Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Bullying, Leadership, and the Presidency of the United States

The 1965 bullying incident at Michigan's elite Cranbrook School that came to light this week has kicked off a series of conversations about bullying and about the extent to which we should hold our nation's leaders accountable for past behavior.

Inter Press Service

The 1965 bullying incident at Michigan's elite Cranbrook School that came to light this week has kicked off a series of conversations about bullying and about the extent to which we should hold our nation's leaders accountable for past behaviour.

But even after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's "If I offended" apology, his comment about not remembering the incident, in which classmates say he was the ringleader, troubled many people. His remark hinted at a dangerous indifference to personal freedom and human rights that we do not like to hear from our nation's leaders, even in their teenage years.

But in the midst of this story is a broader point about the role of leadership and individual action in promoting or discouraging environments like the one described in the Washington Post. The stories shared by the Cranbrook Class of 1965 included perpetrators, bystanders and victims of bullying, but no sign of a defender — the only sort of person with the moral courage to stand up against their peers for a greater good.  

These are the people who make human rights victories possible and they represent the greatest opportunity for true leadership that most students face during these formative years.

Because, every time a student hears a sexist joke or a racial slur, every time she hears the words "faggot" or "slut" or "fatso" or "retard", she must make a decision. Will I be a perpetrator, a victim, a bystander or a human rights defender? And each time she makes that decision on which role she will play, she is exercising a muscle.

Like any muscle, the more she uses it, the stronger it becomes. And its strength defines who she is in her school, her family, her neighbourhood, and most importantly, who she sees when she looks in the mirror.

In the RFK Center's Speak Truth to Power programme, we are working with schools across the United States and in countries like Italy, Cambodia and Sweden to turn every student into a defender. We spread this message through the life stories of human rights activists like Elie Weisel, Vaclav Havel and the Dalai Lama who risked everything to fight for a more just and equal future.

For too long, we've allowed ourselves to equate targeted bullying with innocent teasing, or dismissed it as pranks and ignored the torment and long-term impact that an incident like this has on young people. These impacts are felt hardest by the victims, but you need only read the accounts of remorse from the men who helped attack John Lauber as boys, or those who merely watched it happen, to realise that when no one stands up to play the role of a defender, all those involved suffer a wound.

The fact is, human rights victories are rarely won by powerful governments or well-armed militaries. More often than not, these battles are led by individuals and small groups of people determined to overcome wrong. Think King, Gandhi, Mandela.

It's a lesson with big implications for our world, but it's also the very essence of the leadership and compassion we all hope our children learn in school. Unfortunately for the students at the Cranbrook School in the mid-1960s, there was no such leader.

But we hope that today, resources like our Speak Truth to Power curriculum and the power of the anti-bullying movement will mean that 50 years from now, a presidential candidate will be telling us about the times they defended human rights in school, and how that itself shaped their path to leadership.

Kerry Kennedy is the President of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share