Bible-toting bullies with webcams?

The bullying stories are back in the news, for totally valid reasons.

This always yanks an emotional chord for me, since I was once one of those public-school kids who was bullied constantly for a wide variety of reasons.

First of all, I was a pudgy, non-athletic boy in sports-mad Texas and, to make it worse, I was a musician who sang in classical choirs (boy soprano, no less). In one case that led to a major school hallway beat down, I was in a local musical. Thus, I was — do the math — obviously gay, which was a strange thing to call one of the most girl-obsessed preteens who has ever walked the face of the earth. Nevertheless, a boy who sings classical music, lives in the library, avoids sports and doesn’t wear Texas guy garb is gonna pay the price.

Oh, but these weren’t the main reasons I was bullied. There was something even worse to those bullies — I was a preacher’s kid. That was the worst offense to the cool guys in my school.

Trust me, I have no idea how odd kids survive today in the age of cellphones and Facebook.

The current wave of bullying stories started with the tragic case of eighth-grader Asher Brown in Texas. Here’s the top of the Houston Chronicle report that has been frozen in my folder of guilt for quite some time.

Asher Brown’s worn-out tennis shoes still sit in the living room of his Cypress-area home while his student progress report — filled with straight A’s — rests on the coffee table.

The eighth-grader killed himself last week. He shot himself in the head after enduring what his mother and stepfather say was constant harassment from four other students at Hamilton Middle School in the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District.

Brown, his family said, was “bullied to death” — picked on for his small size, his religion and because he did not wear designer clothes and shoes. Kids also accused him of being gay, some of them performing mock gay acts on him in his physical education class, his mother and stepfather said. The 13-year-old’s parents said they had complained about the bullying to Hamilton Middle School officials during the past 18 months, but claimed their concerns fell on deaf ears.

Believe it or not, that early story never filled in any details about the “religion” reference. However, a new Chronicle story has the information from the parents — David and Amy Truong — that readers needed from the get go:

Brown’s parents said he was bullied because of his small size, because he was Buddhist and because he didn’t wear trendy clothes. Brown also had confided in his parents that he was gay, and his parents said he suffered gay taunts during his physical education class.

So far, I have not been able to find out any hard, factual information about the alleged bullies, other than the grieving parents’ claims that school officials were protecting those families. It is clear that Brown was part of a circle of so-called losers of various kinds who were tormented, one would assume, by the winners in that public-school culture.

Now, there are several obvious questions, all of them worthy of investigation. My top two:

(1) What were the circumstances surrounding the anti-Buddhist bullying? When I was taunted as a kid, it was by other kids who simply wanted to attack anyone whose beliefs were strong, and thus, odd. Most of the bullies were the kids behind the gym sneaking cigarettes between classes, not members of other faith groups (not anti-Baptists, in other words).

(2) To be blunt, were the bullies accusing Brown of being a sissy or a sinner? Was there any religious content to these hellish anti-gay taunts?

This is crucial information, one way or another.

Why? Well the following passage in a bullying wrap-up story in the New York Times shows why the questions about religion must be asked and the results openly debated. Yes, we’re back to the issue of needing to ask if the violent, drug-driven thugs in that Wyoming bar who bashed Matthew Shepard were, somehow, closeted disciples of Focus on the Family.

In a pair of blog postings last week, Dan Savage, a sex columnist based in Seattle, assigns the blame to negligent teachers and school administrators, bullying classmates and “hate groups that warp some young minds and torment others.”

“There are accomplices out there,” he wrote Saturday. In an interview, Mr. Savage, who is gay, said he was particularly irate at religious leaders who used “antigay rhetoric.”

“The problem is that kids are being exposed to this rhetoric, and then they go to the school and there’s this gay kid,” he said. “And how are they going to treat this gay kid who they’ve been told is trying to destroy their family? They’re going to abuse him.”

Now, before we get pulled off the journalistic issues here, please note that I am actually saying that journalists need to probe the facts of these stories. Journalists need to find out if the bullying trends, right now, are linked to students who are acting on religious motives or acting on other motives. I, for one, suspect that the actions of the Rutgers students accused of broadcasting a sexual encounter between the late Tyler Clementi and another male were more inspired by reality television (think the sludge of “Jersey Shore,” if you must) than by religious doctrines.

The bottom line: Were these cyber-punks bar hoppers or members of a dorm Bible study? At Rutgers?

Journalists need to ask the questions to a wide variety of people (and not just to Savage). If there are Bible-toting bullies out there, in public-school hallways and on the WWW, they deserve to be exposed and the details of their actions dissected. That would be responsible journalism. Do the work, folks.

Print Friendly

About TMatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • http://blogs.chron.com/believeitornot Kate Shellnutt

    A few more details from a blogger on Houston Belief, Prof. Jill Carroll on “Talking Tolerance” http://blogs.chron.com/talkingtolerance/2010/09/buddhist_gay_a_recipe_for_midd.html

  • Jerry

    I agree with you.

    I did one of my usual activities and searched google news for religion bullying. I found both stories about the problem and postings about the positive response by some and I think both need to be highlighted.

    For example, I found a prayer which really spoke to me posted at http://www.christiancentury.org/blogs/archive/2010-10/litany-children-who-have-died-bullying

    O God of justice and mercy, we pray that no more daughters and sons in this world die as the result of bullying simply because of who they are; be it race, religion, sexual orientation, or social awkwardness. Lord, in your mercy,
    hear our prayer.

    That our schools become places of nurturing and hope rather than shame and derision. Lord, in your mercy,
    hear our prayer….

  • http://getreligion.org Bobby

    I was a shy, skinny preacher’s kid who moved every few years (no longer skinny, unfortunately). And yes, I experienced the bullying, too. I hated it then. And I hate it now that my middle child is experiencing some bullying himself at his affluent public middle school, where apparently not playing football or wearing expensive-enough clothing are reasons to be taunted.

    Thanks for the post, Tmatt, and for pointing out the importance of responsible journalism on these types of stories.

  • trierr

    So I’m curious and have lots of questions: What classifies as anti-gay rhetoric? Is it even possible for traditional Christian doctrines to fall outside that rubric? Also, and this is something that I’d like to see covered more, is there any correlation between traditional Christian teachings about homosexuality and bullying? Were any of the bullies church-goers? If so, what churches? What is being taught there? In other words, is there a religion angle to these stories or is it just that many of our schools embody a Lord of the Flies mentality?

  • Radiofreerome

    As someone who was in this situation in an all-boys Catholic school, I know exactly what would make all the difference in the world.

    Gay kids need to know that they have the right to live a dignified life free of harassment from others.

    They need to know they have a right to defend themselves.

    They need to know they have a right to equal treatment by persons in authority. …

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Spiking away folks.

    Please remember that this is not a forum for bashing people on the basis of their religious beliefs, one way or the other.

    It also helps if you read the actual post and the actual news reports to which it links (or add new mainstream media URLs). It helps if you criticize the post for statements and information that it actually contains.

    For example, the post clearly states that bullying is a serious issue and that children are being bullied for a wide variety of reasons, including issues of sexual orientation. It does not claim that preacher’s kids are bullied worse than others, etc.

    The key to the post is a plea for journalists to actual research the religious content of these tragedies, if there is any, rather than merely tossing around opinions.

    Thank you Kate, for the link to the additional insights about the emerging facts in the Houston tragedy. Keep the actual journalistic input coming, please.

    We are not interested in links to advocacy groups on one side or the other, arguing about the issue itself. Please deal with the journalism issues.

    Note, for example, that Radiofreerome — in a comment I have left up — has absolutely nothing to say about the actual journalism content of the post, but leaps directly to commentary about Catholic schools.

    Journalism, folks. Journalism.

  • Stephen

    This is another post that will probably be spiked. I think the media coverage of these incidents have too often been generic …

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    You bet.

    At this point Stephen 7 sales off into a list of opinions and personal accusations, without URLs or references to news coverage. Etc.

    Anyone familiar with the Matthew Shepard case knows that I reference to the drug-driven thugs and Focus on the Family was not a joke.

    Once again: Journalists urgently need to seek the actual facts in these cases and if there are religious motives or ties there, please report them. If there are bullies acting in the name of God and that can be demonstrated, then journalists must air out that information.

    In the Rutgers case, for example. What do we know about the accused duo that suggests, well, that they were driven by cultural conservatism or religion? What facts do we know about them, at all?

  • dalea

    The Gay Lesbian & Straight Educational Network has done a number of studies on the subject of anti-gay bullying in the schools:

    http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/research/index.html?state=&type=antibullying

    These studies do not find a reason for the bullying beyond ‘homophobia’; none mention religion as a cause. Here a Baptist seminarian makes the case regarding religion:

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/3479/why_anti-gay_bullying_is_a_theological_issue/

    What I can find on the subject is that anti-gay bullying is believed to be caused by homophobia which is, in turn, taken to be heavily influenced by religious doctrine. …

  • Jeffrey

    The mistake is assuming the influence that leads to bullying is directly connected to attendance at a bible study. Dan Savage is entitled to his opinion, but journalists need to present a balance.

    The driver of anti-gay rhetoric and emotion in this country is religious and Christian. That is something journalists can examine, from the religious support for anti-gay initiatives to Focus on the Family condemning the teaching of anti-bullying curriculum if it presents gays favorably. Now, that may not make TMatt happy, but that argument can be made by journalists as long as the hypothesis is supported by some evidence.

    But expecting a direct relationship between church attendance and bullying is an unncessarily rigid test that fails to understand the reality of discrimination and oppression and one that hamstrings journalists. …

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    JEFFREY:

    What you are saying, essentially, is that expressions of traditional Christian, Jewish, etc., doctrine are influencing the actions of people who are in no way Christian or Jewish or religious in terms of their lives, beliefs, practices, etc. The believers must be blamed for the actions of the unbelievers.

    So the traditional religious beliefs do not appear to cause bullying among the people who can be demonstrated by facts to be Christian or members of other religious groups, yet their free expression of their religious beliefs can be said to cause bullying among people who are not connected to any Christian (etc) groups, activities, etc., and may in fact be either anti-Christian or acting violently for reasons — drugs leap to mind — that Christians would condemn. Of course, the overwhelming majority of Christians would condemn the bullying — period.

    It would really help your case if you could show some religious people who are bullying people, beyond their rights as citizens with free speech.

    Like, tragically, at Rutgers. This web-bullies are acting in ways that would be condemned whether the targets were straight, gay or whatever. The behavior is simply evil. But that behavior is rooted, not in the climate of privacy-crashing trash of some media forms, but in the views preached by religious leaders they have never heard of or to whom they have never listened.

    If they ARE linked to the religious leaders in some factual way, then by all means find it and print it. Air it out and condemn it. Please. That is a subject that journalists can investigate — reporting the facts.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Still spiking away, on the left and the right.

    Trying very hard to keep this focused on facts that be reported in newspapers, by wire services, etc.

    Did anyone read that ABC News link on the Shepard case? Sometimes life gets pretty ugly and complex….

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    The post has been amended to make one of my early, personal points more clear:

    Oh, but these weren’t the main reasons I was bullied. There was something even worse to those bullies — I was a preacher’s kid. That was the worst offense to the cool guys in my school.

  • Norman

    The connection between religious belief and bullying needs to be proven.

    As a 6 foot, 110 pound junior high kid with acne, I was picked on pretty unmercifully, and taunts about homosexuality made up the bulk that bullying. These kids were motivated by cruelty, not Christianity.

    Obviously, the bullying needs to be stamped out, and hard. Teachers and administrators were unresponsive in my experience, and that is still the norm if reports are to be believed. As a straight guy who was bullied for “seeming gay”, I obviously have a lot of sympathy for the gay kids. I would have hoped that this situation would have improved in the last 25 years.

  • Jon in the Nati

    I was thinking quite a bit about this, trying to remember my days in middle school (which, as an aside, are not nearly as long ago as I’d like to think). I think Norman said it pretty well, actually.

    Everyone gets called ‘gay’ (at least among middle school boys). It has nothing to do with homosexuality, or someone being effeminate, or people believing that someone actually is a homosexual. I’d estimate that 90% of the time some kid gets called ‘gay’ or a ‘faggot’ it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Its just kids being mean to each other.

    Of course, none of that makes it right; whether or not it actually has anything to do with homosexuality is irrelevant.

  • Ben

    Bullies focus on those who are different than a dominant culture in the school. So in some places that may put the earnestly religious kids in the crosshairs, in other places the atheist kids — or both.

    Gays will always be a minority, so they always face the potential for extra bullying. But certain steps do seem to decrease the experience of bullying, according to an activist group’s 2009 data. Some faith-based organizations have opposed such steps. In this way, one can reasonably argue that some religious groups have contributed to the problem. (How believable is the activist data? I don’t know.)

    Trierr asks a great question:

    What classifies as anti-gay rhetoric? Is it even possible for traditional Christian doctrines to fall outside that rubric?

    To the extent that traditional Christian doctrines tag homosexuality as abnormal, that belief — translated into youth culture — serves to highlight gay students as a distinct group worth singling out, versus say left-handed kids. Yes, that conclusion jeopardizes first amendment religious rights. That said, if these religious teachings suddenly changed overnight, I doubt the bullying of gay students would end. There’s just too much sexual insecurity at that age for a sexual minority to fully avoid harassment.

  • Chris

    The thread of this discussion seems to suggest that bullying is really about conformity with the dominant, “cool” culture in school. If you’re one standard deviation beyond the perceived mean — you are a target. Perhaps, journalists should focus on some expert interviews that discuss the anthropology of adolescent bullying in general terms. Bullying is a common thread in human culture.

  • Chris M

    What the other Chris said. I was bullied constantly (verbally and physically) throughout Middle School and while the “gay” slurs were used as often as nerd, sissy, dork or whatever, I can tell you that religion was NOT a motivator for the attacks. It’d be interesting to hear from actual kids who bully and are bullied to get an idea of why they use the insults they use (and why they consider them insults to begin with). It seems like a classic case of projection to think that 12 and 13 year olds are calling kids “gay” or “queer” and picking on them because they disagree with the overruling of Prop 8 (or what have you).

  • http://crappychristian.com Marie

    It would help if journalists stopped being opinion writers, maybe it would keep the industry from going into a death spin. Has anyone looked at general bullying and suicide? It couldn’t have been too long ago with that girl who killed herself because of cyberbullying that it’s been forgotten already. What are the facts of childhood bullying and the facts of suicide among minors? What makes a bully, bully and what intensifies the level of harrassment?
    Sadly reporters are only asking the questions that confirm their bias.

  • Jeffrey

    It would really help your case if you could show some religious people who are bullying people, beyond their rights as citizens with free speech.

    On a day when a Christian extremist is in the Supreme Court defending his right to shout ant-gay epithets (a right I agree with) at funerals, your questions seems appropos.

    Journalists can explore the culture of religious speech, policy work, and behavior that leads to situations where someone taunted as gay kills themsleves. This doesn’t happen in isolation. …

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    MARIE:

    Abuse and harassment of gays and lesbians and those struggling with sexual orientation issues is clearly part of this picture — a large and tragic part that must be included in anti-bullying efforts. But there are other hooks for bullying that must not be buried in this.

    I do not doubt that there are some religious bullies. I simply want to see that case made with facts, not with the kind of logic that, in the end, has to argue that the thugs who killed Matthew Shepard were driven by a climate created by the beliefs of, well, Mother Teresa.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Spiking away.

    Asking journalists, when covering stories about violent bullying (as opposed to debates about politics or religion) to focus on facts is not a “straw man” — it’s a plea for actual American journalism.

    When links can be demonstrated with facts, journalists should pursue them and throw the legal books at the bullies, those of all stripes.

  • http:crappychristian.com Marie

    tmatt- ok.
    So I take it that the issue is with reporters’ mis or poor identification of the philosophies of the bullies.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    MARIE:

    Philosophies come later. Right now, I would settle for some facts about them.

    It seems that the Houston Chronicle is working on that in the earlier tragedy. That’s a hopeful sign.

    But has anyone seen any basic, hard news reporting on the bullies in the Rutgers case, or are we still in that early stage where privacy rights are making that hard (until the legal processes kick in)?

  • Julia

    I have never heard a homily directed against gays or gay activity. I never learned in Catholic schools to hate gay people. I’ve lived in a Catholic blue-collar area my whole life.

    The bullying I saw in my era with my 4 brothers and in the 1970s-80s with my 3 sons was boys on the brink of adolescence picking on those they deemed “less masculine” in order to pump up their own insecurities. Bullies went after: boys who were smaller, boys who didn’t develop secondary male characteristics as soon as others, boys who were not robust, boys who were more quiet. They didn’t necessarily think the boys they were picking on were “gay”. It’s like those ads in the back of the comics about beefing up so the bully at the beach doesn’t embarass you in front of your girlfriend by kicking sand in your face.

    It was wanting to be John Wayne vs. George Hamilton.

    What I find fascinating is that in the 50s-early 60s of my era the boys were just as involved with debate, speech, dramatics, glee club, etc. as the girls. Football players thought it a hoot to get a part in a play or work the lights. Basketball players were also debate champs. Cool guys formed doo-wop groups. None of this was thought un-masculine.

    It’s later in the 80s that I noticed boys started being labeled “gay” for debating, acting & singing in high school. I thought we had gotten more enlightened, but we’re going backwards. Kids now are more focused on being thought “gay” than they were 50 years ago. It’s not religion – it’s the culture. Kids who feel insecure are asserting their dominance – now it goes beyond taunting someone as a weakling – now it’s being “gay”. There have been several suicides in my area by boys who were perceived as “gay” and hectored for it.

    There may be a mix of motives. Maybe the bully just thinks he can get away with it as to this particular victim. And it’s too easy to assume anti-gay rhetoric in church is behind it.

    The bullies I knew were not the altar servers or choirboys. But, at girl scout camp one year the other three in my cabin gave me a hard time the whole week because I was Catholic. The counselor caught on and gave me the privilege of taking down and folding the flag at the closing ceremonies to make up for it. A real hero – she didn’t make it worse by protecting me; she showed the bullies that I was an honorable person. That’s what the gay-straight alliance does.

  • dalea

    The American Society for Suicide Prevention gives the data on suicides:

    http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda

    Relevant to the story is the data on youth suicide:

    Suicide is the fifth leading cause of death among those 5-14 years old.

    Suicide is the third leading cause of death among those 15-24 years old.

    Between the mid-1950s and the late 1970s, the suicide rate among U.S. males aged 15-24 more than tripled (from 6.3 per 100,000 in 1955 to 21.3 in 1977).

    Among females aged 15-24, the rate more than doubled during this period (from 2.0 to 5.2).

    The youth suicide rate generally leveled off during the 1980s and early 1990s, and since the mid-1990s has been steadily decreasing.

    Among young people aged 10-14 years, the rate has doubled in the last two decades.

    Between 1980-1996, the suicide rate for African-American males aged 15-19 has also doubled.

    Risk factors for suicide among the young include suicidal thoughts, psychiatric disorders (such as depression, impulsive aggressive behavior, bipolar disorder, certain anxiety disorders), drug and/or alcohol abuse and previous suicide attempts, with the risk increased if there is situational stress and access to firearms.

    This puts some context for understanding youth suicide into the arena. But does require some statistical reasoning. So, while youth suicide rates have been declining for 20 years, the rate for those aged 10 to 14 has doubled. This implies that 10 to 14 is a prime risk area for suicide. Which conforms to the stories we are looking at. Anti-gay bullying is not listed as a cause of suicide which may indicate that it is not an official category in reports. Keeping a gun in the house is a cause of suicide, which is the case in at least one of the reports. This looks to be vital context for understanding the subject.

  • Stephen

    We’ve had testimony from people who were picked on because they were preacher’s kids, because they were skinny and had acne, because they were Catholic, and someone who has assured us that though teenagers are called gay and faggot, that really has nothing to do with homosexuality. …

    Most of these testimonies have little to do with media issues. Common decency might suggest that some mention of Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” project is appropriate and links to some of the adults who have testified to there experience as bullied teens would be helpful, such as this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IcVyvg2Qlo

  • Dave

    I would like to take a step behind the journalism and ask if anyone has scientifically looked at the link, if any, between religious preaching and homophobic bullying. Is this perhaps an area of research off limits because conservatives in Congress won’t allow it to be funded? Or what?

    I ask this out of compassion for journalists. We can’t demand that they write cogently about a connection never researched.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Dave:

    A valid area for hard study by think tanks on both sides.

    So forget Congress. Do you honestly think that there are not legions of academics who would want to study that? I’ll be you can name three or four foundations to fund it without even working up a sweat.

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    What Chris and Chris said. I was persecuted throughout my schooling, and now get told that it could not have happened because I am not in any designated Victim groups. It is simply absurd to claim that schools (and the rest of the world) would be paradise if it were not for evil Christianity, or evil Whiteracism, or whatever is the bogeyman of the week.

    And anyone who does not conform to “normal” jock attitudes and pursuits OR does anything to displease a street creep (e.g., try to cross the street just because you have the light) is routinely called “fag”. I believe the legal term for this is “mere vulgar abuse”.

    As for Mr. “freeradiorome” asserting that “letting them know they have a right…” (presumably by some Authority pronouncing “You have a right…”) would make bullying vanish… what planet does he live on?

  • Chris

    Just to follow-up on my suggestion that journalists and policy-makers ought to think about the anthropologic aspects of bullying. Here are two links that discuss bullying as a anthropologic/evolutionary construct. It is trans-cultural. The reasons for choosing a victim and persisting in the bullying have much to do with the victim’s response as well as the bully’s actions. Potential victims are perceived as different–but that difference can be as trivial as “bra size”. This is beyond religion/culture/education/sexuality of bully or victim, and may represent the “dark side” of being a human animal in evolutionary terms.
    http://www.anthropologyinpractice.com/2010/05/bullying-and-emotional-intelligence-on.html
    http://www.albany.edu/~ddwhite/pdf/NEEPS_2007.pdf

  • John Pack Lambert

    This article on the Alameda Unified School District’s anti-bullying program is interesting. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=100678

    I know someone is going to attack me for citing World News Daily. My main point is actually the claim that the vast majority of bullying in the district relates to race, but there is no attempt to addrees that in the policy.