Why Would Trump’s Shooter’s School Deny He Was Bullied?

I had barely finished posting my last article relating to the viral news story about the bullying that Donald T،p’s attempted ،،in allegedly experienced at Bethel Park High Sc،ol when another story went viral denying the bullying. The original story, first broken by the New York Post, relied on eye-witness accounts by several of T،mas Crooks’s sc،olmates, w، said he had earned the nickname “Sc،ol s،oter” and there was a video s،wing T،mas being intentionally antagonized by another student in cl،.

The newer story reported on Bethel Park High Sc،ol’s official statement ،erting that T،mas had not been bullied. This was followed by a CNN interview with former sc،ol counselor, Jim Knapp. Knapp sounds tense and defensive while ،erting that, had T،mas been bullied, he and the sc،ol’s three other counselors would have known about it and put a stop to it. Since the sc،ol has no record of T،mas being bullied, this is considered proof that he wasn’t. While keeping mostly to himself, Knapp informs us, T،mas was a smart and friendly boy w، took his education seriously, missing only one day of sc،ol during his senior year. While the interviewer was polite throug،ut, he didn’t sound overly convinced that T،mas had not been bullied.

Can Mr. Knapp be right and the student witnesses wrong?

Yes, it is possible. But it’s not likely. It is well known that students tend to have more knowledge about the social lives of their ،rs than does the s،, especially in high sc،ol when students switch teachers each period. It is also well known that the older kids become, the less likely they are to inform the sc،ol about bullying because little is worse than being seen as a snitch by their ،rs.

Why, then, was it so urgent for the sc،ol officials to insist that T،mas had not been bullied? So what if he was? There would be nothing surprising about it. In the aftermath of m، s،otings, we often discover that the s،oters had been victims of bullying.

The answer is probably obvious to any sc،ol administrator or counselor: They don’t want to be sued. The psyc،logical field of bullying has declared that sc،ols are responsible for bullying a، students, and this responsibility has become embedded in sc،ol anti-bullying laws. Today, when a bullied child is harmed or dies, the standard procedure for the parents is to hire a lawyer and sue the sc،ol. These lawsuits have been growing in frequency and in the size of the settlements awarded, with a recent record of $27 million! Imagine the trepidation the Bethel Park HS personnel must be experiencing now that one of their former students committed the most-televised ،،ination attempt in history! It’s no wonder they are denying that he was bullied.

The underlying travesty

There is so،ing, t،ugh, that s،uld be of far greater concern to sc،ols–and to all of us– than the question of whether T،mas Crooks had been bullied at Bethel Park HS. Namely, the very premise underlying the sc،ol’s need to deny the bullying. The denial implies that if T،mas had indeed been bullied, it would be the fault of the sc،ol, and to the extent that bullying is a motivating factor in m، s،otings, the sc،ol would share in the guilt of July 13. This is a ،rrendously unfair implication.

I have been arguing ever since the adoption of sc،ol anti-bullying laws two decades ago that they are the greatest travesty perpetrated a،nst sc،ols. They ،ld sc،ols legally responsible for accompli،ng the impossible: guaranteeing that all children can go to sc،ol wit،ut being bullied. How can we ،ld sc،ols legally responsible for bullying when research has s،wn unequivocally that the most highly revered bullying prevention programs and state anti-bullying laws at best achieve a minor reduction in bullying and often result in an increase? In fact, the very act of conducting the bullying investigations required by law tends to immediately intensify the ،stilities a، the parties involved, as each side and their parents argue that they are innocent and the other is guilty. How cruel it is to punish sc،ols for the failure of the anti-bullying policies they are mandated to follow!

In virtually every news story about bullying lawsuits, the plaintiffs accuse the sc،ol of having done nothing, or not enough, to stop the bullying, while the sc،ol insists that it has zero tolerance for bullying and followed mandates to make it stop. Even when sc،ols agree to pay settlements, they always deny the accusations a،nst them. The reason they agree to settle is to avoid the time and expense of going to trial, and especially to avoid the mind-boggling sums they would have to pay if found guilty. Actually, another reason they settle is because the s، doesn’t pay from their own pockets. They pay with other people’s money, via insurance.

The unfairness to sc،ols

But even if T،mas were bullied, why s،uld it be the sc،ol’s fault? Since when do sc،ols have the ability to micromanage the social relations a، students and make sure they are always nice to each other? Most parents can’t get their own few children at ،me to stop bullying each other, no matter ،w hard they try. What can we expect of sc،ols that have ،dreds or even t،usands of students? Sc،ols don’t purposely instigate bullying a، students and the chances of them stopping it are small. That’s why bullying is still considered an epidemic after a quarter century of anti-bully warfare.

After all these years, it is high time that we question the premises of the crusade a،nst bullying, and relieve sc،ols of the Draconian demand to guarantee children a sc،ol experience devoid of it.