I feel sorry for those who have kids in Michigan Schools.: Off-topic discussion forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Nov. 6, 2011 12:52 p.m. SyntheticBlinkerFluid Dork

I am not very political, really not at all. But, I find this wrong, very wrong in fact.

Basically the Michigan GOP got a bill to pass on Wednesday that protects bullies in schools. Not just from other kids either. Any faculty member can be protected by this too.

Michigan Senate Republicans have passed a bullying bill — not an anti-bullying bill — that actually gives license to bully. In an Orwellian twist, the bill, which passed 26 – 11, with zero Democratic votes, allows kids to be bullied by anyone: teachers, fellow students, school employees, volunteers and parents, if they can provide a so-called religious or moral reason for their actions, giving the phrase, “the devil made me do it” sufficient validity.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/michigan-gop-pass-bullying-bill-giving-license-to-bully/politics/2011/11/03/29580

As someone who was bullied in Jr. High and High School, I find this whole thing appalling.
Nov. 6, 2011 12:58 p.m. Joshua HalfDork

How?
Nov. 6, 2011 1:02 p.m. vwcorvette HalfDork

So this is what happens when the Lions begin to win football games and Michiganders don't know what to do with themselves? As an educator I find this appalling. And hiding behind religious or moral reasons is neither religious nor moral.
Nov. 6, 2011 1:06 p.m. SyntheticBlinkerFluid Dork

In reply to Joshua:

How what?
Nov. 6, 2011 1:12 p.m. Salanis SuperDork

I want to see what the language of the bill is.
Nov. 6, 2011 1:19 p.m. Joshua HalfDork

Salanis wrote:

I want to see what the language of the bill is.

+1

All I can find is opinion articles which hardly quote anything and no citations, does anybody have a link to the original bill?

For the record I also find it appalling. Just want to do more research.
Nov. 6, 2011 1:22 p.m. Salanis SuperDork

Okay, a bit of searching reveals that there is a provision that "does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held belief or moral conviction." So, I can see why it would be put in there, but could be a really big loophole. It would be totally okay to tell someone that "God hates fags and you should die and burn in hell you immoral scum."
Nov. 6, 2011 1:25 p.m. integraguy SuperDork

As someone who was bullied, and I'm ashamed to say, also did some bullying...and I did this while attending a Catholic school, giving the "...on religious grounds" excuse, is EXTREMELY worrying to me. It now gives abusers, at least in "religious" schools, free license.
Nov. 6, 2011 1:25 p.m. Taiden Dork

Hm. Isn't this covered under the first amendment?

Verbal abuse, anyway.
Nov. 6, 2011 2:03 p.m. SyntheticBlinkerFluid Dork

Taiden wrote:

Hm. Isn't this covered under the first amendment?

Verbal abuse, anyway.

Bullying goes waaaay past that.
Nov. 6, 2011 2:04 p.m. ThePhranc Reader

Taiden wrote:

Hm. Isn't this covered under the first amendment?

Verbal abuse, anyway.

The 1st Amendment only applies to the government so technically the government funded schools can not stop a person from verbally abusing some one. As with all things governmental this has its exceptions and exceptions from exceptions.

I think the spirit of the law is to protect people who still have to follow dogmatic rules in their lives from being reprimanded from expressing those dogmas. The knee jerk reaction of histrionics makes it much more evil than it actually is. It seems as if the people these law was intended to protect people from are the first to attack it.
Nov. 6, 2011 5:11 p.m. aussiesmg SuperDork

All I have seen so far is an obviously left wing opinion, without the actual wording of the law, it's just rhetoric as usual.
Nov. 6, 2011 5:18 p.m. aussiesmg SuperDork

I found this, not sure how accurate but if this is the legislation I can not see how this protects bullies.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SE...

Seems quite clear and precise to me.

This would seem to be the section in question, not sure how this promotes religious bullying though.

(8) This section does not abridge the rights under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States or under article I of the state constitution of 1963 of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian. This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.

It quite clearly refers to a "statement" not a threat of, or actual, violence,

BTW I was also targeted by Bullies once upon a time, it was a miserable time in my life, but it stopped when I became a cop and powerlifter for some reason. I guess the bullies didn't like it when I could not only fight back but then charge them for it.
Nov. 6, 2011 5:34 p.m. novaderrik Dork

i'm of the opinion that bullying is something that's gonna happen- alwaysh as happened, always will happen regardless of any laws that are passed to stop it- and that kids need to learn how to cope when they are bullied. telling them get away and find an adult sounds good in theory, but eventually they are going to have to make a stand and they will be and adult themselves.

and i was someone that got picked on and occasionally beat up for no real reason than kids will be kids.
Nov. 6, 2011 5:44 p.m. vwcorvette HalfDork

There is quite a difference between simply stating that "my religion teaches me that homosexuality is wrong," to calling someone a fag or bullying with the intent to belittle, scare, or coerce. Reading the wording it appears the intent is to protect the former. Still to put this into legislation is reactionary and unnecessary. Who really are they trying to protect?
Nov. 6, 2011 5:53 p.m. aussiesmg SuperDork

Its all a reaction to the suicide of Matt Epling in 2002

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/michigans-matts-safe-schools-law-allows-b...
Nov. 6, 2011 7:45 p.m. DoctorBlade Dork

Is there a link to the original law? I'd rather not read HuffPo's liberal bias anymore than I have to. I suspect I know what this might have been in response to laws that ban "hate speech" and list religious objections to personal behaviors as "hate speech".

If there's a happy middle, I don't see it.