Justus For All?
 By Bethanie Lundy The Kansas City PostSenator Jolie Justus of the 10th District has introduced a bill that would expound upon current anti-bullying legislation by adding enumerated categories such as race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. In a post on her blog Fresh Meat, she opines that her biggest hurdle to getting this legislation to the floor is the addition of “sexual orientation.” Jolie has impressed me in her year as a freshmen senator, so I have to ask the obvious question, “Why pick this fight?” First and foremost, no enumerated categories are needed in this legislation. As we all know, kids bully and tease for any number of reasons, and none of them are reserved for any specific category or special attention. Growing up an obvious homosexual in a very small conservative town, I was not subjected to nearly as harsh treatment by classmates as my aunt, who was painfully overweight. Enumerated categories, if they were to cover even the top tier of reasons kids are bullied, would number in the dozens. That aside, when faced with incessant teasing and brutal bullying, what difference does it make the specific rib the bully is jabbing? While I understand that it is difficult to grow up “gay” in school, it is just as difficult to grow up poor, to grow up overweight, to grow up physically unattractive, to grow up...well I could go on and on. There is no single “worst” thing to be as a kid if you are singled out for razzing. As a kid who endured “dyke” for the better part of my school career, I can assure you that it is no picnic, but I am still glad I wasn't the “fat” kid. It occurs to me that Jolie is focusing this argument because of the sexual orientation issue and not the other way around, as she muses that the other senators have issue with sexual orientation added into the categories. I think the categories, all of them, are of issue, because they are completely unnecessary and inappropriate for the reasons I have stated in this editorial. I would like to see Senator Justus approach this situation with more care and reflection. Do we want to champion gay rights or do we want to champion civil rights? Including all kids and their respective issues is championing civil rights. There is a time and a place for the sexual orientation argument, in places where we are treated differently and denied our civil rights, on the basis of our orientation. I don't see this as one of those times or one of those places. |
posted by Mark at 8:14 AM
Comments on "Justus For All?"
-
patrick said ... (9:59 AM) :
-
Lana said ... (11:44 AM) :
-
btyfrd said ... (12:59 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (2:41 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (2:48 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (2:55 PM) :
-
btyfrd said ... (3:41 PM) :
-
Lana said ... (10:30 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10:26 PM) :
-
Michelled said ... (2:32 PM) :
post a commentGood points.
But a few comments and questions: What's the difference between gay rights and civil rights? Aren't they the same thing -- that is the desire to see gay and straight lifestyles held essentially equal in the eyes of the law?
I understand the desire to enumerate the categories of students. School boards and school administrators have demonstrated they are not above prejudicial treatment of students, particularly in regards to sexual orientation and religion. Listing these categories explicitly addresses these concerns.
Hi Beth:
Thanks for voicing your concern and opinion. I agree with you on some level, and your arguments were part of my first reaction to the amendment. However, the problem is that many school administrators will not enforce "all bullying" unless certain categories are spelled out for them.
The Senator's amendment clarifies that the bullying ban applies to that based on "race, color, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation [which includes transgendered by reference to another statute], intellectual ability, physical appearance, or a mental, physical, or sensory disability or disorder" (whether "actual or perceived"). Clearly, the enumerated categories are about civil rights more broadly.
Why pick this fight, you ask? I became convinced for several reasons. Well, first, because a lot of the Senator's constituents want her to. Part (and only part) of the Senator's base of support is the gay community, and many of those folks have fought for years to have those categories explicitly in the statute. Second, the amendment is also another way to show that many groups benefit in the battle for civil rights overall. As you artfully state, there is common ground in the prejudices facing a "fat kid" and the "gay kid," for example. Linking those together in a single statute helps build those bridges that we need to fight intolerance overall. Third, sometimes legislation is introduced just to get the issue out in the open, and advance the debate. In this case, I think it's about forcing a fellow colleague to look Senator Justus in the eye and admit his or her prejudices. I think it takes a lot of courage for Jolie to cut to the chase, hold herself out there, and put a human face on the issue. I completely get your concerns, but those are not the concerns of those opposing the amendment. To me, that is the biggest reason why we need the amendment to begin with.
Lana, it is always good to have an exchange with you :) I hope all is well.
As you know, I respect Jolie very much. We may have to agree to disagree on this issue, but we can't agree all of the time. (Have we ever agreed? haha)
What it boils down to for me is this:
(a little snippet from a reply to KC BLUE BLOG who thinks I'm satan right now)
I feel that enumerating categories feeds to legislating the lowest common denominator, in this case, teachers who would choose to turn a blind eye to gay bashing (or race or whatever category you choose) because it isn't written in some law that they have to intervene. Any teacher that would allow that behavior without a law should not be a teacher. Laws like this make me angry, not because a senator would propose it, but because they feel they have to. I'm tired of cow-towing to a society that seems perfectly content in allowing people to act like idiots, forcing laws to hold people accountable for what should be a no-brainer.
I think the more that we, as a society, become comfortable with having to spell everything out to ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect, the more we feed the demon. How many laws do we have to make before we can expect people to act appropriately?
Since it is not mentioned in the article the citation for the "Bullying statute" is Mo Rev Statute 160.775:
1. Every district shall adopt an anti-bullying policy by September 1, 2007.
2. "Bullying" means intimidation or harassment that causes a reasonable student to fear for his or her physical safety or property. Bullying may consist of physical actions, including gestures, or oral or written communication, and any threat of retaliation for reporting of such acts.
3. Each district's anti-bullying policy shall be founded on the assumption that all students need a safe learning environment. Policies shall treat students equally and shall not contain specific lists of protected classes of students who are to receive special treatment. Policies may include age appropriate differences for schools based on the grade levels at the school. Each such policy shall contain a statement of the consequences of bullying.
4. Each district's anti-bullying policy shall require district employees to report any instance of bullying of which the employee has firsthand knowledge. The district policy shall address training of employees in the requirements of the district policy.
I think Justus' heart is in the right place. I don't think her head is, and I'm a little disappointed. There are practical as well as legal problems with this legislation.
1) By proscribing the protected classes in the statute, the rules of statutory construction followed by judges indicates that any class or group not included won't be covered by the bullying statute, unless there is a catch all at the end. Putting a catch all phrase at the end would have the same effect of covering the EXACT SAME GROUPS covered right now- all groups.
2) The problem practically with this statute is that local school districts don't like taking procedural and administrative orders from Jeff. city or Washington to begin with. Any changes will most likely just be followed in name only. Districts who let gay kids get picked on before will still do so.
This statutory change doesn't make anyone safer, and it is likely to alienate people that dislike the fact that Justus has turned a right-to-education issue into a gay-rights issue.
I understand that she got elected by Hyde Park and has to pander to them to a certain extent. I will be hesitant to vote for her in the future if she is so single-issue.
By enumerating the categories, Justus ends up removing protections for students who are picked on because of their religion or because of unpopular intellectual views.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, Ms. Justus.
In response to anon
"I understand that she got elected by Hyde Park and has to pander to them to a certain extent. I will be hesitant to vote for her in the future if she is so single-issue."
I would encourage you to go to her blog "Fresh Meat" as Senator Justus is far from "single-issue." This just happened to be a piece of legislation I disagreed with, but I don't want to paint her in a narrow light based upon this one issue.
Dude, I've gotta admire someone who references Latin phrases (not to be confused with Tony's KC and references from Latinos).
If you are like me, you looked up "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" and found out the phrase means "to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of the alternative."
Certainly, that was not the intent of the Senator's amendment, but the point is well taken. I think the intent was to clarify that the bullying ban applied to "including but not limited to" the list of categories. I understand from the Senator that amendments to clarify the bill are in the works. (Also, "regligion" is currently covered; that was a typo on my part).
By the way, Senator Yvonne Wilson (9th) sponsored a similar bullying bill last year (SB 674). This year, Senator Wilson is also the sponsor of Missouri's Non-Discrimination Action, which adds sexual orientation to the list of protected classes (SB 266). Somehow, I don't see Senator Wilson (who has been married for over 55 years) as a single issue senator.....and I would hope that, folks won't do that with Senator Justus either.
I understand that she got elected by Hyde Park and has to pander to them to a certain extent. Is Hyde Park supposed to be gay or just very liberal?
I think bfyfrd hit it on the head Laws like this make me angry, not because a senator would propose it, but because they feel they have to. Too many people think bullying gay kids would just be doing the "lords work" and look the other way. Of course those types would overlook the new law anyway.
To echo the sentiment by one of the anonymous (will you folks please post a handle!?)
The fact is, all this "bullying" crap is already against the rules. The "rules" aren't being enforced so what do we need? MORE RULES!!!! Yeah, that will solve the problem!
Is being a slut covered in this statue?