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.

Related Topics:
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

‘Let That Sink in’: Suspending Habeas Corpus Is on the Table Says Stephen Miller

Published

1 day ago

on

May 9, 2025

By

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller says the White House is “actively” examining suspending habeas corpus, a constitutional protection that supports the right to due process. Critics, including legal experts, reacted strongly, with some noting that this right has only been suspended in the United States four times.

“Well, the Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller, the architect of Trump’s child and family separation policy during his first term, told reporters on Friday.

“So I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at,” Miller declared, before attacking the judicial branch.

“Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”

READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’

Habeas corpus is a cornerstone of Western democracies, with roots tracing back to the Magna Carta of 1215, which first established the principle that no person could be imprisoned arbitrarily by the king.

Miller, who has no law degree and is not an attorney, went on to give reporters his understanding of constitutional law.

“So,” Miller concluded, “it’s not just the courts aren’t just at war with the executive branch, the courts are at war with these radical judges, with the legislative branch as well, too,” he opined.

“So all of that will inform the choice of the president ultimately makes, yes.”

Critics blasted the extreme suggestion that President Donald Trump has the authority to suspend habeas corpus—Congress does—and that he would attempt to do so when there is no invasion or rebellion, prerequisites mandated by the Constitution.

“Habeas corpus has been suspended only 4 times,” wrote The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. 1) Civil War 2) When Congress authorized it to combat Ku Klux Klan vigilantism during Reconstruction 3) In the Philippines during a 1905 insurrection 4) In Hawaii after Pearl Harbor.”

“The President lacks the power to suspend habeas corpus under Article II. That power is exclusive to Congress under Article I,” explained civil rights attorney Patrick Jaicomo.

READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections

“Too bad he never went to law school and doesn’t understand the law,” remarked Professor of Law Joyce Vance, the well-known MSNBC legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney.

“Suspending habeas corpus,” noted The Atlantic’s James Surowiecki, “would suspend the right for everyone, not just for undocumented people. So what Stephen Miller is saying here is that Trump is thinking about asserting the right to throw Americans in prison while giving them no opportunity to use the courts to get out.”

“The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process to everyone within the United States, not just citizens. They’re inventing a fake ‘invasion’ to call for an emergency and give themselves more power,” added political strategist Max Flugrath, Communications Director at Fair Fight Action.

“Don’t even think about it,” remarked U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA).

The well-known attorney George Conway, saying it “can’t be overstated,” called Miller “deeply, deeply disturbed.”

“Suspending habeas corpus. Let that sink in,” commented The Lincoln Project.

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Jaime Harrison described Miller’s threatening remarks as “dictatorial b——.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Total Injustice’: Pope Leo XIV Likely to Weigh in on Trump-Era Policies, Brother Hints

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Scopes Just Went Black Again’: Air Traffic Controller Urges Pilot to Press for Fix

Published

2 days ago

on

May 9, 2025

By

New chilling audio of an apparently concerned and frustrated air traffic controller urging a pilot to get his company to apply pressure to fix the FAA’s technical issues was just released.

Over the past two weeks, air traffic controllers covering Newark Liberty International Airport have had to endure two separate system-wide outages that caused their radar scopes to go black and caused them to lose some communication with pilots, with the latest one occurring early Friday morning.

“FedEx 1989,” the unnamed air traffic controller can be heard saying (audio below), “our scopes just went black again.”

“If you care about this, contact your airline and try to get some pressure for them to fix this stuff,” the controller told the pilot.

READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Friday told reporters it was a “glitch in the system” that “was caused by the same telecoms and software issues that were raised last week.”

Insisting there was “no operational impact,” she said the “DOT and the FAA are working to address this technical issue tonight to prevent further outage.”

Leavitt did not specify what caused the glitch or how it could be fixed now.

On Thursday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said it would take months to fix the problem.

“It’s going to take a little time. I hope by the summer we’re going to be fully functioning,” Secretary Duffy said, CBS News reported.

MSNBC vice president Jesse Rodriguez called it a “Pretty extraordinary plea from an air traffic controller.”

READ MORE: ‘Total Injustice’: Pope Leo XIV Likely to Weigh in on Trump-Era Policies, Brother Hints

ABC News added that in “another transmission, a controller told an arriving private jet that the airport just had a brief radar outage and to stay at or above 3,000 feet in case the controllers couldn’t get in touch during the aircraft’s descent.”

The FAA in a statement on Friday said that there was a “telecommunications outage that impacted communications and radar display at Philadelphia TRACON Area C, which guides aircraft in and out of Newark Liberty International Airport airspace. The outage occurred around 3:55 a.m. on Friday, May 9, and lasted approximately 90 seconds.”

CNN’s Pete Muntean posted the audio. Listen below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’

Published

2 days ago

on

May 9, 2025

By

President Donald Trump’s grasp of what’s happening on his watch is being debated, as the 78-year-old increasingly responds, “I don’t know” when asked basic questions.

Despite swearing—for the second time now—an oath to the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States when asked if he is obligated to “uphold the Constitution” told NBC News’ Kristen Welker, “I don’t know.”

Trump, as The New York Times pointed out, offered the same answer when asked if everyone in the U.S. should be afforded due process rights—which are mandated by the Constitution.

READ MORE: ‘Total Injustice’: Pope Leo XIV Likely to Weigh in on Trump-Era Policies, Brother Hints

“I don’t know,” the President replied, twice. “I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.”

VoteVets, a progressive political action committee (PAC), served up a scathing rebuke.

“He’s taken the oath twice—but now he’s not sure if due process matters. That’s not a gaffe. That’s a warning. Believe him. He’s telling you what he may burn down next,” the group posted on social media.

The nonpartisan advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires, which works to have wealthy Americans pay a larger portion in taxes and says “tax the rich” on its website, pointed to the President’s “I don’t know” response to upholding the Constitution.

“That is something that an authoritarian-dictator-wannabe would say, and we should absolutely take him at his word when he says this,” they wrote.

When Welker asked if he would run for a third term, Trump said he would not but admitted “I don’t know” if the Constitution prohibits it, but it’s “something you’re not allowed to do,” he said.

Back in April, Trump told reporters, “Many, many people come from the Congo. I don’t know what that is, but they came from the Congo.”

On Wednesday, in an Oval Office press gaggle, reporters asked, “Mr. President, is your administration sending migrants to Libya?”

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “You’ll have to ask Homeland Security.”

Also on Wednesday, a reporter told Trump, “Your Treasury Secretary just told lawmakers that a tariff exemption for certain baby items like car seats is under consideration. Will you exempt some products that families rely on?”

“I don’t know,” was the President’s response, adding he will “think about it.”

READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections

Trump was also asked about U.S. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) announcing he opposed Trump’s pick to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

“I didn’t know that,” the President told reporters.

Back in October, after his infamous “they’re eating the dogs” attack on immigrants, Trump went on Fox News and was told, “You said ‘they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats.’ That turned out not to be true.”

“I don’t know if it’s true or not,” the President quickly replied.

“You don’t know? It’s been debunked,’ the Fox News host declared.

“What about the goose, the geese? What about the geese? What happened there?” he was asked.

“I have no idea,” was the President’s reply.

The Atlantic’s James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds, back in March noted, “Trump also didn’t know that his administration had invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport Tren de Aragua members, even though he had supposedly signed the executive order invoking it. ‘I don’t know when it was signed, because I didn’t sign it,’ he said.”

And when SignalGate hit, Trump told reporters, “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me it’s a magazine that’s going out of business. But I know nothing about it. You’re saying that they had what?”

Trump’s “I don’t know” remarks have become so frequent some have started to question why.

“Is somebody keeping a tracker of President ‘I don’t know’ Trump’s I don’t knows?” asked former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Juliette Kayyem. “It’s getting ridiculous. From Supreme Court decisions, to Libya prisons, to nominees, he has one answer. It’s not acceptable. He either isn’t in charge, is lying or has no capacity. I don’t know.”

It appears CNN has, at least in part, been keeping track.

On Thursday, Trump announced his new, highly-controversial Surgeon General nominee. Asked why he picked her, Trump replied, “Because Bobby thought she was fantastic,” but, “I don’t know her.”

MSNBC columnist Michael A. Cohen commented, “Yet another piece of evidence that Trump is a bystander to the actions of his administration.”

CNN medical analyst Jonathan Reiner remarked, “The president says he doesn’t know the new Surgeon General but he appointed her because ‘Bobby thought she was terrific’. Who’s in charge here?”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Maoist’ ‘Soviet’ ‘Communist’: As Trumpism 2.0 Takes Shape, Experts Endeavor to Define It

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.