Alpha male principals and teachers—the solution to school chaos?

Michael D. writes:

Regarding Steve Sailer’s recommendation that California schools hire tough-guy alpha males to keep males students in line, neither the problem nor its solution is unique to humans. The following abstract is from Nature 408, 425-426 (23 November 2000). The full article, available only to subscribers, describes how a South African animal reserve successfully prevented teenage gangs of imported male elephant orphans from killing white rhinos and attacking park visitors in their vehicles. The simple solution was to transplant mature bull elephants from Kruger Park into the reserve.

Older bull elephants control young males
Rob Slotow, Gus van Dyk, Joyce Poole, Bruce Page & Andre Klocke
Abstract
Orphaned male adolescents go on killing sprees if mature males aren’t around.

Musth is a state of heightened sexual and aggressive activity in male elephants1, 2. Between 1992 and 1997, young orphaned musth male African elephants (Loxodonta africana) that had been introduced to Pilanesberg, South Africa, killed more than 40 white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum). The killing ceased after six older male elephants were introduced from the relatively normal Kruger Park population. The deviant behaviour of the young Pilanesberg males was rectified by the consequent reduction in musth.

An earlier, open access, New York Times article from 1996 provides more background just prior to the bulls’ introduction. At that time, the logic behind adding mature bulls to the park was described as just a theory. Alternative explanations included, naturally enough, blaming the human tourists!

Of course, the social maladjustment theory is just a theory. There are other ideas too. It could be that the ratio of elephants to rhinos is too high in the park. (Mr. van Dyk believes this is unlikely as they do not compete for food or territory.) Or it could be that the constant tourist traffic has disturbed the elephants. (But there are vast stretches of the park that are closed to tourists.)

”There is no question that there is a lot we don’t know,” Mr. van Dyk said. ”Even if we are right on what the problem is, it will be years before we know with any certainty.”

Four years later, certainty arrived: “The killing ceased after six older male elephants were introduced from the relatively normal Kruger Park population.”

All of this is reminiscent of my very first class on my first day in a Roman Catholic high school. The freshman algebra teacher was also our head coach for the varsity football team, and all classes were sex segregated until our junior year. Our coach, a man from Idaho, started the class in silence, menacingly scanning the room for likely problem cases, and announced with his best affected growl that “I’ve broken many a wild bronco in my day, and if I have to I’ll break you too.” Yikers! Maybe those mean-spirited nuns in grammar school weren’t so bad after all! That bracing experience was quickly followed by upper classmates’ description of our no nonsense Irish Monsignor, a former golden gloves champion, along with tales of the various noggins into which he’d knocked some sense over the years. Our male teachers looked out for and backed each, and they never broke rank that I can recall. Male physical violence was never a problem in the three years I attended.

That contrasted starkly with the conversation I had with the three top administrators, all middle-aged females, of my sons’ public high school. My younger son was being suspended for three days for adroitly defending himself against a group attack by six blacks recently transferred into his school (due to expulsions and discipline problems elsewhere). His overwhelming success was taken as evidence that he had initiated the fight. After he calmly explained that, while it might have looked like to some that he threw the first punch, in fact it was only after he noticed a tell-tale cocking of a shoulder and closing of a right fist by the group’s alpha leader (a preacher’s son) to chants of “Get him! Get him!” from the other five. I couldn’t contain my laughter at the principal’s response: “Next time, just run to the office and tell us about it so we can handle it for you.” They were unconvinced by his explanation that, in situations like that, a thick circle of spectators quickly forms around the combatants, and anyone who attempts to flee is simply shoved back into the circle and risks becoming a laughing-stock. My son’s defense wasn’t helped by my asserting that, as women, they had no personal experience and therefore no clue about the nature and dynamics of teenage male aggression. I explained that they basically had three groups of boys: bullies, passive victims, and non-bullying resisters who will not only defend themselves but also others if allowed to do so when it is justified. Once bullies realize that they are far outnumbered with few unprotected prey, their aggressive behavior is greatly inhibited. That idea, of course, was unacceptable, even repulsive judging by their facial expressions, and they looked at me as though I must be the true source of my son’s “problem”. Not only would my approach require fact finding, assignment of guilt, and a rejection of all-at-fault punishments, the school system (Northern Virginia) was under heavy pressure to equalize suspension rates by race.

Ever since that experience (and others following it), I’ve been promoting to all who will listen the idea that the problem of teenage male violence and general unruliness truly originates from there being too few intimidating adult males in our schools. It’s not just that you need a few adult alpha males with credible kick-ass-ability and a perceived willingness to administer it; you also need males of all types in greater numbers as “back-up” in strength, a concept youngsters who engage in group attacks understand all too well.

Robert R. writes:

As for Steve Sailer’s idea of some enforcers in schools—it isn’t going to happen. I think there’s something in the leftist mentality that wants the classrooms to be in chaos. Perhaps they want everyone to be unable to learn if some can’t. I did have the idea 20 or 30 years ago that what was needed was an enforcer-type sitting at the back of each classroom to assist the teacher in keeping order. There are lots of things that COULD be done that won’t be done because of leftist obstruction.

LA replies:

“Perhaps they want everyone to be unable to learn if some can’t.”

It couldn’t be said more concisely than that.

Maureen C. writes:

Re: “… the problem of teenage male violence and general unruliness truly originates from there being too few intimidating adult males in our schools.”

Exactly. I taught English in high school for five years in the wild and wooly 1970s, when all bets were off and the old ways were unraveling. The school had two 6’4” male “deans” to whom teachers sent their problem students—almost aways males, who got three whacks of a paddle, if the offense was severe enough and detention otherwise. One young coach used to discipline the boys who challenged him in his gym classes by inviting them to a boxing match. He would go into the padded wrestling room, lock the door, and give the angry adolescent boxing gloves and invite him to “have at him.” It didn’t take long before the adolescent bully was pounding the locked door, screaming to be let out. The rest of the boys in the gym class couldn’t stop laughing … which reduced the number of those who wanted challenge the coach in the locked room.

The reason the schools backed down from letting these male “deans” take care of business is that the local NAACP started threatening lawsuits, because a greater percentage of blacks were being disciplined—in other words, the NAACP made sure that, for political gain, they took away the last chance that many black male adolescents had to learn self-control and respect for rules in school and by extension in society. Schools were threatened with lawsuits—the schools backed away from supporting their teachers in case of lawsuit. Teachers gave up. Why try to discipline a student who could then beat you over the head with the NAACP or the PTA, which would cause you to lose your job. The result was chaos; schools started caving in to adolescent male aggression.

I used to listen to a lot of ignorant “civilians” tell me that teachers were “overpaid babysitters”—that they had it too easy with three months vacation, benefits, pension, blah, blah, blah. Believe me, I’ve had lots of different jobs since the ’70s—and you couldn’t pay me enough to take a lousy teaching job—with the adolescent abuse that comes with it. Good teachers are saints.

You might say that courts of law, arbitration and rules are the Western-based (female-like) attempts to control male violence through ritualized behavior. These civilized, rule-based approaches for settling conflicts must be taught to males in schools—but only after getting the males’ attention by hitting them over the head with a two by four.

Mark A. writes:

Excellent comment by Maureen C. I would like to add something I learned from law school: these policies are because law school graduates who go into public policy are passive-aggressive wimps. They want power without responsibility. To use the stroke of a pen and have their lefty fantasies fulfilled immediately based on cooperation and “respect” for the law. This is why they will never resort to executive actions like those recommended by Sailer. Executive enforcers and high-testosterone males. Everything the Leftist male isn’t.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 19, 2007 06:56 PM | Send