Classics
Bullying at School
Bullying at School
Approaches to ethical problems often tend to focus on bettering the symptoms or “side-effects” of the problems rather than its root causes. While adopting this approach can be useful for some situations, it often does little to actually stop the problem from happening in the first place, and may even lead to other problems along the way. This case examines how such approaches can be limited in the case of bullying at school and suggest alternative pathways that attack the problem at its roots.
Dominant Framing of the Problem
Bullying is a concern in many social environments, especially schools. Take the following case as an example (this is a fictional example drawn from real world stories linked below). A young middle school girl lost her hair due to a condition called alopecia. She was regularly bullied at school. Some students called her “ugly” or “baldy,” while others did not want to play with her because they disliked her appearance. She tried wearing wigs, but students often made fun of that too, and tried to pull at it or tear it off. Further, due to peer pressure, those who tried become her friend were also bullied or ostracized for it. Consequently, she has almost no friends at school.
Her parents were concerned that the school is not doing enough to prevent bullying. In response, the school is considering two options. One idea is to set up a counseling service to help children like her cope with bullying. The other is to install cameras to catch instances of bullying so that they can act in the moment, as well as dissuade bullying through student monitoring. What should be done?
Approaches to ethical problems often tend to focus on bettering the symptoms or “side-effects” of the problems rather than its root causes.
Concerns and Considerations
While both the above approaches—counseling services and cameras—have the potential to reduce bullying, they each make problematic assumptions about bullying that can in turn, lead to other problematic consequences. Notably, they both focus on the symptoms of bullying, rather than its roots.
The key assumption behind the counseling service approach is that the problem resides in the individual being bullied (or that the problem is easiest to resolve by focusing on the bullied person). If those who are bullied can stand up for themselves or deal better with being bullied, then they can overcome bullying. This is a problematic assumption as it places the burden of change on those who are the most vulnerable—the victims of bullying—rather than the bullies, the culture of bullying, or the school policies. It makes it seem that bullying is a problem more about one’s “feeling’s being hurt” rather than a problem that can impact one’s mental and physical health and stymie their educational progress. By only acting on the effects of bullying and not its causes, this approach can inadvertently help legitimize bullying and do little to curb it.
On the hand, extensive student monitoring can indeed prevent bullying, but it can also harm students in other ways. The assumption here is that monitoring students can help identifying when and where bullying occurs and allow authorities to act on it. However, this is problematic as constant monitoring can lead to a “chilling effect” where students become hesitant to express themselves, ask risky/probing questions, or take on activities where they are likely to fail.. Even if students are not aware they are being watched (e.g., through hidden cameras), this approach still invades their right to privacy. It is effectively a form of spying that assumes that students cannot be trusted. Both cases can also exacerbate discrimination against students from marginalized communities as they are more likely to be observed with a lens of suspicion and punished than their peers. Further, the data gathered from student surveillance also risks being misused if it gets into the hands of the third-parties who may try to sell it for profit. Overall, this approach attempts to stop bullying by catching it as it happens, rather than identifying its root causes and focusing on those.
Exploring the causes of a problem rather than only its symptoms expands the space of possible creative resolutions in ethics and in design.
Reframing the Problem
Given the concerns associated with the two approaches discussed above, what can one do to curb bullying at school? There are multiple examples of creative approaches taken by teachers and students that help reduce bullying by attacking its various causes, rather than attempting to curb its symptoms. Such approaches often take advantage of the local circumstances and specificities of the problem of bullying rather than take a more standardized or universal approach. Two stories illustrate this approach in relation to bullying that targets students’ baldness.
In one case, a teacher realized that their bald student was being bullied because they were seen as being “different” from the others. Rather than counsel or monitor their students, the teacher decided to have their own head be shaved bald in a show of solidarity with the bald student. This demonstrated to the other students that there is nothing wrong with “being bald” and that bald people are not “different” or “less” than others in any way. Upon learning this, many other students also decided to shave their head and became supportive of their bald peer.
In another case, a nine year old girl with alopecia was being bullied for her condition. She and her teachers realized that the students who bullying her did so because they did not know why she was losing her hair. They believed that her condition was her own fault. Focusing on this issue, the student and her teachers organized an assembly where she gave a presentation on alopecia to her peers in order to educate them about it. “If I have hair or not, I’m still the same person that I’ve always been” she said. This approach not only helped reduce her bullying, but also allowed her to tell her own story (rather than someone standing up for her) in a manner that helped her voice her concerns and maintain her dignity.
While such approaches may not work everywhere, the point here is to illustrate how thinking about the causes of social problems such as bullying is necessary to resolving them. Focusing on the symptoms and developing standardized solutions may help in some cases, but they must be supplemented with a deeper investigation of the issue in relation to the specifics of the situation.
References
https://www.kswo.com/2018/09/24/lawton-girl-with-alopecia-shares-story-about-being-bullied/
https://www.heart.co.uk/news/feelgood/teacher-shaved-head-bullying/
The Heinz Dilemma
The Heinz Dilemma
Most ethics cases are presented in the form of “dilemmas” with clear cut choices in an attempt to “focus” on the core problem. Should we steal or not? Should we prioritize the many over the few? Should we focus on long-term or the short-term gains? The Heinz dilemma is a popular example of this approach. Here we highlight how it can limit our ability to imagine alternate possibilities.
Dominant Framing of the Problem
The Heinz Dilemma (and its variants) are commonly used in ethics courses as a way of inviting students to think about moral dilemmas. One version of the dilemma proceeds as follows: A woman is lying very sick at the hospital. The doctor says that she needs to be given a very rare and expensive drug as soon as possible in order to survive. Her husband Heinz rushes to the drug store to try and buy the drug. But talking with the druggist, he learns that he cannot afford it. He pleads with the druggist to give him the drug arguing that he will pay for it later. However, the druggist refuses stating that they deserve to be paid for creating such a rare drug and cannot just hand it out. If they give it to Heinz for free, then soon everyone in a similar situation will come asking for it. Heinz tries to gather money from his friends and relatives, but he still cannot afford the drug. He steps outside and paces around anxiously.
It is now near closing time. Heinz realizes that he can break into the store by picking the lock on the door once the druggist leaves. He is now pondering a dilemma: Should he steal the drug? Or should he let his wife die?
Different ethical theories are usually applied to help students think about the situation. A utilitarian approach might argue that Heinz should break into the store as the happiness that he and his wife will gain by doing so outweighs the risk of being put in prison (as well as the sadness/anger of the druggist). A Kantian approach might argue that stealing in principle is morally wrong and therefore Heinz has no right to break into the store, regardless of the consequences.
Most ethics cases are presented in the form of “dilemmas” with clear cut choices in an attempt to “focus” on the core problem
Concerns and Considerations
By limiting the possible options available, the dilemma attempts to bring to focus the core problem here: when is it justifiable to steal? While this can help students understand the value of ethical theories to such dilemma-like situations, this approach has two key concerns.
First, this approach relies on a predetermined and reductive framing of the situation. Should Heinz steal or not? Real-life situations are rarely ever reducible to such dilemmas. Instead, they are rich with possible alternative pathways. Focusing on such reductive dilemmas can limit ethical reasoning to a theoretical exercise, rather than a practice grounded in the specificities of the situation.
Second, the dilemma legitimizes both choices as being equal and valid. Stealing can be justified on the basis of one theory, while not stealing on the basis of another. Such “both-siding” can inadvertently lead to relativistic thinking, giving the illusion that ethics is a purely subjective exercise. In practice however, this is again rarely the case. The goal ethical inquiry is not to provide justification for all choices, but to help one investigate the situation for more information so that a concrete decision can be made. This involves strategies such as developing more nuanced criteria for examining the situation, researching more about possible outcomes, learning about perspectives one may not have considered earlier and so on. The predetermined legitimization of choices in such dilemmas is precisely what ethical reasoning aims to dissolve.
Thinking of real situations as dilemmas forecloses possibilities that can serve as practical resolutions
Reframing the Problem
There are several possibilities foreclosed by such a reductive framing. Can the husband negotiate a payment installment plan with the druggist? Can the doctors find a temporary solution to delay death until the medicine can be obtained? Can he steal the medicine and the medicine seller be compensated by insurance? By focusing just on the two choices: should he steal it or not, the Heinz dilemma limits our ways of thinking about the situation and forecloses options. Drawing on the capacious space of possibilities, the problem can be reframed in several ways: “What can Heinz’s friends do to help him? How can the justice system prevent such price gouging? What other modes of payment can the doctor be persuaded to accept?” and so on. Probing the specificities, perspectives, uncertainties, and structures underlying the situation is necessary to make an informed ethical decision of the way forward, not limiting options and legitimizing them all equally.