The State of Michigan is trying to come up their version of an anti-bullying law. Named in honor of 14 year old Matt Epling who committed suicide after being bullied over a period of time by other kids. Michigan is one only three States left in the Country that don't have an anti-bullying law in place.
Its certainly right of them to address this issue seriously. State Democrats have tried in vain for ten years to enact some anti-bullying legislation, only to be met with opposition by their Republican counterparts. Not to mention some social conservatives who have expressed a concern that making special laws for those being bullied was a "Trojan Horse" or a sham to simply advance the "homosexual agenda."
It seems as the calendar turned to November, the Michigan Senate was prepared to act. The Bill, Michigan SB 0137, was basically intact and ready for a vote. Ironically, SB 0137 was a Republican Bill, sponsored by Rick Jones. In the GOP controlled Michigan Senate, it seemed the right language had been found. The name of the Bill?
"Matt's Safe School Law"
Then shortly before the final vote on this, at the eleventh hour, new language was added to the Bill by Republicans. The new part reads as follows:
(8) THIS SECTION DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN.
Once this new section became public, Matt's Father, Kevin Epling wrote a letter rejecting the addition in the strongest terms. His letter was read on the floor of the Senate Chamber. One of the more powerful lines reads, "I am ashamed that this could be Michigan's law on anti-bullying when in fact it is a 'bullying is OK in Michigan' law."
Senate Democratic leader Gretchen Whitmer also gave an emotional speech...
Ok, so is there a good reason to be this upset? Is the extra language really that awful? Does it indeed lay out a back-door plan to essentially "...bully in the name of the Lord" and be able to get away with it? Did they have to put it in there? Is Mrs. Whitmer over reacting or perhaps even pandering to the public for political gain?
The language, as far as I can tell, is meant to provide some protection to students, staff members, school employees, etc. who by their own faith feel compelled to say something toward a student. Its damn vague after that. I think they don't want to see some excited Christian kid get into trouble for bullying if they tell Mohammed he's going to hell because he doesn't believe in the correct God or of they tell Jimmy he's not going to heaven because Jimmy's just announced he's gay.
Yes, its weird...
I think if a student respectfully shares his opinion, during a mutually desired conversation, on some issue like this towards another student, its probably ok. We celebrate our differences and that means we should be able to discuss them, right? But when the conversation turns nasty, or intimidating or physical, then that's out of line. If one student tells Jimmy, "Jim...I'm sad because I've been taught that if you don't change your ways, you can't get into heaven." I don't think that's bullying of any sort and doesn't really need any special mention under the guise of free speech in the Bill. On the other hand, if a student stands up and yells in homeroom, or the halls, cafeteria or the bus, "Jimmy is a faa-aag, Jimmy is a faa-aaag" that DOES constitute bullying.
I'm trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt here. I do have to say that when outsiders from a group like the American Family Association of Michigan gets involved with what should be a straightforward goal, its bound to complicate things.
Its also difficult for me to understand why the Republican refused to permit listing within the Bill those characteristics (race, religion, sexual orientation) that are most often associated with bullying cases. Explain that away however you must, but for you to refuse to allow those to be included in the anti-bullying Bill, well, let's just say it look bad for your side. I don't think they're bad people, but I think side issues are clouding their better judgement.
Let's move over to Mrs. Whitmer for a spell, shall we?
From her remarks...
“You may be able to pat yourselves on the back today and say that you did something, but in actuality you are explicitly outlining how to get away with bullying,” said Senator Whitmer. “As passed today, bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”
I know Mrs. Whitmer has long advocated addressing issues that effect young people. I don't think she's a bad person either. And again, side issues may be at play here. I don't think anything in the Bill, including the late addition about protection of free speech, remotely suggests that anyone from the Right would support any abusive behavior, regardless of its motivation. If someone tried to use God or their faith as an excuse to bully someone, I doubt they get away with that. It even says in Section D:
ALL PUPILS ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE POLICY AND THAT BULLYING IS EQUALLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS SUBJECT MATTER OR MOTIVATING ANIMUS.
That's pretty clear to me. Bullying is against the law regardless of the reason or motivation. I understand not liking the late addition. To suggest that God or morals can be a permissible reason to bully someone is nuts. Whitmer's dramatics don't clarify anything, they distort it. Which is a shame. It certainly looked good. It got her all over the internet and on dozens of news websites. No matter how sincere she looked and sounded, it was still nothing but a strawman argument.
It shouldn't be this hard or this political to get this kind of legislation done. It really shouldn't. I blame both sides for playing games and trying to score cheap political points on an important issue like this. Heavy handedness is just as uncalled for from the right as it is from the left. Its pathetic...
Bully for you...
Read SB 0137 here...
The Bill passed in the Michigan Senate along party lines. No Democrats voted for it. It will now be sent to the State House.
NOTE: I found this story difficult to research. Mostly because so many of the reports I found on this story simply communicated the addition of the freedom of speech language and Senator Whitmer's remarks. None really drilled down to clarify which side was more accurate. There was some painfully brutal stories on it, with some disgusting comments attached. I'd encourage anyone interested to review the links below and decide for yourself whether both sides are letting outside influences distort what should have been a crystal clear goal.
Sources:
http://michiganmessenger.com/53702/senate-passes-license-to-bully-legislation
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/critics-michigan-anti-bullying-bill-actually-condones-bullying-143356654.html
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/michigan-bullying-law-6542330
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SEBS-0137.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/mattepling/
http://www.detnews.com/article/20111103/POLITICS02/111030376/1022/Michigan-Senate-OKs-anti-bullying-bill-despite-protests
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-senator-slams-new-bullying-legislation-video/2011/11/04/gIQAaGHAmM_blog.html
http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index.php/sen-gretchen-whitmer-fighting-sexting-an?blog=5
Bill, it's Michigan. Take the worst of Ohio and Indiana and mix in some Canadian weirdness and this is what happens. :)
ReplyDelete