We need to say, loud and clear, to both our opponents and our allies, that this is not acceptable. Anti-bullying legislation without specific language that protects vulnerable groups like LGBT students about as good as no protection at all.
Another year, another attempt at getting anti-bullying legislation passed in Michigan. We are only one of 11 states left in the country without it.
On Jan. 29, Matt's Safe Schools Bill was again introduced in the Michigan Senate after being thrown out at the end of last year's legislative session. Though the bill has already passed through the House of Representatives twice, it has continually gotten stuck in the Senate where Republicans rule and conservative opponents outnumber liberal supporters.
But what many people don't know – even those who have advocated for this legislation in the past – is that it almost passed while missing a very important piece of the puzzle: enumeration.
Enumeration, in this case, refers to the list that appeared on the original bullying bill, detailing every trait that would be protected by its passage. Among the traits on the list were sexual orientation and gender identity, the specific features that belong to youth in the LGBT community.
The Matt's Safe Schools Bill, as it passed in the House last year and was set to be voted on in the Senate in December, did not include the language that pointed out those traits, which parents and students alike know to be targets for bullying.
This is simply unacceptable in 2009 and our LGBT communities need to mobilize and prevent this from happening.
Those who sought to remove the enumeration claimed that it was unnecessary. Why point out specific traits when the bill is meant to cover all?
It's the same argument used by opponents of anti-discrimination ordinances in our state. They claim the language of the bill already protects LGBT people under its umbrella, so any specific language would just be an unnecessary addendum.
Though these seem like valid points on the surface, however it is just the type of attitude that sets it up so that schools can exclude certain groups – namely, LGBT students – from this protection on the basis that it's "different" than bullying or harassment due to one's race, sex or ethnicity.
Think of it this way: The original language never said that the traits listed were the only ones protected. So why remove the examples from the list if "everyone" is protected? Why not list examples that might be up for debate so that everyone is on the same page?
The obvious answer is that the politicians making these decisions, along with opponents like Gary Glenn, want to leave the law open for exclusion of LGBT students. They see this as part of the gay agenda, and keeping words like "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" out of the language of the bill take away this possible win for our community.
The newest bill, Senate Bill 159, has enumeration in it. It is the same language as the original bill – the one that House and Senate conservatives tore apart last year. It will probably be challenged again, and we, as a community, cannot let it pass without those specific traits listed.
It's abhorrent that lobbyists would allow, and even rejoice, in the passage of the bill as it stood. It was a sandwich with no meat. A promise with an asterisk. A supposedly inclusive bill that catered to the prejudices of those who are anything but inclusive.
Yes, we're lagging in that we have no bullying laws at all. But more importantly, out of those 39 states that have bullying laws, only 12 include language protecting sexual orientation, and only seven include gender identity or expression. We can't become another that claims to protect children, but ignores those that are LGBT.
We need to say, loud and clear, to both our opponents and our allies, that this is not acceptable. Anti-bullying legislation without specific language that protects vulnerable groups like LGBT students about as good as no protection at all.
