California The Latest To Try To Outlaw Cyberbullying: Send A Mean Txt, Get Kicked Out Of School
from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept
You want to know how to basically clog up the administration of various high schools across the state of California? Pass a law that would kick kids out of school for sending a "cyberbullying" text message. Yet, that's exactly the type of bill that's been introduced in the state, as it rushes into following others in trying to make it illegal to be a jerk online. Yes, cyberbullying is an issue for the targets of such bullying. But the answer is not to create laws that try to legislate manners, nor to suggest that it's okay to kick kids out of school for sending a bullying message. All that's going to do is have overly sensitive kids complaining any time anyone sends them a mean message.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, cyberbullying, expelled
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You are right, this isn't the answer. The answer is for parents to raise their kids properly. But we all know that isn't going to happen. So you want the schools to teach and to raise them? Then you better get out your wallets to hire more staff to do all of this.
So until parents raise their children to not threaten other people or until those same parents crack open their wallets the schools really have no choice but to boot the kids out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you're basically advocating kicking a kid out of school, ruining their life, and greatly increasing their odds of becoming a criminal drag on society all because they decided to use technology to do something that's happened since the advent of childhood social groups.
Yeah, brilliant move there genius.
Here's a better idea: Tell the recipient to do the grown up thing and brush it off, ignore it, act like the adult. Social skills are one of the things we send them off to school to learn anyway, let's try that first before we go really ruining lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://rileycentral.net/partyof5/2008/01/23/california-state-bill-777/
or just check out http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800 and scan for 777 for California state bill 777 to see the original bill text
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: discojohnson
That is, without a doubt, one of the worst ideas I've heard for changing a vacation location. Seems like you might have too much time on your hands, or not enough to worry about.
Apologies for being mean, but that just kinda threw me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: discojohnson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did the President get physically assaulted or otherwise hurt? No. Is his life irreparably damaged in any way? No.
So you're basically advocating kicking a kid out of school, ruining their life, and greatly increasing their odds of becoming a criminal drag on society all because they decided to use technology to do something that's happened since the advent of politics.
Thank you.
Here's a better idea: Tell the President to do the grown up thing and brush it off, ignore it, act like the adult.
Is it really reasonable to expect kids to be tougher than the President? What's wrong with giving children some of the protection given the President? If it works for the President why can't it for kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The President has real power in the government -- not absolute power, but power none the less. He's also a prominent figure head and there's real reason for people who have the power to back up their threats to follow through on it. And I don't mean get-pushed-down-and-have-a-bloody-lip follow through on it, I mean shot-in-the-head-JFK-style follow through on it. Now if you're afraid of schoolyard bullies bringing weapons to school that's a MUCH different issue and one that can (and is) handled in much different ways. But making a comparrisson between saying mean things to a 4th grader and making a threat on the President is just dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, I'd be glad to see more expulsions. Let's face it, education is as much a competition as finding a job. I'd rather 20% or so of the people in this country have an education and the rest don't, it would make those deserving of a job able to find one a lot easier. Yeah, that's right, I just implied education is wasted on a lot of little cockbites who deserve to have no future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because I have three kids and I'm sure as hell not raising them walk on eggshells around some soccer-mom's super-special-snowflake.
First, that is not a healthy attitude for my kids to have. Second, that's not how the real world works and they need to learn what acceptable social behaviour is by feeling the backlash (text message or otherwise) before they enter the real world and can no longer come crying home to me.
In Oklahoma, you're not even supposed to have a cell phone in school. And if it's not school related, then it's none of thier business. I'd like to see them try to enforce this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The answer is for parents to raise their kids properly.
Why? because the parents raising the kids will become parents who never learned right from wrong and th circle will never end. Want a peek into the future? Watch the movie Idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pissed off at a classmate? Forge a text...
What a great lesson to teach kids about handling conflict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheeple...
Your American controllers do not want an educated populace--it only leads to trouble.
They want sheeple, nice docile sheep-like people all tangled up in their own petty concerns and meaningless lives... sheeple are easier to rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sheeple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sheeple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sheeple...
Well that explains television, but its not a uniquely American problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The REAL Culprit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The REAL Culprit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The REAL Culprit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thats easy
and WTF evil mike? last time i checked you lived in AMERICA
M Roberts
1942 S Emerson 233
Mesa, Arizona 85210
United States
if you dont like your American controllers... leave america thx.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: thats easy
If I didn't live here, I'd have said "YOU Americans."
And hey, some of use are here to make the the USA a better place, rather than smoking dope and playing GTA.
If you really take such huge exception to my opinion, feel free to come change it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: thats easy
And "Offroadering"... try to not be a tool for at least 5 seconds, mmkay?
Anyway, I guess it's time for another angry letter to my douchebag Assemblyman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: thats easy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sad to be from california right now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more Privacy or Whois Lookups!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ultimately, I'm sure a rule like this is in place to DISCOURAGE people from sending cruel texts. In actual fact, cases of people getting kicked out would likely be few and far between, since their would have to be a line as to what makes a bullying message, proof the person who sent it is really the person who sent it, warnings are most likely issued, etc.
Ultimately, this is probably a good idea because once students are told that there is a LAW about being expelled for cyberbullying, even if it is hard to enforce, MOST kids won't take the chance and instances of this will be fewer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol is gtaz falt
lsrz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another step
While its generally frowned on by the majority there is a minority in these games who enjoy causing grief to other players. So what happens if your state passes a law outlawing online bulling. Its fairly obvious to most readers here that laws like that are just nonsensical but that doesn't stop the lawmakers creating these laws for the good of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh. This is not as bad as you are making it out to be.
Also, in both cases of suspension and expulsion, you have the right to an appeal, the right to answer your accuser, to put up a defense, and go to trial over an expulsion you feel was made without just cause. This is not just the whim of the principal, there are hard rules and guidelines that must be followed. Adding a single new suspendable/expellable action is not the end of the world. Threatening another student, no matter the medium, is an expelable offense and all this does is make it possible to enforce in one additional way (namely a specific instance where the home-to-home rule doesn't apply)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happened to . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here ya go.
George Bush, President of the United States....
You are ugly, your breathe smells, your feet are too big and you stutter. Stop being a f_cking retard all the time.
That... is mean, but not at all illegal.
Now, had I threatened him with assault or murder... I would go to jail. Same as if I threatened you with assault or a murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That... is mean, but not at all illegal.
And that would not be covered under the proposed California bill either.
Now, had I threatened him with assault or murder... I would go to jail. Same as if I threatened you with assault or a murder.
The proposed California bill would let schools punish students for doing the same. So what's wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And this would make it punishable in school too, quickly (no long court delays), and regardless of any "deals" reached outside of school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a classic right wing strict father school of socialisation. Suck it up or perish. Conservatives, on principle, reject nurturant and empathetic socialization practices because these ideas are antithetical to competitive social darwinism, classism and every other inequity necessary to reinforce conservatism.
Bullying is a criminal offense. Bullying is clearly defined. Kids who send "mean" messages should deal with the consequences and learn how to be functional members of society. Anti-social behaviour (being "mean" to others) while it may be fundamental to you conservatives is repellent to those of us who believe in teaching our kids how to engage difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't reason with children who can't speak or understand logic. And that's when competitive social behaviour begins.
So please explain to me how you taught your children to 'engage difference' at that age. Or any age, for that matter.
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If so you should know that you children don't usually have the ability to intellectualize things and apply logic the way adults can. That's what parents are for. Instead, they learn by experience, observation and instruction. That's why it's important for parents to set good examples for their children. Teaching children tolerance is not a one time exercise but rater an on-going process and one that a parent that never learned it themselves will likely fail to teach their own children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You may not have seen it, but in an above comment I wrote, "...I have three kids and I'm sure as hell not raising them walk on eggshells around some soccer-mom's super-special-snowflake. First, that is not a healthy attitude for my kids to have. Second, that's not how the real world works and they need to learn what acceptable social behaviour is by feeling the backlash (text message or otherwise) before they enter the real world and can no longer come crying home to me..."
On thw whole, I fail to see what 'mean' text messages have to do with someone whose job is to teach you fractions or world history. It's simply outside of thier range of duties and should remain so. Any child who is disruptive in class should be removed from class. Things that don't disrupt the class have nothing to do with class. QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is consideration for others an unhealthy attitude for your children to have? Are you training them to be predators?
There are all kinds of bad people and bad things in the real world. That doesn't mean that we should have those things in our schools so that students can "learn" all about them first hand.
Schools should be about education, not some kind of boot camp to toughen them up.
It is the responsibility of the school to maintain a safe environment conducive to learning for all the children. Bullying does not fit with that.
Bullying can have a very disruptive effect on the education of those being bullied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consideration for others is one thing, being overly-scrupulous about it is another.
I agree that bullying is not something we need or should desire in schools. I disagree that the appropriate way of dealing with this is enacting a law to kick alleged bullies out of the school system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've heard that same excuse used many times, sometimes by racists, sometimes by sexists, sometimes by other kinds of bullies. Whether you want to go around calling people n*****s, retards, or whatever it just doesn't wash. The idea that words can do no harm is just false.
There you go with the strawman again. We're nor talking about being "overly-scrupulous". We're talking about bullying.
Good.
So you are against bullying in schools but you still don't want to see it eliminated from the schools? That seems very inconsistent. You aren't the parent of a bully who's afraid your kid might get kicked out are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am against bullying and do want to see it eliminated in schools. I DON'T want to see it legislated because I think legislation is clunky and has a way of being either overly-broad (and thus harming the innocent) or being too-narrow (and thus being ineffective). I'm also agaist a zero-tolerance type rule because then it just becomes another stick for kids to whack each other with. The California law seems to be both over-broad and zero-tolerance. Instead, I'd like to see effort put into dealing with bullying behaviors that benefits everyone rather tan kicking a kid out of school straight-out (and thus ruining his entire life on what could simply be bad judgment from a juvenile). It's the schoolyard equivalent of rehabilitation instead of incarceration.
No one believes their child is a bully. Even if you really wanted my answer to that question you shouldn't take it at face value: I'm inherently biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yes, i believe Rose was demonstrating a bullying attitude when she began calling the children derogatory names like "super-special-snowflake". That was totally uncalled for.
Furthermore, I don't know how you concluded that we were already discussing "being assertive" since you were the first one to mention it. Hence, a strawman.
Finally, I do think that children should be assertive of their rights, and that includes the right to not be bullied in the schools. But being assertive does not mean abusing and intimidating others.
So by that I suppose you would like to see the criminal assault laws scrapped? Now I admit that even those laws are sometimes abused, like the guy convicted of assaulting a police officer for tapping him on the shoulder to get his attention. But I wouldn't want to see them totally scrapped.
I am too, tolerance works both ways. Even the bully is still just a kid and needs to be treated as such with an eye towards his welfare as well. However, other children should not be sacrificed to him.
Have you actually read it?
To the contrary, I've known several parents who not only knew that their kids were bullies but were proud of it and encouraged it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why, back in my day...
The rules for dealing with bullies were real simple, too. Your parents would have a parent-teacher conference with the school administrators. Your parents would say, "Arrest the criminal for assault." The admins would say, "Boys will be boys" and "We can't do anything since we didn't see anything." And your parents would come home, tell you what the school told them, and add "Brush off the ugly looks, the comments, the gestures, but if the bully lays a finger on you, put him in the hospital." If the school won't protect their students, the students must protect themselves. And make the school regret not doing their job.
Of course the bully heard "The school won't stop you, step it up." So he'd corner you around the corner from witnesses. But he never realized that means no one to come help him when he finds out that skinny little dork is a martial arts champion.
At least, that's the way things were when I was in school putting the bullies in the hospital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for long-term consequences for kids that are bullied, there probably won't be any for most kids, so long as they come from happy and healthy households, and have few major emotional problems of their own. Unfortunately, I was not one of those kids, and that probably explains why I was targeted for bullying. I had severe emotional problems from an early age, being diagnosed with oppositional defiance disorder at age four, and clinical depression at age nine. The bullying I experienced emotionally shattered me, leaving me suicidal at age twelve, and making it impossible for me to regularly attend school again until I was fifteen. When I did return to school on a regular basis it was at a residential treatment facility for severely emotionally disturbed teens. Now, in my early twenties, I'm basically fully functional and will start my senior year of college and be applying to grad school in a few weeks. So yes, I'm back to "normal", but only after years of major psychiatric and therapeutic intervention, which the state paid for. Will all cases of bullying have the long-term effects they did on me? No, but had adults been able to intervene and punish the kids that were bullying me in middle school, perhaps the state wouldn't have had to pay for the all the psychiatric care I subsequently needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The effects of bullying can be like getting sunburned. Whether or not you get burned depends on both how much sun (bullying) you get as well as your complexion (sensitivity). It's the combination that does it, and people with a lighter complexion (sensitivity) need more protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This like letting your kid have sex with diseased kids in your home and then complaining to the school that they didn't keep your kid from catching VD from other kids. It's a direct result of the contact that your parents allowed you to have with unsavory people at a time that you could not deal with it.
What does learning fractions have to do with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps I didn't explain things clearly. I knew exactly who my harassers were: it's kind of hard not to when they have said mean things to you directly to your face. What made this a case of cyber-bullying was that when I returned home at the end of the day and went on the internet, the harassment would continue there through email, instant-messaging, and postings to my profile page. When the issue was finally brought up with school administrators, the students who were harassing me denied that they were the owners of the email addresses etc. With that the administrators let them go without punishment, and I was kicked out of the district a few weeks later because I wasn't attending class, for obvious reasons.
"It's a direct result of the contact that your parents allowed you to have with unsavory people at a time that you could not deal with it."
I'm sorry, but what? The kids who bullied me were fellow straight-A students in the fast-track math program. These were hardly unsavory characters, other than that, like most middle-school age kids, they had a penchant for cruelty and the social immaturity to act on such impulses.
Despite the emotional problems I was having at the time, I had been very successful in elementary school, so the idea that I shouldn't have been in school to begin with is misplaced: I deserved a seat in the classroom as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, my fellow students were making school a hostile and degrading place for me to be, and were directly impacting my ability to "learn fractions" as you put it.
Like it or not, much of what teachers do in the primary and secondary education system is maintain discipline. If bullying is preventing some kids from succeeding in school, then that is a discipline problem which schools very much have to deal with it. Should a kid be expelled for sending one vaguely mean text to another student? No, of course not. But if kids are engaging in a systematic campaign of harassment, both online and off, against another student, then schools absolutely should be able to discipline the bullies, potentially with expulsion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...if kids are engaging in a systematic campaign of harassment, both online and off, against another student, then schools absolutely should be able to discipline the bullies, potentially with expulsion..."
I disagree. I believe that is when the parents, yours, in this case, should go to the police. What you are describing is harrassment and it is illegal and should be handled by the people who are paid to handle such things, in the manner outlined by the law. Not by arbitrary policy set by a lawsuit-terrorized school board, which can be ignored or overturned at any time.
You can't sue a judge for ordering your bully into counseling, which is probably what they needed. Expulsion would not have helped them change their behaviour. It would have just postponed your life spent dealing with them for a few more years, until you were all in the work force together again.
I don't like that so much time is spent on discipline. I believe that schools need to head in the opposite direction of where they are heading. Instead of trying to expand thier borders and parent children; they need to close ranks and only educate children in the subjects that they are paid to teach. Unruly children get sent home so that thier parents can discipline/not discipline them as they choose.
If kids got kicked out of school for that sort of thing, you'd see alot of parents straighten up and fly right when it comes to disciplining their children, if only so they don't have to pay for daycare... And if parents followed the law when it comes to harrassment, alot more kids would get the counseling they need, away from thier parents, who, no matter how loving, simply may not understand how to counter that sort of behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overly?
What is an overly sensitive kid? Is that like wimp that doesn't know how to take a good beating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I mentioned it, although I didn't use that word. I asked what correct behaviour was, meaning that I might think that texting someone and telling them I don't like their behaviour and I don't want them contacting me anymore is perfectly appropriate, but might hurt a super-special-snowflakes feelings. There is a difference between hurting someone and bullying someone. A zero tolerance law would take that line away.
In this case, 'super-special-snowflake' is a descriptive term, like 'bully' or 'sensitive'. It's a term for a child that has been taught that they are the center of the universe and that their thoughts and feelings matter more than anyone else's. I don't see how that's more negative term than 'bully', which you seem perfectly alright with.
This difference of opinion makes you and I a perfect exmaple of one person thinking something is alright, and another person thinking that it's a bullying action.
Why aren't you being more considerate of me and my choice of words? It hurts my feelings that you called me a bully. If we were schoolmates in a zero-tolerance administration, you would be expelled, even though you didn't actually do anything wrong, and none of this happened in school.
"So by that I suppose you would like to see the criminal assault laws scrapped?
I didn't see where they said that at all. Can you please explain how you got there from that? We're discussing what schools are responsible for, not what police are responsible for. I, personally, don't see the point in making schools kick kids out because it won't solve a bullying/harrassment problem. Using the system that we already have in place is much more likely to help stop this problem.
"To the contrary, I've known several parents who not only knew that their kids were bullies but were proud of it and encouraged it."
And you want to send kids home to spend more time with those people? Or do you want it dealt with by a family court judge, who can actually asses the situation and try to remedy it, with counseling or even removal from the home if that's what the child needs to learn how to behave toward other people.
I try to teach my children how to handle the real world. Someone sends my kid a mean message? Either they're right and they should use it as incentive to change, or they're wrong and they should use it as a learning tool to help deal with the ignorant people that they will encounter throughout life. Someone calls them a nigger? Either they are niggers, in which case it's no longer derogatory, or it's not true, which begs the question, why would you want to listen to a liar?
If someone repeatedly harrasses my child, I would turn to the police, who should work to resolve the situation. That's thier job. I'm not going to ask the school to send the bully home. That's a geographical cure, and it won't help the children involved anymore than it helps alcoholics.
The point of police and court intervention is not only to help my children, but to help the other child grow up to be a good adult, and not just a bully sans a diploma. Because that's all expulsion is going to get you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it isn't. It is a term of derision and if you are old enough to have kids and still don't understand the difference then you are probably beyond my ability to reason with and I shudder to think what you are teaching your kids. "Super-special-snowflake" is no more just a descriptive term than the "N" word is just a descriptive term for an African-American child.
Now you're being just plain dishonest. Accusing someone of being a bully would not get someone expelled and the word bully is not generally considered to be a word intended to cause hurt. Are you teaching you kids to be dishonest too? No wonder we have problems.
Wow, you really do think that kind of behavior should be allowed? I can just imagine what would happen if that were allowed and groups of students began forming to hurl those kind of racial epithets at other groups. Rose, you're really pretty far out of the American mainstream on what is considered acceptable behavior and I fear for what you are teaching your children.
Even in criminal courts one of the first steps in protecting a victim is to separate the perpetrator from the victim. I suppose you never heard of restraining orders ordering someone to stay away from someone else? That's your "geographical cure". And by the way, separating an alcoholic from alcohol is very effective at keeping an alcoholic from drinking, as long as the separation is maintained. You won't find a lot of alcohol in alcohol rehab centers.
Now there you go again, Rose. It is not true that an expelled child will not get a diploma. Children expelled from the regular public schools are usually sent to special programs for problem children where they can continue towards a diploma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are probably more polite words and terms that I could use to describe a super-special-snowflake, but everyone seems to understand the term as I use it, which seems to be point of language altogether. There is a difference between consideration and walking on eggshells. I considered the company here when I chose my words. However, I don't feel that I have to walk on eggshells and go grab my dictionary to try and find more pc terms for a super-special-snowflake among adults, when the topic on conversation is how to deal with bullies and super-special-snowflakes.
You seem to want to turn this into a discussion of the word 'nigger'. I don't see why you even brought it up. But, okay. Here ya go... When the term 'nigger' was coined, it was a descriptive term referring to skin color. It comes from the Spanish/Portugese word negro, meaning black. I personally believe that the Spanish and Portugese sailors that worked on the Dutch ships came up with the term. At that point, 'nigger' was a descriptive term. A quite accurate one, at that.
Now, as all mainstream Americans do, I believe in free speech. Do I use the word 'nigger'? No. Not even in a joke. But am I going to stop someone else from using the word in a private forum? No. Because if I limit someone else's speech, no matter how personally offended I was by it, then they would be able to limit mine, by claiming the same offence. And then all sorts of mayhem would follow.
I believe that I have the right to peacefully exist with other Americans. If I were rascist, I could stay on private property and write and say whatever I wanted, but I would not have the right to go harrass another citizen in the street. That is peaceful and legally correct, no matter how morally reprehensible I may find thier private behaviour. If I were in a public place, shouting the word 'nigger' at people, regardless of whether I was in a group, I would be arrested, and rightly so.
I do think it's odd that mainstream Americans think it's okay to make jokes about white people, but not about black people. And it's okay to to harrass Muslims, but not Christians. And so on with the hypocrisy. If that's what you mean by my apparent deviance from the mainstream, then thanks. I'm glad you noticed. :)
I didn't 'just' accuse you of calling me a bully. You did call me a bully. And now you're saying that I'm dishonest. That's really mean. Boy, if we were in a zero-tolerance administration, you would be in for it. Because in a zero-tolerance administration, they wouldn't be able to look at the circumstances and decide if it warranted expulsion. In a zero-tolerance administration, there are zero circumstances. It's expulsion, every time, no matter what. That's why it seems to asinine to me.
Maybe you didn't 'intend' to hurt me. But there is no way to guage what someone else intended. So they would have to assume that you intended to bully and harrass me by saying mean things about me on the Internet and expell you if we were in a zero-tolerance administration.
I am most certainly not teaching my children to be dishonest, nor was I being dishonest. Although you've chided me several time for being honest by using the term 'super-special-snowflake' to describe bratty, self-centered, undisciplined kids. So what do you want? Policially correct truth-shading, or honesty? Personally, I prefer honesty.
Do I think that bad behaviour should be allowed? Nope. But I can't, and shouldn't, be allowed to shape the country to my personal whims. I believe in free speech. If my child got a text message with that sort of language, I would let thier parents know, help my children understand and learn from the situation, and move on. If my child received a series of those types of messages, off to the police I would go. At the end of the day, whether that behaviour should be allowed is a moot point, because neither of us can control other people's behaviour. We can only control our own reactions to it.
A geographical cure, in regards to alcoholism, is when they move away and attempt to start fresh somewhere else, with no other sort of help. No doctors, no family, no AA, nothing. Just moving away. And it doesn't work. That's a geographical cure. So if you take a bully, and move them to another school with no other help, they will still be bullies. They'll just have a whole new crop of potential victims. Hence, the failure of the geographical cure. Try to understand terms before you attempt to refute them, please.
Once again, I never said that expulsion was never appropriate. I said that school staff should not be responsible for attempting to remedy these types situations, especially if their only recourse is expulsion. Harrassment is illegal and should be dealt with by the law. If it's dealt with by the law, it can be assesed by a family court judge, who can decide what to do, depending on the circumstances. Which might be expulsion. or expulsion plus a variety of other measures, including counseling for the parents, esp. if they're the sort that applaud Neanderthal behaviour.
If all that happens is expulsion, then the bad behaviour is going to happen again. In fact, sending a child with bullying tendencies to a school with a concentrated student body of other children with expulsion-worthy tendencies doesn't seem like a solution to me at all. It seems like a recipe for a particularly vicious strain of bully.
You seem to think that if to move the bully away from the other child, then the entire problem is solved. But it's not. If your only consideration is the victim, then you haven't helped them learn how to deal with bullies. They'll enter adulthood with no skills and no one to expell the bullies for them. That's bad parenting. In addition to making sure that the situation stops occuring, which does not always mean expulsion, you need to help them understand why the bully behaved that way, and how to deal with it in the future. Which does not mean sucking it up and taking it. It can mean anywhere from ignoring it to police, depending on the situation.
But adults can't just consider the victim, they have to consider both children. One child needs a safe place to be educated, and the other child needs help learning how to treat other people. Why should be help one and ignore the other? Both sides of the issue must be addressed, and they need to be addressed by people with the authority to actually deal with it, not just move it away and make it someone else's problem.
In the US and the UK, expulsion means total removal from the local public educational system. In both areas, students usually get at least one chance at an alternative school before they're out on thier butts. But not always, and with the media craze about bullying, they might not allow that second chance. Once again, check your facts.
When I read your posts, I felt like you had a derisive attitude about everything else anyone had to say. It didn't seem like you were here to discuss and share ideas; it seemed like you were here to try and pick apart everyone else's ideas and opinions. That seems hostile to me, and behaving in a hostile manner towards other people on the Internet is the accepted, mainstream definition of cyberbullying. I almost hope that this was an exercise in sarcasm for you, but I fear that you really think that you're correct and we're not and that means it's okay to be hostile and derisive. Which is very sadly ironic, considering the subject matter.
Now I've restated my position in several different ways, and I believe that I have addressed all of your erroneous concerns about my opinion. Feel free to pick away, if it makes you feel better. You will be doing so alone. I hope you've taken something good away from our discussion, even if it's just a little more knowlege. Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And so that's what Rose seems believe. Bullying is actually GOOD for kids. I guess we should really be rewarding the bullies for teaching the other kids such valuable lessons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AB 86
Here is the text of the bill being discussed. Would you please point out the zero-tolerance, mandatory expulsion part that you keep referring to?
BILL NUMBER: AB 86 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 11, 2008
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 13, 2008
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 4, 2008
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 30, 2008
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 10, 2008
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 7, 2008
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 22, 2007
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Lieu
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Salas and Solorio)
DECEMBER 13, 2006
An act to amend Sections 32261, 32265, 32270, and 48900 of the
Education Code, relating to pupil safety.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 86, Lieu. Pupil safety.
Existing law, the Interagency School Safety Demonstration Act of
1985, states that the intent of the Legislature in enacting its
provisions is to encourage school districts, county offices of
education, law enforcement agencies, and agencies serving youth to
develop and implement interagency strategies, in-service training
programs, and activities that will, among other things, reduce school
crime and violence, including bullying. Existing law establishes the
School/Law Enforcement Partnership and charges it with undertaking
several efforts intended to reduce school crime, as specified,
including bullying.
This bill would specify that bullying, as used in these
provisions, means one or more acts by a pupil or a group of pupils
directed against another pupil that constitutes sexual harassment,
hate violence, or severe or pervasive intentional harassment,
threats, or intimidation that is disruptive, causes disorder, and
invades the rights of others by creating an intimidating or hostile
educational environment, and includes acts that are committed
personally or by means of an electronic act, as defined.
Existing law prohibits the suspension, or recommendation for
expulsion, of a pupil from school unless the principal determines
that the pupil has committed any of various specified acts,
including, but not limited to, hazing, as defined.
This bill, in addition, would give school officials grounds to
suspend a pupil or recommend a pupil for expulsion for bullying,
including, but not limited to, bullying by electronic act.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 32261 of the Education Code is amended to read:
32261. (a) The Legislature hereby recognizes that all pupils
enrolled in the state public schools have the inalienable right to
attend classes on school campuses that are safe, secure, and
peaceful. The Legislature also recognizes that pupils cannot fully
benefit from an educational program unless they attend school on a
regular basis. In addition, the Legislature further recognizes that
school crime, vandalism, truancy, and excessive absenteeism are
significant problems on far too many school campuses in the state.
(b) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
establishment of an interagency coordination system is the most
efficient and long-lasting means of resolving school and community
problems of truancy and crime, including vandalism, drug and alcohol
abuse, gang membership, gang violence, and hate crimes.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter
to support California public schools as they develop their mandated
comprehensive safety plans that are the result of a systematic
planning process, that include strategies aimed at the prevention of,
and education about, potential incidents involving crime and
violence on school campuses, and that address the safety concerns of
local law enforcement agencies, community leaders, parents, pupils,
teachers, administrators, school police, and other school employees
interested in the prevention of school crime and violence.
(d) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter
to encourage school districts, county offices of education, law
enforcement agencies, and agencies serving youth to develop and
implement interagency strategies, in-service training programs, and
activities that will improve school attendance and reduce school
crime and violence, including vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse, gang
membership, gang violence, hate crimes, bullying, including bullying
committed personally or by means of an electronic act, teen
relationship violence, and discrimination and harassment, including,
but not limited to, sexual harassment.
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter
that the School/Law Enforcement Partnership shall not duplicate any
existing gang or drug and alcohol abuse program currently provided
for schools.
(f) As used in this chapter, "bullying" means one or more acts by
a pupil or group of pupils as defined in Section 48900.2, 48900.3, or
48900.4.
(g) As used in this chapter, an "electronic act" means the
transmission of a communication, including, but not limited to, a
message, text, sound, or image by means of an electronic device,
including, but not limited to, a telephone, wireless telephone or
other wireless communication device, computer, or pager.
SEC. 2. Section 32265 of the Education Code is amended to read:
32265. (a) The partnership shall sponsor at least two regional
conferences for school districts, county offices of education,
agencies serving youth, allied agencies, community-based
organizations, and law enforcement agencies to identify exemplary
programs and techniques that have been effectively used to reduce
school crime, including hate crimes, vandalism, drug and alcohol
abuse, gang membership and gang violence, truancy, and excessive
absenteeism.
(b) The conference may include, but need not be limited to,
information on all of the following topics:
(1) Interagency collaboration between schools, agencies serving
youth, law enforcement agencies, and others.
(2) School attendance.
(3) School safety.
(4) Citizenship education.
(5) Drug and alcohol abuse.
(6) Child abuse prevention, detection, and reporting.
(7) Parental education.
(8) Crisis response training.
(9) Bullying prevention, including the prevention of acts
committed personally or by means of an electronic act.
(10) Threat assessment.
(11) Conflict resolution and youth mediation.
(12) Teen relationship violence.
(13) Discrimination and harassment reporting and prevention,
including, but not limited to, sexual harassment reporting and
prevention.
(14) Hate crime reporting and prevention.
(15) Reporting and prevention of abuse against pupils with
disabilities.
SEC. 3. Section 32270 of the Education Code is amended to read:
32270. (a) The partnership shall establish a statewide school
safety cadre for the purpose of facilitating interagency coordination
and collaboration among school districts, county offices of
education, agencies serving youth, allied agencies, community-based
organizations, and law enforcement agencies to improve school
attendance, encourage good citizenship, and to reduce school
violence, school crime, including hate crimes, vandalism, drug and
alcohol abuse, gang membership and gang violence, truancy rates,
bullying, including acts that are committed personally or by means of
an electronic act, teen relationship violence, and discrimination
and harassment, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment.
(b) The partnership may appoint up to 100 professionals from
educational agencies, community-based organizations, allied agencies,
and law enforcement to the statewide cadre.
(c) The partnership shall provide training to the statewide cadre
representatives to enable them to initiate and maintain school
community safety programs among school districts, county offices of
education, agencies serving youth, allied agencies, community-based
organizations, and law enforcement agencies in each region.
SEC. 4. Section 48900 of the Education Code is amended to read:
48900. A pupil shall not be suspended from school or recommended
for expulsion, unless the superintendent or the principal of the
school in which the pupil is enrolled determines that the pupil has
committed an act as defined pursuant to any of subdivisions (a) to
(r), inclusive:
(a) (1) Caused, attempted to cause, or threatened to cause
physical injury to another person.
(2) Willfully used force or violence upon the person of another,
except in self-defense.
(b) Possessed, sold, or otherwise furnished a firearm, knife,
explosive, or other dangerous object, unless, in the case of
possession of an object of this type, the pupil had obtained written
permission to possess the item from a certificated school employee,
which is concurred in by the principal or the designee of the
principal.
(c) Unlawfully possessed, used, sold, or otherwise furnished, or
been under the influence of, a controlled substance listed in Chapter
2 (commencing with Section 11053) of Division 10 of the Health and
Safety Code, an alcoholic beverage, or an intoxicant of any kind.
(d) Unlawfully offered, arranged, or negotiated to sell a
controlled substance listed in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
11053) of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, an alcoholic
beverage, or an intoxicant of any kind, and either sold, delivered,
or otherwise furnished to a person another liquid, substance, or
material and represented the liquid, substance, or material as a
controlled substance, alcoholic beverage, or intoxicant.
(e) Committed or attempted to commit robbery or extortion.
(f) Caused or attempted to cause damage to school property or
private property.
(g) Stolen or attempted to steal school property or private
property.
(h) Possessed or used tobacco, or products containing tobacco or
nicotine products, including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars,
miniature cigars, clove cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, snuff, chew
packets, and betel. However, this section does not prohibit use or
possession by a pupil of his or her own prescription products.
(i) Committed an obscene act or engaged in habitual profanity or
vulgarity.
(j) Unlawfully possessed or unlawfully offered, arranged, or
negotiated to sell drug paraphernalia, as defined in Section 11014.5
of the Health and Safety Code.
(k) Disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully defied the
valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school
officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of
their duties.
() Knowingly received stolen school property or private property.
(m) Possessed an imitation firearm. As used in this section,
"imitation firearm" means a replica of a firearm that is so
substantially similar in physical properties to an existing firearm
as to lead a reasonable person to conclude that the replica is a
firearm.
(n) Committed or attempted to commit a sexual assault as defined
in Section 261, 266c, 286, 288, 288a, or 289 of the Penal Code or
committed a sexual battery as defined in Section 243.4 of the Penal
Code.
(o) Harassed, threatened, or intimidated a pupil who is a
complaining witness or a witness in a school disciplinary proceeding
for the purpose of either preventing that pupil from being a witness
or retaliating against that pupil for being a witness, or both.
(p) Unlawfully offered, arranged to sell, negotiated to sell, or
sold the prescription drug Soma.
(q) Engaged in, or attempted to engage in, hazing. For purposes of
this subdivision, "hazing" means a method of initiation or
preinitiation into a pupil organization or body, whether or not the
organization or body is officially recognized by an educational
institution, which is likely to cause serious bodily injury or
personal degradation or disgrace resulting in physical or mental harm
to a former, current, or prospective pupil. For purposes of this
subdivision, "hazing" does not include athletic events or
school-sanctioned events.
(r) Engaged in an act of bullying, including, but not limited to,
bullying committed by means of an electronic act, as defined in
subdivisions (f) and (g) of Section 32261, directed specifically
toward a pupil or school personnel.
(s) A pupil shall not be suspended or expelled for any of the acts
enumerated in this section, unless that act is related to school
activity or school attendance occurring within a school under the
jurisdiction of the superintendent of the school district or
principal or occurring within any other school district. A pupil may
be suspended or expelled for acts that are enumerated in this section
and related to school activity or attendance that occur at any time,
including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(1) While on school grounds.
(2) While going to or coming from school.
(3) During the lunch period whether on or off the campus.
(4) During, or while going to or coming from, a school sponsored
activity.
(t) A pupil who aids or abets, as defined in Section 31 of the
Penal Code, the infliction or attempted infliction of physical injury
to another person may be subject to suspension, but not expulsion,
pursuant to this section, except that a pupil who has been adjudged
by a juvenile court to have committed, as an aider and abettor, a
crime of physical violence in which the victim suffered great bodily
injury or serious bodily injury shall be subject to discipline
pursuant to subdivision (a).
(u) As used in this section, "school property" includes, but is
not limited to, electronic files and databases.
(v) A superintendent of the school district or principal may use
his or her discretion to provide alternatives to suspension or
expulsion, including, but not limited to, counseling and an anger
management program, for a pupil subject to discipline under this
section.
(w) It is the intent of the Legislature that alternatives to
suspension or expulsion be imposed against a pupil who is truant,
tardy, or otherwise absent from school activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AB 86
Yeah, I thought not. I feel sorry for Rose's kids (if indeed "Rose" really exists and even has kids at all). Parents that teach their kids that intolerance and bullying are OK cause problems for both their kids and the schools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dfgsdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
asfgawgsgf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]