Flaw in Anti-Bullying Law
- Thread starter Colour Scientist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My opinion of this depends on some things.
What exactly are they treating as bullying? If it's just a one-time thing: I don't consider it bullying. If it happens several times but both persons or groups are at fault; it's still not bullying in my opinion. I think it's bullying if it happens on a regular basis and involves the same person(s) being victimized by the same aggressor(s).
If somebody is repeatedly picked on (verbally or physically) then it doesn't matter how you justify it. Whether or not the bully can come up with a 'religious or moral' excuse is irrelevant. It's still a problem.
Also, WTF counts as a 'religious or moral' reason?
What exactly are they treating as bullying? If it's just a one-time thing: I don't consider it bullying. If it happens several times but both persons or groups are at fault; it's still not bullying in my opinion. I think it's bullying if it happens on a regular basis and involves the same person(s) being victimized by the same aggressor(s).
When I was in school I got into a few fights but I was never called a bully. If you got into a fight they would always ask three questions.
"Who was involved?" - "Who provoked the fight?" - "Why did it happen?"
Your answers basically determined whether you were suspended or not, and if so for how long.
EDIT: Almost forgot the point I was trying to make with this. I can understand if this law applied to a unique event. If there was a fight and a student could say something like "He punched a girl so I punched him." That makes sense. That student deserves a medal not a suspension.
"Who was involved?" - "Who provoked the fight?" - "Why did it happen?"
Your answers basically determined whether you were suspended or not, and if so for how long.
EDIT: Almost forgot the point I was trying to make with this. I can understand if this law applied to a unique event. If there was a fight and a student could say something like "He punched a girl so I punched him." That makes sense. That student deserves a medal not a suspension.
If somebody is repeatedly picked on (verbally or physically) then it doesn't matter how you justify it. Whether or not the bully can come up with a 'religious or moral' excuse is irrelevant. It's still a problem.
Also, WTF counts as a 'religious or moral' reason?
I was confused at first, but then I found that the link leads to the Huffington Post.
Yeah... I'm going to need something that's a little less bias towards the left.
Assuming this is true though, this could make it so that kids can make up reasons in order to continue bullying people. Which seems kind of backwards.
I'm going to have to look more into this before I make an opinion.
Yeah... I'm going to need something that's a little less bias towards the left.
Assuming this is true though, this could make it so that kids can make up reasons in order to continue bullying people. Which seems kind of backwards.
I'm going to have to look more into this before I make an opinion.
bah, The one time I was bullied when I was younger, I hit the guy in the face and then i was never bullied again, because we all know bullies are big *cats* deep down =P but this reasoning is retarded, I smell another crusade ^^
It doesn't.Giftfromme said:
Hit back. If you don't hit back, it just gets worse. Don't believe people who tell you otherwise.
You, sir, win my Righteous Rage of the Day Award!TheDarkEricDraven said:
OT: As an American who is party neutral (I hate both sides as a general rule, but at least I dislike all politicians equally) but who tends to lean every so slightly right, I can say that giving bullies a "religious" or "moral" out is straight up bullshit. There is absolutely nothing that justifies bullying. Bullying is wrong, plain and simple. No one deserves to be put down, regardless of religious tendencies. This just makes me sick.
Full disclosure: I went to, and was bullied at, Catholic School for 12 years, and I have come out bitter and pissed at those who claim religious superiority as an excuse for their actions, so this hits especially close to home, so excuse me if I'm coming off as such, but this just seems wrong to me.
hey i live in michigan! and i can vote now! and this lady is trying to stop bullying not because corporations are putting money in her pockets, but because she has a burning passion to help kids and stop bullying. being a victim of bullying, i am SO voting for her when i get the chance!!!
and if i bump into a bully, i'll punch him in the face, put on a good clint eastwood grin, and say "i'm morally convicted to beat the shit out of you, i don't take kindly to assholes =_= "
and if i bump into a bully, i'll punch him in the face, put on a good clint eastwood grin, and say "i'm morally convicted to beat the shit out of you, i don't take kindly to assholes =_= "
She sounds like an idiot honestly, though one who believes in what she's saying.Colour-Scientist said:
The reason for a loophole like that is that sometimes it's nessicary to pressure kids into doing things. The differance between an intervention, disciplining someone and bullying someone might seem obvious but in the eyes of the law this is not always the case. Hence the clause about moral or religious exceptions, the latter I have more of a problem with than the former, but really in the overall scope of something this ridiculous it doesn't matter.
The problem with this law was that it was too broad to begin with, and the reason why she's an idiot is that she herself points out that this law applies to teachers, parents, and other authority figures. If you step in to do something unpleasant to a child to make them stop doing something or regret it, ranging from a spanking, to shaming them in front of the school, to a number of other things it could be considered bullying. Understand that the law works by the letter of the law, not based on interpetations OF that law, and when you make an interpetion so broad anything that could possibly be labeled as bullying would be. This could range from an organized peer intervention to get someone to stop drinking or doing drugs, to punishing somone from stealing, to a lot of other reasons.
The problem here is that the law is intended to try and stop kids from bullying other kids and getting away with it. In that context it's uselss to begin with for reasons I'll explain shortly. It was however broadened to the point where it applied to so many people and in so many situations that it would arguably make enforcing any kind of a penelty on a child into a crime.... and face it, kids are not little adults, they DO need discapline, to be taught right from wrong, and to be punished for things that they do.
Adding the "religion" clause was kind of stupid honestly, I can see the moral exception, but to say "it's okay even if it's immoral as long as it's religious" is going too far. That one seems like it was put in there by the stupidist kind of religious crackpots, probably people who were probably intent in seeing their kids had a strict Christian upbringing, sadly the general "religion" blanket opens all kinds of doors other than that given all of the truely whacked religions out there.
The bottom line is that this law needed to be undermined, even if they went too far with the last bit. It was poorly conceived to begin with, and probably only passed due to pressure.
What's more as I pointed out it's unnessicary, to be entirely honest school policies are perfectly fine in dealing with bullying.... the problem is that these policies are not ENFORCED, either by the schools, the boards of education, or law enforcement when and where applicable. At the very most all this law does is restate something that's already on record, and as a result is pointless.
In the end, like most things, all the policies in the world are fine, but mean nothing until someone goes out there and enforces them. This gets into MUCH bigger problems. Among them are how the discipline record for a school (ie how many cases of bullying are stopped) can influance donations and funding and such. Not to mention the simple fact that many (but not all) schools wind up making some pretty decent money off their athletic programs, and that's why you have the quintessential "above the law" jocks. Frequently businesses sponsor those athletic programs, and school tournies and such, and provide prizes in the form of grants to the school (cash, equipment, computer, setc...) or scholorships. Not to mention the advertising, as many high school "stadiums", fields and such have advertising similar to big ones (but on a more local level) since the entire town shows up for those events, which the school is paid for. A successful sports team can net a school a lot of money and benefits, and some of that is going to inevitably trickle down to the people running the program.
The actual issue is that schools need to be encouraged to enforce these policies even against their interests. Usually the people running the schools know exactly what's going on, but don't care, after all it's them who are making the worst bullies the equivilent of royalty usually. Even going so far as to label the victims the troublemakers at times, and suspend or expel them for complaining or getting picked on. In cases where you have bullying going on, and policies are not being enforced in light of complaints, the guys in charge need to start getting arrested and being accountable for it. The reason why there is seemingly never any evidence is that there is no motivation on the part of anyone to find it.
Basically this whole thing is comedy gold. A ridiculous law, being undermined by ridiculous additions to stop it, and a ridiculous liberal breaking down, because hey the whole situation wasn't a big enough joke before then.
If this lady wants to make a differance she should work to get the principles/managers/board chairs running the schools where those 10 kids were died from bullying to serve jail time for negligence at the very least. That would send more of a message than the law, it at least means the people running schools would think twice about intentionally remaining ignorant for fear of sharing a floormat with Bubba.
It's not the enforcement that's the problem. It's the loophole. So what if it's not enforced? If some kid gets pulled out by the teacher and tells him to stop harassing another kid all he or his parents have to say is that it's his "moral or religious duty" to harass someone different than him. It's not the problem of the law's functionality but its exception. On top of that, this is such a HUGE nod to religion in the state. Government's supposed to be secular and you have all the right to practice what you want how you want but when it infringes on the rights of others you've overstepped the bounds.Therumancer said:
In the end what will happen I think is: Someone's going to go to the state supreme court, it's going to be deconstructed and a new bullying law will be drafted..
you're not terribly familiar with the US, are you? if anything, personal responsibility is tougher on actions than on economics.ShadowsofHope said:
OP: "jimmy, why did you punch that kid?"
"for religious reasons!"
"well, okay. you run along now."
...wtf.
crepesack said:
The problem is that just as easily a school counsler could notice a kid with a drug problem, rally a bunch of other students (friends, aquaintences, etc...) and ambush him in the gym with an intervention or something. It happens from time to time. That kind of hard core pressuring could be considered bullying as the law originally stood. This is why the "moral" loophole exists.
Likewise, a parent punishes their child for stealing, without the moral loophole, that could also be considered bullying.
As I said the problem is that this law was extended to apply to everyone, including school authorities and parents. Really given existing school policies that was the only reason for a law to begin with. This makes it fundementally stupid.
Now your right, the loophole counteracts the entire point, but it HAD to be included otherwise you'd have a law would basically prevent you from doing anything to a kid that he didn't like, even when it's your job. Without being able to justify it morally, saying that you did it because "stealing is wrong" would mean your still in trouble.
I myself said the religious aspect of it is stupid, and really didn't need to be there, but I suppose it doesn't matter since the intention was probably to stop a bad law from going through and actually being enforced.
It's a stupid law, and a stupid person complaining about it, I kind of get the impression our crying liberal there really didn't know how stupid this was even when she was mentioning the people the law applied to.
The law without those provisions that wrecked it was way too broad and far reaching. It should never have gotten as far as it did, thank god that part was added in to render it toothless.
