Ineffectiveness of Anti-Bullying Campaigns

On September 22, 2010, 18-year-old Tyler Clementi killed himself after learning that his college roommate used a webcam to capture his romantic rendezvous with another man. Clementi’s sexual preference inspired a severe act of harassment, as his roommate posted the video on the Internet for all to see. Bullying has been around since the dawn of mankind, and today it is everywhere; consistently present a sub-category on the right of passages list. The evolution of social media has even simplified the process, and created a way for bullies to remain anonymous, thus making it easier to be cruel. To fight the rise in bullying and its severity, the concept of an anti-bullying campaign was developed, supported and promoted by organizations, celebrities and even television shows such as Glee. The campaign’s goal is a positive one, and something our society should strive for, but it cannot be achieved simply by raising awareness. The bully cannot be stereotyped then thrown into one large category. Like his victims, the source of the problem can stem from multiple experiences. Although today’s anti-bulling movement is rooted in good intentions, its incessant presence has presented inverse effects.

Adolescent victims are sheltered, making them more susceptible to future ridicule. If “the reason effeminate boys turn out gay, is that other men don’t validate them as masculine,” then protecting them from schoolyard pestering is not the answer (Sedgwick, 159). To be masculine is to be strong and independent. Sedgwick’s argument focuses on masculinity in boys with gay tendencies, but strength and independence are characteristics every child should develop. With parents and teachers shielding these children from peer banter, they fail to build any strength or tolerance. Rather than improve childhood experiences for these victims, the heavy enforcement of the anti-bullying campaign seems to fuel a vicious cycle in which the weak get weaker. Cindi Seddon’s article...