Connect with us

Tennessee Pro-Bullying Bill: Exactly Whom Is It Designed To Protect?

Published

on

What does it mean for LGBT young people if Tennessee’s pro-bullying bill is passed into law? And whom is this legislation really designed to protect?  U.K. anti-bullying expert and author Ian Rivers weighs in, from across the pond.

I recently read with interest on Twitter about a bill going through the Tennessee House (House Bill 1153) and Senate (Senate Bill 760) which seeks to ensure that First Amendment rights are not curtailed by the the accusation of bullying. The Bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Vance Dennis (R-Savannah) and in the Senate by Senator Jim Tracy (R-Shelbyville), and some on Twitter fear that it will give those who hold certain negative beliefs, attitutudes or convictions about minority groups, particularly sexual minority groups, a license to bully. The Bill describes bullying as “any act that substantially and measurably interferes with a student’s educational benefits, opportunities or performance, that takes place on school grounds, at any school-sponsored activity, on school-provided transportation or at any official school bus stop,”  and that has the effect of:

  • Physically harming a student or damaging a student’s property;
  • Knowingly placing a student in reasonable fear, as determined objectively, of physical harm to the student or damage to the student’s property; or
  • Creating a hostile educational environment.

So far so good. However the Bill then goes on the say that creating a hostile educational environment, “shall not be construed to include discomfort and unpleasantness that can accompany the expression of a viewpoint or belief that is unpopular, not shared by other students, or not shared by teachers or school officials.” In other words, if a student, teacher or official has a view and expresses it in terms to students or their peers that are construed as negative, such views should be protected under the First Amendment, particularly if they are founded upon a deep-seated conviction.

The Bill goes on the clarify further (and these clarifications are important) in what circumstances such discomfort or unpleasantness will be allowed:

The policy shall not be construed or interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students and shall not prohibit their expression of religious, philosophical, or political views; provided, that such expression does not include a threat of physical harm to a student or damage to a student’s property.

Furthermore:

Harassment, intimidation, or bullying prevention task forces, programs, and other initiatives formed by school districts, including any curriculum adopted for such purposes, shall not include materials or training that explicitly or implicitly promote a political agenda, make the characteristics of the victim the focus rather than the conduct of the person engaged in harassment, intimidation, or bullying, or teach or suggest that certain beliefs or viewpoints are discriminatory when an act or practice based on such belief or viewpoint is not a discriminatory practice as defined in 4-21-102(4).

In the summary provided by the Tennessee General Assembly we are told that 4-21-102(4) relates to human rights law and that a discriminatory practice constitutes, “any direct or indirect act or practice of exclusion, distinction, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal, denial, or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the treatment of a person because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, age or national origin.”

Although sexual orientation is not included, it should also be recalled that Tennessee was also the state that passed the “Don’t Say Gay“ Bill sponsored by Senator Stacey Campfield and supported by Senator Tracy both in the Senate and in the Education Committee. A redoubtable couple!

So what does this mean for LGBT young people of Tennessee if this bill is passed into law?

The first question we should ask is, can bullying ever be excused because of a religious, philosophical or political view? The answer is clearly, no!

Bullying as defined by the Bill is an action meant to cause physical and/or emotional harm, and cause damage to property. Thus, any action or inaction taken by a school or district that results in a young LGBT person feeling intimidated (by the fear of reprisal) or being harmed in any way may be construed as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, several school districts and principals have found themselves before the courts for violating the Fourteenth Amendment rights of LGBT students.

In my book, “Homophobic Bullying: Research and Theoretical Perspectives,” I provide examples of some of the cases that have been brought before the courts. For example, in 2004, a school district in California settled out of court (including legal fees of approximately $1.1 million) following a case where a group of students were taunted with sexual slurs and pornography, and, in one case, physically assaulted. The school district claimed that they were immune from legal action because their obligation to protect students from homophobic attacks was unclear. The district’s lawyers also claimed that efforts it made to tackle bullying absolved it of  any liability.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and determined that inaction by school administrators constituted intentional discrimination. So, be warned principals and superintendents, a religious, philosophical or political view does not absolve you from liability if things get “out-of-hand” in your school or district.

Secondly, it is important to ask the question, does the First Amendment protect those who choose to use their perceived freedom of speech to make another feel uncomfortable? This is a tough one, but I take heart from a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to bolster the resolve of LGBT young people, their families, advocates and allies. In Snyder v. Phelps et al. (2010), a case where the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), aka, “God Hates Fags,” picketed the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, the opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, was as follows:

“Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of the public concern when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’.”

Because the WBC were picketing peacefully on issues of “public concern” (their banners and placards are reported to have said, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “Fags Doom Nations”), and because they did not impede the funeral nor did the content of those banners and placards relate directly to Matthew Snyder or his family, the WBC’s First Amendment rights were upheld. So, the question then becomes is bullying ever in the public interest, and how do we tell it apart from free speech in the Tennessee context?

If a student walks into school one day wearing a t-shirt that says, “God Hates Fags” and he or she is wearing that t-shirt because of a deep conviction about the immorality of homosexuality, it may be the case that asking him or her to remove it constitutes an infringement of his/her First Amendment rights. As the Supreme Court ruled, being outraged is not suitable justification for applying the law, nor is the context in which such outrageous things are said. However, one would hope that no parent would ever allow their child to attend school wearing such a t-shirt, and that schools enforce a suitable dress code to ensure that this does not happen.

Alternatively, in class, civics for example, a teacher engages in a discussion about human rights and points to the fact that some countries include sexual orientation in human rights legislation. The teacher goes on to say that in some states in the U.S., same-sex couples are allowed to marry. One student then shouts out, “Matt is going to marry another boy,” and the class laugh out loud and make a number of questionable gestures towards Matt, who becomes very uncomfortable. Does this constitute bullying?

Yes, it probably does. Even if the incident goes no further, the fear of further embarrassment (taken objectively), and the fact that it was directed at a particular student whose discomfort is not in the public interest seems to suggest that First Amendment rights may not apply, even if it is claimed that the comments were founded upon deeply held religious, philosophical or political beliefs.

Of course such scenarios would have to be tested before the courts, but it leaves us with the question, for whom is this legislation? It is not for the teachers and administrators of the schools in Tennessee, nor for the young people in their charge. It is unfocused and unmangeable. It is not for the parents of LGBT students who will find the nuanced arguments of measureable interference in their child’s schooling difficult to navigate and argue before a school or district board holding on dearly to its purse strings. It cannot be for the protection of bullies, for no public servant would ever condone bullying of any form. In the end it is a frivolous piece of legislation, that will cause confusion rather than stem unrest, and leave students, parents, teachers and administrators unsure of how to tackle the bullying of those who are or are perceived to be LGBT.

Image via Flickr

 

Ian Rivers is Professor of Human Development at Brunel University, London. He is the author of ‘Homophobic Bullying: Research and Theoretical Perspectives’ (Oxford, 2011), and has researched issues of discrimination in LGBT communities, particularly among children and young people, for nearly two decades.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

White House Mum After Classified Info Reportedly Appears on Musk’s DOGE Website

Published

on

The White House has yet to comment after classified information reportedly appeared on Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency website — information related to one of the federal government intelligence agencies his SpaceX company does business with.

“Elon Musk’s team at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency has posted classified information about the size and staff of a U.S. intelligence agency on its new website, raising bigger concerns about where Musk’s programmers got this information and what they are doing with it,” HuffPost reported Friday afternoon.

“DOGE’s database provides details on the National Reconnaissance Office, the federal agency that designs, builds and maintains U.S. intelligence satellites. Not only are NRO’s budgets and head counts classified, but the prospect of Musk’s tech team meddling in sensitive personnel information is setting off alarms for some in the intelligence community,” HuffPost explained. “Musk can’t claim he wasn’t aware that the National Reconnaissance Office is one of the nation’s intelligence agencies. His company, SpaceX, has a $1.8 billion contract with NRO to build hundreds of spy satellites.”

READ MORE: ‘United States of Extortion’: New Trump Ukraine ‘Shakedown’ Called ‘Cheap Mafia’ Move

A Senate staffer who works on intelligence matters told HuffPost that DOGE sharing this information “is absolutely a problem under the current intelligence standards.”

“These 25-year-old programmers, I don’t think they have enough experience to know what they don’t know,” the aide said. “Really, the question is: Where did they get this information and what are they doing with it?”

HuffPost also reported that a White House spokesperson “did not respond to a request for comment on where DOGE workers got this information, why they are sharing it publicly and if the president is concerned about DOGE workers accessing sensitive data.”

National security and civil liberties journalist Marcy Wheeler directed her ire at U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

“I’m curious if you’re at all alarmed that one of USG’s Satellite Contractors, Elon Musk, just leaked details about satellite intelligence agency NRO on his DOGE site?” she asked in a social media post.

READ MORE: ‘Disgust’: Vance’s ‘Disturbing’ Speech Alarms Europe, Sparks Foreign Policy Fears

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘United States of Extortion’: New Trump Ukraine ‘Shakedown’ Called ‘Cheap Mafia’ Move

Published

on

Just weeks into his second term, President Donald Trump’s administration is not only grappling with a growing colossus of self-inflicted crises, but is now igniting international tensions as well. The administration is pressuring Ukraine to relinquish rights to half of its valuable precious metals—just as Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin prepare to begin negotiations to end Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine.

“Multiple lawmakers here in Munich told me the U.S. Congressional delegation presented Zelensky with a piece of paper they wanted him to sign which would grant the U.S. rights to 50% of Ukraine’s future mineral reserves,” Washington Post foreign policy and national security columnist Josh Rogin reported Friday afternoon from the Munich Security Conference.

“Zelensky politely declined to sign it,” he added.

Trump has made it clear he expects Ukraine to hand over the rights to its rare earth minerals, which are extremely valuable.

READ MORE: ‘Disgust’: Vance’s ‘Disturbing’ Speech Alarms Europe, Sparks Foreign Policy Fears

“Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion for electric vehicles, cell phones, missile systems, and other electronics. There are no viable substitutes,” Reuters reported. The news outlet also noted that Trump “said on Monday he wants Ukraine to supply the United States with rare earth minerals as a form of payment for financially supporting the country’s war efforts against Russia.”

“We’re telling Ukraine they have very valuable rare earths,” Trump said. “We’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their rare earths and other things.”

Trump’s expected haul: “close to $300 billion,” or more.

“We are going to have all this money in there, and I say I want it back. And I told them that I want the equivalent, like $500 billion worth of rare earth,” Trump said Monday, CBS News reported. “They have essentially agreed to do that, so at least we don’t feel stupid.”

The New York Times on Wednesday suggested Kyiv may be willing to play ball with the billionaire businessman.

“President Trump says he wants to make a deal for minerals from Ukraine in exchange for aid. That followed a long effort by Ukrainian officials to appeal to Mr. Trump’s transactional nature.”

Earlier this week Bloomberg reported on Trump’s call with Putin, saying, “European leaders, who were broadly aligned with Washington under Biden, were stunned to learn of the call and some said it appeared to signal that Trump was selling out Ukraine.”

“Trump is skeptical of providing more aid,” Bloomberg continued, “and if he does then he wants the US to be compensated – perhaps in the form of access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was in Kyiv today to work on that part of the deal.”

READ MORE: ‘Brazen Criminality’: Allegations of ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Fly After Border Czar’s Admission

Garry Kasparov, the internationally famous Russian chess grandmaster and now vice president of the World Liberty Congress, likened Trump’s demand to that of a Mafia don.

“Trump wants to give Russia something for nothing and expects Ukraine to give America something for nothing. Cheap mafia behavior,” he charged.

Olga Lautman, a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) and researcher of organized crime and intelligence operations in Russia and Ukraine, deemed the move “extortion.”

“This extortion by the [Trump] regime is outrageous. Europe needs to step up asap and help Ukraine,” she urged.

Professor Roland Paris, director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, doubly mocked the administration: “The United States of Extortion. (Can Google update its maps with this new name?)”

The Atlantic’s David Frum, a Bush 43 speechwriter, declared it, “Gangsterism.”

Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor for the right wing National Review, blasted the administration:

“The United States ought to back Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, morally, and, above all, because it is in the hard U.S. interest to do so. To shake down a country that is struggling for its very existence is, to my sense, repulsive.”

The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser called it simply, “A shakedown.”

READ MORE: Trump Admin Orders Immediate Mass Firing of Some Federal Workers — 200,000 Possibly at Risk

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Disgust’: Vance’s ‘Disturbing’ Speech Alarms Europe, Sparks Foreign Policy Fears

Published

on

JD Vance’s speech on Friday at the Munich Security Conference deeply offended European leaders, drawing widespread criticism and fueling serious concerns about President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.

“Hard to convey the level of disgust with and rejection of Vance remarks,” explained veteran foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, “which included lecturing Europe to be more open to Musk promoting the German far right party and which ignored Russia.”

Vance’s speech, Rozen continued, “was not about Europe doing more to protect European security. It was telling them how to be internally—more open to right wing/ hate speech/techno oligarchd/Russian election interference.”

“Truly disturbing,” she concluded.

READ MORE: ‘Brazen Criminality’: Allegations of ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Fly After Border Czar’s Admission

The New York Times did not hold back. Its headline reads: “Vance Tells Europeans to Stop Shunning Parties Deemed Extreme.”

A member of France’s armed services committee “could not believe [Vance] did not mention Ukraine/Russia,” Rozen noted, while adding that “the German defense minister was the most forceful in expressing his rejection.”

Indeed, Tom Nutall, the Berlin Bureau Chief for The Economist wrote: Blistering response by Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defence minister, to JD Vance’s speech.”

Nutall quoted the minister as saying: “Democracy does not mean that a vociferous minority can decide what truth is…democracy must be able to defend itself against extremists.” 

Pistorius continued, describing himself as “a staunch believer in the Transatlantic Alliance,” and “a staunch ally and friend of America,” Real Clear Politics reported.

“The American dream is something that has always fascinated me and influenced me, and this is why I cannot just ignore what we heard before, I cannot not comment on the speech we heard by the U.S. Vice President.”

“This democracy … was just called into question by the U.S. vice president. And not just the German democracy, but Europe as a whole, he spoke of the annulment of democracy and if I understood him correctly, he compares the condition of Europe with the condition that prevails in some authoritarian regimes.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is not acceptable. That’s it. This is not acceptable,” Pistorius declared.

Damian Boeselager, a member of the European Parliament, wrote: “JD Vance speech at the MSC was a disgrace. Telling Europe how to run a democracy and free speech while centralizing all power in the hands of a couple of power hungry people is a horrible cynicism.”

READ MORE: Trump Admin Orders Immediate Mass Firing of Some Federal Workers — 200,000 Possibly at Risk

The Guardian reported that the European Union’s “foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, reacting to US vice president JD Vance’s speech, said it felt like Washington was ‘trying to pick a fight’ with Europe.”

Other experts also agreed with Rozen’s remarks.

“This is definitely how most foreign policy elites in Europe interpreted US Vice President Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference,” wrote Dr. Leslie Vinjamuri, director of the U.S. and Americas program at the London-based think tank Chatham House, and a professor of international relations at the University of London.

“Exactly this. Another disturbing glimpse into MAGA thinking,” added David Hartwell, a former UK Ministry of Defense intelligence analyst.

“Shocking hypocrisy from Vance – lecturing Europe on democracy when he serves as vice president to a man who attempted a coup in the US,” wrote Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times.

“It does not appear,” noted former Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath, who has a Master of Arts in international and global security studies from Johns Hopkins University, “that Vance, Hegseth or Trump on the same page when it comes to Europe, Ukraine, Russia. No coherent message. The world has no idea what American foreign policy is right now. I don’t think [the Trump] team knows either.”

Watch a portion of Vance’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Corruption’ Claims Fly Over Musk’s Modi Meeting as Trump Shrugs: ‘I Don’t Know’

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.