Bullying
By The subject of bullying has interested me for a very long time. Back in the day, I was victim much more than perpetrator; never let anyone tell you that “everyone has it hard” in junior high and high school. A few years back, some Washington Democrats began to champion anti-bully legislations for state schools. Because of Republican obstruction, nothing ever got done. I wondered at the time why they would expend any effort, and figured that it had something to young gays and lesbians. This post from Atrios reminded me of the Washington situation, and confirmed my suspicions about the Republican position.
A number of states have considered or are considering anti-bullying legislation. This legislation has yet to pass in Washington, although Christine Gregoire has been working for it for a very long time. Similar legislation is pending in New Jersey, Indiana, South Carolina, and Iowa. That’s the result of just a quick Google search; I’m sure there’s more out there. In Washington, Iowa, and Indiana, at least, Republican opposition is considerable.
I can think of two principled conservative defenses of bullying. The first defense puts a high value on social conformity and unity. In this formulation, bullying is just part of the education that every teenager needs to receive. Individuals outside of established social norms are given “incentives” to return to the fold and act like everyone else. This helps to create the common set of experiences, needs, and understandings that any good community needs to survive. In a slightly more sophisticated form, conservatives might argue that bullying in secondary school familiarizes teenagers with power and hierarchy. In junior high, power is deployed in a quite naked manner. As students age, they learn to soften and accomodate themselves to displays of power, just like any good Burkean would want. Thus, bullying plays a critical role in the formation of good citizens, and taking steps to eliminate bullying might lead to chaos and social disorder.
I find this argument appalling, but at least I can understand how someone might subscribe to it.
A second, and better, conservative argument against anti-bullying legislation is that such legislation is pointless. Secondary school students already live under more surveillance than anyone outside of the army or a prison. Administrators and teachers already have sets of tools for dealing with bullies. Expanding the demands of the state in this area will at best do nothing, and might lead to unforeseen bad consequences. Anti-bullying legislation is a pointless, “feel good” act that will only serve to complicate the job that local administrators face.
I’m a bit more sympathetic with this argument. I don’t work in a high school or junior high, but my memory doesn’t seem to be telling me that there was some legal remedy that would have made things better. I’m willing to defer to the experience of actual teachers and administrators, however, and I’m kind of curious about how they view this legislation.
In any case, all of this is irrelevant to the actual conservative case against anti-bullying legislation. As is suggested by this article, the real reason Republicans oppose anti-bullying legislation is far more straigtforward. In high school and junior high, bullys target students who are, or who might be, gay. Apparently, many Republicans think that this is a good thing. First, bullying may convince potentially gay teens to follow a more appropriate, godly, straight lifestyle. Second, legal action against anti-gay bullies might suggest that the “gay lifestyle” is somehow appropriate and permissable.
In short, anti-bullying legislation is bad not for any well-considered theoretical reason, but because little Johnny might be held accountable when he beats down a queer. This is today’s Republican Party.