Connect with us

The Silence Of Our Friends: Why Anti-Gay Bullying Survives

Published

on

“In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends”
— Martin Luther King, Jr.

Whenever I need a quotation to encapsulate all that is right, wrong, or indifferent about the human condition, I turn to Dr. King. He implicitly understood and conveyed so eloquently the shame of humanity, the wealth to which humanity aspires, the possibilities for the future, and the failures for which we must atone. For nearly twenty years I have studied bullying behaviour in children and young people, and the scars that continue on into adulthood. Although I recorded the suffering of many people, young and old, who had been the victims of discrimination, and particularly homophobic discrimination, for a long time I did not consider the role played by those who stood at the side. I did not consider why “our friends” remained silent, why they did not intervene, and why they left their peers to the mercy of those “enemies” who taunted them relentlessly.

On April 17 I gave my inaugural lecture to an assembled crowd of over 150 friends, fellow academics, former colleagues and interested citizens to mark my appointment as Professor of Human Development. The title of my lecture was “A land of mythical monsters and wee timorous beasties: Reflections on two decades of research on bullying.”

While the purpose of my lecture was to reflect upon my career as a developmental psychologist, as I prepared my hour-long presentation I began to consider why it is that we, all of us, have allowed bullying to continue. Since joining Brunel University in 2008, I have wanted to understand that “silence” of which Dr. King so incisively spoke. I was also drawn to another quotation, attributed to the British politician, Edmund Burke, which continues to haunt my thoughts:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

But what does this mean? Does it mean that those who do something are bad men, or that those who shout the loudest are our enemies? I would hope the answer for many readers is a clear “no,” but for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBTs) I think the answer is a resounding “yes.” Often our allies have neither the resources nor the skills to combat the organised political and religious machinery that constantly seeks to deny even the most fundamental principles of equality before the law for those who walk a parallel path.

I call it a parallel path simply because, if we ignore just for a second the issues of sexual orientation or gender identity, what separates us? Do we not live together in the same streets, work together in the same firms, pay our taxes together, raise children together, and, if we are lucky enough, worship together? Do the children of LGBTs look any different from those of heterosexuals? Do LGBTs shop in different stores, eat different foods, or travel on different forms of public transport. No they do not. LGBTs are our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, neighbors, community leaders, political leaders, and religious leaders. They may not be “out” but they are there. They may find it difficult to support those who are “out,” but they are there. And of course we have our heterosexual friends. They too may deplore the violence and destruction that follow many LGBTs throughout their lives but what does it take to mobilize them? What is it that holds them back, like their closeted LGBT brothers and sisters?

I have spent the last three years questioning why those “friends” sometimes do not step up and challenge those who seek to discriminate. Social psychology tells us that bystanders may not feel responsible for the actions of others, particularly if they are one of many. Alternatively, the silence of others introduces an element of ambiguity about that which they have seen or heard which prompts hesitation or, at the very worst, inaction and complicity. But is that it?

If I am one of twenty people watching a beating, am I likely to stand by because I am only responsible for 1/20 of that which I observe? If no one else steps forward to intervene, do I presume that I cannot trust my eyes, and all that I see before me is a mirage? I think and sincerely hope this is not the path I would or have taken.

So why do we allow the persecution of others to continue? Is it because we believe in the justness of the punishment meted out on a particular individual or group? Perhaps! Is it because we are afraid of becoming victims ourselves? I think that is a distinct possibility. Is it perhaps because we do not know how to intervene or feel powerless to intervene? I believe this is where much of the answer lies, and it starts in school.

Suicide Risk in Boys Who Are Bystanders (N=554)

Suicide Risk in Girls Who Are Bystanders (N = 520)

Based upon the research I have conducted, I believe powerlessness combined with an emotional response to the victimization of others is at the heart of our silent friends’ inaction. They are themselves traumatized by what they see. They are, to all intents and purposes, co-victims. In my study conducted with 1,074 young people in secondary schools in the United Kingdom (average age 13.5 years), a colleague and I considered those factors that predicted suicide risk among young people who had witnessed bullying.

Our data showed that powerlessness (red) played a significant role in predicting suicide risk (28% for boys and 31% for girls) with fear (green) accounting for about 7% for both boys and girls.

For boys, being a bully also played a part (blue), much more so than for girls (8% and 1% respectively). The remainder (purple) has yet to be understood.

If results similar to ours are found in other studies, they suggest that some of our silent friends may not be our friends at all. Sometimes they become our tormentors in order to save themselves from the wrath of the bully. However, others (perhaps the silent majority) may be ill-equipped socially or emotionally to intervene when any form of persecution happens.

History tell us that all too often we have accepted the leadership of bullies and their doctrines with little more than a whimper because we are, at heart, social animals that conform to the herd. Yet to challenge the herd often means that one is branded an outsider, a trouble-maker, or an activist. Alas, activism itself is not always founded upon a principle; it is often born of an experience, a tragedy, or an injustice that shakes the very foundations of a life, a family, a community, or a nation. Activists start from a position of vulnerability and need the support of those “silent friends,” and we need to find ways of empowering those friends so they act on principle rather than in response to a tragedy.

 

Ian Rivers is Professor of Human Development at Brunel University, London. He is the author of ‘Homophobic Bullying: Research and Theoretical Perspectives’ (Oxford, 2011), and has researched issues of discrimination in LGBT communities, particularly among children and young people, for nearly two decades.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

2 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

5 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

8 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.