Kudos to McCrory for shunning identity politics
There are quite a few cases where the new GOP administration in Raleigh has given me heartburn. But the fact that they are standing strong against the lefties and their identity politics games is encouraging.
The lefties went bonkers over the decision of the McCrory administration to roll the latino affairs office into the constituent relations team. A McCrory spokesman calmly explained that the new regime in Raleigh is not interested in pigeon-holing various groups of voters into identity-based groups. Amen.
Now, gay rights groups are up in arms over a McCrory appointee to the state board of education:
Equality NC Monday asked Gov. Pat McCrory to reconsider his appointment of Buddy Collins to the state Board of Education, saying it has concerns about his opposition to anti-bullying measures aimed at protecting gay, lesbian and transgender students.
Collins, an attorney, serves on the Forsyth County Board of Education, was recently nominated by McCrory to serve on the state board.
[…]
According to the group, Collins voted against a policy revision in 2009 that added sexual orientation to the list of characteristics in its rules prohibiting bullying and harassing behavior.
They also had other complaints. They said Collins told schools Supt. Don Martin in 2003 that he was “disappointed that Martin allowed his staff to to interact with the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Network. In a column in the Winston-Salem Journal, Collins wrote in 2002, that same-sex unions had an effect of “disintegration of the American family.
And he said in 2002, that the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Network has an agenda to use public schools as a place to seek acceptance of its sexual practices.”
First of all, nice going on this *fair and balanced* story. *An excellent dictation job, if I may say so myself.*
NOBODY likes bulllying. It’s been happening in schools for eons. Kids can be mean to each other. Most bullying does not happen in the presence of an adult. The legislation Collins and many others have opposed doles out special penalties for kids who bully other kids (who happen to be gay).
This is a lot like the hate crimes legislation that has been shoved down our throats at the federal level. These federal rules offer up tougher sentencing for violence committed as a result of racial hatred. Bullying, assault and murder are bad regardless of what demographic the participants belong to.
I’ve see news stories where kids have been punished for wearing American flag T-shirts to school. Administrators said the T-shirts were threatening to students of Hispanic descent. What’s next? A sticker on a locker celebrating ‘Family Values” being deemed hurtful to gay students?
Legislation based on identity politics leaves a lot of room for interpretation — based on the political views of the “judge.” Get rid of all of this identity nonsense, and actually enforce tough penalties for violent acts.
Bureaucrats and politicians want to look like they are cracking down on “bullying.” But they regularly tie the hands of administrators and teachers trying to cope with a growing population of hoodlums basically raised by the Department of Social Services and Department of Juvenile Justice.
(I have a friend who teaches middle school. She told me about an incident in class one day where two deputy sheriffs brought a young man into the room in handcuffs. They placed him in a desk, removed the handcuffs, and left him in the room with my teacher friend and students. If the deputies thought they needed to restrain this punk, why on Earth would they leave him unrestrained in a classroom?)
Instead of trying to social engineer the public education process, try enforcing the rules with authority. Weed out the kids who are there only because the truant officer makes them be there. They don’t want to be there, and their anti-social orientations gum up the educational process for the kids who DO want to actually learn something.
So, hats off to Gov. Pat for allowing Mr. Collins and his viewpoint onto the state board of education. Hopefully, there will be no tossing of Mr. Collins under the bus to pacify the lefty screamers.
The next step in the process of ending identity politics is for the administration to SUPPORT and SIGN Senator Thom Goolsby’s repeal of The Racial Justice Act.
With all due respect, I think you are misinformed or under-informed on a few crucial points. For starters, it’s crucial to point out that Buddy Collins didn’t just oppose including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in a local school board policy on bullying; it appears as well that he voted against including them in the local policy **even though a new state law mandated their inclusion.** In other words, he voted to defy state law (and to place his local school district out of compliance with the law). This is an extreme position to take against a state-mandated anti-bullying measure. Total disregard of the law, it seems. More thoughts on that here: http://www.youthallies.com/north-carolina-lgbt-buddy-collins-defy-law/
Also, about your comment “The legislation Collins and many others have opposed doles out special penalties for kids who bully other kids (who happen to be gay)”….I don’t know what you mean by “special penalties” or why you focus on gay kids. The law in question (which you can read here: http://goo.gl/pyZro) requires districts to prohibit bullying against *any* student. The legislation then also specifies that prohibited bullying includes *”but is not limited to”* certain harassing conduct based on a student’s “differentiating characteristic[s]” including “actual or perceived” sexual orientation, gender identity, race, sex, religion, disability, physical appearance, and several other factors. This is very expansive, inclusive language that doesn’t reserve protections for special groups or create special penalties for kids who attack gays. (It does call attention to problems that are often ignored by schools, like anti-LGBT bullying, but it does so in a way that doesn’t grant any group special protection.) It grants protection to all; it denies protection to no one. Please take a look at the statute. I don’t know why Collins took issue with the “sexual orientation” component, and I don’t know why you use the word “special” and I don’t know why you suggest that the legislation is somehow about gay kids. True, LGBT groups supported the bill strongly, because LGBT kids are often victims of bullying. But the law itself doesn’t single out any group for “special” protection. (Neither do hate crimes laws, by the way, but I’ll save that for another day.) With respect, Best, Mike (www.youthallies.com)
Are you suggesting bullying is an accepted practice now? It is already illegal to assault someone. It is enough to get you suspended or expelled from school. Why is this legislation needed?
“Hate crimes” and this “bullying” legislation make certain forms of bad behavior worse than others — sheerly on the basis of the racial or gender or sexual identity of those involved in the incidents.
The legislation is needed because many schools do not in fact take bullying as seriously as they should. Schools do in fact turn a blind eye to bullying sometimes, as strange and irrational as that sounds.
It seems, I’m afraid, that you don’t understand the legislation you are criticizing, with all due respect. If you read the North Carolina bill (I provided a link in my earlier comment), you will see that it does not make “certain forms of bad behavior worse” based on “the racial or gender or sexual identity of those involved in the incidents.” What you say is a common talking-point against anti-bullying legislation, but it’s a myth, and it is not grounded in the law’s language. True, the press sometimes describes the law as you do, but we all know the press is often wrong.
The law applies to all bullying of all kinds, regardless of motive, regardless of the characteristics of anyone involved.
The law also happens to specify (and this is what bothers you, I believe) that the conduct prohibited by the legislation INCLUDES, but is NOT limited to, certain bullying behavior based on “actual or perceived” characteristics such as race, sex, or sexual orientation. But please note the following:
(1) Absolutely everybody in the world has an actual or perceived race, sex, orientation, etc., so nobody is left out here.
(2) The bullying is not labeled as “worse” just because of the characteristics of those involved. The law merely points out that schools must understand that prohibited behavior INCLUDES (even though it’s NOT limited to) certain bias-motivated behavior. Having this pointed out is not superfluous–it gives crucial extra guidance to schools that they must take all forms of bullying seriously, which some school officials (believe it or not) don’t always do. There is widespread evidence that certain forms of bullying are often ignored. So the legislation helps prevent that by specifically enumerating particular kinds of bullying that schools must prohibit, but the legislation does this WITHIN A BROADER definition of bullying that makes crystal clear that ALL forms of bullying are prohibited.
(3) The actual characteristics of those involved in a bullying incident don’t matter. A student harassed because he is perceived to be Christian, or perceived to be gay, or perceived to be overweight, or for NO REASON AT ALL, will ALL be protected by the legislation. (Please forgive all my CAPS; I don’t know how to use italics here.)
I think people have difficulty grasping all of this because they think it’s strange that the legislation both (1) covers all bullying and (2) makes specific reference to certain kinds of bullying. What is the point, they ask, of specifying certain kinds of bullying if ALL bullying is covered? Again, the answer lies in the fact that many school officials and employees often fail to take certain kinds of conduct seriously. They may unfairly think “well, the gay victim shouldn’t have flaunted being gay” or “the Christian victim shouldn’t have been so vocal about his beliefs” or something else similarly horrible that blames the victim. So the legislation specifically points out–for purposes of providing guidance and putting people on notice of their duties–that the prohibition of ALL bullying INCLUDES (but is NOT limited) to bullying behavior based on race, sex, religion, orientation, etc.
So sorry to be repetitive here but it seems I didn’t explain myself clearly enough last time.
Please please read the legislation before you criticize it, because reading secondary materials will give you a false impression. Law is routinely mis-described in the press.
Hate crimes present a slightly different situation and I won’t get it that here, but again, I encourage you to read the laws before you complain about what they do.
Finally, to emphasize, while I disagree with you sharply and strongly on these issues, I do not intend any disrespect and I thank you very much for engaging in this conversation with me.
Best,
Mike (www.youthallies.com)
Why make a huge deal out of identifying certain personal characteristics? How do you hand out a uniform punishment for “bullying”? Seriously, there was a case in California where some kids were accused of “bullying” Hispanic kids at school by wearing American flag T-shirts. Is THAT worth calling the cops, or suspending the kids? If you add new laws strengthening punishment for saying something makes someone else uncomfortable, you are sliding down a slippery slope that could likely run afoul of the First Amendment. I could be indifferent to something that makes you uncomfortable, and vice-versa.
It’s dangerous for the state to get into the business of ensuring people’s level of personal comfort. The state should protect people from being physically harmed by other people, and help protect your property from being damaged or stolen by other people.
It seems that those who clamor for equality demand “special” treatment that goes above and beyond the law…the law that was implemented to insure “equality”.