constitutional lawyer put it aptly when he testified, "the First
Amendment does not allow Congress to pick and choose who gets money
and who doesn't" (Berns 2).     
	Fuel for the fire is often provided by visual artists when they tell us
that the purposes and intent of art is to shock, which means to shock the
bourgeoisie, or the middle class.  As Andy Warhol said, "Nothing is more
bourgeoisie than to be afraid to look bourgeois" (Berns 4).  The NEA uses
this tactic when it funds whatever bubbles up from the art community,
which becomes more and more extreme out of necessity.  In setting out to
shock the bourgeoisie, artists succeed only in shocking some members of
Congress.  
	The previous example illustrates how the public participates in its
own so-called corruption of taste, and the artist's role as co-dependent on
his or her audience.  Today's audience, just as many audiences past,
appears to have quite a taste for violence and sex, which are centrally
controversial themes of some visual artists.  These artists have simply
understood the devices that will be effective to get the attention of the
public (Berns 4).  Pablo Picasso, a man generally regarded as one of the
greatest modern painters describes our situation as follows:
		In art the mass of the people no longer seek consolation and
		exaltation, but those who are refined, rich, unoccupied ...
		seek what is new, strange ... scandalous.  I, myself have
		satisfied these masters and critics with all the changing
		oddities which have passed through my head, and the less
		they understood me, the more they admired me.  By amusing
		myself with all these games ... I became famous ... and fame
		means sales.  I am only a public entertainer who has
		understood his times and exploited them ... mine is a bitter
		confession but it has the merit of being sincere.  (Berns 5)
	The above historical example indirectly proves another point, that
the concept of what is "great art" is constantly changing.  Tradition has so
often viewed new and fresh ideas as a threat to received standards of
quality and, morality as indicated earlier.  These cries have included the
"decadent" Impressionism of the 1870s, the "godless" Matisses and
Duchamps of the 1913 Armory Show or the "Jack the Dripper" description
of Jackson Pollock (Davis 9).  All of these examples show the evolutionary
nature of the art world, as Tom Peters' statement summarizes, "Innovation
is continuous" (10). 
	The paradox here actually reinforces the argument to keep the
NEA.  A democracy thrives on dissent, and this is the message of Gordon
S. Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution.  Wood reminds us
that the Declaration of Independence is the purest example of the cultural-
complaint genre.  Nearly every known racial and ethnic group among us
has probably at some time complained, demonstrated, published pamphlets
and made insurgent art, often with a good cause behind it.  Douglas Davis
puts art that is mistakenly under attack into sound perspective when he
says, "The revisionist art and history now flowing from the hands of
whites, blacks, feminists, gays, Latinos and Asian-Americans does not
threaten, or claim to supplant, high-modernism.  Rather, it offers
important information neglected by earlier artists and writers" (9).
	In economic and political terms the world has practically turned
itself inside-out, and avant-gardism and unrest in art coincides with these
events.  Changes in the content of art are based on the society that
generates both those who produce the art and those who buy it.  It can not
be assumed for the contemporary arts and humanities to stand sedate in
the middle of great societal changes.  We must examine where our cultural
institutions are headed right now in order to construct an effective cultural
policy, which may mean adjusting the categories, methods, and goals of the
Endowments, but clearly does not rationalize simply getting rid of them
(Davis 11).   Most evident are the useful opportunities that these grants
can provide, which we will lose if funding is obliterated. 
	There is an urgent need to further promote a public awareness of
the value and vulnerability of our artistic heritage.  Much that we take for
granted in our culture may be lost.  Glen T. Dixon asks us to imagine a
world without its treasured paintings, buildings, music, dance and drama
from the past.  Books like George Orwell's 1984 have indeed warned us of 
a barren future where, "as we destroy the physical world, cultural values
are lost, self-expression is stifled and even language loses its meaning" (14). 
	A critical place to begin are the elementary and secondary
educational classrooms.  All too often the arts have ended up as a kind of
decorative appendage to education.  There has been a tendency for
creativity to be so closely associated with the arts that they have been seen
as discrete and special areas, separate from more ordinary, routine
activities of the school curriculum.  The result of this is that classes in the
expressive arts are transferred to a peripheral position, offered to children
as a diversion from the real business of schooling (Dixon 13).  
	Glen Dixon continues to explain that increasing the range of artistic
experiences to children, which has generally been narrow, constitutes one
path to integrating the arts into the basic curriculum.  The recognition
that children need opportunities to create and to interpret in a variety of
ways, as well as time to respond to the arts is one which may facilitate a
broader approach to the value of the arts in schools.  Through this
personal involvement and response children are more able to develop
critical thinking skills (14). 
	Some other cultures exemplify the meaning and intrinsic value of
art in their everyday lives, which as Americans we overlook.  By choosing
exemplars from a variety of cultures, presented as culturally relative, not
simply to trigger purely aesthetic experiences, we could make the arts
more accessible and democratic.  Maybe more importantly, better inclusion
of social context would more closely align the arts with other areas such as
history and geography (Dixon 13).
	Senator Nancy Kassebaum agreed with the emphasis on education
to bolster the arts cause at a National Council on the Arts meeting in May
1995.  She says that if study of the arts is not a part of the elementary and
secondary curriculum, maintenance for the arts will not come later.  She
said we must also build an understanding and develop a comfort level for
the many people who do not relate to the arts (Gee 2).  Public lack of a
connection with the arts may be tied back to the way in which artists and
art organizations must mutate in order to appease the critics.  Constance
Gee explains that communication is a part of the problem because of arts
educators' inability to communicate precisely how the arts serve the public
interest to many of our fellow citizens, and to the politicians and elected
officials who represent them.  Gee writes, "It demands for the first time in
history that people with knowledge take responsibility for making
themselves understood by people who do not have the same knowledge
base" (7).
	Appreciation for the arts must come for their own sake as well as
for their capacity as a means to reinforce other fields.  This means
acknowledging, celebrating, and cultivating the utilitarian aspects of art in
order to secure a place in society for making, presenting, and learning
about art.  We want those around us to broaden their understanding of
the meaning and significance of art, yet we must be careful not to relay the
message that their current comprehension, enjoyment, and valuing of the
arts are simplistic, all wrong, or inadequate.  That is, we need to be
sensitive and respectful of the ways in which the arts are valued by a
majority of Americans (Hanna 8-9). 
	Furthermore, the arts community, including patrons and public as
well as creators, must learn to act effectively and in concert.  This requires
a willingness to learn bipartisan political persuasion (Davis 17).  If arts
organizations choose to devote a substantial part of their efforts to the
project of education, they will find themselves part of a larger, stronger
coalition.  The education lobbies can be powerful allies to help obtain the
fundamental needs of the arts that we are on the brink of losing, which are
funding and audiences, and gain a vast majority of Americans' attention
(Gee 11).                     
	Most of us cannot nor should agree on what art is worthless
garbage and what we feel makes a contribution; however, we must support
artists' right to produce it.  We do not have to give regard to controversial
or so-called bad artists, but we must allow them to do their work if we
wish to back artists whom we are in favor of.  Not to mention the fact that
these definitions of good and bad are subject to debate and will continue to
be debated over time as history is made.  Projects funded federally have
the capacity to record our culture in a way that no other media can. 
Certainly appropriate distribution of NEA funds and the issue of abusing
them raises concerns.  But simple elimination of them is the worst
approach to the controversy.  Overall, the goal should be to give new
artists opportunities that they normally would not have, and the quality or
validity of their work will manifest itself if given the initial chance to be
promoted.  Gordon S. Wood summarizes, "Even those opinions that were
false, scandalous and malicious ... ought to be allowed, as Jefferson put it
... to stand as monuments to the safety with which opinion may be
tolerated ... where reason is left free" (Davis 8).  


Works Cited
Berns, Walter.  "Saving the NEA; National Endowment for the Arts."   National 
	Review Nov. 1990.  LEXIS/NEXIS IAC 09079890.
Burd, Stephen.  "Senate Approves 30% Cut for Arts and Humanities, but Votes to 
	Keep Both National Endowments Alive."  The Chronicle of Higher Education
	41.49 (1995): 28.
Davis, Douglas.  "Multicultural Wars; Debate Over Arts Funding."  Art in
	America Feb. 1995.  LEXIS/NEXIS IAC 16607655.
Dixon, Glen T., and Graeme Chalmers.  "The Expressive Arts in Education."  
	Childhood Education 67.1 (1990): 12-17. 
Gee, Constance Bumgarner.  "The Religion of Art and Art of Righteousness."  
	Arts Education Policy Review Jan 1996.  
	LEXIS/NEXIS IAC 16531006.
Hanna, Judith Lynne.  "Arts Education and the Transition to Work."  Arts
	Education Policy Review Nov 1994.  LEXIS/NEXIS IAC 16531006.  
Reynolds, William Bradford.  "First Amendment."  ABA Journal June
	1991:  36.
Skolnik, Rayna.  "Arts & Cultural Organizations Seek Increased Private Support 
	as Public Funding Dwindles."  Public Relations Journal  Feb. 1992:  
	18-21.  
Wells, Robert Marshall.  "Panel Quickly Approves Bill To Phase Out Arts Funding."  
	Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report53 (1995):  1331.

Second Place/1996/Research Writing

BULLIES AND THEIR VICTIMS

Martha J. Barlow
Instructor:  Bill Ransom




 
	When I was in elementary school, I had the misfortune of
experiencing what I now consider to be more than my share of bullying.  I
was very shy and introverted, mainly because of a difficult home situation. 
My teachers loved me; they all assumed that I was just a good girl who
always did what I was told.  To my classmates, these two factors were
enough to classify me as different.  
	From third grade until my first year in high school, I had no
friends.  I was the class scapegoat, and every new day at school was a
nightmare for me.  I was taunted, teased, excluded from activities, and
hated because I was the so-called teacher's pet.  My grades were C's at
best, even though I knew that I could do better.  I was already in trouble
with them, I didn't need good grades to add to the problem.  
	Neither my parents nor my teachers did anything to help.  When
my mother found out the problem, the first piece of advise she gave me
was to ignore it; the other kids would leave me alone in time.  When that
didn't work, she told me to defend myself and to fight if I had to. 
However, that didn't work either, because if I made any attempt to stand
up to my classmates, the problem just got worse.  Not only that, but it's
very hard to fight off twenty-nine people at the same time.  
	Even though I never told my teachers what was going on, it's hard
for me to believe that they couldn't see the pain that I was going through. 
Most of the bullying I encountered occurred in the classroom while they
were present.  
	Fortunately, I was befriended by a few new students during my first
year of high school.  My original classmates continued to dislike me;
however, instead of teasing me as they had in elementary school, they
completely ignored me.  This was a relief, but I would have preferred a
friendlier atmosphere.
	When I decided on bullying as a topic for this paper, I reflected on
my own childhood and became curious as to how bad the problem had
become since I was in school.  My research led me to scores of newspaper
and magazine articles on the subject.  Most of the articles dealt with
children who had been teased, tortured, humiliated, or beaten so badly
that the consequences were serious and sometimes fatal.  One of these
articles told of a girl in sixth grade who was taunted daily by her
classmates.  Eventually, she and her parents were forced to move to a new
neighborhood thirty miles away to escape the abuse (Easton).
	And her case is not unique.  Consider the accounts of two boys who
decided to take more extreme measures to end the painful bullying they
were experiencing daily:
		On the first day of spring in 1993, honor student Curtis
		Taylor took his seat in the eighth-grade classroom he had
		grown to hate in the Oak Street Middle School in Burlington,
		Iowa.  For three years, other boys had been tripping him in
		the hallways, knocking thongs out of his hands.  They'd even
		banged his head into a locker.  His bicycle was vandalized
		twice.  Kids even kicked the cast on his broken ankle, and in
		front of his classmates, some guys poured chocolate milk
		down the front of his sweatshirt.  Curtis was so upset he
		went to a school counselor.  He blamed himself for the other
		kids not liking him.  That night, Curtis went to a family
		bedroom, took out a gun, and shot himself to death . . .
		Months later in Cherokee County, Georgia, fifteen-year-old
		Brian Head grew tired of the same teasing and deeds.  The
		denouement was only slightly more remarkable.  He shot
		himself to death--in front of his classmates.  He walked to the
		front of the classroom and pulled the trigger.  The Georgia
		death came on the heels of five bullying-related suicides in a
		small town in New Hampshire.  (Estroff)
	I went on to read several other accounts of bully-related suicides
among young people in the United Sates, England, Japan, Canada, and
Sweden.  I asked myself how these kids' problems became so big that their
only perceived escape was suicide.  Someone--their teachers, parents, or
guidance counselors--had to have seen or heard something.  I wondered if
anyone would ever come up with a solution for the countless number of
children who are having to deal with bullying, and I finally came to the
conclusion that the only way to rid our schools of this age-old phenomenon
is to utilize an intervention program developed specifically for the
problem.
	I believe that most people have seen or experienced some form of
bullying during their school years.  However, the problem continues to be
largely ignored.  "One reason (for this) may be that bullying is considered
by many adults to be a normal part of growing up.  It has always been
with us, and it will always be with us" (Barone 105).  Another theory is
given by the Journal of Social Psychology:
	It has been proposed that school itself commonly provides an ethos
in which tough minded, insensitive attitudes towards others are inculcated
and reinforced      . . . it is seen as desirable to be dominant,
independent, competitive, ambitious,    aggressive, never to cry, and
never to show emotional weakness.  (Rigby and     Slee 617)
	Daniel Olweus, professor of psychology at the University of Bergen,
Norway, is widely acknowledged as a leading authority on the subject of
bullying.  During his extensive research in this area, he found that one out
of seven students in a Norwegian nationwide survey were involved in
bully/victim problems.  Corresponding analyses of Swedish students and
students in Sheffield, England showed that the levels of bully/victim
problems were higher than those of the Norwegian study (Olwens,
"Bullying" 13-14).  Considering these statistics and the previously
mentioned newspaper and magazine articles, I believe that the United
States has a problem significant enough to merit large-scale changes in our
school systems.  Furthermore, Olweus discovered that "roughly forty
percent of bullied students in the primary grades and almost sixty percent
in secondary/junior high school reported that teachers tried to put a stop
to it only once in a while or almost never"  ("Bullying" 20).  This gives
credit to the above theory that bullying is not only a tolerated act, but it
may be a widely accepted on, as well.
	Before discussing a workable intervention program, I would first
like to clarify what is meant by the term bullying.  I will also discuss the
characteristics of children classified as bullies and victims.  The following
is the definition of bullying as per Olweus:
		... a student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is
		exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the
		part of one or more other students ... in order to use the
		term bullying, there should also be an imbalance of strength
		(an asymmetric power relationship).  The student who is
		exposed to the negative actions has difficulty defending
		him/herself and is somewhat helpless against the student or
		students who harass.  (Rigby and Slee  1173)
	There are two types of bullying: direct and indirect.  Direct bullying
occurs when there are relatively open attacks on the victim. In contrast,
indirect bullying includes social isolation and intentional exclusion from
groups (Olweus, "Bullying" 10).  Although direct bullying is more visible
and thus easier to recognize than indirect bullying, the latter should be
taken just as seriously as the former.
	In both cases, one must understand that many of the myths people
hold about bullying are untrue. One popular theory asserts, for example,
that underneath their tough exterior, bullies are self-conscious and lack
confidence. Although this may be true for some, experts say most bullies
do not fit this stereotype. According to Olweus, bullies "are not anxious or
insecure and they typically have a relatively positive view of themselves
(average or better-than-average self esteem" ("Bullying" 59).  Also contrary
to popular conception, bullies seldom act alone.  Usually they are
supported by small groups of friends--termed "passive bullies" by Olweus. 
These supporters "participate in bullying but do not usually take the
initiative" (34).  Interestingly, this support serves to heighten the bully's
already high self-esteem.
	Although bullies typically have positive views of themselves,
"findings on leadership among peers seem to show consistently fewer
leadership qualities for bullies (Hoover and Hazler 213).  Additionally,
they are more likely to have problems with the law as adults than their
less aggressive peers:
		Research supporting this has been produced by Leonard
		Eron, Lowell Huesmann, and others who conducted a
		generation-long study of 870 bullies from ages 8-30. they
		found that young bullies have about a 25 percent chance of
		ending up with a criminal record--five times the rate for
		other children. (Greenbaum 23)
	Olweus agrees on this point:
		In my own follow-up studies, we have also found strong
		support for this assumption.  Approximately 60 percent of
		boys who were characterized as bullies in grades 6-9 had at
		least one conviction by the age of 24.  Even more
		dramatically, as much as 35-45 percent of former bullies had
		three or more convictions by this age ... .  ("Bullying" 36)
	Furthermore, studies indicate that bullies tend to be more popular
with their classmates than other aggressive children who are not bullies:
		It is possible that bullies do not receive as much
		condemnation for their behavior as do other aggressive
		children because they do not pick on everyone
		indiscriminately.  Many believe that bullies reserve their
		aggression for students who are weak, unpopular, unwilling,
		or unable to retaliate.  (Hoover and Hazler 213)
	Not only are they aggressive toward peers, but typical bullies are
often aggressive toward parents, teachers and siblings (Olweus,
"Educators" 32).  Depending on their age and physical strength, they can
also be frightening to adults (Olweus, "Bullying" 59).  This may be one
reason why some teachers do nothing to stop bullying when they encounter
it.
	Whereas bullies tend to be self-assured, aggressive and hang out in
packs; victims are of a different mold altogether.  The myth that victims of
bullying exhibit a single, external quality--such as hair color, freckles,
obesity--that attracts the bully's attention is untrue.  According to Olweus,
"research on two different groups of boys did not ... provide any support
for this explanation ("Bullying" 30).  Although a bully probably will make
use of an external deviation when picking on a victim, that deviation is
usually not the cause the bullying (31).  
	Olweus characterizes victims in the following way:
		Victims of bullying are found to be typically more anxious
		and insecure than students in general, often being cautious,
		sensitive, shy, and quiet.  They have a negative view of
		themselves and their situation and often look upon
		themselves as failures and feel stupid, ashamed and
		unattractive.  They are lonely and abandoned at school, and
		their behavior and attitude seem to signal to others that they
		are insecure, worthless individual who will not retaliate if
		attacked. ("Educators" 32)
	Victims, however, are not all created equal.  The above definition
best describes "passive" victims. In contrast, provocative victims "often
have problems with concentration and behave in ways that may cause
irritation and tension around them ("Bullying" 33).  Although there are
fewer provocative victims than passive ones, in both cases, victims remain
victims for long periods of time, often for years ("Bullying" 28).  This long-
term abuse can lead to distressing results in adulthood.  "When bullied
children grow up, they may be vulnerable to anxiety, depression, and
loneliness (Dawkins).
	Armed with this information, we should have no question in our
minds whether bullying is a problem in our schools.  However, solving this
problem requires more than well-intentioned advice from parents and
teachers.  I think that the biggest obstacle we must overcome if we are to
implement an intervention of program is a change of attitude.  Adults--
even teachers--too often blame the victim for his/her persecution.  For
example, one mother recently reported that a teacher, confronted with
complaints about a bully, replied that the victim "also has bad points"
(Susuki).  This is a widely held attitude toward victims with which I
disagree.  Most victims are at fault only because they have not learned the
social skills necessary to fend off the attacks they face.  Clearly, they do
not deserve the abuse they face on account of such a lack.  However, as
long as misguided attitudes blame the victim, any kind of intervention
program will be useless. 
	However, even if one agrees with Olweus that it is "a child's
fundamental democratic right to attend school without being bullied," the
question remains of what characteristics an effective program should
possess.  Olweus asserts the goals of such a program should be as follows:
		--to reduce as much as possible existing bully/victim
		problems in and out of the school setting, {and} ultimately to
		eliminate the problems altogether.
		--to prevent the development of new problems.
		--to achieve better peer relations at school.
		--to create conditions that make it possible for both bullies
		and victims to get along and function better in and out of the
		school setting. ("Bullying" 65-66)
	Olweus adds that subgoals of the program should include a drive to
accomplish the following:
		--to increase awareness of and knowledge about the problem.
		--to achieve active involvement of teachers and parents.
		--to develop clear rules against bullying behavior.
		--to provide support and protection for the victims
		("Educators" 33-34).
	A good starting point for implementing a school-based intervention
program is "to assist the potential for violence and scapegoating in school
(Hoover and Hazler 217).  One way to accomplish this is through surveys,
such as the one used by Olweus during his Norwegian research.  The
survey was "designed to give (anonymous) information on the frequency of
bully/victim problems in the schools and on the reaction of teachers and
parents, including their awareness of the problem and their readiness to
interfere" ("Educators" 32-33).  One of the major goals of the survey is to
reduce the lack of awareness of problems at particular schools.  Although
an intervention program can be started at any grade level, experts
recommend it is best to smart in the primary grades.  "Because children in
primary schools are generally more pro-victim than older children,
interventions to reduce the level of bullying in schools appear more likely
to succeed at this level" (Rigby and Slee 626).
	When implementing an intervention program, teachers and parents
can take measures at the school, class, and individual levels ("Bullying"
69).  For example, schools could hold a conference day for the principal,
teachers, nurse, counselors and for selected parents and students.  The
goals of such a conference day would be to create both an overall plan to
deal with bullying and a commitment to that plan, Olweus notes (70). 
Another measure that could be taken at the school level would be to set up
telephone hotline hours to field calls from anyone concerned about bullying
(74).  Study groups in parent-teacher associations could aid the school's
efforts to change attitudes about bullying.  "If teachers and parents react
in a similar way toward bullying," Olweus notes, "the possibility of
obtaining desirable results will be considerably increased (80).
	At the class level, the most import measure to be taken involves
setting up specific rules against bullying.  Olweus says the following model
should be taken into consideration:
		--We shall not bully other students.
		--We shall try to help students who are bullies.
		--We shall make it a point to include students who          
		become easily left out.  ("Bullying" 82)
	Before expecting these rules to be followed, people in charge should
make it clear what kinds of behavior will not be allowed.  Once the rules
have been set, they should be enforced every time a deviation occurs. 
Sanctions "should cause some discomfort without being hostile" (86).  Also,
generous praise should be given to students who refuse to participate in
bullying and who intervene in problem situations.
	Another way of combating bullying at the class level is by
cooperative learning.  As Hoover and Hazler note, "Periodic reorganizing
of the curriculum and instructional methods that promote group work
interactions among students is the essence of cooperative goal structuring
... such a system tends to encourage pro-social mixing between groups that,
under other circumstances, remain separate" (216).  For example, teachers
could organize students into groups and give each one a task, being careful
not to place bullies and victims together--at least not at first.  Instead, the
bully should be placed in a group of strong, well-adjusted students who
will not accept victimization ("Bullying," Olweus 91).  Once the bully's
behavior changes, he/she could be placed with a group with his/her victim. 
"This presupposes that the victim now has one or more allies in the group
who are willing to take his/her side in possible attacks (91).
	Not every effort to deal with a bully has to be part of a formal
system.  Individual measures can include talks with the bully, victim, and
parents.  The use of peers who are not involved in bullying can be
invaluable (106).  One way this can be accomplished is to introduce a peer
tutoring system--an activity that not only has an educational benefit but
allows teachers to plan positive interactions among bullies, their victims
and well-adjusted students (Hoover and Hazler 216).
	The effects of an intervention program can be astounding. 
Consider the results of Olweus's program:
		The preliminary results, based on some 2,400 students from
		42 schools in Bergen, Norway, clearly indicate positive
		effects. the frequency of bullying problems in these schools
		decreased by 50 percent or more in the two years following
		the campaign. In addition, antisocial behavior in general,
		such as theft, vandalism, and truancy, showed a marked drop
		during those years. Finally student satisfaction with school
		life increased at the same time. ("Educators" 34)
	From these results, Olweus draws the following conclusion: "If all
primary and junior high/secondary schools in Norway used the
intervention program the way it was used in Bergen, the number of
students involved in bully/victim problems would be reduced to 40,000 or
less in a relatively short period ("Bullying" 114).  It is clear, then, from
Olweus's study and the findings of other researchers, if a program such as
this were to be implemented in our schools early enough, we could avoid
not only bullying but other forms of violence as well.
	Today, I still find it hard to think about the way I was treated in
elementary school.  The pain is still there, and I feel it every time I am
with a new group of people.  Sometimes I wonder if any of my past
classmates remember all the cruelties they forced upon me and if they feel
remorse.  I hope none of them have turned into adult criminals because no
one did anything to intervene in their youth.  I am convinced that had
there been an intervention program applied at my school, I would not have
had to fear every new day.  
________________________________________________________________
                                Works Cited
Barone, Frank J.  "Bullying in School:  It Doesn't Have To Happen."  
	NASSP Bulletin  (Mar. 1995) :  104-109.
Deaconess, Judith.  "Bullying In Schools:  Doctor's Responsibilities." 
	British  Medical Journal  (Feb. 1995) :  274.
Easton, Nina J.  "The Law Of The School Yard."  Los Angeles Times  2 
	Oct. 1994:  n.p.
Greenbaum, Stuart.  "What Can We Do About Schoolyard Bullying?"  
	Principal  (Nov. 1987) :  21-24.
Hoover, John and, Richard J. Hazler.  "Bullies and Victims."  Elementary 
	School Guidance and Counseling  (Feb. 1991) :  212-219.
Marano, Hara Estroff.  "Big Bad Bullies."  Star Tribune  31 Dec. 1995: 
	n.p.
Olweus, Dan.  Bullying At School:  What We Know and What We Can 
	Do.  Oxford:  Blackwell, 1994.
---.  "Bullying In The Schools:  How Educators Can Help."  Education 
	Digest  (Mar. 1988) :  30-34.
---.  "Annotation:  Bullying At School:  Basic Facts and Effects of a School-
	Based Intervention Program."  Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
	and Allied Disciplines  35 (1994) :  1171-1190
Rigby, Ken, and Phillip T. Slee.  "Bullying Among Australian School 
	Children:  Reported Behavior and Attitudes Toward Victims."  
	Journal of Social Psychology  (Oct. 1991) :  615-627.
Suzuki, Miwa.  "Japanese Kids Told to Fight Back Against Bullies."  
	Agence France Presse  4 Feb. 1996: n.p.