Michigan State Senate: Protecting Religious Bullies Since November, 2011
I was originally going to post this tomorrow morning, but it’s finished and I’m cranky, so I’m hitting the Publish button now.
The Michigan Senate passed Matt’s Safe School Law on Tuesday. Sponsored by Senator Rick Jones, this bill would amend the Michigan School Code to require public schools to adopt antibullying policies. So far, so good, right?
The full text of the bill is here. It states that “ALL PUPILS ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE POLICY AND THAT BULLYING IS EQUALLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS SUBJECT MATTER OR MOTIVATING ANIMUS.” (State senators love CAPS-lock!)
The bill also requires any school employee with “RELIABLE INFORMATION THAT WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE PERSON TO SUSPECT THAT A PUPIL IS A TARGET OF BULLYING” to report it, theoretically making it harder for teachers and other staff to dismiss or ignore incidents of bullying. Also a good thing.
And then, toward the end, the bill makes a mockery of itself with part 8:
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
In other words, bullying is OKAY if you do it out of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction. You could tell that kid at the bus stop “You’re a filthy faggot and you’re going to burn in hell!” every day, and that would be just peachy, as long as you’re sincere.
(To forestall an argument I’ve already have once today, please note that “this section” refers to the entire bill: Section 1310b of the revised school code. This means that nothing in this bill prohibits such statements. So please don’t try to argue “But doesn’t this other part of the bill balance it out or provide protection?”)
The Bill is named after Matt Epling, who committed suicide 40 days after being assaulted at the end of eighth grade. Matt’s father Kevin, who has been working to get Michigan to pass an anti-bullying law, said, “I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying, when in fact it is a ‘bullying is OK in MI’ law.”
The Bill hasn’t yet passed through the House, so it’s possible, even likely, that things will change. But what the hell? Can someone please explain why an anti-bullying law requires a specific exemption for religiously-motivated hate?
I assume the fear is that this law could be used to squash people’s freedom of religion. I could see someone worrying that their kid will say, “At Sunday school we learned you have to be baptised to go to Heaven!” and end up accused of bullying: “Teacher, Billy said I’m going to Hell!”
But according to the bill, bullying is defined as acts:
…BY A PUPIL DIRECTED AT OR MORE OTHER PUPILS THAT IS INTENDED OR THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD KNOW IS LIKELY TO HARM 1 OR MORE PUPILS EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
My “We learned about baptism on Sunday” example does not fall under this definition of bullying. Part 8 of this bill is not about protecting freedom of religion; it’s about protecting people’s “right” to intentionally inflict harm, or to act in ways that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm other students … as long as it’s done for religious or “moral” reasons.
Let’s make this as simple as possible, shall we?
1. Bullying is not okay. Period.
2. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to physically or verbally assault people.
3. If your sincerely-held religious beliefs require you to bully children, then your beliefs are fucked up.
Any questions?
Mishell Baker
November 4, 2011 @ 8:57 pm
I think if we can at least stop gay kids or kids of gay parents from being *physically* brutalized, having their lunch stolen, their school supplies trashed, etc., we’re making about as much progress as we can expect to make in a world that contains hate. I don’t think we can ever stop kids from saying what’s lurking in the cruelest corners of their minds, on this or any other subject.
It’s very hard to define “verbal harm,” because then you get into a gray area of punishing someone because of another person’s emotions. I think making an exception for a person stating their sincere beliefs is necessary, because otherwise children can also be punished for saying things like “There’s no God” or “Meat is murder” because those statements could very well cause a serious emotional crisis in another child who has been brought up differently.
Jim C. Hines
November 4, 2011 @ 9:00 pm
I think making an exception for a person stating their sincere beliefs is necessary, because otherwise children can also be punished for saying things like “There’s no God” or “Meat is murder”…
Can you explain how those statements would possibly fall under the definition of bullying given in this bill?
Jim C. Hines
November 4, 2011 @ 9:06 pm
Actually, you know what? I could see that. A student who’s vegitarian, and a group of kids who decide to pick on that student, waving lunch meat in his face and chanting “Meat is murder,” then chomping down in front of him. Deliberately trying to inflict hurt upon that student.
Which, to my mind, is indeed bullying, and I happen to believe that kind of behavior is not okay.
I’m not arguing that children should never have to hear things that might upset them, and I don’t think anything in this bill tries to legislate that. That’s not what the bill is about. It’s about stopping bullying.
At least, that was the original intent, before they added part 8.
Mishell Baker
November 4, 2011 @ 10:06 pm
The reason the examples I gave do not sound like bullying is because (even though they may hurt) they are not, which was my point. Neither is saying “Gays are going to hell.” It’s a belief, an opinion. No one likes being called a sinner for loving someone of the same sex, or a murderer for eating a hot dog. But they are *both* examples of statements that I (and the bill) believe should be allowed in a free-speech society.
“A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION” is allowed via the bill and that’s all. It does not say “bullying is allowed if it is an expression of a sincerely held” etc. It does not say that if you believe gays are going to hell it gives you the right to *do* something to them.
I think the leap you are making is that a child freely stating that he thinks something is wrong is, in and of itself, bullying. I’m not sure I follow that.
Mishell Baker
November 4, 2011 @ 10:25 pm
Actually, as I read over again, I think the point you’re making (correct me if I’m wrong) is that there would be no need for that addendum unless they were trying to create a loophole for religiously-motivated bullying. I can see how someone would read it that way, but that’s not how I read it.
I can think of lots of occasions when a meat-eater might feel that a vegetarian was trying to hurt her/make her sick by telling them about animal cruelty while she was eating a hamburger, or someone with gay parents might feel someone was deliberately trying to hurt im by expressing concern about the state of his parents’ souls.
Those who do not hold a particular belief have an extraordinarily hard time understanding the mindset of those who do. You cannot trust nonbelievers (of any cause, religious or otherwise) to give believers the benefit of the doubt in these matters, because to them, the believers are slightly villain-esque just by virtue of their beliefs.
Meat-eaters think vegetarians are lunatics, atheists think Christians are off their rockers. Belief is so inherently divisive that I think the writers of the bill need to put something like that in there to keep people from ruling whether someone “meant” harm or not based on their own belief system.
That’s how I interpret it, but I’m infamous for assuming people are not evil and are really trying to do the best they can to do what’s right. Also I’ve had a hellish month, or I’d probably have just kept my mouth shut in the first place. 🙂
Jim C. Hines
November 4, 2011 @ 10:52 pm
That’s part of it. If something isn’t bullying, why would it need specific exemptions/protection in an antibullying law? If it is bullying, why should we exempt it?
The thing is, I believe the bill does say that bullying is allowed if it’s a statement of genuine religious or moral conviction. There’s no exemption for physical abuse/bullying, but if you make a statement from genuine religious convictions, then this bill does not apply to that statement. There are no conditions, no limits on how hateful or deliberately malicious the statement is.
Another point that’s been brought up — and I don’t have a source for this yet, so please take it with a chunk of salt — is that one of the senators who pushed this exemption through did so in part because he was trying to fight back “against the gay agenda” being pushed by this antibullying legislation. Like I said, I’m still looking for a source on that, but I find it troubling.
Final comment, ’cause it’s late and I’m sleepy – I’m a meat-eater, and I don’t think vegetarians are nuts.
I’m sorry you’re having a lousy month, and I hope it improves. (And for what it’s worth, I don’t mind people disagreeing with me. It would get awfully boring if nobody ever argued with anything I wrote…)
Mishell Baker
November 4, 2011 @ 11:09 pm
Blarrrrgh, if you’re right about that senator then I take it all back. Every time I hear the phrase “gay agenda” my forebrain shuts off and I want to start punching people.
Please insert “many” in front of “meat-eaters” and “atheists” and that’s more what I meant. I am also a meat-eater who doesn’t think vegetarians are nuts! (Though they do tend to -eat- more nuts than I’d be comfortable with…)
Good night and thanks for the brain food!
Ananda
November 5, 2011 @ 12:05 am
Actually, there is a big difference between “you’re a fag going to hell” and “there’s no God”/”meat is murder”. Because we live in a culture where “you’re a fag going to hell” is a regular precursor to violence and even death.
This legislation doesn’t protect kids off school property. It doesn’t really protect them at all. Allowing someone to use their religious convictions to verbally harass someone with words that are dog whistle calls for violence and murder is allowing bullying and is reasonably seen as a threat to that child .
Further, “you’re a fag going to hell” is an assault on the humanity and value of that child in a very real sense. “There’s no God” doesn’t tag someone as inhuman. The “meat is murder” movement has no institutionalized power, they’re not backed by authorities including the police. Allowing—no, ENCOURAGING—someone to fall back on the power of their majority religion and enculturated bigotry in order to terrorize someone is wrong.
This religious exemption is solely to allow for verbal assaults against queers and women. (Why women? Abortion. Misogyny. Control.) This is about keeping the uppity in line. It not only allows for but LEGISLATES THE APPROPRIATENESS AND MORAL CORRECTNESS of verbally abusing children and threatening them with the very real real-world manifestations of the same hate that creates those slurs and shouts and whispers.
Mishell Baker
November 5, 2011 @ 2:46 am
As I said before, I probably should not have posted, as I’m not thinking on all cylinders atm. I was posting with my gut instead of my brain. I am religious, and non-Christian, so I get it from both barrels when it comes to my beliefs. As much as the Christian extremists oppress me, as a theist I am also overly sensitive to a potential “dogpile on religion” situation in the making, and when under stress I see them looming in my mashed potatoes. I should have just let it go instead of trying to jump on an imaginary grenade, and I hope I didn’t give the impression that I in any way condone violence or abuse of any human being.
Michigan’s Anti-Bullying Legislation « Angela Benedetti
November 5, 2011 @ 4:50 am
[…] example of why I love Jim Hines. Michigan is working to pass an anti-school-bullying law that has a specific exception in it for […]
Jim C. Hines
November 5, 2011 @ 10:06 am
Okay, the person who mentioned that was actually quoting a senator from another state talking about antibullying laws.
After doing some digging this morning, the closest thing I’m finding with the Michigan law is that, “The legislation has been roadblocked on a regular basis by the lobbying efforts of the American Family Association of Michigan and its executive director Gary Glenn. The group claims the legislation is part of a larger “gay agenda” and thus opposes it.” (Source)
So while this appears to have been a factor in the long fight over this bill, I’m not aware of any Michigan senators stating so.
Mel
November 5, 2011 @ 10:14 am
So, if the kids who treated me like trash had just said that jesus hated me because I was fat, they’d be a-ok in the eyes of this particular law.
So if a muslim tells a christian that god hates them for x reason, that presumably would be protected too? If a pagan did something similar? I guarantee you that there would be a HUGE OUTCRY (I have caps lock too) from those selfsame morons trying to pass this nincompoopery.
No matter how you slice it, it really does add up to “bullying is just fine so long as it’s religiously motivated”, which is completely and utterly wrong.
Jim C. Hines
November 5, 2011 @ 10:15 am
I have seen the “dogpile on religion” thing before, so I want to say I understand where you’re coming from there.
While I suspect religious extremism (specifically Christican extremism) was a significant factor in the changes to this bill over the years, I *don’t* want to see this turn into a free-for-all to criticize religion, and that’s something I’d try to step in and challenge if it started to go that way.
Jim C. Hines
November 5, 2011 @ 10:16 am
I definitely wonder what would happen, assuming the law passed unchanged, the first time we saw that exemption applied in an instance of religious-bullying from a non-Christian perspective…
Mel
November 5, 2011 @ 10:21 am
Or if some judge would just decide that christianity is the only religion which has bullying rights? Because, you know, it *is* the de facto state religion of the “ruling class” (the class that insists it’s just like you and me, except that most of them clearly don’t know or can relate to what life is like in this country today for someone not like them).
Ken
November 5, 2011 @ 12:33 pm
Jim –
The thing you need to understand is that without the final clause that specifically exempts the statute from the prohibiting religious speech, the ENTIRE statute would be struck down as unconstitutional. It’s happened many times. Honestly, the fact that the clause does not mention political speech may also cause it be struck down.
And using your example of calling someone a “fucking faggot”, you’re simply wrong. That would be bullying, even with the quasi-religious statement added on at the end. Our legal system is not black and white. Common sense usually prevails and I can’t fathom any judge saying that was protected speech. Hateful speech directed at a specific person is never protected.
BTW, my first job out of law school was working for the IL legislature drafting similar statutes. I worked there for two years and drafted thousands of bills.
Jim C. Hines
November 5, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
“And using your example of calling someone a “fucking faggot”, you’re simply wrong. That would be bullying, even with the quasi-religious statement added on at the end.”
I agree 100% that this would be bullying. But if that statement was also a sincerely held religious belief, then part 8 seems to make it explicitly clear that this bill would not apply. There might be other policies or laws that apply, and depending on the school’s specific policies there could still be consequences to the student, but *this* bill would not apply.
I haven’t been a lawyer, but I have been involved in court cases enough to know that no, common sense does not always prevail.
“…without the final clause that specifically exempts the statute from the prohibiting religious speech, the ENTIRE statute would be struck down as unconstitutional. It’s happened many times. Honestly, the fact that the clause does not mention political speech may also cause it be struck down.”
Can you expand on this, please? What in the Michigan constitution (or did you mean the U. S. Constitution?) requires religious (and political) exemptions in a statute specifically about bullying?
sara g
November 5, 2011 @ 1:20 pm
Politicians like to sneak things in with language that sounds reasonable until you start looking into possible consequences. Sometimes those “unintended” consequences are actually the point, and the reasonable language is spin. Not having been present at the arguments I can’t tell you if that is the case here, but I’m kind of cynical anyway.
Ken
November 5, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
Jim –
Sorry for my short response. I have a lot of work on my table right now. But to clarify…
The First Amendment protects the expression of religious beliefs. If a state passes a law that can be reasonably interpreted to infringe on that right, the law is unconstitutional. Statutes are continually struck down for this reason. The appellate courts love it when they get a chance to rule on this issue because they spent an entire semester in law school going over this this very issue in Constitutional Law.
The “catch-all” clause at the end of the bill excluding religious speech from the conduct deemed illegal has become standard in any law that could infringe on a person’s speech. Without that language, many of the freedoms of religious or political expression we now take for granted would not exist.
Jim C. Hines
November 5, 2011 @ 8:43 pm
Thanks Ken. Let me see if I can sort this out for myself.
The relevant part of the First Amendment here, presumably, is the part that says Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech. Would you agree so far?
I assume we can also agree that there are in fact limits to both the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech? Any antibullying legislation does in fact restrict people’s speech, by stating that certain types of speech (bullying) are unacceptable in the public school system. Likewise, if my religious beliefs involve human sacrifice, it’s pretty obvious that the government will in fact act to stop me from practicing my religion.
Without part 8, this act defines a specific category of speech and action as bullying, and states that they are unacceptable. It says nothing about religion, nor does it prohibit statements of religious belief that do not meet the definition of bullying. Please let me know if we’re still in agreement here, or if I’ve lost you.
You yourself stress that common sense usually prevails. This doesn’t necessarily match my experience, but as you’ve noted, you’re far more experienced with law and the courts than I am. If common sense usually prevails, then common sense also suggests that there’s no need for part 8, as common sense would allow most judges to understand the difference between using religion as a tool to bully others and a sincere discussion of religion in which no harm is meant.
Yet they added part 8, which states that this entire bill does not apply to sincerely held statements of religious belief and moral conviction. (Again, please let me know if you disagree with my interpretation of part 8 here.) As this law as written only applies to bullying, isn’t it common sense that nonbullying statements need no such protection or exemption?
And nothing in part 8 says that this exemption applies only to statements that don’t meet the definition of bullying; it applies to *all* statements of religious/moral conviction, doesn’t it?
Believe it or not, I really am trying to understand the legal logic here. I’ve got a few other questions, but I’ve been asked to help put together some LEGO Ewok fortifications…
Jim C. Hines
November 5, 2011 @ 10:00 pm
The “catch-all” clause at the end of the bill excluding religious speech from the conduct deemed illegal has become standard in any law that could infringe on a person’s speech.
Okay, I’ve been going through state antibullying laws alphabetically, and I’m up to Delaware. Of the eight laws I’ve reviewed so far, five have no religious exemption whatsoever. One exempts nonpublic schools, but does not exempt religious speech in public schools.
Of the other two, one notes that it is not intended to intended to “[u]nconstitutionally restrict protected rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religious exercise, or freedom of assembly” and Alabama’s law notes that “This chapter shall not affect the freedom of speech and freedom of expression guaranteed each student under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Alabama of 1901.”
I don’t have time to go through every state, but if this is a representative sampling, it seems like the majority of state antibullying laws do not in fact include this kind of exemption.
Ken
November 6, 2011 @ 10:11 am
You are clearly obsessed and not open to the truth. So I’m moving on. I have better things to do.
Jim C. Hines
November 6, 2011 @ 10:31 am
Wow, Ken. I apologize for presenting facts that inconveniently contradict your so-called truth. I’ll try to remember not to do that to you in the future.
Rens
November 6, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
I definitely wonder what would happen, assuming the law passed unchanged, the first time we saw that exemption applied in an instance of religious-bullying from a non-Christian perspective…
We’d see all the usual suspects, with the AFA likely in front, loudly decrying how commie muslim secularist pagans are abusing the spirit of the law in order to perpetuate their agenda against the poor oppressed white christian minority and destroy the christian principles this great nation was built upon, yadda yadda boo freakin’ hoo.
That’s what they’ve ALWAYS done when they’re suddenly informed that their freedom of religion ends where someone else’s right to exist and believe as he/she wants begin.
Stephen A. Watkins
November 7, 2011 @ 9:50 am
As a religious person – and a member of a religion that is not wholly blameless in this specific regard – I wholly support and endorse Jim’s three points above.
Jim C. Hines
November 7, 2011 @ 9:53 am
Thanks, Stephen.
Religious Freedom vs. Anti-Bullying: FIGHT! « The Undiscovered Author
November 7, 2011 @ 12:31 pm
[…] […]