Mr. Lowell Habel
4 October 2014 Diane Wedner, in her article for Lifescript, “How to Prevent the Effects of Bullying,” argues that “[p]arents and schools must join forces to stop it [bullying]” (Diane Wedner, 2013, p.7). After analyzing her argument, I find that, although the recent employment of zero-tolerance bullying programs has helped raise awareness of the topic, Wedner provides a compelling argument that school anti-bullying policies require such reforms as to include parental intervention. Particularly, what is meant by parental intervention is action that synchronizes both on-campus zero-tolerance programs with at-home action. This can include parents taking away their child’s cell phones at night to prevent them from “obsessively check[ing] messages and postings” (Diane Wedner, 2013, p.8). Wedner’s article focuses on capturing the attention of parents in order to persuade them to follow up on their kid’s daily lives. In developing her case for the need to reform zero-tolerance programs, Wedner provides findings from reputable sources regarding the role of parents in on-campus and off-campus harassment cases. For example, she encourages parents whose children engage in cyberbullying “to limit his or her computer privileges to school assignments only” (Diane Wedner, 2013, p. 8). Furthermore, to reinforce her argument, Wedner includes a list of negative symptoms indicated by most victims of bullying. Finally, she notes that anti-bullying policies often don’t work unless schools have a system in place for students to report bullying (often times, student action is encouraged by concerned parents at home). What makes Wedner’s article persuasive is its consistent appeal to ethos. Psychologists, we are informed, supported most of the opinions found in the reading when it was not factual information. As an example, Wedner uses a fictional scenario depicting a relatable on-campus interaction between two girls that ends in the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document