Bullying awareness and ‘it gets better’ campaigns have been gaining momentum this year. So when I read the news that the state of Michigan passed an ‘anti-bullying’ bill, I was shocked and greatly disappointed. This bill essentially justifies bullying if it’s based on a strongly held religious belief or moral conviction. I’m confused as to why this is even classified as ‘anti-bullying.’
Michigan is one of only three states in the U.S. that does not have any true form of anti-bullying legislation, and the Republicans have made multiple demands to ensure a particular agenda is maintained in Michigan. These include not requiring schools to report bullying incidents, no particular provisions for teacher training on the issue, not holding administrators accountable if they don’t act on known bullying incidents, and refusing to identify specific groups of students who may be more susceptible to bullying, such as gay students, as well as racial and religious minorities.
This new bill is a slap in the face to those who have fallen victim to bullying. No one asks to be bullied, and no one deserves to be bullied based on their sexual orientation, religious belief, or race; or for any reason, for that matter. There has been an incredible effort to raise awareness of bullying and to help students understand that it will get better. This movement has brought together the public, celebrities, and the government. But when a state government enacts a law that basically gives students free reign to bully a peer just because they don’t agree with the type of person their peer is, little faith can be found in this government.
Turning this bill on its head reveals just how narrow-minded and hypocritical it is. Imagine this hypothetical scenario: a Muslim student is bullying a fellow peer because they are Christian. Would this law defend this Muslim student as quickly and certainly as it would defend the Christian student if the situation were reversed? If the religious belief or moral conviction does not fall into line with the predetermined beliefs and morals found within the Michigan government, can we say that that student will be guaranteed to get off scot-free with bullying their peers as this law suggests?
What’s more, who’s to say what the convictions are that lay behind the decision to bully someone? Only the bully him or herself can attest to this, and as no one can truly know someone else’s thoughts. It’s possible for bullies to lie about their intentions. Intentionality is the key to this law, yet no one can know for sure what the bully’s intentions were unless they can be proven through repeated physical manifestations of that belief. And even then, does that make it okay to bully someone?
This bill was a last-minute clause added to ‘Matt’s Safe School Law’—a law named after Matt Epling, an East Lansing teenager who committed suicide after being bullied for being gay. This law requires all school disctricts in Michigan to have an anti-bullying policy. However, this clause is an insult both to the memory of Matt Epling and to the anti-bullying movement itself. It is nothing more than a cruel joke. Surely any law named after a gay person who committed suicide precisely because he was bullied for being gay should bring more, not less, protection to those students out there who are suffering at the hands of bullies motivated by religious or moral convictions that tell them homosexuality is wrong. I can only hope that this law is a momentary lapse in judgement and will be repealed as soon as possible.
