RULER sucks and we all hate it, but… we might actually need it. It is an unpopular program among students and even some teachers. Its lessons sometimes feel patronizing and aimed towards a younger audience. What does watching scenes from Inside Out do for me? While it can be easy to write RULER off and engage in its lessons grudgingly, if at all, the problems that RULER is trying to address are very real. Middle and high-schoolers might balk at their social-emotional skills getting questioned, but most, if not all, of us either know someone who has been on either side (or both sides) of social abuse or experienced it ourselves, even if we may not realize its nature. Though it is not entirely new, ghosting – the practice of relationship dissolution by ceasing all communication – as a practice of social exclusion and conflict ‘resolution’ is ever more prevalent in this culture of hyper-connectivity. Despite our warranted skepticism around RULER, it can be used alongside effective disciplinary tactics to address proliferating behavioral problems at school, particularly ghosting and other forms of passive aggression. The stakes are hard to overstate; the way that we learn to treat each other now can have profound effects on personal, professional, and societal health today and in the future.
Over the past decade or so, scholars have spent considerable amounts of time investigating ghosting, particularly in adolescents and young adults. While it is frequently understood to occur between romantic partnerships, which tend to be more intimate, ghosting occurs in all types of relationships, whether it be between family members, friends, or even classmates and colleagues. The latter two instances of ghosting are important to note because these constitute a specific type of ghosting – ghosting in the professional sphere. Frequently, ghosting occurs over one or more technological mediums, but it also manifests in person, where social exclusion and ostracism can occur. The effects, thus, extend far beyond the technological sphere and may veer into bullying.
Ghosting has evolved from the days of Mark Kevan – long before he even dreamt of being a 10-12 dean at the Academy – calling a girl at her house only to get told that she was washing her hair, a sorry excuse for not wanting to talk to him. Mr. Kevan says, “I am not sure that ghosting experiences back in the 80’s and 90’s were quite the same. Without cell phones, the internet, or social media, the best that classmates or friends could do was ignore you at school.” Likewise, Bob Anderson says that the worst ghosting experiences he can think of are from the present day, having his emails ignored by students. But whether it’s Mr. Kevan getting ghosted over the phone or at school or Mr. Anderson having his emails ignored by students, the impact personally and communally bears resemblance across the years. Now, however, it is more prevalent than ever.
Empirical evidence of people’s experiences reveals that ghosting is a fundamentally harmful practice which leads to a variety of psychological impacts that extend beyond the relationship in question, leading many researchers to consider it a form of emotional abuse. It can result in a laundry list of negative feelings including inadequacy, loneliness, issues with self esteem, belonging, a lack of control, and even depressive disorders. Given these effects, it should be understood that just because ghosting does not constitute direct aggression, it remains a deeply impactful and harmful form of aggression. Most often, the worst effects of ghosting are experienced by a victim of ghosting, but the practice of ghosting can also be harmful to the “ghoster.” In fact, the experience of being ghosted can actually cause the victim to become the ghoster in future relationships, potentially leading to a circular effect where a ghosting culture develops and no one is ‘safe.’ Indeed, studies have shown a strong positive correlation between victimization and perpetration of these types of abusive behavior. Without action at an institutional level, this is the culture that is actively developing at the Academy, disrupting the very community that administrators are working so hard to cultivate.
I have personally experienced and seen others experience many of these feelings at the Academy, and it occurs throughout the grade levels. I remember telling a friend that my other friend was “toxic” in 6th grade because he would not speak to me for a number of days, and I continue to see ghosting even as a senior. This should come as no great surprise, given the ubiquity of ghosting with adults. In a school setting like the Academy, the consequences are tangible. One classmate noted to me that the classroom environment following an unresolved feud between two students was noticeable even with no prior knowledge of what transpired between them.
The reasons that a person might ghost someone are varied, even among interpersonal relationships, but most causes stem from convenience. Even researchers are split on what leads someone to initiate ghosting. Psychologist Kelsey M. Latimer argues that people who ghost are more likely to also exhibit behaviors like manipulativeness, self-centeredness, and avoidance, but it could also be a result of mental distress. In fact, both of these could be true; someone experiencing psychological distress could be more avoidant and selfish than they would be otherwise, for example.
Sometimes the ghosting is unintentional; a consequence of lacking social-emotional instruction is that people do not know when they could be doing something hurtful to another. History teacher and Advocate sponsor Anaïs Garvanian was one of these individuals. At the beginning of high school, she was close friends with two other classmates, and they did everything together, but something changed. Perhaps due to a disagreement between the other two friends or maybe from something else, one of these friends was less and less present, turning the trio into more of a duo. Ms. Garvanian did not have issues with the ghosted friend, but she did sense that there was something like exclusion going on, and nobody was there to tell her that what they were doing was hurtful. Social tides are strong and don’t always make sense, but we can work harder to decipher our behaviors to prevent these situations.
But just like any social issue, there are caveats to the question over how much responsibility people have to each other in terms of communication. For example, it could be dangerous for a partner in an abusive relationship to let their partner know about reasoning or plans to leave them, risking further physical and/or emotional abuse. In this scenario, it’s doubtful that the ‘ghoster’ – though that may not be the right term in this case – has any responsibility to the abuser. This type of relationship dissolution specifically as a measure taken for safety or self-preservation in an abusive relationship is called going ‘no contact.’ The difficulty in understanding some ghosting situations lies in the fact that the line between abuser and abused is blurred. Certainly, there are instances in which abuse one way or another is clear, but research shows that ghosters in general frequently “justify it as a way of protecting themselves after being disrespected, experiencing aggressiveness or even harassment,” per a study in the Journal of Telematics and Informatics. Such claims are given further credence when a disagreement precipitates a ghosting experience.
While ghosting is frequently confined between two people, there are times in which it becomes a broader concern about ostracism and bullying. After ghosting a peer or partner, a person could feel justified in telling their friends and even those close to the ghostee of their experience or reasons for ghosting that person. Ghosters are not devoid of their own emotions, and speaking to others about those feelings can be therapeutic. Confiding in a trusted friend, family member, or another outlet is not unreasonable, but there are ghosting instances in which a disagreement between two people leads to wider ostracism among a certain group. This is particularly harmful when a ghosting experience occurs entirely within a certain group of friends, leading to one friend or another getting ostracized and pushed out of the group. On my part, the evidence to support this is anecdotal, but there is a pre-established connection between ghosting and ostracism. If nothing else, ghosting can lead to perceived ostracism due to the lack of knowledge which is inherent to it. In my experience, it is the fact that it is impossible to know which people the ghoster has told and what they have told them that makes the experience particularly torturous. It instills a sense of paranoia, with the weight of one’s reputation and relationships on the line. Given just this one aspect, it is no wonder that there can be severe psychological consequences from ghosting.
Unfortunately, the Academy, as well as thousands of other schools, workplaces, organizations, and other social groups around the world find themselves in a difficult position in trying to deal with the trend. Workplaces are faced with developing appropriate policies to avoid ghosting in the first place and still other policies to deal with it once it has begun. The consequences for these establishments, particularly academic institutions and workplaces, are pretty clear. If ghosting occurs, for example, between people who are assigned to the same group project, it could impede successful or efficient project completion. A ‘serial ghoster’ – someone who ghosts many times – may be hazardous for the workplace, disrupting the workplace ethos and wellbeing of colleagues. Not only could this be harmful to the workplace as a whole, it could also damage the reputation of that employee and lead to others declining to work with them. Broadly, serial ghosting becomes a developmental rut – at any age – in which a person only knows how to handle conflict with ghosting.
Addressing how the Academy approaches these issues raises questions about what role the school has in managing social behaviors. In this regard, the school evidently sees itself with some authority. RULER defines itself as “an approach to social and emotional learning (SEL) that teaches emotional intelligence to people of all ages, with the goal of creating a healthier, more equitable, innovative, and compassionate society,” and the Academy’s Student/Parent Handbook stipulates an array of behaviors of which it approves or disapproves, representing ways that the school seeks to develop emotional intelligence before, during, and after conflict. Indeed, the handbook states, “An essential component of respecting the dignity and safety of others is our attitude and behavior during times of challenge or even conflict.” Ghosting transgresses even the school’s most core tenets, such as “engag[ing] in face-to-face direct conversations; be[ing] clear, open, and honest in your conversations.” Likewise, the Student/Parent Handbook’s policy on “unwanted interpersonal conflict” says, “In order to fulfill the Academy’s mission, all individuals must be free to develop relationships, work, and learn in a healthy environment that is free of fear, intimidation, humiliation, threats of violence, or unwanted or unacceptable behaviors that create a hostile atmosphere.”
Despite many students’ critical views of RULER, there is a wealth of academic literature backing up the value of social-emotional learning throughout life and especially in early childhood through adolescence. Middle and high school are some of the last chances for institutions to develop children and adolescents’ emotional intelligence before the stakes for social-emotional behavior are raised. If an adolescent does not learn how to handle conflict appropriately, for example, the dearth of that skill will affect their ability to participate fully and in an appropriate way in all their future social situations, from familial relationships, to friends, to colleagues at work. Given the destructive nature of even one person with low social-emotional intelligence, the importance of its instruction from an early age is hard to overstate.
These are not just hypotheticals. Ivy League students, who, in theory, represent the pinnacle of achievement, are proving to be just as or less effective in the workplace than students who go to schools with much higher admission rates, a fact that columnist and author David Brooks associates with the failure to develop other important emotional skills. Brooks, writing in The Atlantic, says, “The bottom line is that if you give somebody a standardized test when they are 13 or 18, you will learn something important about them, but not necessarily whether they will flourish in life, nor necessarily whether they will contribute usefully to society’s greater good. Intelligence is not the same as effectiveness.” Indeed, Brooks, pointing to a book by Mark Murphy, Hiring for Attitude, reports that the vast majority – 89% – of job terminations or firings were due to social and moral traits affecting a person’s job performance and only 11% due to a lack of skill or proficiency.
Regardless of whether ghosting is a reflection of degraded morals or lacking empathy, it is a reflection of the same selfishness and lacking social skills which the current higher education pathway at least neglects if not encourages. Schooling should not just function to improve intellect but also to improve students’ emotional intellect because both are important to effective functioning in society.
It would be presumptuous to believe that the Academy – a college prep school – does not suffer from the same issues that Brooks identifies with the elite higher learning of the United States. It is fortunate that administrators at the Academy have identified the risk that we are creating students who are smart on paper but who may become poor colleagues and members of society. This is the first step, but teaching and addressing student behavior to nip the proliferation of lacking social-emotional skills in the bud is just as important, and I fear that in this regard, the school is failing.
RULER is working to contend with the front end of this, but it lacks authenticity. The answer is not to be found in prepackaged lessons but through tough conversations about what it looks like to be a good community member. These conversations, which should happen early, often, and without judgement, can manifest in English classes or even advisory sessions like the settings in which RULER currently operates. The way that we treat each other matters and can be at least encouraged if not taught, but RULER is not accomplishing that goal in its current form. To achieve the most from it, we need to give more credence and perhaps even more responsibility to students to face social-emotional problems head on.
While revised social-emotional instruction is helpful, students will continue to treat each other poorly if the practice of acting with contempt towards peers is not stopped and disciplined, especially among the current and near future middle and high school generations, which did not receive adequate social-emotional learning during their most formative years. RULER can be seen as front-end correction, but back-end correction in the form of consequences and inquiries into student-student conflicts that are brought to the attention of the administration is also needed.
Needless to say, these consequences should not be punitive but rather instructional. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it is not so obvious just who is in the right and who is in the wrong in a given situation – and, indeed, the blame frequently falls on both participants – but the ability to recover from disagreement is an essential social trait. A small punishment in middle or high school pales in comparison to the consequences of poor social behavior in the workplace – firings, dysfunction, and unemployment due to unresolved issues with a person’s attitude. Though less costly from a professional standpoint, the effects that poor social-emotional skills can have on interpersonal relationships throughout a person’s life are equally important. Whether it is with a parent or a partner, conflict is a part of all relationships of substance; failing to learn how to resolve conflict respectfully spells trouble not only in all of these relationships but also for society at large if we are speaking about a broader social trend.
It is evident simply by looking at the Academy’s community norms and principles of conduct that it seeks to build students not only into smarter but also more morally upstanding members of society, even if disciplinary measures are necessary to achieve this. Given what we know about the effects that passive aggressive, emotionally abusive behavior like ghosting can have on a community, it seems reasonable to situate these behaviors in the disciplinary crosshairs. This precedent is lacking in the present.
In my own experience, administrators seemed ambivalent to the consequences for school culture or at least stumped on what to do about ghosting. They told me that they allow ghosting behavior because teenagers are still developing and learning to manage their emotions, but that is the very reason why they need to intercede! Ghosting and refusal to engage in conflict resolution is evidently just as impactful on the students involved and the broader community as, for example, a student who makes racist jokes or verbally harasses a peer, so why do we treat it differently? There is a tolerance for passive aggression that should not remain. It does a disservice to both the ghoster and the ghostee when we do not hold students accountable to their actions.
The environment that is created when we do not have the appropriate policies in place to prevent and develop consequences for ghosting is unwelcoming, tense, and full of unnecessary toxicity from a proliferation of unresolved disputes. Yes, there are consequences for the ghosters who do not learn to overcome their developmental stagnation in the long term, but in a community in which it is permissible to treat each other in this way, the near-term consequences fall on the shoulders of those getting ghosted. It is the person who gets ghosted who bears the brunt of the mental impacts, as well as the social fallout that might accompany a ghosting experience. Whether it hinders academic achievement, causes relationship instability, reclusion, loneliness, anger, or any other maladaptive trait which precipitates from getting ghosted, it is important to remember that these outcomes are preventable.
It’s time to start treating students at the Academy, especially upper school students, with the kind of responsibility and respect that we expect them to take into the next stage of their lives. That means raising our standards for what a good Academy student looks like – a degree beyond academic excellence. But it also means we are honest with students about the problems that RULER seeks to address – simply about the very existence of these problems – and engage students on how they think we should go about addressing them in a truly community-based and collaborative environment.
Perhaps the most difficult step of all – recognizing the need for social-emotional learning – the Academy has already achieved. Now, it simply needs to implement a response in a communally meaningful and impactful way to make the Academy what it truly seeks to become.
