E U R O P E A N
L E A G U E
F O R
M I D D L E
L E V E L
E D U C A T I O N
they don’t care. This makes it much more
difficult for the child to say anything
different later—to you or their peers.
2. We can’t say anything sarcastic,
condescending or bullying to the
aggressors like, “Wow, now do you feel
good about yourself?” Even if the
aggressors stop their behavior in the
moment, they’ll go right back to what they
were doing the moment the adult turns
away. Why? Because we used the same
strategy (i.e. ridicule) to silence them as
they used to silence the target.
3. We can’t say, “That’s enough” because
that communicates that you’re ok with
some part of what’s happening. As I have
said in Making It Meaningful: Interrupting
Biased Comments in the Classroom, it’s a
tacit acceptance of what is happening
4. We can’t say, “How would you feel if that
happened to you?” Of course, the
purpose here is to teach empathy but that
statement is constantly dismissed by
people who are abusing their power. It
goes right up there with “make healthy
choices.” These are sound bites young
people ridicule as “adult speak.”
Here’s what we can do:
1. We need to manage ourselves as we
approach the group. That means being
aware of any triggers we have and then
putting them aside to talk about later with a
professional mentor or friend.
None of these responses are responsible or
effective ways to intervene when we see
people ridicule or dehumanize each other.
Let’s call it our “conflict baggage” and
examine how it can affect our interactions with
young people (and keep in the back of our
mind how this same baggage also affects our
ability to face conflicts with our school
colleagues).
For example, do you describe yourself as
someone who just doesn’t like conflict? That
would be the avoid strategy. But what this
means is, as educators, we would be more
likely to convince ourselves to not intervene in
situations where we should. In the eyes of our
students, we easily look like we are too
scared to face the problem or condone
abusive behavior.
If our strategy is to acquiesce, we intervene
without projecting authority or we are
vulnerable to debating with socially
aggressive or verbal students and losing.
If our strategy is to attack, we can come
across as “rescuing” the target and going after
the aggressors. Our intent may be to make
the aggressors know what it feels like to be
ridiculed or embarrassed so we say
something that cuts them down. We may feel
in that moment that we have dispensed
justice but what we really have done is
continue the cycle: using domination to attack
the aggressors and taking away any power
the target has to advocate on their own
behalf.
2. We look at everyone in the group
and succinctly identify the problem.
Succinct means we don’t repeat
ourselves, we don’t lecture and
whatever we say shouldn’t last
more than a few sentences. We are not
there to get into a debate with the
students. Then, make a “values
declaration” statement that
communicates every student’s dignity
and why we think their behavior is in
contradiction to that value.
So here’s what we shouldn’t do:
1. We can’t ask the target in front of others if
the other kids are “bothering him or her”
or any other question that asks the target
how they feel about what the other kids
are doing to them. If we do, we reinforce
the power dynamic between students. We
put the target in the position to say the
other kids are playing with her/him and
5