You only find peace because others stand ready to do violence on your behalf. The fact that you acknowledge that something bigger than the lions is required to reign the lions in is an acknowledgement of my point. It isn't "coping skills" but the threat of a larger stick that helps kids get through a school day without being attacked. That larger stick are adults willing to intervene. Without that threat of violence, those coping skills would mean nothing. However, every day we erode societies ability to control some of it's more violent elements.
Violence and it's implied threat is what keeps society from tearing itself apart. Don't kid yourself into thinking that it is your reasoning power that keeps you safe. It's only the threat of violence implied by someone else that keeps you safe. The fact that adults are willing to intervene is the only thing preventing what i've described from being necessary. The fact that you and those like you believe that communication skills are all that is required is nothing more than proof of the effectiveness of the systematic threat of violence that our society uses to enforce order.
My statements aren't meant so much as a suggestion on how a school kid should respond to violence, as it is a general discussion of the role of violence in the social order. I believe there is a great deal of naive wishful thinking involved in suggestions of non-violence in many cases. Labeling something "Ego" is a reductionist way of dealing with a much more complex evolutionary process. Also, simply saying "It's a school fight" is a bit reductionist as well. I've seen school fights that have resulted in hospitalization.
Unfortunately, there are kids out there who are more than willing to beat another child senseless, and those kids have parents who do nothing but play attorney for their child whenever that child faces consequences. I've seen several boys and girls during the course of my career who saw it as their right to beat anyone they want with impunity, and they always seem to dodge any real consequence for that. And yes, those same parents would sue another child for attacking their baby. They'll also sue a school for holding their child responsible for his actions. In this society everyone sues for everything. You can be perfectly right and be sued.
Of course I guess it is a good sign that society has evolved enough that most people think that non-violence is the key. Not everyone is that evolved, however, and thinking so is wishful thinking. I do know a thing or two about it. I've spent the last 10 years of my life studying violence and the evolutionary psychological underpinnings of violence. In that time i've concluded that much of what most people think they understand about violence and it's causes are not true.
Further, our "Legal system" is very poor at punishing and dealing with the truly violent. It's usually only after an extreme act of violence, long after numerous other violent incidents, many truly violent individuals are dealt with. Society is only as peaceful as it's defenders are effective at dealing with it's most violent elements. In places where law and order have nearly broken down, such as the inner city, violence is endemic.
Of course, this is probably a topic better reserved for a different topic, as the issue of schools and children aren't the core of my point, and they tend to bring an emotionality to this type of discussion not prevelent when discussing adults. It does bear noting, however, that perhaps teaching children that there is always a peaceful solution to problems is a double edged sword. On the one hand it does teach them how to solve minor inter personal problems without the use of violence, which is good. There is a certain falseness in the statement "Violence never solved anything" or "Violence isn't the solution".
As for bullies being the "best thing", that's never what I said. Bullies are usually cowards who predate on the weak. What I suggest is that it's ideal to be strong, powerful and assertive people. That's the ideal. If a bully feels that you are willing to do anything to avoid a confrontation with him, he wins. If he feels that there is a limit to how far he can push you, he'll usually leave you alone. It is important to teach children to respect others, but it is also important to teach them that they are not someone else's door mat. The "Ego" game may seem silly to those who think of themselves as enlightened, but it is also a key aspect in interpersonal human behavior. To dismiss it as childish is and refuse to deal with it for what it is, is a misunderstanding of it's larger role in human affairs.
Finally, as for your comment about Columbine,
"If I had a child who was rendered unconcious or was attacked with the level of violence which you describe, I would file both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. I know that there is little that a child can do to warrant that type of reaction. This is similar to the Columbine incident where the kids took so much abuse that they struck back with everything they had. That's not the proper response to a situation like this."
it is based on the myth of Columbine. Harris and Klebold, contrary to popular myth, did not commit the crime they did because they were "picked on by the jocks". The fact is that they did not even seek out the jocks who allegedly tormented them. They fired their shots at individuals who had never engaged in any kind of ridicule of them. They knew where the "jocks" would be at that time of morning, and stayed far away from there, because their act was about power, not revenge. They were not wronged, they were not tormented, they were simply defective human beings. Further, they also weren't "children". They committed a cold and calculating act that showed adult sophistication and they did it for power, not revenge. It was the evil act of two sociopaths.
At any rate, using violence as a last resort is a good thing. Eliminating violence as an option at all isn't.
