New Jersey anti-bullying law will be the toughest in the U.S. after spate of gay teenage suicides

[Renew Deal]

Source: Daily Mail

Lawmakers in New Jersey introduced an anti-bullying bill of rights today, which they claim will be one of the toughest state laws of its kind in the U.S.

The proposal follows the widely publicised suicide of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, who was outed and humiliated online by fellow students.

The new law would require anti-bullying programmes and codes of conduct in public schools and colleges to address the hateful acts of some individuals against others.

Introduced by a bipartisan group of legislators and advocates, the proposal seeks to expand on current New Jersey laws that were passed eight years ago.
<snip>

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323790/Tough-New-Jersey-anti-bullying-law-spate-gay-teenage-suicides.html

[slackmaster]

1. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

:argh:

[Renew Deal]

2. What is that supposed to mean?

[slackmaster]

4. They can impose new rules on people, but "anti-bullying programmes and codes of conduct"...

...won't address the root causes of bullying, which come from deep in the pathology of the society that put the very same legislators in office.

All a legislature can do is pass laws. That's their job, and they should do it, but they're not the ones who can fix bullying. (Government doesn't cause bullying either.) They can use the blunt force of the criminal justice system, they can mandate new responsibilities for public employees, but they can't fix the sickness that allows a person to lack real empathy for others.

They sit in their offices and their chambers, and dream up new schemes that can be named after themselves or after victims. Then when the next election cycle comes around they can look right into the cameras and say, with some degree of honesty, "See there, I DID something about it!", when actually they did nothing but try to position themselves to remain in power.

The meanness lives on, the people want to believe that the perceived authority figures really have the public's best interests in mind, and the bullying will continue until something fundamental in the way we look at each other changes.

Bullying is not a result of insufficient "anti-bullying" laws. It's a moral problem, or perhaps a spiritual one if you are inclined to see things that way.

[SemperEadem]

5. and since it's a moral problem

there needs to be a moral remedy--if you're grown enough to do the harassing and bullying, then be grown enough to stand in your truth and take your ass whippin' for it without crying and running to hide behind your mama's skirts like a little punk.

[slackmaster]

6. A good father is in the best position to administer that kind of moral justice

Unfortunately too many kids don't have one.

[Beetwasher]

7. While That's True, That Doesn't Mean This Law Can't Have A Positive Effect

In creating an environment where it is CLEAR that this behavior is WRONG and will NOT be tolerated. Now when a child is victimized or sees this behavior, even if they are not involved, they may feel that they have SUPPORT or should get involved to support the victim. Even on a symbolic level that's important. Bullies can be counteracted by groups opposing them. This law can help foster a better environment by bringing attention to the problem and creating a support mechanism for opposition to bullies to coalesce around.

[slackmaster]

8. Sure, maybe some laws can help a little

I just don't see them as major headline material.

A state legislature passed some basically knee-jerk legislation in response to a string of hyped media reports about a selection of a type of event that happens far too often and usually goes unreported.

Color me "Meh".

[Beetwasher]

9. You're Wrong

This type of attention is not only a good idea and worthy of headlines but also will have an impact. I for one am happy that this law passed and that this issue is getting attention. Be "meh" all you want, but it says more about you than it does about this terrific piece of legislation.

"The new law would require anti-bullying programmes and codes of conduct in public schools and colleges..."

Anti-bullying programmes are a good idea and absolutely can be effective and before this law, there weren't any programmes that had any type of significant financial government support. Now there are.

[slackmaster]

11. I think you have indulged in a creative reading of the article cited in the OP, Beetwasher

...before this law, there weren't any programmes that had any type of significant financial government support. Now there are.

I've read it twice and didn't notice any mention of any kind of financial support. All I see are mandates that school officials do this and that, such as writing a Code of Conduct and enforcement policy and organizing a safety team.

Those may well be good things for them to do, but without additional funding (or staffing), those tasks will have to be done at the expense of other worthwhile things that school officials do. If New Jersey public school administrators, teachers, and counselors are anything like the people who do those jobs here in California, they're already overworked, short-staffed, overpaid, and stressed out.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but this looks to me like so much window dressing.

[Beetwasher]

13. Umm, What Do You Imagine A "Programme" Is? And How Do You Imagine It Will Be Implemented Without

Funding? Do you understand the concept?

It's not "window dressing" at all, it's something concrete that is going to be rolled out as mandatory in all schools in NJ. How do you think that's accomplished without funding?

[Xithras]

14. Look up the term "unfunded mandate".

Legislators do this sort of thing all the time. Legislators regularly impose legal requirements on schools without providing any funds to implement them. The schools are simply forced to shuffle funds and time from their OTHER programs to accommodate the new legal requirement.

I don't see any mention of funding in the reporting of this new law. In all likelihood, it's an unfunded mandate.

[Beetwasher]

16. Not If It's A Mandatory Program

If they have to shuffle funds to accomodate it, then it's STILL funded. Not the best way to do it, IMO, but it's still a funded program that will be mandated in schools and my point still stands that it is NOT just window dressing. These types of programs can absolutely have an impact.

"The new bill's provisions include requiring public school staff to be trained in suicide prevention and how to deal with harassment, intimidation and bullying."

--snip--

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323790/Tough-New-Jersey-anti-bullying-law-spate-gay-teenage-suicides.html#ixzz13VLhswgR

Training takes funding. This is not mere window dressing, these are concrete steps that include training and education and I doubt it's and unfunded mandate if it involves mandatory training. But even if it was, it still does not diminish my point that this is good legislation that is NOT mere "window dressing".

[slackmaster]

18. It still doesn't say anything about the state allocating any new funding to support the "programmes"

Training takes funding.

I suspect that New Jersey school budgets already provide a general budget bucket for training, as do most school systems.

Making some particular kind of training mandatory makes less money available for other kinds of training.

It's not just window dressing, it's rearranging the desk chairs on the Titanic.

[Beetwasher]

19. funded is funded and despite yr obnoxious opinion on the legislation

it is empirically more than window dressing, since training can be quite effective.

[slackmaster]

21. I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of some counselors and administrators in those schools

They're in a much better position to evaluate the effect of the legislation than either of us are.

[Beetwasher]

24. Oh, NOW you want their opinion?

I thought yr mind was already made up regarding the efficacy of this yet to b implemented program.

[slackmaster]

17. The same way the California state legislature implements "programs" without funding them

It's called "legislative fiat".

The legislature simply passes a law that says that state employees "must" or "shall" do something, and that is that.

How do you think that's accomplished without funding?

By making cuts in other services.

[Beetwasher]

20. So you admit it will b funded

and since it involves funding and trainings it is empirically more than mere window dressing despite yr obnoxious, irrelevant opinion on a subject you apparently know little about.

[slackmaster]

22. Lts mk it a prsnl isu, mkay?

:eyes:

I don't share your faith in the activities of career politicians.

[Beetwasher]

25. Just admit you fucked up by prejudging the efficacy of this yet to be implemented pgm

k.

[slackmaster]

27. I haven't done anything in that regard that you haven't also done

Ok.

[Beetwasher]

30. Sure You Have, You've Deemed This Yet To Be Implemented Program "Window Dressing"

With no evidence. Where have I done such a thing? I freely admit I have no idea how effectively this program will be implemented considering the pig who is governor, I only know it CAN be effective and IMO, will have an impact. Show otherwise.

[slackmaster]

32. Your behavior is too unpleasant right now. I'm done with this sub-thread.

You certainly seem to be knowledgeable about bullying, but neither of us has actually read the bill text.

[Beetwasher]

34. Am I Bullying You? Oh, NOW We Need To See The Bill Before You Pass Your Judgments On It???

Whuh happened?

[Ginto]

45. You do seem like a bully.

I hope you recognize that.

[Beetwasher]

46. Oh Well, Sue Me

I call bullshit when I see it. The poster clearly had no fucking clue about the legislation, passed judgement on it as useless and NOW wants to see it because I called him on his bullshit.

Classic backpedalling. Not my fault he fucked up.

[slackmaster]

47. I know just as much about the legislation as you do, i.e. what's posted in the article cited in OP

Which isn't much.

I formed my opinion based on that, plus decades of experience observing the activities of politicians.

I stand by my opinion that the legislation is basically window dressing. That's what I'll say until I see some concrete evidence that there's something more to it.

BTW, I'm not saying you are indulging in bullying, just that your behavior is rude. I know what real bullies do.

[Beetwasher]

48. Yet You Feel Informed Enough To Claim It's "Window Dressing"

Despite that what we DO know about it shows it clearly ISN'T mere window dressing, since it includes some real, concrete elements that will be mandated in schools.

You have a funny definiton of "window dressing".

But of course, you are entitled to your obnoxious opinion even when it's demonstrably wrong.

--snip--

The new bill's provisions include requiring public school staff to be trained in suicide prevention and how to deal with harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Bullying prevention programs would be mandatory at schools. Currently, most New Jersey schools have them, but they are only encouraged - not required.

Schools would also have to form safety teams that would shape policies and review how bullying is handled.

--snip--

State Senator Diane Allen, a Republican, said one important feature is that school websites would have to clarify who's in charge of the bullying policies. Right now, she said, it can be hard for parents to determine that.

--snip--

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323790/Tough-New-Jersey-anti-bullying-law-spate-gay-teenage-suicides.html#ixzz13aaVhIlE

[slackmaster]

49. Yeah well, that's just, ya know, like, your opinion, man.

I really don't understand why you are so determined to make this some kind of personal issue.

[Beetwasher]

51. Nope It's Demonstrably Not Mere Window Dressing

It involves a concrete program.

Unless of course u choose to completely change the meaning of the term "window dressing".

[slackmaster]

52. That's your opinion

I disagree with you.

It involves a concrete program.

Until I see some details, it's just window dressing to me.

Where is the bill text?

Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that it's not published anywhere?

If this legislation was really something innovative, something to be proud of, wouldn't it be easy to find the text?

What is the New Jersey legislature hiding?

[Beetwasher]

53. If u redefine terms to fit yr agenda then everything can become mere opinion

Theres enough in the article to determine its not just window dressing. A training program mandated in all schools and officials assigned with responsibilities and accountability are concrete measures by any reasonable standards. But feel free to stick to yr guns!

[slackmaster]

54. That's your opinion

I disagree with you.

A training program mandated in all schools and officials assigned with responsibilities and accountability are concrete measures by any reasonable standards.

What are the specific objectives? How will the results be measured? What kind of training program will fulfill the requirement? You don't know, and the legislators aren't telling you.

Why is that?

[Beetwasher]

55. LOL! Keep Moving Those Goal Posts

Maybe someone will buy the bullshit and backpedalling.

U realize of course this has yet to be signed into law. And like most other laws those sort of details r determined after the law Is passed. Curriculums and plans for implementation almost always happen after the law a passed. Shit NJ still has not approved all the details on how to implement medical marijuana law.

[CreekDog]

3. same with those laws against murder

i mean, why outlaw it?

:eyes;

[MicaelS]

10. Bullies bully because they think, or they know

They can get away with it. Because the adults who SHOULD be doing something to stop the bullying are lazy, and put the onus on the victim.

"Suck it up" "Be a man" "Just don't think about it" "They really didn't mean it"

Let these bullying shits start facing some real jail time, and they might start thinking twice about bullying. Or the bullies' parents might intervene.

The worst case alternative is another suicide OR school shooting. And none of us want that.

[slackmaster]

12. I didn't see anything in the article cited in the OP about new crimes being created

All I see are (apparently) unfunded mandates for school administrators to do certain things.

Did I miss something?

[Odin2005]

15. YAY!

[proteus_lives]

23. I dunno, it smells like more zero tolerance bullshit.

It looks good on paper but I can see it being misused.

[slackmaster]

28. If the legislation doesn't include a way to measure the outcome, anything goes

If "success" isn't defined, then neither are failure or waste.

I'm still looking for the text. The bill is A3466. Here's a list of sponsors kindly provided by the NJ legislature's Web site:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp

[slackmaster]

29. Here we go - a PDF file of the actual bill in case anyone cares - WHOOPS that's from 2001

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2000/Bills/a3500/3466_i1.pdf

Never mind.

Here's an FTP index page where it should be, but it's not.

ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/20102011/

[slackmaster]

31. OK, there's a DBASE database of current NJ legislation...

ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/ag/2010data/

[slackmaster]

43. That doesn't contain the bill text either

I wonder why they are hiding it.

[BolivarianHero]

26. Will Christie sign it?

Is he one of those nuts or is he a sane Republican?

[slackmaster]

33. I've become very curious about what the bill actually says

I haven't been able to find it online.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

35. If NJ eliminates bullies, where will they find new cops?

And how will TSA get staff?

:hi:

[Bragi]

36. Legislators gone wild

Have you noticed how the worst, over-the-top legislation usually comes forward and gets passed quickly and enthusiastically on the heels of some horrific, totally non-typical violent act occurring?

And that it isn't until a couple of years later that people usually realize it's a really bad law, but by then it is entrenched and unchangeable?

Me too.

[slackmaster]

37. The conspicuous unavailability of the bill text strengthens my suspicion that it's just political BS

I doubt that it's bad law per se. Most likely just useless.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. I call it the "Commonwealth fallacy"- you pretend you've done something by passing a law.

It plays well in the media, but whatever it is you're purporting to fix doesn't actually get fixed.


Not that the idea of anti-bullying laws is bad, but decades of observing state-level politics in Florida and Massachusetts

tends to make one cynical about the practical results of most legislation....

[KurtNYC]

38. this bill was months in the making -- it was not rushed

many NJ schools already have anti-torture programs in place.

Thousands and thousand of teens are tortured by their classmates, churches and adults every day. It is unfortunately NOT a "non-typical" event.

[slackmaster]

39. I read that too, but still haven't seen the actual bill text

If you have a link, I'd appreciate seeing it.

[Bragi]

40. Is torture not already illegal in NJ?

Seriously, I have to think that no new law is needed to make torture illegal in NJ schools.

Similarly, does NJ not already have laws against hate crimes, including hate crimes against people young and old based on their sexual orientation?

[KurtNYC]

41. this bill doesn't make anything illegal

it mandates anti-bullying programs.

This is prevention -- NOT punishment for stuff that already happened.

perhaps if you read the article you would have a more informed opinion

[Bragi]

44. Read the article?

Ah, okay, good point.

[AngryAmish]

50. This looks like another excuse to put black kids in jail.

The argument against this position is that I am presupposing black kids are more likely to be bullies and/or homophobic. MY point is whenever a new criminal system is proposed it almost always comes down like a ton of bricks on black youths' heads. Drug war, for example.