by tyler | Apr 7, 2023 | CNN, opinions
I am not the target demographic for “The Chosen,” a wildly popular, largely audience funded television drama that adapts the story of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. But I am definitely the target demographic of those who are constantly told by people in their lives that they should watch it — but, maybe remembering all the mediocre Christian pop culture of their youths, haven’t brought themselves to do it yet.
I’m a previously homeschooled teenager raised in the heart of evangelical counterculture in the 1980s who is now a cultural historian of modern Protestant Christianity, so it’s unsurprising that people from many corners of my life have insisted I watch. They say some version of the following: “the characters are just so complex and the story telling is so good. Not just Christian-good; really good.”
Given my profession, and since I also have strong opinions about what makes good TV (and a well-tuned appreciation for the category “Christian-good”), I finally gave in. And what I found is that “The Chosen” was a compelling form of storytelling that beautifully embodies a Christian imaginative world I recognized, but the question of whether it’s good TV will depend on whether viewers can think outside those imaginative horizons.
As I watched episodes from the three seasons currently available, I kept thinking how perfectly the techniques of multi-season, world-building television drama were suited for this show’s style of Christian imagination building. In this imaginative world, the world Jesus inhabited seems concrete and specific, the people he loved seem vulnerable and complex and the claims many Christians make about what his life and death mean seem reliable and realistic. The show doesn’t complicate contemporary evangelical orthodoxy as much as make that orthodoxy seem compellingly real.
“The Chosen” is the pinnacle of a style of biblical interpretation has been developing in American evangelicalism for more than a hundred years. Evangelicalism emerged in the 18th century, largely because forms of empirical reason and rational calculation — experienced by most people less in lofty philosophical debates and more in the economic transformations of modern colonial capitalism — seemed more real than the miracles of Jesus or the mystery of salvation. By the early 20th century, that anxiety had become the central concern for a large number of Christians: the worry that the story of Jesus might be more akin to a myth or a fable, that the miracles of Jesus and the revelation of God might be challenged by other standards of truth (like scientific empiricism or religious pluralism), that these stories don’t feel real the way gravity is real or your mortgage payment is real.
For many evangelicals, being a Christian meant committing to the reality of all these stories, to doubling down on “this really happened,” and then trying to live inside the stories as though they were true. As such, it’s hardly surprising that as the technology of entertainment evolved, so did the prevalence of evangelical popular media — from radio, films and books to Sunday School curricula. The ways of reading the Bible that these stories circulated has influenced many ordinary Christians, even if they don’t identify as “evangelical” on a survey.
Indeed, the influence of the evangelical imagination is most evident in Christian pop culture, which reaches millions of Christians across denominational and confessional adherence. Focus on the Family provides biblical advice on parenting, marriage and gender roles to millions of Christians, including Catholic, Orthodox and Mormon Christians who rarely identify as evangelical.
The children of those adults might watch “Veggie Tales,” a popular children’s cartoon that uses anthropomorphic vegetables to retell biblical stories as moral parables, with the hope of introducing a more comprehensive understanding of the Bible to follow. And the creator and director of “The Chosen,” Dallas Jenkins, is son of Jerry Jenkins, the co-author of the massively popular “Left Behind” book series, which may have single-handedly popularized an evangelical interpretation of biblical prophesies about the end of the world that continues to animate American culture wars. “Left Behind” was understood by its authors and many of its fervent readers as using the techniques of fiction to make an entire theological system seem real and compelling.
So, too, in “The Chosen,” it isn’t just Jesus who seems real but a whole scheme of interpreting Christianity as historically accurate, coherent and untroubled by historical contradiction or inconsistency. Buried in the show’s narrative arcs are answers to nagging questions that challenge the veracity of the Gospels — like why Luke’s story includes the virgin birth and the other gospels don’t or why John’s gospel starts so differently than the others. There are flashbacks to episodes in Hebrew scriptures that many Christians interpret as foretelling Jesus’s life, to make the whole arc of Christian salvation history seem like the self-evident unfolding of a good drama, like someone figuring out how all the houses are related on “Game of Thrones.”
Anyone who has inhabited the imaginative world of contemporary evangelical Christianity knows how intense the longing is — and the pressure — to believe that all of this really happened. Every youth pastor I had was trying to convince me and my peers that all that was asked of us — abstinence until marriage, obedience to our parents, ability to witness to our feckless peers, patience and faithfulness and humility — would come naturally if we could believe in our hearts with the certainty of those who had seen with their own eyes. I am sure that more than one of the friends from this period of my life recommended the show to me with the confidence that maybe this would be the thing that made it possible for me — doubtful and backslidden — to finally, really believe.
But is watching a TV show the same as being a real Christian in a way evangelical orthodoxy might recognize? This might be where the television medium exceeds the power of orthodoxy to marshal it. On the one hand, watching “The Chosen” is meant to replicate the transformations it dramatically portrays. On the other hand, that isn’t exactly how great TV works.
I asked some of my former and current students to watch the show and talk with me about it because most of them grew up outside the imaginative world of American evangelicalism and I was curious how they would respond. They all found things to like about the show. One of them said that Jesus seemed so much kinder and even radical in “The Chosen” than he ever imagined, given how close-minded and judgmental he assumes most Christians are. “It’s not as good as ‘Succession,’” my former student told me earnestly, “but it is way better than reading the Bible.” Somewhere between “Succession” and the Bible might not sound like high praise, but given her low expectations for both reading scripture and Christian pop culture, she meant it as a compliment.
But when I pressed her and other students on why they all felt the show wasn’t as good as other television they loved, it had little to do with production values or Christians making cheesy art. They all felt like the show wanted something from them. It is not like other shows don’t want to be liked, they said. But the best thing about great shows is that you can disagree about what they mean or debate their merits with others, or love and hate them at the same time. “I can tell this show really, really wants me to like it and it feels like there is something wrong with me if I don’t,” one of them summed up.
One of the most well-worn paths out of American evangelicalism is through art and literature because those experiences often generate uncertainty and ambiguity that is foreclosed by an imagination formed by steadfastness of belief. There are hints of this kind of unsettled interpretation within the show, like when Jesus challenges religious authorities and appears unpredictable, maybe even blasphemous.
My students liked these moments best. Within the overarching imaginative world of the show, of course, all that is potentially radical or destabilizing is reaffirmed by the insistence that Jesus and his disciples knew he was the Son of God, which the show is making real to us. But if this really is “good TV” and not just “Christian good,” there is no definite way to control how viewers will interpret these characters or toward which religious authorities their own transformative revelations might be directed. Less confidence that this is how it really happened might open up space for something new to happen now.
by tyler | Apr 7, 2023 | CNN, opinions
President Joe Biden’s recent approval of the Willow Project in Alaska has alarmed many young people and once again made us question his seriousness about addressing the climate crisis before it is too late.
His decision to greenlight ConocoPhillips’ massive oil project isn’t just a betrayal of his promises on the campaign trail when he vowed to halt drilling on federal lands and to help the United States make the transition toward clean energy. It’s a betrayal of our generation’s future and of the millions of people suffering the impact of the climate crisis.
As if that were not enough, the Biden administration is auctioning off more than 73 million acres of waters in the Gulf of Mexico to offshore oil and gas drilling — double the size of the Willow Project if it goes ahead as planned. The president faced one of the greatest tests of his commitment to addressing climate change, and he failed. His administration must step up and commit to do better.
By the administration’s own estimates, the Willow Project on Alaska’s North Slope is projected to add 9.2 million metric tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere per year. That’s the equivalent of adding 2 million gas-powered cars to the road every year — potentially for 30 years. Despite the large amounts of emissions that await, the administration — which faces pressure from unions, Alaskan lawmakers and some Native Alaskans who support the project — argues that refusing a permit for the Willow Project would trigger legal issues due to previously issued leases.
However, this decision not only contradicts Biden’s promises but also undermines the steps set forth by last month’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report. The IPCC, a panel of experts brought together by the United Nations, made it clear that the world already has too many fossil fuels in production to limit global warming to the relatively safe level of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) unless swift action is taken.
Young people and members of marginalized communities are the ones who will bear the brunt of the consequences of the escalating climate emergency. The rubber-stamping of such a project sends a message not just to our generation but humanity as a whole: The future of our planet and the present well-being of frontline communities are being sacrificed for short-term economic gain and political expediency.
Millions of young people made their concerns about Willow known. Youth-led climate organizations, such as the Sunrise Movement, have been vocal about the potential repercussions of approving Willow, warning that it could turn young voters away from the administration. Young people organized online, pushing the massive oil project to trending status on TikTok the week before Willow’s approval, part of an effort that garnered around 5.6 million messages calling on Biden to reject the plan. But the voices of millions who spurred into action were left gutted on March 13 when Willow was approved.
Greenlighting the project also highlights the glaring disconnect between the administration’s climate rhetoric and actions. While the US has made some landmark investments in clean energy under Biden through the Inflation Reduction Act, the project will undermine these efforts and threaten the fragile Arctic ecosystems, wildlife and Indigenous communities, conservation groups say. What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic.
Scientists warn us that crossing the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius could trigger multiple climate tipping points, leading to irreversible and dangerous impacts with serious implications for humanity. The Willow Project, set to produce 600 million barrels of oil and generate roughly 278 million tons of carbon emissions, goes directly against the word of climate scientists.
The impact of climate change is already disproportionately affecting communities in the global South — a crisis they have done little, if anything, to create. Africa, for example, is responsible for about 4% of global emissions. It faces devastating floods, droughts, food scarcity and displacement due to rising sea levels — and the number of people suffering will surge as fossil fuel production continues to expand. By supporting the Willow Project, the administration is exacerbating the climate crisis and further jeopardizing the well-being of vulnerable populations.
As young people who will inherit a burning planet, we are gravely concerned about the long-term impact of the Willow Project and the precedent it sets for future decisions on climate and energy policy. We have said it before and we say it again: We need system change, not climate change. We need people in power who show real climate leadership, who will work with young people and stand by their promises. Considering that the USA is the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gasses, stopping developments like the Willow Project is the bare minimum of what it needs to do.
The US reduction targets are already insufficient for keeping global warming below 1.5°C and we need to see ramped up ambition and accelerated implementation from Biden. He must prioritize the future of our generation, frontline communities and the planet. We urge the president to stick to his word and not commit to funding any new fossil fuel development.
That means stopping the Willow project and ensuring there can be no more of its kind. It is the only way to secure a livable planet for all. It is also a chance to listen to our generation and take the first important steps away from a broken political system where leaders care more about short-term political gain than our collective future.
by tyler | Apr 5, 2023 | CNN, opinions
As recession worries grow, it begs the question: Which sectors are most likely to start shedding jobs?
We at The Conference Board decided to construct an index to help answer that question.
The industries at most risk are information, transportation and warehousing, and construction, followed by repair and personal services, manufacturing, real estate and wholesale trade.
Over the past two years, employers have had a difficult time recruiting and retaining workers. An aging population, tighter immigration laws, fewer multiple jobholders and residual effects from the pandemic (long Covid, child care and adult care challenges, for instance) have led to constraints on the number of workers, while demand for labor has been strong.
Now, as high inflation has persisted and the Federal Reserve has rapidly increased interest rates, the larger cost of borrowing can be expected to have a more profound, negative impact on the US economy this year, and may result in a short and shallow recession. Even though the labor market has continued to be resilient, some employers are shedding jobs to protect their bottom lines.
Of course, employers have experienced varying degrees of labor shortages, with some industries suffering more than others. The difficulty in hiring and retaining workers will drive how many job losses can be expected in individual industries. Employers with severe labor shortages will likely be careful about laying off workers, because this would risk facing the same hiring difficulties all over again after a downturn.
Indeed, according to The Conference Board’s new Job Loss Risk Index, which identifies each industry’s relative chances of experiencing layoffs, those at greatest risk of job loss have generally had fewer labor shortages, while those at low risk have had the greatest recruitment and retention difficulties.
Labor shortages are one of the key factors in the new index, but not the only one. The index incorporates five other factors to ascertain a particular industry’s job-loss likelihood. Others include: sensitivity to monetary policy, job function and required education levels, the state of its pandemic recovery, longer-term labor demand trends and its workforce’s age composition and experience levels.
The information industry, which encompasses a large share of tech companies and includes jobs like software and web developers, programmers and digital interface designers, has already started laying off workers. Information sector employment grew rapidly during the pandemic due to a surge in consumer and business demand for computers, high-tech gadgets, innovation, digital transformation and automation. That hiring fueled tech company growth expectations and stock price increases.
High-growth company evaluations are more sensitive to interest rate hikes because these firms are often highly leveraged, which means growth is more dependent on borrowing. As such, rising interest rates increase the cost of borrowing and servicing debt. With the Fed swiftly raising rates to control inflation, valuations are down, and companies feel pressure to reduce spending which includes hiring freezes and layoffs.
As pandemic-era lockdowns catalyzed consumers’ preferences for online shopping, transportation and warehousing companies boosted hiring for jobs like delivery and truck drivers and warehouse workers. But these industries are now poised for layoffs, given shoppers’ tendency to reduce their discretionary spending during recessions, and the recent shift of consumption from goods toward services.
At medium risk of job losses are finance and insurance, utilities, mining and logging, and professional and business services (e.g., accounting, legal, consulting, advertising), with jobs in arts and recreation, retail trade, and state and local governments at somewhat lower risk.
Industries likely to be the most resilient are accommodation and food services, health care and social assistance, the federal government and private education.
Over the past two years, employers in accommodation, food services, health care and social assistance have had greater difficulty hiring and retaining workers. The pandemic made finding people willing to work in these in-person service industries especially challenging.
These employers will likely try to hold on to their workers as rehiring could be difficult and expensive. On top of that, employment growth has been strong in the health care sector as an aging US population requires more health care and social assistance services.
Restaurant and hotel employment is still below pre-pandemic levels. The industry is still catching up with recovering demand, so there is less of a need for upcoming layoffs.
Job losses will definitely accompany the looming recession, but the prospect of labor shortages reappearing will make some employers more cautious about implementing layoffs. Employment in in-person services like accommodation and food services, as well as health care, will benefit the most. Although, as the Job Loss Risk Index demonstrates, risks remain for all.
by tyler | Apr 5, 2023 | CNN, opinions
Just over two years ago now, I lost my dear friend Tony Hsieh, the longtime visionary CEO of Zappos. The company, primarily because of Tony, was renowned for its focus on employee well-being and consummate customer service.
Losing Tony was a shock to the world. He died from complications of smoke inhalation, having been trapped in a fire. Tragically, the news of his death was accompanied by revelations of his mental health struggles.
Tony and I were building a company together when he died. It was aimed at creating the next frontier of corporate culture, one that would help deliver lasting happiness by offering mental health tools for the workplace. It was the sort of venture that, I believe, could have helped him.
Mental health challenges like the ones Tony faced are far too common in today’s society. Mental health is a non-partisan, global issue that is not yet widely recognized or acknowledged. Meanwhile, a 2022 CNN-Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 90% of US adults believe the nation is undergoing a mental health crisis, and one out of four adults believes work is a major source of stress. And according to the World Health Organization, depression costs the global economy $1 trillion every year in lost productivity.
In our collective hurry to embrace intellect and conquer new territory and frontiers, it seems too many in corporate America have overlooked mental and emotional health — key ingredients for long-term success.
In the not-so-distant future, every family, organization, college and corporation should have a chief mental health officer, or a strategic plan for the mental health of those in their care. This is how we can not only invest in people as students and employees, but as humans with brains and feelings. And it’s how we can make good on the traditional investment we, as a society, have made in identifying and cultivating rare talents by not only helping them have the resources they need in school or work to excel, but, more importantly, the resources they need to be happy.
When I was growing up, I certainly did not have access to those resources. I moved out on my own when I was 15, knowing full well that statistically, kids like me end up repeating the cycle of abuse and addiction that caused me to leave home in the first place. To be happy, someone who is caught up in a cycle of misery — whether it involves mental health, addiction or poverty — has to learn a new way of being. I could see that just as I had a genetic inheritance that might predispose me to diabetes, I also had an emotional inheritance that might predispose me to mental health challenges.
I wanted to believe I could beat the odds. But that meant I needed a plan that might tip the scales in my favor. I needed to learn a new emotional language, but sadly I didn’t have the resources for adequate mental health care or a school to teach me. So I set off on my own to see if happiness was indeed a learnable skill.
I began to develop a set of practicable skills to train my brain to behave differently — starving old habits, while building new ones. I wrote songs like “Who Will Save Your Soul,” about my life’s mission to learn about being responsible for my own happiness. And I wrote “Hands” in an attempt to quit shoplifting, and when my hands reached out to steal, or my fear of going hungry and homeless took hold, I learned to put pen to paper and write instead. Even though I found these skills on my own, I hope that in the near future, companies will be able to offer resources that provide a variety of tools to help employees cope with mental health challenges.
Twenty-one years ago, I created the nonprofit Inspiring Children Foundation to help kids who fall through the cracks of traditional mental health systems. Under the oversight of a clinician, the program offers behavioral health tools and a comprehensive plan to inspire children to figure out who they are and who they want to become. And Innerworld, another company I recently co-founded, offers mental health solutions accessible to everyone. People from all walks of life can find effective mental health support for a wide range of issues, from generalized anxiety to social anxiety, stress, grief and depression, among others.
It turns out that, yes, happiness is a learnable skill. No matter our histories, we can all heal, grow and be high-performing people in healthy ways. But it certainly helps to have an employer’s support.
It’s time for more leaders in corporate America to add a new line item to their profit and loss statements. The mental health and well-being of each employee, from the mailroom to the C-suite, is paramount.
by tyler | Apr 3, 2023 | CNN, opinions
Why do we bury our departed loved ones in a cemetery? A primary purpose is to provide survivors with an opportunity to grieve and gain a sense of closure. The cemetery is a place for the living as much as it is a place for the dead.
But what about when the dearly departed are not human – but our pets?
The Spanish city of Barcelona recently announced that it will be investing in the establishment of the country’s first public pet cemetery. Set to open next year, it will offer both burials and cremations – with an estimated 7,000 carried out each year.
For me, as someone who has spent years researching the development of pet cemeteries elsewhere in the world, this news came as a shock. Barcelona is a densely populated city with limited privately owned land – one where 50% of families own a pet.
How did a city that is home to 180,000 dogs not already have a public pet cemetery? Until now, the service was only provided by the private sector, according to Barcelona’s Councilor for Climate Emergency and Ecological Transition, Eloi Badia. He added that the municipal-funded initiative was sparked by “constant public demand.”
After all, public pet cemeteries have been around in Europe and the Americas since the late 19th century. Britain’s first public pet cemetery appeared in London’s Hyde Park in 1881. New York’s Hartsdale pet cemetery was founded in 1896, followed a few years later by Paris’ ornate Cimetière des Chiens in 1899.
I became interested in the history of modern pet burial practices while investigating the archaeological record of a centuries-old house in Toronto. I came across a (very) large dog buried in the back garden which, according to the historical record, was occupied between 1840 and 1870.
This dog survived to an elderly age but, sadly, suffered from degenerative joint disease and severe infections during his last months. His ailments progressed to such a state that suggest he received some level of care in his final weeks. He then was buried in a personal plot behind the family home.
This elderly dog led me to think about the different ways people interact with the bodies of their pets after death. Could this behavior be reflective of the relationships they held with their animals in life? In this instance, why take the time to carefully bury a dog in its own space when other, arguably easier options existed?
This, after all, was an era when people often disposed of their dead pets in the river, or might have sold their bodies for meat and skin.
Good hygiene is an obvious reason to choose a burial – no one wants decomposing animal bodies in the street or their garden – but that wouldn’t immediately warrant a personalized, dedicated burial and gravestone.
The most straight forward option would be to dispose of a deceased animal with the household waste. But such treatment would evidently feel less ceremonious and would not offer appropriate emotional closure to what was likely an important relationship.
Like the burial of people, the burial of pets is an intimate cultural practice, one that changes over time and is reflective of the changing relationships that a society has with its cherished creatures.
My study of historic gravestones and epitaphs in Britain from the Victorian period to today shows this changing human-animal relationship. In the 19th century, gravestones were often dedicated to a “loving friend” or “devoted companion,” suggesting pets were mostly considered important friends.
By the early 20th century, pets had become members of the family – evidenced by the appearance of family surnames on the gravestones, and loving epitaphs written by “Mummy and Daddy.”
Society’s changing attitude towards the role of animals in the afterlife can also be found. Fast-forward a few decades later, and gravestones were more likely to reference a reunion then earlier ones. For example, the owners of Denny, the “brave little cat” buried in an east London cemetery in 1952, wrote on his epitaph “God bless until we meet again.”
I wonder what the epitaphs in Barcelona’s new cemetery will reveal about modern Catalan relationships with animals.
Over time, our ways of treating our animal dead appear to reflect an even closer relationship in life. Once strictly forbidden by law, the last decade saw many jurisdictions, like the state of New York, allowing the co-burial of cremated animals and people, which will undoubtedly lead to changing funerary and commemoration practices for both humans and animals.
For me, the most remarkable similarity between modern and historic pet cemeteries is the striking evidence for the heartbreak and taboos around grieving for animals.
The connection that someone has with their pet can be just as strong and just as significant as their relationships with other humans. Yet today, as in over 100 years ago, individuals continue to struggle to find the appropriate outlet to express their pain, hiding heartache for fear of the social repercussions that might come with public acknowledgment of the existence of such a bond.
The RSPCA reassures the public on its website that they should not feel shame for their grief. In the UK, charities like the Blue Cross and Rainbow Bridge Pet Loss Grief Center offer counseling to bereaved humans.
Close relationships between people and animals have existed for millennia, but in western European cultures, there were few acceptable ways to mourn that relationship. As society becomes more accepting of the importance of human-animal relationships to our collective wellbeing, it is not surprising to see us follow rituals resembling those we use to mourn the loss of our closest human relationships.
At an estimated cost of €200 ($217) per service at the new Barcelona cemetery, it is important to acknowledge that this opportunity to grieve will not be financially available to everyone in the city.
This will not be a space for all of the city’s pets. Pet owners may opt to keep cremated remains within their home or spread out ashes in a meaningful location instead. Online forums and digital pet cemeteries also provide other opportunities to commemorate the relationship and express grief.
Whether one chooses a pet cemetery or not, there are many acceptable ways to express your grief – and to remember your relationship with the important animals in your life.
by tyler | Apr 3, 2023 | CNN, opinions
I often ask my students if they think school violence has been increasing, decreasing or staying stable over the past two decades. Inevitably one or more students say something like: “Of course it’s gone up!” By show of hands, most students agree.
My students are not alone. There is a widespread belief that violence in schools is on the rise. It emerges in discussions with my university colleagues, with family members, with educators charged with protecting our kindergartners to 12th graders. Policymakers share this view and vow to act, even when so often those promises don’t come to fruition.
The reality, however, is that research shows that almost all forms of school violence have been steadily and dramatically dropping for more than two decades. One dramatic and tragic exception drives our perception — mass shootings. While the reduction of school violence should mean one less thing that parents have to worry about, the fear of mass shootings is real and valid, making the absence of worry seem impossible.
Our country deserves to know that mass shootings are just one part of the school safety story. On the whole, efforts to lessen violence in schools are working. On a day-to-day basis, when looking at violence that is not related to school shootings, our kids are safer.
It’s no surprise that Americans believe that schools are less safe today than in the past. We’ve all seen and read too often about the hundreds of senseless tragic shootings perpetrated on innocent schoolchildren and educators.
As an expert in this field, I am often called upon by reporters and policymakers to comment on such incidents. For more than 30 years, we have urged policymakers to implement important, evidence-based prevention strategies, only to have school shootings increase and persist. It’s heartbreaking.
The emotional toll of mass shootings is understandably horrific. I feel the outrage and the sense of helplessness, too. I, like many other Americans, fear when my children and grandchildren go to school.
As a scientist and expert in school safety, I try to take some solace from the clear and strong data trends. Progress is being made. Overall, on a day-to-day basis for most students, American schools are safer from types of violence – other than shootings – than they’ve been for many decades. Indeed, behaviors such as fighting, kicking, hitting, bringing weapons to school, threatening with weapons, verbal victimization and social isolation have decreased in some cases more than 50% in this timeframe.
A recent study I conducted with my colleagues analyzed school victimization trends across California from 2001 to 2019. The study examined reports of victimization from approximately 6 million 7th, 9th and 11th grade students. There were massive reductions in almost all forms of victimization, including:
This knowledge makes me feel better about sending my grandchildren to school. This true narrative is based on scientific data that should also be part of our national discussion. It should help us direct resources for further study and intervention to make even more progress.
Other types of verbal, social and physical victimization also went down. African American and Latinx students had much larger declines compared to their White peers. Boys had larger declines in victimization than girls.
Very unexpectedly, the reductions in victimization happened in 95% of the schools in California. This is surprising because it goes against much of the national narrative in the media and within political circles that continually refer to the rise in school violence. It means that, contrary to popular belief, the downward victimization trends are wide, deep, systemic and pervasive. This is very good and important news.
And there’s even more good news. There are positive changes in how students experience their school environments, including strong increases over time in feelings of belonging and feeling safe at school.
This means that students in California schools today and students across the US experience millions fewer harmful acts at school when compared with students who attended schools 20 years ago. This amazing trend is something we should talk about more in the public square.
It’s worth mentioning that our current study doesn’t track the trends of cyberbullying, which according to federal data has grown more prevalent as the internet has become more and more intertwined with the fabric of society. Often times, cyberbullying has tragic consequences, leading to mental health deterioration of young people and even suicide.
Tragedy is newsworthy. People deserve to know about school shootings and to feel outraged. These feelings can build momentum for policy change. But mass shootings are a different phenomenon than day-to-day school violence.
The random mass murders of innocent students are acts of domestic national terror. The shooters clearly intend to terrorize the nation by killing many innocent victims for the primary purpose of being memorialized. The intense media coverage of the shooters has unintentionally created a strong reward structure for suicidal and homicidal perpetrators if they follow the same terror template and kill innocent, young victims.
As a nation, we have lived through more than 20 years of this copycat terror scenario. In my opinion, this contagion effect is increasing the frequency of mass shootings. If true, in addition to widely discussed gun regulations, we should employ the same media reporting guidelines for shooters as we do terrorists and suicides.
Remove the terrorist’s reward of being remembered forever by refusing to post their names, faces, backgrounds, thoughts, videos, messages and manifestos. Focus only on the victims and the harm caused. This could reduce the rising contagion of mass shootings rather dramatically if strictly followed.
Knowledge is power, and today’s educators and schoolchildren alike have more knowledge about school safety than ever before. They know more about what to do when hearing about a threat of violence. They understand better why their peers shouldn’t bring weapons into the classroom.
More students and educators now understand that bullying and teasing can have lasting impacts on a victim’s emotional well-being. More schools are implementing social emotional learning and creating positive school climates. Educators and students alike are eager to provide comfort to their students and peers in crisis.
These are good things. We’re on a good path. If we heed what the research is telling us, I believe we can reduce school victimization even further and create a truly safe, supportive environment for all of our nation’s children, educators and school staff.
