Obama Admin Shreds First Amendment To Stop Bullying
Hans Bader writes at the Wash Ex:
...Administration officials are trying to stretch the federal law against sex discrimination, Title IX, to outlaw bullying aimed at gay and lesbian youth, although the Administration has no statutory basis for doing so.In essence, as I explain over at Minding the Campus, they have invented a federal law against bullying of gay youth, although Congress has yet to pass a ban on either homophobia or bullying. To do this, they have so stretched the definition of sexual harassment as to create a serious conflict with the First Amendment and federal court rulings, as I explain in greater detail at this link.
Federal law doesn't ban bullying as such - that is a matter addressed by state law. All states ban assault and battery, and some states have laws specifically aimed at bullying in the schools.
If the federal government were to criminalize bullying in general, that would violate limits on federal power, and federalism principles.
...In its zeal to invent a remedy for bullying of LGBT youth, the Obama Administration has shredded each of these limits on school liability for harassment. It also says that schools must take "systemic" responses that harm innocent students, like putting the entire student body through sensitivity training in some cases where only a few students were proven to be perpetrators.
...Schools lack such broad control over students' speech outside of school, such as on Facebook or on the Internet. Moreover, the First Amendment applies with added force to students' speech outside of school, meaning that vulgar speech that is banned in school may be protected speech when it occurs away from school, as cases like Klein v. Smith (1986) illustrate.
Links are all live at the link above.
I was bullied as a child. In junior high, when it got really intense, when I was followed around by a small gang of girls who threw chairs in my path and spit anti-semitic insults at me, I told my parents, and my father went to the principal, and it stopped. No Federal laws needed -- just a daddy to stick up for me.
The real question is how will schools fund this with states cutting budgets?
While the ideas of sensitivity training is good, I agree that it doesn't make sense for the Federal Govt to put requirements on states and schools unless they provide funding as well.
As to protections for LBGT kids.. I'm all for it. In a perfect world parents would teach their kids manners, ethics, and how to conduct themselves like classy human beings. But many kids are burdened with parents who are low lifes and thus need better adult role models and training in just the basics of how to be a good citizen.
If we wanted to give kids a good start in life we'd reimplement a very comprehensive "lifeskills" class which would teach practical things like.. Cooking, nutrition, dressing appropriately for work, how to apply and interview for a job, how to responsibly use credit and, how to treat others.
Throw in some anger management, negoiation skills, debating, and conflict resolution and we'd we turning out student better equipped to be productive members of society.
Sue at March 27, 2011 8:00 AM
Do LGBTs really need more laws to protect them? Last I checked, the things associated with bullying -- harassment, battery, etc. -- were still crimes.
I don't think they need to create new laws. However, I do think we need to start enforcing the laws that are on the books. The acts associated with bullying is not okay if a person is underage. If it's criminal for adults, it's criminal for children. That's really all there is to it.
Props to your dad, Amy, for sticking up for you.
Patrick at March 27, 2011 8:34 AM
"just a daddy to stick up for me."
And you've just answered your own question as to why they think we need more laws. Government IS going to be your daddy, like it or not. Seeing as most of these kids don't have a real one, they may need it.
momof4 at March 27, 2011 9:17 AM
So let's take all of the time and resources currently devoted to addressing these problems directly and instead devote them to the administrative task of managing a federally approved program in the schools. Does that make sense?
geo at March 27, 2011 9:55 AM
I didn't have a Daddy to stick up for me (he died) and being bullied didn't completely stop until I graduated high school and went away to college. It was a huge motive for me to work harder graduate early.
Something that really sticks in my craw about the latest round of anti-bullying sentiment, which will undoubtedly result in a lot of bad law, is that only gay youth are valuable enough to legally protect. Straight victims of bullying can just go suck eggs, or kill themselves, or something--who cares? They're "priviledged."
Miss Conduct at March 27, 2011 12:46 PM
"A daddy to stick up for me." I wish it was so easy now. Even with stepdad sticking up for my 11-year-old, we just recently had to involve the police in a case where bigger kids were throwing rocks at him for no reason anywhere they happened to see him. The poor kid can't even walk to his friends' houses without being afraid of being pegged by a rock out of nowhere.
Jessica at March 27, 2011 9:45 PM
I don't think they need to create new laws. However, I do think we need to start enforcing the laws that are on the books.
Well said Patrick. One of the finest principles of Western law is that it should be "colorblind". Creating special categories of victims, as per hate crime and religious vilification laws in the past, or anti-bullying laws like this, is an horrific perversion of that tradition.
A smart bully these days would stick to picking on fat kids. No sympathy there, and very unlikely to be covered by any new law.
Ltw at March 27, 2011 10:00 PM
Patrick and Ltw have it. If bullying reaches the level of criminal assault, prosecute it. Otherwise, it's a matter for parents and teachers to keep an eye on. The government has no role here, nor do we want it to have one.
a_random_guy at March 28, 2011 5:19 AM
Leave a comment