Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 30, 2007, to require school officials to adopt and implement a policy that prohibits harassment or bullying at school, and encourage them to adopt the definition of bullying from the model anti-bullying policy ladopted by the state board of education on Sept. 12, 2006, which contains references to an individual’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression; or a mental, physical, sensory disability or impairment, or by any other distinguishing characteristic

The vote was 59 in favor, 50 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 75 at House Journal 31)

Click here to view bill details.

I am opposed to this bill. I believe each school district should create and enforce their own policies. When the state starts interfering with local control, unfunded mandates occur. I also take exception with this bill offering extra protection to those with gender or sexual identity issues. What about the rest of the children? Each child is unique- what is so special about these exceptions? I have a child who is overweight- where is the protection for that? I have another child with a skin disorder- how about an extra protection for that? What about children who are introverts- I have one of those too. When we start elevating one particular child over another, discrimination results. This is poor policy and I urge opposition.

Your response illustrates my concern! There is no need to for this Bill at all!! All children are already being protected from bullying. We don’t need this bill to single out a supposed class of individuals. This is slippery slope!!!! It is absolute and outright discrimination against all other individuals to have this Bill stipulate one supposed class. This Bill is bad. There is no common misconception about the language. The language was calculatedly and purposely written that way. Change it!! Defeat this Bill. Strike it!

The following test is from Rep. Byrnes. My text in the prior posting is in response to the following text from Rep. Byrnes: Thank you for sharing your comments regarding HB 4162, an initiative to assist schools and parents in preventing the bullying of our children. I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to clarify some common misconceptions regarding the language of this bill. HB 4162 was designed with the protection of every child in mind. Although the enumeration language specifies particular categories of individuals, this does not exclude any child from being protected. The purpose of the enumeration language is to recognize likely targets of bullying. I firmly believe that all children should be protected regardless. It is time that we stop looking at bullying as just “kids being kids”. It is my hope that HB 4162 will give schools and parents the needed tools to protect their children. Sincerely, Pam Byrnes

Most of us out here are smart enough to figure out that this bill isn't much more than something the homosexual lobby is pushing through the schools with the rest of their agenda. If this is really just to protect kids, then you don't need to include all the various "thought police" sort of designations. Just go with Jack Hoogendyke's amendment and just say "ALL" kids -enumeration isn't needed. And will you and other more liberal Michigan legislators in Lansing please stop peeing on our collective legs and trying to convince us it's just raining? Thank you!

Legislators - Just in case you are completely out of touch .... most districts that are going to enforce this policy already have some form of anti-bullying policies in place so you are not gaining much here. Those districts that do not believe it to be an issue are not going to change their ways just because you say so. Those of us who do care though would like to know which teacher we should lay off to fund enforcing this. Or are you going to give us more money? STOP GIVING US MORE TO DO WITH LESS MONEY.

Bullying MASB polled their members during the last session when this legislation was proposed and 85% of their membership has bullying policies in place. NEOLA of Michigan provides policy for 270 districts and 250 of their client districts have policy regarding bullying.

To those who argue that many schools and districts already have anti-bullying policies in place, the issue is not one of written policies, but one of actual implementation and enforcement of these policies and practices. Any policy can be written but as we all know, it is worthless documentation unless it is followed by action. From the research and incident reports are that are as recent as 2006, the so-called policies are not changing or reducing bullying as the actual enforced programs have proven to do.

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I cannot support HBs 4162 & 4091 which are referred to as the bulling bills. First of all it creates protected groups, which I believe is unconstitutional. It should not matter why or for what reason someone is being bullied, it should be dealt with and punished equally. Do we really want to label or identify a child by statute, thus attaching a stigma, which could be worse than the bullying itself? Secondly, I also think this would open the schools to all kinds of discrimination law suits. I understand the motive of this bill; however these policies belong in the hands of local school boards. This is basically a feel good bill which will not change anything, but could have damaging ramifications on the schools and the students."

Rep. Stahl, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I cannot in good faith vote for a mandate that will distinguish certain categories that will promote prejudice and bias. All bullying should be not be tolerated regardless of the motivation."

Rep. Hoogendyk, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Thank you Mr. Speaker. With all due respects to my colleague from Farmington Hills, I take exception to his suggestion that those of us who would offer amendments to this bill are not supportive of a policy against harassment. I am a member of the education policy committee. I heard the testimony of those families who lost children through the tragedy of bullying. As the father of five children, I have seen it with my own kids, and I experienced it firsthand as a child. How unfortunate, Mr. Speaker that through a procedural method, we were not allowed to offer our amendments on the house floor. The chairman of the education committee himself said we need to pass good, sound public policy. Today, we did not have the opportunity to do that. Had we been able to put our amendments on the bill, chances are this bill may have passed with 110 votes. How unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that nearly half of the people of this state were disenfranchised today. We are representatives of those people. At least fifty of us asked for an opportunity to speak for them, and we were denied. Their voices were not allowed to be heard today. How unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that those who oppose us, apparently believe it is OK to use bullying tactics themselves. Just today, an article was posted on the internet that called for my colleague from Midland and me to have our arms twisted painfully behind our backs and our faces smashed into the harsh stone of the Capitol building. This author further suggested that our colleagues who walk past our desks stop and twist our ears. "...that might, produce what we in the education game call a teachable moment, for them and the rest of us." Mr. Speaker is this the message we want to send to the children of our state, that if you disagree, you should go past the desks of those students and "twist their ears?" Mr. Speaker, let us make no mistake about what this bill is really about. It is a Trojan Horse, a bill to provide for the first time in Michigan history, protected classes called "sexual orientation and gender identity". This will open us up for any number of future lawsuits and litigation."

Rep. Elsenheimer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I cannot support final passage of this bill. The process of adoption was set up to avoid the minority from addressing issues important to this state. While the underlying policy is good, that of attempting to prevent bullying, the bill also serves as a subterfuge to create for the first time in Michigan law certain protected classes. If the policy to create these protected classes was sound, then the issue could rise and fall on its own rather than being tied to protection of children."

How Ironic, today in our paper on the same page I see "House Approves anti-bullying bill" and "Detroit Gay Man Died Naturally" articles. Sen. Levin cited this "gay death" as evidence of the need to extend hate crime legislation to gays. We find out today, the gay man died of natural causes. This case has been closed by the police. I find the timing of this "gay death" accusation convenient timing. "The model policy would establish that prohibited harassment, intimidation, or bullying includes a gesture or written, verbal, or physical act that is reasonably perceived as being motivated by religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, height, weight, or socioeconomic status, or by any other distinguishing characteristics" . I can fore-see lawsuits arising due to the words "reasonably perceived". Who determines this? The word "visual" will certainly open many doors. Heaven forbid if someone frowns at you or rolls their eyes as they pass a student in the hallway. The Democrats and a couple of Republicans have succeeded in having a hand in making our country like Nazi Germany and the "thought police" idealism. I read several articles that there are students and teachers who "police" the hallways and classrooms at schools in various states looking for "harrassment violations". Why aren't the teachers "teaching" as they are paid to do? Why arent the students in their classrooms getting their education? This bill only had to say "ALL" and didn't have to break down into specific groups, specifically "gays and transgenders". But this was the original agenda all along..... As a swing voter, I am sadly disappointed to see all the "yes votes" for this bill. I will remember this at election time.

For voting your conscience on this bill. Yes, it is a Trojan Horse. Isn't it ironic how the groups that claim to be "tolerant" of others are the ones who spew hate speech "want to cause bodily harm" to those with different viewpoints? How about a bill being introduced to protect heterosexuals from harrassment and hate speech?