* The Senate came one vote short of passing a new anti-bullying bill. The AP has some info…
The bill would have required anti-bullying policies to include a definition of bullying and a statement saying it was against the law. The policies would have spelled out how allegations could be submitted anonymously and how they would be investigated. Policies also would have been required to describe what could happen to students who bully others, such as counseling or community service.
Some conservatives feared the bill would be used as cover to indoctrinate students. The Illinois Family Institute lobbied for an “opt out” provision that would let students and teachers skip any lessons or events that violated their religious beliefs.
“There are some programs that are not just against bullying in general. Some of them tend to have an agenda of being pro-homosexual,” said Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon.
The legislation would not require schools to offer programs on bullying or homosexuality, but McCarter said it would be a step toward such a mandate.
A step toward such a mandate? Really? The far Right Illinois Family Institute claims the bill does pretty much nothing…
Cassidy stated that this additional law is needed because 3 school districts (out of over 900) have no policy and 20 do not have “adequate” bullying policy. What she failed to make clear during floor debates is that the 3 school districts that don’t have bullying policy are already in violation of existing law, so HB 5290 is unnecessary.
Furthermore, HB 5290, which mandates nothing, would do nothing about the 20 school districts that have — in Cassidy’s view — inadequate policy. If these 20 districts have bullying policy, they are in compliance with existing law.
Not quite. From the bill…
Each school district and non-public, non-sectarian elementary or secondary school shall create, and maintain, and implement a policy on bullying, which policy must be filed with the State Board of Education.
It would require implementation, not just having a policy.
* More from Sen. McCarter…
McCarter and other opponents wanted an addition to the bill that would allow students to opt out of any anti-bullying programs or activities that clashed with their personal or religious beliefs. Supporters said federal law already gave students that right.
* An amendment was introduced yesterday on this very topic by Sen Kirk Dillard…
No student or school employee shall be required to attend or participate in any bullying program, activity, assembly, or event that may infringe upon his or her free expression or contradict his or her personal, moral, or religious beliefs.”.
Dillard is creating chits for another statewide bid, so naturally he introduced the amendment. Why do I say that? Compare Dillard’s amendment to to the language already in the bill…
Nothing in this Section is intended to infringe upon any right to exercise free expression or the free exercise of religion or religiously based views protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or under Section 3 or 4 of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution.
* What’s really going on…
Equality Illinois, which promotes gay rights, was among the supporters of the bill. Spokesman Randy Hannig stressed that the legislation wasn’t specific to homosexual bullying victims. “This is not a bill about gay and lesbian kids. It’s a bill about ending bullying.”
But Hannig speculated that the group’s backing of the bill alone may have prompted others to oppose it. He slammed critics for “trying to hijack this bill for their own political agenda.”
* From the Illinois Family Institute…
Equality Illinois is a homosexual activist organization. The Illinois Safe Schools Alliance is a homosexual activist organization that was once part of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The ACLU is an organization as committed to normalizing homosexuality and gender confusion as GLSEN, Equality Illinois, and the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance. And State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) is openly homosexual.
Yeah. It’s all a liberal gay plot to indoctrinate our children and take over the world.
* The Daily Herald editorialized today….
the Carol Stream-based Illinois Family Institute fears the law would silence certain students whose views might be unpopular. For instance, they say, a student who does nothing more than share his opinion that homosexuality is immoral could be labeled a bully and put through anti-bullying lessons that say his religion is wrong.
The group is correct that freedom of expression never should be taken for granted, and the right of students to assert their religious beliefs must always be protected. But this legislation not only protects such students from being falsely labeled as bullies; it also helps assure that they won’t be bullied themselves.
The anti-bullying proposal clearly states that the law is not meant to “infringe upon any right to exercise free expression or the free exercise of religion or religiously based views.” It contains no read-between-the-lines encroachment on any students’ freedoms. It simply provides another tool to prevent the hurt and even tragedy that vicious teasing and pranks can cause.
We urge the Senate to reconsider and for school officials to be vigilant in ensuring that both free speech and students’ well-being are protected.
Discuss.
- Name Withheld - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 9:18 am:
What about extending common workplace protections regarding hostile work environment and such to the schools for purposes of identifying and dealing-with bullying. Much of the same behavior that is called bullying would also be considered grounds for a hostile workplace in an employment situation.
Is that a viable option or are there other considerations that would not make it attractive?
- CWS - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 9:22 am:
I was picked on so much in high school that I used to pretend to be sick so I wouldn’t have to go. Shoved in hallways, called a “fag,” had my car tires deflated, books stolen, signs taped to the back of my shirt. Those years were wretched and I still carry the emotional and social scars of that horrible football team for picking on me because I was awkward. When I complained to the high school principal he told me to “straighten up.”
I don’t care what you think about the gay community, but as far as I’m concerned people who are against this bill condone principals all over this state condoning bullying behavior. It was kind of hard to learn anything in high school when I was constantly looking over my shoulder for the next attack.
- Shore - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 9:23 am:
I really don’t think we need a statewide anti-bullying agenda. If educators and parents can’t figure this one out on their own I think they have bigger problems. If gay rights groups think that gay kids in local schools are being bullied they should be honest and have that discussion separately.
there’s no appetite for dillard or brady or rutherford or any of these other springfield clowns that have been down there in that circus for decades. He can collect all his “chits”, but we’re over that era in the party.
- Ahoy! - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 9:26 am:
–Some of them tend to have an agenda of being pro-homosexual,” said Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon.–
What? Are there organizations out there trying to turn people into homosexuals?
- mark walker - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 9:34 am:
The next time the Illinois Family Institute supports something for all families in Illinois, will be the first time.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 9:52 am:
–No student or school employee shall be required to attend or participate in any bullying program, activity, assembly, or event that may infringe upon his or her free expression or contradict his or her personal, moral, or religious beliefs.”–
So, personally, if I believe it’s cool to pick on those weaker than me I can opt out? Cool.
- safety agenda - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 9:59 am:
I shouldn’t be surprised in the least that the IL “Family Institute” is opposed, and I agree completely with Mark’s post above.
So, the opposition seems to be based some sort of “protection” for “homosexual students.” Even if you do believe in the whole ’special rights’ arguement against any sort of hate crime law or extend that to bullying, address this for me:
-what about students who have speech problems and get bullied for that & have noplace to turn at school?
-Or obesity problems that make for constant harrassment? Dont these students deserve to, at the very least, go to a school where there is a policy and plan in place to keep them safe while they learn???
Seems to me they always bring up homosexual students to distract people from the real issue of student safety. The fact they don’t offer alternatives indicates to me that they don’t think bullying is a problem.
- Yossarian Lives - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 9:59 am:
–If gay rights groups think that gay kids in local schools are being bullied they should be honest and have that discussion separately.–
Do you seriously think gay kids are the only kind of kids being bullied? So the gay community should just take care of its own, is that the idea? Bullying isn’t a new problem that surfaced once teens started getting the support they needed to come out of the closet. It’s a universal problem that affects an extremely large percentage of students, and schools need to get serious about dealing with it. We can’t ever eliminate it entirely unless someone finds a way to alter human nature, but we shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders and say it’s a “gay problem” either.
- LincolnLounger - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 10:03 am:
—What? Are there organizations out there trying to turn people into homosexuals?
Hadn’t you heard? It’s all about “indoctrination” because the McCarter crowd thinks being gay is a choice and the only way that “lifestyle” can continue is if it is predatory and brings the weak and unsuspecting into the fold.
By the same logic, if kids hang around tall people they will automatically become tall.
Shame on Kirk Dillard. I expected better.
- reformer - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 10:11 am:
== Some of (these programs) tend to have an agenda of being pro-homosexual,” said Sen. Kyle McCarter. ==
That’s what this is all about. The Religious Right wants to be able to condemn gays as an abomination without fear of being called out for it.
== If gay rights groups think that gay kids in local schools are being bullied ==
If they think? Is there any doubt that many gay kids get bullied? Even in the prep school Romney went to?
- JCE - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 10:14 am:
I was bullied (fortunately not–for the most part–physically) during high school. Part of that was my social awkwardness at entering a new school and my short stature, but part of it (maybe even most of it) also had to do with how outspoken I was about my Christian faith. I’m feeling just a little betrayed by the self-proclaimed “Christian” lobby on this bill.
- Inactive - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 10:17 am:
Yes, bullying isn’t a new problem in schools…like we adults don’t ever feel poached on? As in the political scene today? Nice of schools to try to teach kids to be nice and respectful of others…….in my day, that’s what parents did. Of course, it didn’t seem to work that way in everybody’s household since look what we’ve got.
- Highland, Il - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 10:21 am:
As much as I dislike McCarter’s vote, at least he didn’t abstain.
- JCE - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 10:29 am:
Two more quick points:
(1) Wordslinger makes an excellent point: wouldn’t the very bullies whose awareness and behavior need to be modified through these programs be the most likely to opt out under the Dillard amendment? (Maybe the amendment would work if it also required schools with students who have opted out of such sessions to also provide free training in physical, verbal, and emotional self-defense to empower victims to resist, repel, and restrain further bullying attempts…).
(2) Do any other Christians feel ashamed that we’re being portrayed as fighting for the rights of bullies because our attempts to talk about our faith might be mistaken for bullying? Yes, I know that the Gospel is scandalous, and some activists will regard any disapproval, however expressed, as the creation of an intolerant and bullying environment. But surely we can do a better job (and train our children to do a better job) of communicating our principled stands in more winsome and loving ways. I’m ashamed that churches have done such a poor job of training its members to be loving that we even have to worry about this.
(3) The fulcrum on which the gay rights issue pivots is victimhood; the public sympathizes with victims and despises victimizers. If we started acting like Christians so that we were known not by our hate and vitriol but by our love, then I think we’d be much better off. Yes, there probably would still be some activists who might want to shut us up anyway. But their attempts to infringe on religious free speech would be so egregious that they would be clearly seen as the aggressors and we, not they, would be the obvious victims who were just trying to exercise our “right to be let alone.”
- Wensicia - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 10:33 am:
What’s important about bullying education is it instructs the students in what behaviors are considered bullying, something many are unaware they have participated in themselves. It also promotes peer rejection of this kind of behavior, instead of silent acceptance. It has been quite successful in bringing down the number of bullying episodes in my high school. What’s also important is consequences for severe abusers whom don’t respond to counseling.
I find the response by some pushing acceptance for intolerance disturbing. We never instruct students in changing their feelings or beliefs, only expected and respectful behavior towards others.
- Cheryl44 - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 10:42 am:
Just what is it about groups with the word “family” in their names? Has “family” become code for “hate group?”
I guess I need to change my insurance from American Family.
- JCE - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 10:52 am:
Quick question: can anyone tell me why the engrossed version’s expansion of the categories of bullied groups to include “physical appearance, socioeconomic status, academic status, pregnancy, parenting status, [and] homelessness” was dropped from the Senate version?
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 11:11 am:
Other that the requirement to create and implement this policy is another unfunded Springfield mandate, I want to explore this statement:
- CWS - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 9:22 am:
“Shoved in hallways, called a “fag,” had my car tires deflated, books stolen, signs taped to the back of my shirt.”
With the exception of the name calling, all of these other items are already covered by existing law. You were the victim of assault and vandalism to your property. The name calling is an issue of free speech, and requires the same Constitutional toleration that we should have toward sexual orientation.
- Aaron - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 11:16 am:
With Dillard’s potential exemption, if I don’t like a race/class of people I can just skip the bullying information sessions because I can express hate of a race/class of people through my first amendment rights.
@JCE Gasp! You suggest that alleged God-fearing and God-loving religious folks might be better off treating fellow human beings with dignity and respect instead of hate? How scandalous!
- Montrose - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 11:29 am:
*With the exception of the name calling, all of these other items are already covered by existing law. You were the victim of assault and vandalism to your property. The name calling is an issue of free speech, and requires the same Constitutional toleration that we should have toward sexual orientation.*
I think a big part of this bill is about prevention. If our only recourse is charging someone with assault, the damage is already done.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 11:39 am:
–The name calling is an issue of free speech, and requires the same Constitutional toleration that we should have toward sexual orientation.–
Assault is not covered by the 1st Amendment. If you threaten someone verbally, you can be charged.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 11:46 am:
Word,
You are absolutely correct. My broader point is we already have laws in place, no new ones required.
Montrose,
If it is about prevention, and if it being dictated, it is a mandate, in this case without funding.
- Kyle Hillman - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 11:48 am:
The key phrase is implement. A couple of schools, took to the language of the original bill and cermised that they only had to have a policy - not actually implemnt one.
It is games like these, that get the blood boiling.
- Colossus - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 12:01 pm:
I can see why the IFI, as a fundamental religious group wearing a public policy mask, is fighting this one. Peer pressure, “shunning”, and the informal enforcement of social norms are all key to cementing an ideology into young minds, whether that ideology is one of multi-culturalism and inclusion or one that demonizes sexuality in all forms outside of male/female marriage. They are fighting to be allowed to do what theydo because the alternative is their ideological enemies will get to use the same tactics towards different ends.
I think the existing language on religious exemptions is too much, but that’s because I think the subtle soft power of social interactions should be geared towards inclusion of all viewpoints that respect other viewpoints and away from ideologies that req
- Colossus - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 12:02 pm:
that require exclusion and dismiss out of hand the experience of marginalized groups.
- OldSmoky2 - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 12:04 pm:
== Assault is not covered by the 1st Amendment. If you threaten someone verbally, you can be charged. ==
Actually, Word, shouting derogatory slurs at gay people isn’t considered illegal. That act has to be accompanied by specifically threatening language to get police to take action, and even then it’s very rare that arrests are made. Witness the hateful signs bigots taunt gays with at pride parades and display at soldiers’ funerals.
== The name calling is an issue of free speech, and requires the same Constitutional toleration that we should have toward sexual orientation. ==
In other words, kids expressing the religious beliefs taught to them by their parents should be tolerated when they slur other kids at school, no matter how hateful, hurtful and disruptive that is. Got it.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 12:11 pm:
There have been many news articles in the past year reporting on incidents where students were punished for speaking out against homosexuality. I do not think the amendment adequately defends first amendment rights. The amendment reads in part: “Bullying, as defined in this subsection (b), may take various forms, including without limitation one or more of the following:….This list is meant to be illustrative and non-exhaustive.”
- JCE - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 12:15 pm:
“I do not think the amendment adequately defends first amendment rights.”
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as the sovereign law of the land, does not depend on a state statute for its defense.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 12:17 pm:
“In other words, kids expressing the religious beliefs taught to them by their parents should be tolerated when they slur other kids at school, no matter how hateful, hurtful and disruptive that is. Got it.”
Disruptive, no, school administrators can already take action on behavior that disrupts the learning environment. But to accept the concept of free speech, you have to accept the good with the bad.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 12:30 pm:
Students in school do not have the broad first amendment rights adults in public spaces have.
From: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm
“…school administrators have a far greater ability to restrict the speech of their students than the government has to restrict the speech of the general public. Student speech cases require a balancing of the legitimate educational objectives and need for school discipline of administrators against the First Amendment values served by extending speech rights of students.”
Restricting bullying speech is within the purview of school administrators in order to maintain an environment conducive to learning.
- Colossus - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 12:54 pm:
Pot is spot on, there are very few rights that are afforded to students while they are in school. There are reasons why, but it’s an important thing to remember.
Case in point: Can your boss bring a drug dog to sniff the cars in the parking lot?
- Wensicia - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 1:04 pm:
-Pot calling kettle-
You have it exactly right.
- hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 2:41 pm:
What’s up with part of Illinois Family Institute’s stated rationale for opposing this legislation being that it’s sponsored by an “openly homosexual” lawmaker? Would the legislation be better for IFI if it was sponsored by a closeted homosexual? oh bigot logic…
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 2:44 pm:
Pot,
Correct, then why is the law required?
- VotesPls - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 2:50 pm:
Any idea how to get the vote roll call? It’s not up yet on ilga.gov.
- TwoFeetThick - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 2:59 pm:
Sorry VotesPls, but the only way to get the roll call now would be to travel back in time and take a picture of the vote board in the Senate chamber at the time of the vote. Putting a failed bill on the order of postponed consideration wipes out the roll call.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 3:11 pm:
HA! The last time McCarter was picked on he almost filed a police report.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 3:17 pm:
Even though I am fairly socially conservative, I have come to grips that social issues statewide are pretty much a losing issue for the GOP and specifically for these “pro-family” groups. Do they not understand that a clear majority of the state trends socially moderate-to-liberal and that making a stink about bullying legislation makes them look as though they (at a minimum) turn a blind eye to bullying and abusing kids who are different or perceived to be different? My older son has already experienced bullying in PRESCHOOL and my wife and I have taken steps to coach our son about bullying and address the issue with the school’s teacher and administrator. Bullying cannot be tolerated. Teasing, fighting and disagreeing are all part of growing up. Bullying does not need to be a part of growing up. My question to those who question my ending statement is this: I’m quite sure none of you would appreciate or tolerate a bully in your workplace, a bully in a social club or a bully in your kids’s school(s).
- VotesPls - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 3:23 pm:
Thanks TwoFeetThick, didn’t know that. Disappointing. Is that the point of putting a failed bill on the order of postponed consideration - to wipe out the roll call?
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 3:31 pm:
What exactly was wrong with my comment? What a farce to be talking about “free speech” in terms of this topic and to have a comment stricken.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 3:31 pm:
I swear to you my comment was gone. Sorry. I see it. Ugh.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 3:48 pm:
Cinci - A law is needed because schools don’t seem to be addressing the problem on their own. Hence the whole part about implementation.
- TwoFeetThick - Wednesday, May 23, 12 @ 3:52 pm:
Not sure what’s wrong with my comment explaining posponed consideration, but it won’t post.
- WILL COUNTY WISEGUY - Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:23 pm:
The bill requires school district policies against bullying that include several elements, very basic and common sense elements, including a complaint procedure and the designation of a person within the district to contact. Any policy that doesn’t have these elements is not really a policy. Many districts do not have effective policies and, as a result, bullying is rampant. The bill really does need to be enacted.