The major point of contention in the bill was its listing of behaviors or circumstances about which a student might be bullied. Opponents, mostly Republicans, wanted the bill to outlaw bullying, period. Their version would apply to anyone who might be bullied for any reason. Supporters of the legislation, mostly Democrats, wanted the bill to specify those classifications of people against whom bullying would be outlawed. It's a pretty comprehensive list:
"Race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, socioeconomic status, academic status, gender identity, physical appearance, sexual orientation or mental, physical, developmental or sensory disability or association with a person who has or is perceived to have any of those characteristics."
That sounds pretty comprehensive, but maybe some status, disability or identity yet unimagined might be discovered in the future that wouldn't be covered by the law. This legislation is primarily symbolic. It adds no punishment for bullying. It repeats established state policy. Supporters of the bill insisted on including "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" with race, color, etc. as conditions that might lead to bullying. The primary purpose of the bill seems to be to establish those criteria as being on an equal footing with other discriminatory targets and to maintain a record of bullying based on those criteria.
I have some experience with bullying from way back when bullying or being bullied was a rite of passage into adolescence. As a skinny, shy kid, I was a frequent target of bullying by stronger, meaner boys. I hated being picked on and tried several strategies, from passive resistance to fighting back, to combat the bullies, but none worked very well (especially fighting back). Nevertheless, I made it through those formative years without too many scars on my psyche, as did my contemporaries, most of whom were also bullied by someone at some time.
Bullying, especially in its cruelest and most violent forms, should be forbidden, but some teasing should be expected among immature children. Without some exposure to hurt feelings or unkind actions, how will they be prepared for the greater cruelties of circumstance they will find in adult life?
Posts
5 comments:
"Without some exposure to hurt feelings or unkind actions, how will they be prepared for the greater cruelties of circumstance they will find in adult life?"
Unfortunately, statements like this one above (within the context of a bullying debate), just trivialize bullying. Unless we wish to continue to foster yet another generation of young homophobic bullies that grow up to be adult homophobic bullies?
To insinuate that bullying, in any degree or form might be OK, or a 'rite of passage' is not only irresponsible it's also ignorant. And before anyone attempts to defend statements that even slightly imply such, I would strongly suggest they do some research into the actual statistics on bullying and its effect. If we save one life with this Bill, if just ONE child stays in school because of this law, it's damn well worth it.
In any case, when you do start your research, make special note of the suicide rate among gay or lesbian kids or those perceived to be LGBT in our schools.... For those that might not get it, that's when a kid kills himself because he or she can't tolerate endless anti-gay taunts, (faggot, queer, dyke, etc.) and/or anti gay violence that often accompanies these epithets. It happens more than you think. As does allowing, ignoring or trivializing such bullying in our schools.
Adding "illegal" to the mix goes a long way. Thank God.
Just another example of the wussification of America
I have a question for de Bivar: Is calling someone a "homophobe" a form of bullying? The often-used term is really a misnomer, anyway. The suffix means "fear of" (as in claustrophobia), but "homophobe" is used to derogate people who do not fear homosexuality but who oppose it, for whatever reason. de Bivar's comment affirms the criticism that this legislation is not so much about bullying as it is about sexual identity.
The only reason there is any brouhaha with this law is because it includes the clause 'sexual orientation'. The law that passed sends a clear message. And it's long overdue.
Trying to remove that clause makes no sense because historically and statistically gay kids (or those being singled out for appearing to be gay, or those who are subjected to gay slurs) are the ones that need it the most. There is a very high incident rate and a very high suicide rate among this class of bullied students. LGBT bullying is pandemic inside America's school system.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/23/bullying.suicide/
Some "Christian" right-wing groups and other assorted anti-gay "pro-family" (there's your misnomer) campaigns have strongly opposed any inclusion of this clause -- Anywhere. This is where the word fear comes into play. Just what are they afraid of? And does that fear justify kids being harmed? Hell no.
Since when does Christian and Pro-family include a preference for, or the denial of, children being humiliated, abused, taunted, beaten or something more atrocious?
....bullys make the weak grow stronger. We have become a nation of wimps and whiners and no self-responsibility at all!
Post a Comment