# Federal Anti-Bullying Law



## Madeline (Sep 2, 2010)

The Safe Schools Improvement Act seems to be a massive federal initiative to curb bullying and harrasment in the public schools of all states.  CNN's "Anderson Cooper" had a segment tonight about whether this bill "advances a gay agenda".   The bill requires the schools to record and report incidents of bullying and harrasment (to who?  for what purpose?) but also to "prevent and respond to incidents" of bullying and harrasment as well as report same to parents and set up a grievance procedure for same.

The bill defines bullying and harrasment as follows:



> (12) BULLYING- The term bullying means conduct that--
> (A) adversely affects the ability of one or more students to participate in or benefit from the schools educational programs or activities by placing the student (or students) in reasonable fear of physical harm; and
> (B) includes conduct that is based on--
> (i) a students actual or perceived--
> ...



The objection made by Focus On Family etc. seems to be that the bill will require schools to teach students about homosexuality in order to prevent any bullying etc. based on it.

I'm not sure exactly how such a complaint should be met.  If a little kid comes from a home with two gay parents and gets teased because of it, the bill seems to require the school to put a stop to it...but how can they do this without using the words "gay" or "homosexual"?  Much as it pains me to admit it, I think anti-gay folks might finally have themselves a legitimate issue here.

I also wonder why this needs to be a federal issue.  Bullying is an emerging issue, shaped in part by technology advances.  Can't we allow the states or even the counties to flounder around awhile before we draw up a uniform nationwide consensus on how best to respond?

The bill is in Committee now, and might never emerge -- but if you'd like to have an impact, this might be the best time to make your opinion known to your representative.

H.R. 2262: Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)


----------



## California Girl (Sep 2, 2010)

There is a huge difference between teaching children acceptance of others, (Note: I didn't say 'tolerance'... I dislike the word).... and 'advancing a gay agenda'.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 2, 2010)

In theory there is, but in practice?  How do you teach kindergartners not to tease a child from a home with gay parents while refraining from any explanation of homosexuality?  I'll admit, I prefer kidlets be taught about sex (yes, gay sex too) at a young age and did so with my own...but at the time I knew this was a violently different POV and also taught my kidlet not to share what she knew with her friends.

The whole subject seem fraught with potential for error and abuse.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> In theory there is, but in practice?  How do you teach kindergartners not to tease a child from a home with gay parents while refraining from any explanation of homosexuality?  I'll admit, I prefer kidlets be taught about sex (yes, gay sex too) at a young age and did so with my own...but at the time I knew this was a violently different POV and also taught my kidlet not to share what she knew with her friends.
> 
> The whole subject seem fraught with potential for error and abuse.



Key words when dealing with kids and sex education - Age Appropriate. It is quite easy to teach very young children about different types of family (2 moms, 2 dads, step families, multiracial or whatever) without 'sex education. That kind of thing, I have no objection to. 5 year olds being taught about any kind of sex is unnecessary.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 2, 2010)

I still think this would be better left to local school boards.  And I have to wonder, in school districts like mine where cash is so scarce and the education goals are so rarely met, how exactly do we justify ladling on a duty to teach manners to the kids, report all their failings, and supply a grievance committee to hear all the bitching?

Usually I support all the anti-bullying laws that are proposed...but I think mebbe this one is ill-advised.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 2, 2010)

The simplest way to deal, long term, with bullying is to start with very young children. If you show them that families come in all shapes and sizes, it's normal to them.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 2, 2010)

I don't disagree, CG.  I just question the wisdom of this approach...seems unduly heavy-handed to me.


----------



## chanel (Sep 2, 2010)

We already have a bullying law here in NJ. I think its effective, but as a teacher, I can attest that most of the harassment goes on when adults are not present.

Different situations need different solutions. The feds need to focus on national issues; not playground squabbles. This will just open up more lawsuits if everybody's i's are not dotted. If a local case has merit, there are already legal avenues to pursue.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 2, 2010)

Dropping word 'gay' from lyrics of popular children's song riles folks in Australia | cleveland.com


----------



## chanel (Sep 2, 2010)

Wow.  Talk about homophobia.  Making a big deal out of homosexuality (either pro or con) is an adult problem; not something kids need to fret about.  In the words of the great Pink Floyd "Teacher - leave them kids alone!"


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Safe Schools Improvement Act seems to be a massive federal initiative to curb bullying and harrasment in the public schools of all states.  CNN's "Anderson Cooper" had a segment tonight about whether this bill "advances a gay agenda".   The bill requires the schools to record and report incidents of bullying and harrasment (to who?  for what purpose?) but also to "prevent and respond to incidents" of bullying and harrasment as well as report same to parents and set up a grievance procedure for same.
> 
> The bill defines bullying and harrasment as follows:
> 
> ...



Bullying is not going to be controlled by any laws because the social attitudes actually reinforce bullying. This is just another attempt to expand federal power and will fail at its stated goal, and lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Bullies often Mr Popular at school, study finds - www.smh.com.au


----------



## Madeline (Sep 2, 2010)

I disagree that bullying cannot be controlled.  Of course it can, and likely is to a degree now.  Most all anti-social behavior can be curbed with appropriate sanctions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I disagree that bullying cannot be controlled.  Of course it can, and likely is to a degree now.  Most all anti-social behavior can be curbed with appropriate sanctions.



The only way behavior like bullying can be changed is to remove the positive reinforcement the bullier gets from their peer group. Punishment only enhances peer group standing, thus rewarding the anti social behavior.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 2, 2010)

No, there are other ways.

*  Make the pay off for bullying too "expensive".

*  Isolate the bully from the social setting.

*  Create a pay off for resisting or reporting bullying.

Finding the proper remedy will be hard.  So much depends on whether we are discussing the conduct of small kidlets, teens or adults.  But it can be found....e.g., how many kidlets or their parents would welcome a notation on their school record that they were involved in bullying?

Anyway, it's this need to be able to tinker with various remedies that seems to me to make the federal bill unappealing.

BTW, I know you followed the case of the Mississippi school that cancelled its prom to prevent a lesbian student from attending with her girlfriend.  I cannot imagine such a choice would be legal for the school district if this bill passes, can you?  Do you think that's a good thing?  (I do, mostly.  I worry a bit about unintended consequences.)


----------



## Smartt33 (Sep 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Safe Schools Improvement Act seems to be a massive federal initiative to curb bullying and harrasment in the public schools of all states.  CNN's "Anderson Cooper" had a segment tonight about whether this bill "advances a gay agenda".   The bill requires the schools to record and report incidents of bullying and harrasment (to who?  for what purpose?) but also to "prevent and respond to incidents" of bullying and harrasment as well as report same to parents and set up a grievance procedure for same.
> 
> The bill defines bullying and harrasment as follows:
> 
> ...



The key issue in this bill, and on  the topic is the definition of the term "bullying".
That is a problem in this bill. Bullying is much easier to define than they have made it. The reasons are more political than practical.

Teach the kids not to pick on others for any reason, not to make fun of anyone for any reason. Teach them that it is just wrong to do so. If they ask, is it wrong to make fun of... respond appropriately.

The other problem is that in the definition the government wants to use it becomes improper even to talk about these issues at all iof you feel there is something immoral about them. Talking about it is not bullying. You have an opinion, you express it, and move on. That expression needs to be a mature and peaceful one. Many adults have a problem with that. The Christian may say, if there is an appropriate reason to discuss it, I believe...and I get that from the Bible... A true Christian would do this in love and or kindness, not to offend.

The same would be true of an Atheist. He would, if the apptoptiate conversation develops, say I just don't believe... and I cannot accept the Bible. Nuff said. No need to argue, or even debate. 

However, when it gets to the point of being a federal law, we have a problem that will not go away easily, even if mature people work on it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> No, there are other ways.
> 
> *  Make the pay off for bullying too "expensive".




Make increased self esteem, better health, and high social status too expensive. I know people that would pay millions for that, exactly how do you plan on making it so expensive that it will deter bullying?   




Madeline said:


> * Isolate the bully from the social setting.




I think that would be impractical. Schools can only be expected to control what happens on school grounds, and the social setting extends beyond that. Unless you want to allow the government to follow kids around off school property there is no way to make this work in the real world.




Madeline said:


> *  Create a pay off for resisting or reporting bullying.




I thought that was what I said. We need to change the social dynamic in such a way that the peer group reinforces the underdog, not the bully. I don't see that happening overnight, or through the actions of any government agency, no matter how localized.




Madeline said:


> Finding the proper remedy will be hard.  So much depends on whether we are discussing the conduct of small kidlets, teens or adults.  But it can be found....e.g., how many kidlets or their parents would welcome a notation on their school record that they were involved in bullying?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## syrenn (Sep 2, 2010)

If you want to stop bullying, don't punish the kids, punish the parents. Bullying is all about bad parenting.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 2, 2010)

This legislation is as useful as tits on a boar hog.  Useless, twice as confusing and will do nothing to help protect ANYONE... but will give police more work that could be better spent dealing with real, instead of invented criminals.

I can't think of one thug who's going to listen to the law if they decide to make some gay kid's life a living hell.  They'll do it because it makes them feel good, and jail is probably better than their homelife.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 2, 2010)

You raise a great point, my Big Fizzy friend.  What does the bill provide as consequences for failure to adhere?  I didn't review it in detail, but I don't think it's criminal.  I think it's administrative....school districts that fall below these new standards would have federal funding issues.

And of course, all this language would create new causes of action -- against the school, the district, other parents, teachers, etc.  Civilly, the fun will just not stop.

Yet another reason I think mebbe this is a bad idea.


----------



## zzzz (Sep 2, 2010)

Bullying has always been around, it was around when I was in school in the 60's and 70's. It never was done around teachers or adults and the prevailing attitude among kids back then was you did not snitch on anyone. So there was always more of it around than thought. The bullies had their camp followers too. Today this has evolved into, I believe, a gangster thing. I do not think it can be eliminated, controlled to a certain extent maybe, but the federal government has no business making laws about bullying. And here is the thing about any bullying legislation or rules. Do you have to have witnesses to back the kids story up. It is a very slippery slope. And another thing is some parents do not care what their child does. Look at all the expulsions happening today.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 2, 2010)

If you want to stop bullying, don't punish anyone. You befriend the bullies and teach them by EXAMPLE how to treat people.

That bill is the stupidest piece of crap I've ever seen. It's all about PERCEPTION. People can perceive they're being bullied when actually they're not.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 3, 2010)

zzzz said:


> Bullying has always been around, it was around when I was in school in the 60's and 70's. It never was done around teachers or adults and the prevailing attitude among kids back then was you did not snitch on anyone. So there was always more of it around than thought. The bullies had their camp followers too. Today this has evolved into, I believe, a gangster thing. I do not think it can be eliminated, controlled to a certain extent maybe, but the federal government has no business making laws about bullying. And here is the thing about any bullying legislation or rules. Do you have to have witnesses to back the kids story up. It is a very slippery slope. And another thing is some parents do not care what their child does. Look at all the expulsions happening today.



I can't say I agree, zzzz.  I don't recall any campaign of threats or harrassment against anyone when I was growing up.  Just the usual insults and crap....but the sort of thing that happened to Phoebe Prince, where 6 or 7 students hassle one kid day and night for months?  No...that I don't recall.  And as far as I know, it didn't happen in my kidlet's school days, either.

I think the internet and techy devices have created the illusion that some bad behavior will be anonymous and go unpunished, and this problem has flared because of it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 3, 2010)

There have always been bullies, Madeline. You probably didn't notice it either because you were one, or because you just don't have that degree of awareness.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> If you want to stop bullying, don't punish anyone. You befriend the bullies and teach them by EXAMPLE how to treat people.
> 
> That bill is the stupidest piece of crap I've ever seen. It's all about PERCEPTION. People can perceive they're being bullied when actually they're not.



Sorry but i have to disagree. Second offender bullies should be EXPELLED and the parents have to home school.

Parents of children who have been bullied should sue the hell out of bullies parents. parents should take out restraining orders on bullies and if they violet it DEMAND that that kid serve time in juvenile.

Both parents and the bully children need to be punished.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> There have always been bullies, Madeline. You probably didn't notice it either because you were one, or because you just don't have that degree of awareness.




Agreed. There have always been bulies because no one ever does anything about it. 

You know, its a phase they will grow out of it. 
or they really didn't mean it
or just stay out of their way
or don't use that bathroom use a different one
or they didn't know they were hurting you
or they didn't know they hurt you feelings

or or or or.... fuck that shit. Little bullies grow up to be big bullies.


----------



## Middleman (Sep 3, 2010)

I don't know why they need all those criteria. Kids can get bullied just for being nerdy weaklings, regardless of race, gender-preference, etc. A girl can be harassed by other girls because she's pretty and dating a popular ex-boyfriend of one of the group. That's what happened to that Irish girl in Massachusetts, who killed herself. 

They should define harassment and bullying, and enforce rules against it. Basically, if the schools enforced the law, and brought criminal charges against young people who violate the law, then it would take care of a lot of these problems. If it's illegal for adults to threaten, harass, stalk, or punch someone in the nose, then it's also illegal for minors.


----------



## Middleman (Sep 3, 2010)

syrenn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > There have always been bullies, Madeline. You probably didn't notice it either because you were one, or because you just don't have that degree of awareness.
> ...



Workplace bullying is a big problem in some places. Bullies often continue their tactics as adults.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2010)

Middleman said:


> I don't know why they need all those criteria. Kids can get bullied just for being nerdy weaklings, regardless of race, gender-preference, etc. A girl can be harassed by other girls because she's pretty and dating a popular ex-boyfriend of one of the group. That's what happened to that Irish girl in Massachusetts, who killed herself.
> 
> They should define harassment and bullying, and enforce rules against it. Basically, if the schools enforced the law, and brought criminal charges against young people who violate the law, then it would take care of a lot of these problems. If it's illegal for adults to threaten, harass, stalk, or punch someone in the nose, then it's also illegal for minors.



Bingo!

My point exactly. Turn the bullies over to the cops and file charges.


----------



## George Costanza (Sep 3, 2010)

I am cheered to see that many of our Friends From the Right are on this thread not arguing that "all a child needs to do is bust the bully in the nose one time and his troubles will be over" but, rather, are recognizing bullying for what it is and rationally discussing ways to deal with it.  Kudos!

Bullying is a terrible, terrible thing.  Perhaps a federal law is not the best way to go, but we sure as hell have to have SOMETHING in place to deal with it.  Ignoring it and/or considering it "just a necessary part of growing up," doesn't make it.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2010)

George Costanza said:


> I am cheered to see that many of our Friends From the Right are on this thread not arguing that "all a child needs to do is bust the bully in the nose one time and his troubles will be over" but, rather, are recognizing bullying for what it is and rationally discussing ways to deal with it.  Kudos!
> 
> Bullying is a terrible, terrible thing.  Perhaps a federal law is not the best way to go, but we sure as hell have to have SOMETHING in place to deal with it.  Ignoring it and/or considering it "just a necessary part of growing up," doesn't make it.




 Then again a good beating by some BIGGER bullies is just what the little brats need.


----------



## Moon (Sep 3, 2010)

chanel said:


> We already have a bullying law here in NJ. I think its effective, but as a teacher, I can attest that most of the harassment goes on when adults are not present.
> 
> Different situations need different solutions. The feds need to focus on national issues; not playground squabbles. This will just open up more lawsuits if everybody's i's are not dotted. If a local case has merit, there are already legal avenues to pursue.



I agree.  This is definitely one of those issues the federal government should have no say in.  They need to butt out and leave it to the local and state authorities.


----------



## George Costanza (Sep 3, 2010)

syrenn said:


> George Costanza said:
> 
> 
> > I am cheered to see that many of our Friends From the Right are on this thread not arguing that "all a child needs to do is bust the bully in the nose one time and his troubles will be over" but, rather, are recognizing bullying for what it is and rationally discussing ways to deal with it.  Kudos!
> ...



Perhaps.  But trying to teach those who deal in violence that violence is bad, by punishing them with violence, seems counter productive.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2010)

George Costanza said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > George Costanza said:
> ...



who said anything about telling them it was punishment. Im just talking a good old fashioned thumping. 

That being said...i am more for suing the shit out of the parents and having the little offenders thrown in jail.


----------



## mattpiggins (Sep 3, 2010)

The problem i see with this bill is not whether it can be effective, but rather if it is necessary.  Bullying is an issue that is not meant to be dealt with by the federal government.  A Federal law would simply create an array of hoops and hurdles that teachers needed to go through in order to stop bullying.  They would need to teach new lessons and follow a set of procedures created by a government that knows not of the specific issues occurring in class rooms throughout the nation.  This would only make it more difficult to stop bullying. Besides, controlling bullying is already at the top of many school's agendas and it is not the job of the federal government to instruct them how to do just that.


----------



## chanel (Sep 4, 2010)

I'd like to see a Anti-Federal Bullying Law.  I'm sure Jan Brewer would agree.


----------



## George Costanza (Sep 4, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> If you want to stop bullying, don't punish anyone. You befriend the bullies and teach them by EXAMPLE how to treat people.



Couldn't agree more.



AllieBaba said:


> People can perceive they're being bullied when actually they're not.



Couldn't agree less.

What are you saying here - that, oftentimes, people are _joking_ when they appear to be bullying someone else?  I think not.  There is an old saying: even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Sep 4, 2010)

The Fed should stay out of it, it's not their job.  If bullying is a problem in schools, the school should handle it.  If it's a problem and the schools are not handling it, the parents need to see that they do.  Teaching about being gay via a Fed law?  No.  Teach the kids 'the golden rule' . . that applies to everyone.  The kids should be learning this from home, sad that many aren't.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 4, 2010)

Don't forget, folks.  If you object to this bill, let your representatives know.  The necessary contact information should be available in the link in the Op.


----------



## Smartt33 (Sep 4, 2010)

California Girl said:


> There is a huge difference between teaching children acceptance of others, (Note: I didn't say 'tolerance'... I dislike the word).... and 'advancing a gay agenda'.



Unless that " acceptance of others " includes the mandate that you cannot express your beliefs or opinions that the gay lifestyle is wrong or immoral.  It seems that they can expose their gayness in an "in your face" way, and a person who expresses offense is being a bully. That is what the law will, do. I believe that is the intention. of the law. If it were not, the law would not have been so wordy.


----------



## Middleman (Sep 4, 2010)

My objection to the bill would not be its intent, but I feel like the Federal government does a poor job when they try to micromanage things like this. They add expensive layers of bureaucracy and red tape, requiring lots of documentation. 

I feel that the States should handle this. They know their districts better, this nation is very diverse, with different types of problems in different districts. Generally, I think the Feds should get the hell out of K-12 education and leave it to the States.


----------



## zzzz (Sep 4, 2010)

George Costanza said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to stop bullying, don't punish anyone. You befriend the bullies and teach them by EXAMPLE how to treat people.
> ...



but, but, but George, your bullying us over your hooker thread!


----------



## Modbert (Sep 5, 2010)

Joe. My. God.: Focus On The Family Defends Their Fight Against Anti-Bullying Programs

How pathetic.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 5, 2010)

The issue is under discussion, Modbert:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/131292-federal-anti-bullying-law.html

Though to be fair, it didn't get a whole lot of air time a la the "gay agenda".  Most people seemed to think that was goofy.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 5, 2010)

Threads Merged


----------



## Madeline (Sep 5, 2010)

Modbert, I have this vision of the Focus On Family people, sitting around with laptops and magazines and such, reading headlines and listening to previews and asking each other.....

"Is this gay? Do you think this is gay?"

Take it back to the 1950's, and they'd be asking:

"Is this communist?  Do you think this is communist?"

It's the same fucking irrational, neurotic paranoia that everyone else is having more fun.

(Okay, mebbe not so paranoid.  We are likely having more fun than hysterical homophobes.)


----------



## Middleman (Sep 5, 2010)

I didn't read their opinion piece (Focus on the Family), but my objection to the legislation, aside for the fact that I think the Feds are an inefficient and ineffective way to regulation schools, would be the fact that they specify racial, ethnic, gender-preference, religious, etc, as groups in need of special protection. 

In my opinion, much of bullying has to do with the abuse of power, targeting the vulnerable. I think inserting language delineating the groups most worthy of protection is counterproductive. It strikes me as political pandering. 

Why not, instead, define bullying and enforce the law? Bullying is physical or psychological intimidation, it doesn't matter if the target is in the same racial group or a different one, or if it's just because the target is a nerdy pipsqueak with poor social skills.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 5, 2010)

I think one of the aspects of all this school officials are struggling with is "what is bullying"?  I agree with Middleman, the matter doesn't seem best handled at the federal level.  But I dunno if I agree that no catagories should be used, either.  Not all school officials are willing to protect GLBT students, and they have _always_  needed that.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 5, 2010)

Middleman said:


> I didn't read their opinion piece (Focus on the Family), but my objection to the legislation, aside for the fact that I think the Feds are an inefficient and ineffective way to regulation schools, would be the fact that they specify racial, ethnic, gender-preference, religious, etc, as groups in need of special protection.
> 
> In my opinion, much of bullying has to do with the abuse of power, targeting the vulnerable. I think inserting language delineating the groups most worthy of protection is counterproductive. It strikes me as political pandering.
> *
> Why not, instead, define bullying and enforce the law? Bullying is physical or psychological intimidation, it doesn't matter if the target is in the same racial group or a different one, or if it's just because the target is a nerdy pipsqueak with poor social skills.*



Bingo! 

They are too warped up in politically correct phrasing and special interest groups then the actual problem. Are they going to add blond, funny clothes, poor, pimples, stupid, smart, scars, lisps, stuttering, glasses, braces, wrong kind of phone, wrong kind of computer, ect. ect. ect.  All the stuff bullies pick on others for?  

When you highlight a problem it is something that bullies pick up on..and target.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 5, 2010)

But what is "bullying"?  It has to be more than an angry look or a mean comment.


----------



## Middleman (Sep 5, 2010)

Madeline said:


> But what is "bullying"?  It has to be more than an angry look or a mean comment.



Companies have been addressing these very issues. 


Bullying vs. Mobbing


Workplace bullying, mobbing and abuse links and information page


----------



## Middleman (Sep 5, 2010)

From one of the above links:



> Bullying is NOT just a school ground issue impacting young students.  Bullying in the American workplace is a health risk that is at epidemic proportions.  It is defined as a series of actions directed at a target "...where an employee is subjected to abusive conduct that is so severe that it causes physical or psychological harm to the employee."   While the stereotypical image of a bully is that of a loud tyrant, an equal or possiblly greater number try to work undetected with behavior that includes. "gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person's work performance."
> 
> One study estimates that workplace bullying has impacted as many as one in six people in the American work environment.   It is a health risk that has been characterized as "America's dirty little secret."  Most other countries in the western industrialized world have laws in place to deal with workplace bullying.  *While the US has discrimination laws, they protect only a very narrowly defined group of categories - race, gender, disability, religion, age, national origin, sexual orientation, and others. But even those groups are subjected to harassment without recourse if the workplace harassment or trauma is not directed toward factors of that specific category. Workplace bullying is legal in the US.*
> 
> Currently 13 states have workplace anti-bullying legislation pending.  Many global corporations headquartered in the US have anti-bullying policies where required, but often maintain no such policies in the US.  Ironically, in addition to the human toll, studies indicate costs to US businesses due to bullying and other stressors are estimated to be over $300 billion per year -- considerably more per capita than countries that have workplace anti-bullying  laws.   Please consider this page a library of resource links to workplace bullying information in the US along with many references to laws and policies around the world.



Workplace bullying, mobbing and abuse links and information page


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 5, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > In theory there is, but in practice?  How do you teach kindergartners not to tease a child from a home with gay parents while refraining from any explanation of homosexuality?  I'll admit, I prefer kidlets be taught about sex (yes, gay sex too) at a young age and did so with my own...but at the time I knew this was a violently different POV and also taught my kidlet not to share what she knew with her friends.
> ...


I don't think they're teaching kids in kindergarten about sex.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 5, 2010)

Those were terrific links, Middleman.  Like most people, I have seen some truely disturbed behavior on the job, and it is true, usually there was no apparent remedy.

IMO, there's a place in hell for any boss who routinely raises his or her voice to subordinates.  It is a form of violence...I know of one fine lady who was driven to a break down by such conduct from her female boss.  She never recovered.


----------



## chanel (Sep 5, 2010)

Bullying and sexual harrassment are in the eyes of the beholder. While some people think it is physical agression, others believe it is nothing more than "being embarrassed or offended". I know few women who have NOT been sexually harrassed at work. Big deal. We need to teach our chikdren that losers will always bully those they are jealous of, and that will end most of the nonsense. Women and children, need to grow some balls. The govt cannot solve all problems. Sometimes people need to learn NATURAL LOGICAL consequences to their actions and reactions.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 5, 2010)

I'm not sure where you are going with this, chanel...bullying a la Phoebe Prince intensity should result in the "natural logical" consequence of arrest and prison, IMO.

Do you mean victims do not need protection from school officials?


----------



## Middleman (Sep 5, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I'm not sure where you are going with this, chanel...bullying a la Phoebe Prince intensity should result in the "natural logical" consequence of arrest and prison, IMO.
> 
> Do you mean victims do not need protection from school officials?



I think chanel is a teacher, and is probably already overburdened with being expected to solve  the social problems of society. Teachers get more and more heaped on their plates every year, as the fabric of society deteriorates, and blame and responsibility shifted from families onto to institutions. All the helping professions are feeling more and more pressure to be all things to all people, and that better be documented in triplicate in the event of having to prove that in court!


----------



## Madeline (Sep 5, 2010)

O I agree, Middleman.  I see absolutely no way a school could conform to the requirements of the federal bill unless every square inch of school property were video taped.  And even then, the teachers and administrators would be easily tied up by just one unreasonable parent.


----------



## zzzz (Sep 5, 2010)

I think that when we talk about bullying people envision a bigger boy/girl or group of kids calling people names, putting gum in your hair, hitting you on the arm or other places and stuff like that. A form of intimidation that only causes psychological discomfort not physical harm. When that bullying progresses to a point where real harm is inflicted then I think it becomes a crime. Judging psychological harm is a different story because people respond differently to psychological pressure. Some just ignore, others respond in kind and even physically attack the bullies while others withdraw inward and suffer real psychological problems from it.  But where does that line exist that takes it from kidding someone or messing with someone to causing harm?  If I badger you calling you a midget every time I see you, is that bullying?  If I hit you on the shoulder every time I see you and call you shorty is that bullying? Where do you draw the line?

I think this is best left to the local school board and staff to judge on a case by case basis. They are the ones who have knowledge of the students and hopefully the parents.  Having someone far off in Washington DC decide what is bullying and painting it with a wide brush is the Federal Government over reaching, to me anyway, its authority.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2010)

Focus on the Family is for focusing on families that adhere to their indoctrination that gays are bad for the family.
Anyone that would listen to that bunch of hypocrits is a zombie.


----------



## chanel (Sep 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I'm not sure where you are going with this, chanel...bullying a la Phoebe Prince intensity should result in the "natural logical" consequence of arrest and prison, IMO.
> 
> Do you mean victims do not need protection from school officials?



Protection FROM school officials?  I'm not sure where your'e going with this.   J/K

I am not talking about the egregious examples.  I am talking about the everyday teasing and insulting that many children engage in.  It may be inappropriate and worthy of admonishment, but it does not rise to the level of team meetings, counseling, and police action.  Adults cannot - and should not - solve every problem for their children and their students.  Sometimes they need NATURAL LOGICAL solutions.  That's part of education as well.

I made the sexual harrassment analogy simply because harrassment of any kind is not always cut and dry.  Some women will try to sue if their boss tells them they have a nice ass.  I say "thank you".    Different people; different reactions.  No one size fits all. Same goes with kids.


----------



## Middleman (Sep 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Focus on the Family is for focusing on families that adhere to their indoctrination that gays are bad for the family.
> Anyone that would listen to that bunch of hypocrits is a zombie.



So, the socially liberal folk never engage in indoctrination, are never hypocritical, nor do they ever possess zombie-like characteristics?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 6, 2010)

Liberalism embraces diversity.  You wanna teach your child to hate?  Pay for a private school.


----------



## Peach (Mar 9, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree that bullying cannot be controlled.  Of course it can, and likely is to a degree now.  Most all anti-social behavior can be curbed with appropriate sanctions.
> ...


*****************************************
True.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 9, 2012)

Federal anti bullying statutes are designed for one purpose and one purpose only.  To eliminte double jeopardy protections.


----------



## chanel (Mar 10, 2012)

> More than 200 school districts in the state are spending more than $2 million this year to implement the states new anti-bullying law, according to survey results released Thursday by the New Jersey School Boards Association.
> 
> Thats twice what the state Legislature and Gov. Chris Christie agreed Wednesday to put into a state Bullying Prevention Fund, and raises questions about whether, even with the new money,* the law might still be considered unconstitutional under the State Mandate/State Pay provision.
> *
> ...



School districts say state's anti-bullying law costs at least $2 million to implement - pressofAtlanticCity.com: Breaking News

$2 million a year, and the jury is out whether it is effective or CONSTITUTIONAL.

This shit has got to stop.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Mar 10, 2012)

Seems to me that the vast majority of proposed anti-bullying legislation ranges from pointless to dangerous.  There's already laws against harassment.  If someone is blowing up your phone and you don't like it, you can already take legal action for that.  Perhaps a few of the anti-harassment laws should be updated to include harassment via email and social networking, but even that doesn't seem to me to require much meddling from the government level (state -or- federal).  I especially wouldn't support doing even -that- in a way that allowed for more government intrusion into peoples' private internet correspondence.  There's also laws against committing acts of physical violence against others.  Ultimately, it seems to me that bullies who press the issue directly against the target of their bullying are already crossing legal and school-based rules of conduct.  How are more laws supposed to stop this?

If the bullying isn't directed at the target (i.e., the kid being bullied has already made use of the ignore function on their social networking and instant messaging sites and now the bully is just talking trash about the target to those people who -are- still subscribing to his/her Twitter account) then I would argue that legal action would be ridiculous.  If I'm not actually harassing someone directly, I should be able to say whatever I want about them to my friends/acquaintances.  Not because I'm a big shit talker, but who knows?  Maybe at some point I'm going to want to talk some shit.  I have that right.

What this proposed legislation (and much of the proposed anti bullying legislation does) is attempts to define certain speech as damaging/dangerous, and then condone the government taking action against said speech.  If you folks that are crusading to round off all the soft plastic corners on the playground equipment don't see a potential problem with the Republicans and the Democrats being able to define speech as dangerous and then take legal action against it, you need to stop wearing those dark shades indoors.

Now get this.  I'm not saying that every kid can just pop their bully(ies) in the nose and put a stop to it, mind you.  That said, I do think that we need to realize and accept that no amount of government social engineering is going to stop bullying.  Ever.  There always have been bullies and there always will be bullies.  Unleashing pent up aggression against convenient targets as a reaction to shitty, or perceived shitty things happening to the pent up aggressor is a pretty common function of human psychology.  People were bullies in my day in school, too, and this idea that the internet has made it worse is ridiculous.  The internet has made more bullying verbal.  Lemme let you in on a little secret:  A bully who's currently typing about what a faggot someone is doesn't have his hands free to stuff them into a locker.  If kids weren't offing themselves back then, maybe we might take a look into what kinds of kids we're dealing with.

In my day we also had steel jungle gyms 10 feet high.  Fall through those two or three times as a kid and you get an instant lesson in the profundity of "sticks and stones".  More parents were quicker to the belt section of the closet when you f'ed up, too.  There was actually a time when the common forms of parenting introduced a child, at a very young age, to the very real probability that, in life, you're going to come up against people and situations that are quite capable of dominating you.  These days more and more parenting is devolving to child leashes, time out, and "We don't like little Timmy to play with things like toy guns and militant action figures because we try to keep him away from activities that promote aggression."  I hate to break this to you helicopter parent types out there, but once that kid hits 18 (assuming he doesn't down a bottle of aspirin all one time to avoid having to deal with the emotional fallout of some mean words) they're stuck in the real world, and even in modern society, the real world is competitive and cold.  In real life, everyone doesn't get a trophy.

This last bit's going to sound totally non humanitarian, but fuck it, here goes.  Any child that offs themselves because of the mean things bullies at school said to them is too soft for the real world.  Period.  It's still sad when any kid dies, but the blame doesn't fall on the law or even the bully.  The only blame for that child's death that falls anywhere other than on the hand with which that child took their own life, is on that child's parents for not properly preparing that child for the hardship that is life.  It's a cold, cruel fact, but a fact, that when you don't prepare your child for real life, you make them a strong candidate for natural selection.  Sad though it may be, the suicides these days that are in response to bullies are survival of the fittest working as intended.


----------



## theHawk (Mar 10, 2012)

So you can't make fun of or bully based on:



> race;
> (II) color;
> (III) national origin;
> (IV) sex;
> ...



Guess that means you can still bully someone of your own race/gender.

Kids usually get bullied because they are smaller or perceived as 'weak'.  Don't see anything in there to stop that.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 11, 2012)

The issue isn't state laws against bullying.  The issue is Federal Laws against bullying.  This is a way for the federal government to get around double jeopardy protections afforded under the Constitution.  A person can be found innocent of violating state bullying laws, then find themselves charged for violating federal laws and retried.  The additional benefit is, the feds already know exactly what the defense case is, and can design a prosecution to address each issue that resulted in an acquittal and make sure of a guilty verdict.

It is exactly what was done to the officers accused of excessive force in the Rodney King case.


----------

