Strict anti-bullying laws could actually make matters worse -

Strict anti-bullying laws could actually make matters worse

The notion that bullying can be legislated away is fanciful at best

Strict anti-bullying laws could actually make matters worse

Getty Images

Schoolyard bullies have been around for as long as there’ve been school yards. Could a new law finally make them go away?

Ontario recently introduced legislation to rid schools of bullies. The bill mandates student groups to encourage tolerance, imposes reporting requirements and sets suspensions and expulsions for students caught bullying. Quebec has a similar law pending. Alberta is also contemplating legislative changes regarding bullying.

All this activity stems from genuine concern about the impact of bullying; several recent teenaged suicides have been blamed on physical or online bullying by peers. Such cases are undeniably heartbreaking and enraging. Given the depth of public response to these tragedies, and the zero-tolerance approach to crime favoured by many politicians, we’ll likely see more anti-bullying laws.

And yet there’s good reason to doubt a strict law-and-order approach will make this eternal torment go away. It could make it worse. It’s proper to want to eliminate bullying from schools, but the solution cannot be found in any legislature.

A decade-long anti-bullying crusade in the United States is instructive. Following the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, an event blamed partly on the bullying of the two shooters, 48 states enacted strict anti-bully laws. Each mandates tough investigating, reporting and punishment procedures.

Despite such an aggressive approach, however, the problem has not disappeared. The U.S. Department of Justice warns the entire school system is suffering a “bullying pandemic.” Last March, President Barack Obama held an anti-bullying conference at the White House. An entire industry of anti-bullying consultants and charities has flowered. But after 13 years of attention and legislation, everyone seems to agree it’s getting worse. Something has gone very wrong.

New York-based school psychologist Israel Kalman is a gadfly to the current anti-bullying movement and its focus on a legalistic approach. “Anti-bullying laws can’t possibly work,” he warns in an interview. “Teaching that every incident of bullying is intolerable and requiring schools to investigate each alleged act simply increases the hostility and escalates the bullying,” he observes. “Let’s face it, children aren’t angels.”

An Educational Psychology study reveals a clear inverse relationship between tough anti-bullying procedures and non-physical bullying. “Schools with the most detailed and comprehensive anti-bullying policies had a higher incidence of relational bullying and victimization behaviour,” the authors reported. New laws may reduce obvious physical abuse at schools, but this in turn leads to a greater prevalence of covert, non-physical aggression, as witnessed by the sudden growth in cyberbullying.

Another problem lies in vague definitions. Quebec’s new bill states “bullying means any direct or indirect behaviour, comment, act or gesture, including through the use of social media, intended to injure, hurt, oppress, intimidate or ostracize.” Combining criminal assault, eye-rolling and rumour-spreading into one catch-all offence is hopelessly overbroad. Obviously any action that causes physical harm must be dealt with quickly and seriously. But existing laws cover this now. Plus, nearly every school already has a code of conduct mandating respectful student behaviour, and schools have the means to investigate and punish those who break it.

The proposed Ontario law further defines bullying as a “real or perceived power imbalance.” But power imbalances—in life, at work or school—are a fact of nature and can never be legislated away. This sort of sweeping categorization simply encourages over-reporting of bullying, often with unintended results. For example, a 2006 Texas survey found half of all elementary teachers should be considered bullies.

Finally, most bullies report being bullied themselves; establishing who is a victim and who deserves to be punished may be murkier than any law contemplates.

Given current laws already prohibit physical abuse, Kalman recommends tackling name-calling and other non-physical bullying with techniques borrowed from child psychology rather than law enforcement. He teaches kids to solve bully problems by themselves instead of relying on adult interventions. Such an educational approach seems a more appropriate use of school resources. As for cyberbullying, he notes this typically occurs outside school and should be considered the domain of parents, who have a responsibility to equip their children with necessary coping skills before allowing them unlimited access to the Internet.

No one can minimize the trauma that might cause a teen to take his or her own life. And almost everyone who’s attended school has a tale of their own playground nemesis. But any effort to reduce bullying must be grounded in reality and common sense, rather than the fanciful notion that it will go away if we just pass a new law.


Strict anti-bullying laws could actually make matters worse

  1. That you can’t legislate compliance is potentially an argument against any law.

    Your (the ‘editors’, that is) conclusion that legislation will make matters worse is unsupported. Is it not equally possible that the greater instance of reported bullying is a direct result of the greater attention and recognition these laws bring to the problem?

    What’s the alternative being proposed? Bury our heads in the sand and then congratulate ourselves because we no longer see a growing problem?

    • It cannot be said for all laws. There are enforceable laws and there are unenforceable laws. Anti-bullying laws fall into the second category. The attempt to enforce unenforceable laws generally causes more harm than good.

      • I don’t believe that an  anti-bullying law is unenforceable.  If students who bullied were suspended from school for a period of time into the care of their parents, we would see a sharp decline in the bullying behavior.  Parents defend their children’s behaivor until it impacts on them and they start having to deal with childcare issues due to unacceptable behavior.  Socializing at school is a privilege, not a right.  If you cannot socialize appropriately (without infringing on another’s sense of wellbeing) then you lose your right to socialize with others…you spend your break with the principal or you are suspended.
        It occurs to me that parents of this generation of children are being bullied themselves due to a complete lack of disciplining of children.  No wonder they think it is okay for their kids to go on and bully other children. 

        • “…If students who bullied were suspended from school for a period of time into the care of their parents, we would see a sharp decline in the bullying behavior…”

          I doubt that very much. In my experience, the reason a child becomes a “bully” in the first place is often related to their home environment.

          I knew a bully in school who got beat up by his dad everytime he got in trouble in school.

          Did that stop the kid’s bullying? Nope, made it way worse in fact, even if more subtle.

          What I worry about is at-risk kids getting crushed two ways between their terrible parents and a system focused on “getting tough”, resulting in a whole generational segment of adults who trust nothing and no one.

          Children are children. If NO ONE is going to stand up for them and actually teach them proper behaviour with understanding and compassion, then who the hell will?

          Bullying is not best solved by authoritarian nonsense, it is best solved by intelligent conflict resolution and that has to involve the parents.

          We should all know better by now frankly: parents raise children. If there’s a problem with the child, 99% of the time you can trace it to the parents.

          • Phil, alot has changed since you and I were in school….it isn’t so much physical bullying as “mean girl” nastiness.  I am sure the parents are responsible somewhat but not for the reasons you think…there are absolutely no limits set….if you want to crap on someone else to make yourself happy, have at it. 
            It is the way of our culture, do anything that makes you happy, who cares about anyone else. 

        •  Children should be taught why and how we should respect each other, and that respect is not given, but earned.

          You can’t enforce morality: that’s one of the basic rules of law.

          However, you can teach kids why the “I’m the adult, so I say so” rule does not work. Respect is earned through actions, not from arbitrary rules like that.

          The solution is to show that there is support for everyone, not just bullies. Anyone can come in and have a talk. It’s sort of like those university campus counselling centres: games, books, magazines. A chill-out place. However, it’s important not to make it seem patronizing.

          Don’t just blame the parents. Children are not blank slates. They have their own brains, their own minds, their own personalities. Everybody is responsible for their actions. When people (kids and adults alike) believe that “my mom will stand up for me”, they lose their sense of accountability and feel like they can do whatever they want.

          Suspensions and expulsions are useless: that’s telling kids that they’re garbage, so why should we waste time with them? When a kid perceives that they are seen as garbage, how does that motivate them to change? Society has kicked them out, their parents may be too busy or may feel that they are garbage as well. They end up in the dustbin of society that works at McD’s all their life, or decide to do illegal activities to survive. It’s a cycle of destructive pessimism, and then we wonder, “Why can’t these kids just get a life?”

          Because we think suspensions and expulsions work. Because we think telling someone that they are garbage would motivate them to change for the better?

          Please, bullies have minds and hearts too.

      • What about the proposed Ontario law is unenforceable – specifically?

        The article above states that it “mandates student groups to encourage tolerance, imposes reporting requirements and sets suspensions and expulsions for students caught bullying”

        This is a pretty trite summary to begin with – but even more baffling is that it goes on to characterize this as an ‘aggressive approach’ and a ‘strict law and order approach’, which is equated with a ‘zero tolerance agenda’.

        If you read the Bill, I’m not sure how you could come away with that impression.

        It doesn’t even speak to specific discipline – only mandates that the minister establish appropriate and escalating disciplinary measures for students who have been found to be engaged in innappropriate behaviour, including bullying. This isn’t actually a large change from the current wording of the act (which requires the minister, broadly, to set down disciplinary policies). Most of the changes to this section are actually to mandate programs to identify and resolve problems and programs to support students who have been victimized. If anything, the Act becomes less focussed on discipline as a result of this change.

        Most of the Bill is about establishing programs and priorties within the schools, empowering students to promote inclusiveness and fight intolerance, and getting information from the students on the extent of the problem.

        • Very simple. You and I are kids in school. I don’t like the way you treat me, so I tell the school authorities and they start investigating you for what you did to me. Is that going to make you like me? Is it going to make you like the school? Plus, our parents must be involved, too. Each set of parents wants the school on their side, so the hostilities escalate.

          If these laws worked, we wouldn’t need to toughen them up over and over again. But everyone loves the idea of an anti-bullying law, so when we discover the existing laws don’t work, we think the solution is to make them tougher.

          If laws could get rid of bullying, government would have started with government anti-bullying laws, for bullying is rampant in government. And then it would have moved to the home, for there is much more frequent and serious bullying going on within the family.

          • If you and I are kids in school and you don’t like the way I treat you – to the point that you’re suicidally depressed – maybe the school needs to investigate me. Maybe my parents should be involved. Maybe I have a problem if the only way for me to ‘like school’ is to be given the freedom to torment my fellow students without fear of discipline.

            Maybe saving your life is the most important thing to do in that case.

          • Ah but you’re mixing the entire spectrum together there aren’t you? Essentially an exercise in reductio ad absurdum really.

            In extreme cases perhaps legislation makes sense, though frankly I think there’s already ample clout in existing criminal law to cover that sort of stuff.

            Unfortunately these legislative initiatives tend to take up too much time and effort and thought, and in practise undermine the adoption of more effective strategies for the bulk of the existing problem, resulting in a one-size-fits-all solution that is often inappropriate.

          • Phil –

            I’m trying to demonstrate that there is a spectrum. It was Mr. (Dr.?) Kallman who tried to reduce the issue to a convenient set of facts (a straw man). I’m saying the issue is broader than he suggests by presenting the opposite extreme.

            He then goes on to a circular argument – that because laws don’t work (note – this is actually his, as yet unsupported, conclusion), and everyone loves bullying laws (a false consensus, demonstrably untrue – both he and the article we’re discussing support the opposite), we think the solution is tougher laws (there is no support for the contention that the proposed law is ‘tougher’ – in fact, as you’ve observed, the alternative may be charges under the criminal code which would be undeniably more harsh than any discipline metted out by school officials), which don’t work (we’re back to the original unsupported premise/conclusion).

            He then turns to argument by analogy to situations that aren’t relevant. Maybe solutions for bullying in government (note: pretty sure most government institutions do have anti-harassment policies) and within families are important, but they’re not what we’re talking about.

            The proposed law is about setting up policies and priorities to address bullying. It says schools must do this, and establishes some boundaries, but it’s not a ‘one size fits all’ solution. It’s about schools promoting and mainstreaming inclusiveness at an institutional level.

          • “I don’t like the way you treat me, so I tell school authorities..”
            Is that what you believe typically happens?  I don’t think so.  It’s more of a case of “I don’t like being constantly harassed, verbally, emotionally and sometimes physically, by you and your five friends. I feel sick to stomach.  I cry myself to sleep everynight.  I don’t want to go to school anymore.  Please don’t call my house.  Please quit spreading rumors about me at school and on the internet.  Just leave me alone!”

          •  Bullying is no longer a 5-vs-1 thing. It comes in many forms: ignoring you, not letting you sit at the same lunch table as me, breaking your pencil lead purposely, etc. Many acts of bullying are not physical and are not face-to-face. 5-vs-1 bully scenes in the movie Mean Girl are so last decade.

            Most of the time, bullying is invisible, which is why teachers don’t catch on, even when we are doing lunch duty.

        • You cannot mandate to encourage tolerance with a zero-tolerance policy.

    • I also believe that there is a great increase in the incidence of bullying despite our awareness of it.  Since it has become unacceptable to physically discipline children, we seem to have lost the will or sense of how to discipline them at all.  Children are out of control.  They are bullying parents and each other.  Personally, I don’t recall too many kids suiciding in school when I was young.  We were disciplined at school and then got it “twice as bad at home”.  Now parents defend their children’s bad behavior and in some ridiculous cases, participate in their cyber bullying of  other kids.  Bad manners are rampant as evidenced by the signage at hospitals and pharmacies indicating that there is zero tolerance for bullying of staff and please turn off your cell phone before approaching the desk.

      • I agree bullying has gotten worse. Suicides over bullying is not new though; the town I grew up in was at the time (in the 70s) the per-capita suicide capital of Canada (or so it was said at the time). Some of them were bullied. Some of them were bullies (though I suspect it was a low-esteem issue that both drove them to bully and led to the suicides; it was a small enough town that things were “known”).

        • Interesting.  I guess the point I was trying to make is that usually a call to a bully’s parent or a suspension from school ended the problem pretty quickly. 

          • Maybe. Most of the bullies I knew growing up were the way they were because of the way they were themselves treated at home. They might get a thrashing – but even if they did the message to tough it out and “be a man” would usually lead to more acting out, not less. (My experiences were with the male bullies; the girls did things differently.)

            Can’t say I have any canned solution to offer, but simply passing tougher laws doesn’t seem a likely “cure”. Harsher punishment is just closing the barn door that much harder after the horses have bolted.

          • I believe we have to protect the kids getting bullied.  We have to treat it like “stalking”….afterall, if you are cyberbulling, how is it any different.  If you use your computer to cyberbully, you should lose your right to have an internet connection at your residence.  If you use your social time at school to bully, you lose your recess/lunch time.  If that doesn’t work, your parents can arrange home schooling for you because you won’t be able to come within 100 yards of the kid you are bullying.  The rights of the victims have to supercede the rights of the bully because the bullys can choose to change their unacceptable behavior and there are studies that indicate that children who are bullied go onto bully so do we want to stop the cyle or not?

          • I like the idea of shutting off internet access for cyberbullies in theory, but it would likely require a lengthy legal process. It also wouldn’t address the underlying issues. But it’s as good an idea as any I’ve come up with… Subject: [macleansca] Re: Strict anti-bullying laws could actually make matters worse

          • Keith, sorry I didn’t have a reply button.  There was a time when the telephone company would disconnect your phone if you were making obscene/harrassing calls from it.  I don’t think it does require a court order.  I think when you get service from a company you agree not to use the service for illegal activity and stalking/harrassment is illegal activity.

          •  @57fc79f8528c0aa6c4b4330d53700334:disqus (sorry Keith, no reply button for the latter replies, so yeah…)

            Despite being an insider on health care, your plan seems to miss out on the most important part of solving problems. You suggest punitive methods, not restorative methods.

            First off, so what if the kid loses their 15 min recess? There’s always before school at the kiss-and-go lane, and after school when they’re walking home. What happens if they’re off school property?

            Secondly, you don’t address the reasons of bullying at all. Why tackle the ants when the anthill is producing those ants in the first place? Get to the root of the problem: why are they bullying? Each kid has their own story, so a general law will not work. In general, laws never work when it involves social relationships.

            Finally, you seem to adopt the “poor, innocent victim” standpoint. Are victims innocent? This question alone can trigger a whole new discussion. I’m not saying victims are equally at fault, but victims also have the choice of going to authorities.

            Hey, nobody said it was going to be easy doing the right thing.

  2. The law needs to be passed so our children can stop killing themselves and each other. Adults can’t yell or spank a child but kids can do the same and worse and keep doing it without anything being done ? What’s wrong with this picture? This is what is wrong in America today !

    • We can never legislate morality or relationship quality because it involves feelings. Laws like this only tackle the surface, but make absolutely no effort to tackling the causes of bullying, which can range anywhere from home environment to being rejected to a birthday party.

      Laws need to be enforced; you can’t enforce someone to change their behaviour or mindset.

      This law doesn’t even scratch the surface of bullying. This is only a show to the rest of the world that, “Hey, we still care and exist! Look how much we care about schools and kids!”

      People in the field of education, like me (a student teacher) and others, know that this law is unenforceable and unrealistic, and it’s a waste of paper and ink just to sign it. No real issues are being approached, and no real solutions are offered.

      McGuinty keeps claiming that he’s all for education, but he never make any real effort to solve the problems. Quite sad, actually.

  3. while I agree with certain aspects of this article I find others ridiculous.   for example; “As for cyberbullying, he notes this typically occurs outside school and
    should be considered the domain of parents, who have a “responsibility” to
    equip their children with necessary coping skills before allowing them
    unlimited access to the Internet.” The problem here is that a great deal of bullying is a learned behavior that usually originates from the home structure or lack there of, depending on parents to curb bullying you would have to curb the behavior of the parent first or at least get them interested. I do agree that solving this problem should start with the physiology of the problem. bullying is a learned behavior and it’s not just in schools it’s in our politics, our work place, on the  internet, bullying has become a mainstay in everyday life in almost every corner. Bad behavior play’s it’s self out in almost every facet of day to day living even in the name of God and our religious and spiritual institutions, where it is supposed to be anything but. 
    If we are to curb the behavior of our children we must first curb the behavior of our society as a whole. Bad behavior has become common place and accepted by all forms of modern media. The great nation of America is so consumed in it’s first amendment rights and free speech that it has become blinded to the fact that it in itself has become the tool of accepted hate speech…protected and cherished.

    • Bang on Brad!

      Seems to me the system is going at this from the wrong end. Bullies don’t appear out of thin air, they’re raised that way, either by adult bullies or passive incapable parents. It boggles the mind that the major part of the solution isn’t focused on that basic and obvious truth.

      The responsibility for at-school behaviour cannot be put in a bubble that ignores the child’s formative environment, the very place they come from and go home to each day. Attacking say a 12 year bully through the law while giving the parents a pass is foolish and unfair to the child.

      We don’t teach them responsibility that way, we teach them instead that society is a bumbling and indifferent dynamic, and they will learn to take advantage of its loopholes and work against its fundamental precepts if we can’t show them a better way.

      What century is this again? Sometimes it doesn’t seem to matter in the least.

      • Your description of the parents is bang on Phil…”adult bullies” or “passive incapable”.
        Either way, they enable their kids to make other children’s lives intolerable.
        I don’t know if you know someone who was bullied but these bullies never let up…they aren’t happy until they have turned the whole class against a person; they call them at home; they want them to feel suicidal.  It is a very powerful feeling for a kid to make another kid’s life horrible.  The person I know who was bullied went to a new school and the bullies phoned the kids at that school and tried to spread their viciousness there.  Luckily it didn’t work.  It is hard to feel sorry for kids that enjoy inflicting that kind of hurt.

  4. I got one fer all schools If there is bullying, the bully should be fined $1000, every time he bullies and that money would go to the person they r bullying.

  5. I think something should be done – there is no reason that high school (or junior high) must be such a terrible experience. However, given limited resources, it might make more sense to go after this problem with a scalpel than a sledgehammer. We have pretty comprehensive bullying data (I was in four waves of an anti-bullying survey myself), so why not look at which behaviors are most likely to drive suicide in victims and start there. Zero tolerance is a problematic approach because once you have somebody crossing a certain line, bullies have no reason to stop crossing that line – they are already receiving the maximum punishment.

    And I question to what degree we know that rising levels of bullying have driven rising levels of teen suicide. There’s correlation, certainly, but I’m not sure it is the silver bullet. For one, you probably have an overmedication of young people (suicidal ideation being a common side-effect of many anti-depressants). Bullying may be the trigger that pushes people over the edge, but it is the interaction with medication that is the driver of change. Children may be getting more prone to commit suicide, rather than bullying getting worse.

    As to the newest incarnation of bullying – cyberbullying – what strikes me as perverse is that the victims of cyberbullying don’t simply log off. Perhaps online social networks are so entrenched that they are necessary for any sort of social life among young people – they can’t log off. If so, that is a real problem (with additional negative implications – anybody who teaches can attest to the impact on attention spans). People are dependent on networks in an environment that makes people (myself very much included) more prone to be jerks. Can we find ways to either reduce dependence on technology, or more realistically to make our online social networks more harmonious places?

    • I think the statistic of rising suicide related to bullying is known because those teenagers have left suicide notes detailing the reason they commited suicide and their parents are aware of their terrible struggles with the problem.  I am aware of the risks with antidepressants and teens however, I have read nothing that indicated any of these kids were even on antidepressants.
      As for the cyberbullying issue…it is just one more place that the child is being bullied.  These children have no normalcy.  They have nowhere where they can feel safe.  Even if they change schools, the cyber-bullies follow them.  Some bullies have the balls to even call this children at their homes to harrass them.  How is that any different from  being stalked?  What adult would stay in a job were they were harrassed by their co-workers at work and at home for days, weeks, months?
      Kids do not have the coping skills that adults do.

  6. This is all very nice that our writers, publishers, policy makers, schools, and even governments are taking steps to address bullying, but I have yet to see anyone write an article, present information, or even allude to the fact that bullying is something that first and foremost MUST be addressed at HOME by the PARENTS. Parents are supposed to, apparently, teach the victims how to cope, but not teach the perpetrators what is wrong/unacceptable? Parents can be expected to teach their kids math, reading, writing, etc, but they are no longer expected to teach their children proper social behavior? It cannot even be mentioned that family life and parenting is the root cause of bullying? Why are we trying to legislate an answer that is ultimately a parental responsibility? Why is everyone so shy of admitting our children’s behavior IS a parental responsibility? 

  7. It might not stop it totally but it makes the authorities so much more ‘on their toes’ and makes for complicity just about non existant – so I say legislate away!!!

  8. many years ago i was bullied in school from 7th to grade 10, i finally snapped one day in art class and hit my bully in the face with a piece of wood dowling that we were using in art class, popped his eye, causing permanent blindness…i was charged with assault, during trial i told my story and the judge let me off…and my bully never bullied anyone else after that…i still see him once and awhile, and he is always polite….to my face anyway…thats all that matters to me

  9. The author here readily admits: “New laws may reduce obvious physical abuse at schools, but this in turn leads to a greater prevalence of covert, non-physical aggression, as witnessed by the sudden growth in cyberbullying”.  What they have failed is to acknowledge in their own words is that when any law is enacted it leads to a greater prevalence of covert behaviour.  Look at any criminal’s activity and you will see that is is covert, to operate under the radar and kids do that with the so-called “Code of Conduct” too. They placate the school faculty into thinking they’re the model student when in fact they get off on tormenting others. I don’t buy the theory that this is about a power imbalance. My belief and opinion is that bullying is a premeditated act or acts that stem from an individual’s need to dominate and or humiliate others and to gain a sense of satisfaction from the physical and/or psychological pain they and their minions inflict on them. Bullying is premeditated and as such belongs in the criminal arena. Only when laws are enacted, landmark court cases make case law and  headlines will the bullies realize that their behaviour is wrong.  Just as employers can be held criminally accountable if their employees are injured due to a lack of due diligence; I believe the same should be for school faculty, principals and superintendents when they fail their due diligence in dealing with bullying in their schools and victims suffer injury. The author also quotes “An Educational Psychology study reveals a clear inverse relationship between tough anti-bullying procedures and non-physical bullying”.  I would like to see this study and review its methodology to see how valid it is. Is it even evidence based?Great to criticize something that isn’t even law yet.  If phenomenon of bullying can truly be explained as quoted by the author; “Schoolyard bullies have been around for as long as there’ve been school yards”, then it seems to this writer that it needs to be tried and put to the test.

  10. While we’re teaching kids to solve these problems, why not teach kids why they should respect each other so we can get to the root of the problem?

    The problem with these legislations is that we’re trying to tackle every manifestation of bullying there is with some broad rule like Quebec has proposed. We should find out why bullying happens, and how we can manage that. Show bullies that we have support, but don’t do it in a patronizing way. Show why we should all respect each other.

    Moreover, ditch the rule where “I’m the adult, so I say so”. That’s what triggers the whole power trip. Kids who are potential bullies will turn out to be bullies when they are adults if we follow that rule. Respect is earned, not given. Show how respect is earned.

    Notice that all the options I’ve pointed out are intangible. That’s because bullying and social relationships are intangible. That’s also why legislating anti-bullying will not work: you can’t enforce intangible things, like morality.

  11. I agree and I think that bullying esspecialy in schools requires communication and conversing with the bully. The reasons for bulling might be different that what we think, but if it is what we think still I think bully needs as much proper attention (if not more) as bullied. On the other hand bulling in work places is way more complicated.

  12. Anti-bullying laws can be helpful. They address the problem and make people see that it’s a growing issue. Some people may say that anti-bullying laws can make the situation worse, that there are more reports of bullying in areas that have anti-bullying laws in place but that doesn’t necessarily means it’s the laws that are causing the abundance of reports. Sure the kids feel challenged to get around the laws and push them to the limits, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the laws that caused this. Anti-bullying laws make everyone more aware of bullying hence the multitude of reports piling in. It’s not the bullies who are doing something more, it’s the ones who report it. I think, no matter what, anti-bullying laws are a great idea. It’s not bad we are seeing more reports. It is, in fact, proof the laws are working to make bullying recognized. People are finally understanding how serious this issue is and bringing attention to it.

  13. I believe what Israel Kalman says. It just keeps getting worse

  14. Everyone just stop bullying please, it hurts :'(