I watched all the episodes to date and was completely taken aback! It shows that no matter how much you know your kids, most of us don't. If we as parents, grandparents, teachers, etc don't keep talking to and leading by example our own kids can and will be targets of all of this. Take away the video games for a minute or so and talk to and teach the kids so that the "future adults" will become victors and not victims, defenders and not defenseless, careful and not careless! Wow! this is eye-opening!!

Program is informative but the discrimination shown is nothing compared to what Native American children experience in Public Schools and Places. Native Americans are invisible in their own country. U.S.History is not Our History.

Episode is shocking but it is not comparable to being a "Native American" child or student in the Public School System or in Public. Native American are invisible in their own country, why are Native Americans always left out of programs like this when we are the First Americans.........why?

I thought tonight's show was good overall, but I would have liked to see a Latino as a judge and not always as the victim. I say this because I have traveled all over the world and in too many instances, Latinos, not all Latinos but too many for a level of comfort in the Latino population, discriminate against other races on a frequent basis. When it comes to employment or jobs, Latinos tend to hire only Latinos or white people; when Afro-Americans enter restaurants, Latinos frequently do not greet Afro-Americans in a welcoming and inviting manner as they do other Latinos or white people. Many times Natalie Morales, in her reporting, presents Latinos as the victim and this is not fair and balanced reporting. I wonder if Natalie Morales has a problem with dealing with race herself? When I see the type of reporting that she does for MSNBC that features Afro-Americans, it is rarely with a positive thrust --- only negative reporting. I think NBC and MSNBC need to look at this in an objective manner. Thank you.

What Dateline NBC found is nothing new. It parallels the findings of experimental studies conducted by Solomon Ash, Stanley Milgram, and Phillip Zimbardo and the findings of those who investigated events such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the My Lai Massacre, and the Abu Ghraib debacle. What links these events, the experiments, and the Dateline episode together is not so much the behaviors depicted but the explanations for these behaviors. A study of these explanations will help us understand why the children on the show, and the adults involved in the experiments and events listed above, truckled to group pressure.

Ironically, one may reasonably hypothesize that those at Dateline who conceived of this show went through the same process as the children depicted. I suspect that one or more Dateline employees questioned the ethics of an exercise that could conceivably eviscerate participant children’s self image and the image parents had of themselves as caregivers, shame the children in front of their parents, shame the parents, and create friction between the children and their parents. Just as most of the children in the episode “went along to get along,” so too may have those at Dateline who at first questioned the propriety of what we saw; or, their objections may have been neutralized in some other manner.

Proposals to replicate Milgram’s mock-shock experiment and Zimbardo’s prison experiment would never pass internal review board scrutiny today because of the foreseeable harm they could cause. For the same reason, were a social psychologist to introduce a proposal to test the effects of what we saw on Dateline this evening, it too would probably not pass ethical muster. However, NBC’s measure of ethical behavior, unlike scientists’ measure, is not based on the ratio of social benefits over potential harm to participants but, at best, on the ratio of benefits to NBC over potential harm to participants. One can be sure that the former generally wins out. At any rate, it is clear that the lessons learned by the participant children were lost on the very people at Dateline NBC who presumed to teach them these lessons.

What Dateline NBC found is nothing new. It parallels the findings of experimental studies conducted by Solomon Ash, Stanley Milgram, and Phillip Zimbardo and the findings of those who investigated events such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the My Lai Massacre, and the Abu Ghraib debacle. What links these events, the experiments, and the Dateline episode together is not so much the behaviors depicted but the explanations for these behaviors. A study of these explanations will help us understand why the children on the show, and the adults involved in the experiments and events listed above, truckled to group pressure.

Ironically, one may reasonably hypothesize that those at Dateline who conceived of this show went through the same process as the children depicted. I suspect that one or more Dateline employees questioned the ethics of an exercise that could conceivably eviscerate participant children’s self image and the image parents had of themselves as caregivers, shame the children in front of their parents, shame the parents, and create friction between the children and their parents. Just as most of the children in the episode “went along to get along,” so too may have those at Dateline who at first questioned the propriety of what we saw; or, their objections may have been neutralized in some other manner.

Proposals to replicate Milgram’s mock-shock experiment and Zimbardo’s prison experiment would never pass internal review board scrutiny today because of the foreseeable harm they could cause. For the same reason, were a social psychologist to introduce a proposal to test the effects of what we saw on Dateline this evening, it too would probably not pass ethical muster. However, NBC’s measure of ethical behavior, unlike scientists’ measure, is not based on the ratio of social benefits over potential harm to participants but, at best, on the ratio of benefits to NBC over potential harm to participants. One can be sure that the former generally wins out. At any rate, it is clear that the lessons learned by the participant children were lost on the very people at Dateline NBC who presumed to teach them these lessons.

I did think the show was good for showing how peer pressure affects everyone, but I did not think it was an accurate portrayal of how those kids truly felt. It was very leading and came up with the desired results. Discrimination is wrong no matter who it comes from or where it is directed. With that said, I do find it offensive that the "white" (very discriminatory term) kids were always portrayed as the perpetrators and never the victims. Not sure what datelines purpose behind this was, but I can not help coming to one of two conclusions: They either think that "white" people are the only racist or that "white" people have never been discriminated against for being "white". Each conclusion is wrong. My family was the only "white" family in our neighborhood. We were called anything from "gringos" to "white trash", people threw eggs at our house, for no other reason then we were "white". I wonder why it is socially acceptable to pick on "white" people, calling them names and insinuating that "white people" are behind all racist acts? I think we need to teach our kids that judging someone by the color of their skin is wrong.

My previous comment appears to have been deleted, but mirrored the comments of Ferrall and Schuler. Discrimination is perpetrated by all races toward all races. Any time a person opposes or supports another person based on that person's race, they're discriminating.