There is a bill now before the Michigan House of Representatives that would do something about bullying in schools. If you have doubts as to whether such a bill is needed, read some of the testimony from victims of bullying.
Much of it would make a statue cry. Take Fred, from Macomb County: “At age 15 I stole my father’s gun with the intent of shooting some of my classmates. The reason I wanted to do so was the verbal and physical abuse I received from some of them each and every day I went to school.” And he added, “I ended up being so depressed that I shot myself instead of anyone at school.
“Luckily I survived, dropped out and went to adult education to complete my diploma.“ He was far from the only child to shoot himself; the current bill is called “Matt’s Safe School Law,” after a 14-year-old East Lansing boy who committed suicide after being bullied.
I have read a lot of proposed legislation in my life; this is an uncommonly well-written law. Anyone who grumbles about it imposing state control hasn’t read it. It begins, “the board of a school district … shall adopt a policy prohibiting harassment or bullying at school. The content of the policy shall be determined locally,” and “should be adopted through a process that includes “parents, school employees, pupils and community representatives.”
Nothing is as self-destructive as bullying. Countless lives have been blighted and productivity lost as a result of it.
In a civilized society, this bill would be adopted unanimously. But in fact there are those who want to kill or weaken it.
Why? The bill defines bullying behavior as any harassment “based on a pupil‘s actual or perceived religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, disability, height, weight, gender identity or socioeconomic status.” But there are bigots who are so blinded by their hatred and fear of anyone gay, or who might be gay, that they would rather put children’s lives at risk.
There are also those who support the haters for cynical political reasons. Two Republican state representatives are fighting to make sure the bill does not protect people based on sexual orientation.
They are doing the work of a hate group misnamed the American Family Association. It is spreading the lie that this bill’s real purpose is to “legitimize homosexual behavior and cross-dressing,” and that this will lead to increased cocaine use in children under thirteen.” You can read this garbage on their web site.
What I know is that the people who want us to see gay people as less than human once did the same to blacks and women. I also know that many kids who are bullied for being gay really aren’t.
And most of all, I know that any country where it is legal to torture and bully anyone has more in common with Nazi Germany than my America. It’s up to you which one you’d rather live in.
I am unclear about this proposed legislation, and I have some questions.
1. Is there any reason why local school boards, in conjunction with parents, students and teaching staffs cannot now enact policies with regard to harassment of students? Do we need a state law in this regard to empower local schools, or woujld this legislation force some districts to do something that they might not otherwise wish to do?
2. Is there a state-sponsored benefit that accompanies this state-mandated policy, and which supports school boards in establishing the mandated policies? In other words, is the state offering any financial support to fund the costs of developing these policies? What are the anticipated costs of establishing and enforcing the mandated policies?
3. Would this statute create a new right for aggrieved students and/or parents to sue schools or school boards for percieved violations of the statutory provisions? How might enforcement of the proposed act be otherwise enforced? Might there be any criminal penalties? On what class of defendants would criminal penalties be imposed? Students? Teachers? School boards?
4. Are there not currently procedural, regulatory and legal remedies, both civil and criminal, for a student who feels that he/she is being harassed, intimidated, or suffering a civil rights violation? Aren't there protections from that kind of harassment in already-existing law?
5. In other contexts, perhaps not germane to this issue, students have faced discipline for wearing t-shirts declaring their view that homosexuality is immoral, on days in which schools officially or unofficially observe a national 'day of silence' (observed in support of greater societal acceptance of homosexuality). Would students who maintain a public moral objection to homosexuality be subject to a sanction under one of these mandated school board policies, just for maintianing those views publicly? Or, conversely, could those students voicing a moral objection to homosexuality be protected if they were in fact the subject of harassment for their moral views by pro-gay students and faculty?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 28, 2007 at 07:47 PM
Matt's Safe Schools law would finally require that every school district (there are about 730 in MI) have a policy on bullying and that there be a consistent statewide definition of it.
Local school districts can do this on their own so many have but many have not. The State Board of Ed. has passed a model policy to make implementation free and quick.
This would not increase litigation, but impressively it would limit litigation. If a school district has a policy they could then argue in court that they were not negligent and did take measures to inform staff of what to do when they encounter bullying. These bills are "liabiltiy limiters."
Yes, minority youth are protected by the 14th amendment but most other youth are not clearly protected by any one law. Most bullying is more than teasing and shy of crime. It flies under the radar.
Posted by: Sean Kosofsky, Triangle Foundation | March 28, 2007 at 09:16 PM
Thank you Jack for your eloquent words on what is a difficult subject for some to talk about.
Why that is, is still a mystery to me. After four years talking about this subject there are those who still say "not a problem in our school". To some ignorance truly is bliss, but a nightmare to others.
As Sean has stated, this law will finally set us on the right path to reduce the amount of bullying that occurs within our schools.
Our schools were asked in 2001 to develop these policies, some have done good things, many have not. Somehow I can't remember when I got a six year extension on a job I was supposed to complete, have you?
In an everchanging society, we need to make sure that all of children are safe when they go to school, and that they can concentrate on learning and not looking over their shoulder in fear.
We have lost four children in MI to the effects of bullying. As a parent who has faced the hardest loss, trust me we do not need to add to this group. Although named for Matt this bill is for all of our children and our children's children.
I thank you for your support and wisdom on this issue.
Posted by: Kevin Epling | March 29, 2007 at 08:14 AM
Your post very interesting, on it is what is not present on other sites.
Posted by: Mina | August 13, 2007 at 04:50 PM
I'm a little simple-minded, I guess. I think it's awful to allow anyone to beat on anyone else, ever, for any political, or sexual, or religious reasons. It boils down to people just shouldn't hit other people. Any shape, way and/or form of bullying should not be tolerated, ever.
Posted by: Any Salyer | August 22, 2007 at 02:32 AM
Any Salyer - I agree that we need a law that makes it a crime "to beat on anyone else." For any reason, short of self-defense. People just shouldn't hit other people. They should face criminal penalties if they do.
Fortunately, we have such laws already, without Matt's Safe Schools Law. The laws we have are the criminal laws against assault and battery.
Matt's Safe Schools Law, by its proponents' own admission, goes beyond addressing assault and battery.
My concern, expressed above but not yet answered by anyone who supports the Matt's Safe Schools Law, is whether students who express a moral view opposing homosexuality could be subject to a civil or crimnal legal action under the proposed law.
What, exactly, is "More than teasing shy of a crime"?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Sincere sympathy to Matt's parents, relatives, friends and other victims of bullying
Bullying doesn't consist merely of physical hitting but also can be psychological, verbal, written etc.
The first commenter above asks: Would students who maintain a public moral objection to homosexuality be subject to a sanction under one of these mandated school board policies, just for maintianing those views publicly? Or, conversely, could those students voicing a moral objection to homosexuality be protected if they were in fact the subject of harassment for their moral views by pro-gay students and faculty?"
While I don't know the de facto situation with the proposed law, I believe that bullying is wrong and should be outlawed - that would include all bullying including the persecution of gays OR the persecution of so-called "straight" people.
It's not rocket science. The right to protest carries its own obligations and one of these would be not to engage in bullying of the other side.
Posted by: Justin Morahan | December 04, 2007 at 10:32 AM
I agree Bulling i so wrong on so many levels....
Posted by: Janea Doperdandope Hill | April 20, 2010 at 08:53 PM