Being Assertive Without Being Aggressive or Avoidive is the Best of the American Way

"OK, there you are, waiting in line to get into the football game, and some guy from much farther back in line charges up to the man near you, demanding to know if he's "a refugee." How do you (safely) tell the aggressive so-and-so to get back in line and let the (embarrassed, frightened, native-born) man know that you're on his side? I'd like some suggestions because I'm likely to step forward and respond w/o thinking...."

This is an interesting scenario in a recent FB thread. I may use this in class, but even if I do not…I have learned a lot reading it, because the thread is filled with insight.  Here is an incomplete culling from the thread…in search of the core guiding principles we might use.  I apologize for typos or incomplete thoughts; I have a stack of papers to grade today, but still wanted to reflect on this anyway.

Certainly everyone deserves dignity and respect, so we want to be the change and enact our vision for a better world (and resolution to this conflict) in our response.  As Tucker put it, whatever we say or do we need to ‘be kind’ to everyone involved.  As Sherry put it, one key part of being kind and effective here is to ‘remain calm.’

And the audience often determines the outcome of a conflict.  In this case, a productive response would include expanding the scope of the conflict to include the audience.

But expanding the scope with escalating the hostility is a challenge.

I like Maura’s idea (for anyone with language skills, as a fellow Irish) with one modification informed by Keith.  Perhaps stand next to the victim and look another spectator in the eye and say something firmly but gently like Carl’s suggestion: “leave us alone.”  Janet’s Target story hits on this: stand between them, let the victim take your place in line.

Because Maura’s is a bit less inciting and we want to avoid Rene’s scenario where the intervener is now seen by the audience as the problem.  On the other hand, it is important to be fully present in the moment, and it is possible that a stronger statement like Maura’s would be needed to bring the audience in against the attacker.

In this sense, Nick’s post is (like others who agreed or shared similar regrets over staying silent in the past) on point:  we cannot know for sure what we might or should say ahead of time, but we do need to be prepared to say and do something. 

The preparation we can do is think through the dynamics as we are doing here, and work on language that feels like our own voice, and prepare to be both assertive and respectful, to both step in (in between) to protect victims and invite the attacker to see his words/actions as outside the crowd/community without feeling attacked himself.

This is where expanding the scope can help in other ways, because once one person intervenes it is more likely for others to do the same and this creates a dynamic where the attacker might see the value in claiming he was joking or just walking away.

Or, one of those from the crowd now on the intervention team might bring the most valuable tool—a good sense of humor—to the conflict and deflate the entire situation with a comment that makes everyone laugh and allows the attacker to escape with a bit of dignity by laughing and moving on.

Teresa’s comment (depending again on reading the specific situation) might fit the bill here, if said with a tone that encourages all to laugh:  “Unless you and I are Native Americans, we are all refugees here!”  Or Kevin’s (and Karen’s) “I am also a refugee!  Is there a prize?”  

Or Alternate Julie’s “Excuse me sir, can I see your ID?”  Or Terry’s approach using humor and distraction (yell O-H…).  Or Cindy’s “I'm sorry, dearie, did your poor mother not teach you manners? Because in the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, we don't make accusations to strangers. We welcome them. So, where are you from, anyway?”

Or as Kimberly suggests: “In a calm voice I'd say, ‘Now, let's all take deep breaths and get to the real heart of the matter.’ I'd turn to the newcomer and ask, ‘Sir, are you a Browns fan (or whoever the home team is) or Steelers fan (whoever the visiting team is)?’ Hopefully, that would get a couple chuckles to defuse the situation. ‘Come on, we're all just football fans right now. Right?’

Another good ‘template’ type of response to keep in mind and practice in less stressful situations so you can get better at it, is the one suggested by Barb:  Ask a question. (But be careful you do not ask a question that invites the attacker to explain or justify or expand his attack. Tone matters here.)

Barb suggests asking “What is the problem?”  This is a good generic question to have in your template box, but in this case a slightly modified version might work better: “How can we tell that this person is not an American?  And no one has to be an American to like watching soccer.  What is the problem here?”  Cindy’s suggestion to ask a question kindly is important.

Asking a question in a situation like this is best combined with Keith’s point above:  Without pause, continue to ask 1-2 others in the crowd, making eye contact, “What is the problem here?

Or we might imagine a dialogue:

“What is the problem here?

She is the problem; she is a refugee.

In America, do we prevent guests from going to soccer games?”

(Making eye contact with 1-2 in the crowd) “Do we?” 

At this point, it is worth repeating:  we cannot know for sure ahead of time and in the abstract what would work, because we need to be present in the moment and read the situation to balance assertiveness with non-escalation, challenging the words/actions without challenging the attacker’s identity. 

We can (as we are here) prepare to do that well, but we cannot (in my view) find one universally applicable statement that will always work, even that will always work in this one scenario, because even this one set of facts can vary dramatically depending on the circumstances. 

And even a perfect question/intervention is not likely the end; we need to see these as conversations, as unfolding over time, and not look for a silver bullet to end the situation in one fell swoop.

Amy’s point is worth reflecting on as well, reinforcing the importance of being present in the moment.  Much of what we have said already is based on the assumption, highlighted by Kelly, that getting the crowd involved will mean that they will join our side. 

As Amy indicates, however, with leadership fanning the flames of racial and religious hatred we have to be less than entirely confident in that outcome—reinforcing the importance of balancing the tension between intervening and still respecting the attacker (and others in the crowd who might ‘agree’ with him).

Assuming what must be achieved (in this case, agreement that attacking a random stranger on the dubious presumption that she is a refugee and even more dubious presumption that being a refugee justifies the attack) will derail efforts to de-escalate and resolve.

Creativity, like humor already noted, is a powerful skill here.  Maureen (and Tina) has a good idea (if it fits your read of the situation):  greet the attacker as if he were an old friend and walk him away from the situation.  I am sure I do not need to note that caution needed in taking this approach, but I will add this—doing this might reduce the chance that the crowd comes to your aid and single you out in the attacker’s mind.

If your read of the situation is imminent danger of violence, then Mary’s idea emerges as worth considering: stand next to the person while dialing 911.  Or Patti’s idea: to stand with the person and invite others to join and surround her.

Brenda’s idea of starting with a gentle and kind but assertive “excuse me?” could also work.

Kevin’s point about no point trying to reason with a moron warrants consideration. 

Not because calling out moronishness will help us here, but because whatever approach we take might get an incoherent response, returning us to the importance of bringing in the crowd (expanding the scope) and respecting the attacker—if his response indicates low intelligence or Fox News Disease than simply separating him and the victim is likely the best possible outcome short of calling 911.

Lou’s idea could work:  “Whoa, whoa. Let’s turn it down a notch here.  Let it go and everyone get back in line.”  (Edy hits on a similar note.)  And then hope that ‘the sane guys in the gym’ or in the crowd here, react as expected and outnumber the attacker.

Bill’s idea has merit: “Sir, please calm down.  This person does not need to prove anything to you.”  And as he adds: ‘hopefully others would join me.

Ruth adds a good idea—moving to stand next to the victim and not addressing the attacker at all, only speaking with the victim.  Add Keith’s point about bringing in other bystanders with eye contact and this is likely to be a strong and safe response.

Jenn’s “How dare you?” is to the point and accomplishes the goal of asking a question—to put the burden of explanation on the attacker.  I like this one for its simplicity as well, as long as we are prepared for next steps—stand next to victim (ala Ruth) and/or bring in additional bystanders (ala Keith).

Cyd’s “Stop it!” And/or “Get back in line; you’re embarrassing yourself!” while seeking to expand the scope and saying to the victim “I am sorry this happened” both have merit. (Maxine hits on this idea as well.)

Jeannie has a creative idea: “This person is my guest, so please get back in line.” Rebecca makes a similar point.

Brian’s “Pardon me, but who are you to question this person?  Have you seen some official status?” has merit.

Pat’s “In America we do not treat people this way” could be an effective response.

Singing Tom Petty, like yelling ‘O-H!’ could be brilliant.

I also like Peter’s idea, speaking to both attacker and victim but with the point of bringing in anyone within ear-shot: “What in the hell are either of you doing in line for a Browns game?  Don’t you have something better to do with your time?”

Or as Pamela put it with more humor: “This is a Brown’s game.  We’re all refugees in this line.  The team might win one of the last few games, or maybe they can unload Johnny Football to another team.”

Cy’s “Excuse me but what business is it to you?” might work.

Reviewing these ideas is a great way to prepare.  Then practice using one or more of the ideas here in low-tension situations, so you make it your voice and learn how to use it.  Then, keep in mind that no one statement will always work, but trust your instincts because you are prepared:  speak up with kindness to all, humor if you can, to de-escalate.  Usually a question is a good start, as long as it is not an accusation and that is helps you expand the scope of the conflict.

As Bruce Lee says “master the principles without being bound by them.”  We prepare by considering scenarios like this and imagining how we might respond.  Talking with others as we are here, to clarify the core principles to keep in mind and sharpen our awareness of what is more likely to actually work.  Then remember that the principles only guide us, we still have to be fully present and humble and assertive.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences on this important question.