Debate over anti-bullying legislation continues

Julie Nemecek, co-director of Michigan Equality, and Alicia Skillman, executive director of Triangle Foundation, at a public hearing Monday in Kalamazoo. The two groups are engaged in a debate about what anti-bullying legislation should look like in Michigan.

As news came out of Oregon last week pointing out the failure of that state’s 10-year-old anti-bullying law to protect minorities, lawmakers and activists in Michigan continued to debate the same core issues and challenges facing similar legislation.

For the first time since lobbying for Matt’s Safe Schools bill began several years ago, legislation with that name has a chance to pass out of committee in the state Senate onto the floor, where it has enough support to pass and then be signed into law by Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

But in recent weeks, a heated schism has split LGBT activist groups fighting for passage of the anti-bullying legislation. On one side are those who want to see a strong bill that specifies what categories of students would be protected — such as gay, lesbian and transgender individuals — referred to as enumeration. They also want the anti-bullying bill to be specific about how school boards implement the policy, including time lines and penalties.

On the other side are activists who believe that only compromise legislation, one that lacks enumeration, has any hope of passage through the Republican-controlled state Senate. Oregon’s anti-bullying law lacks enumeration, and there are current efforts to strengthen the law.

Tempers flared in Michigan when it was discovered that staff at the Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based LGBT rights group, had agreed to support a weakened version of the bill introduced by state Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks, in February, legislation that lacks enumeration or other specifics.

All parties are struggling to find common ground in advance of a planned lobbying day on March 25, when hundreds of people are expected at the Capitol to press lawmakers to approve some version of the anti-bullying bill.

‘Safe Schools bill lite’ may be only chance to clear state Senate

Prior to the Jelinek bill’s introduction, state Sen. Glenn Anderson, D-Westland, had introduced a tougher anti-bullying bill that includes enumeration and many other details. But Anderson has acknowledged that passage of the Jelinek bill may be the only thing the Republican-led Senate will do.

“One school of thought is that if the Legislature passes this [compromise bill], they then feel like they are off the hook on doing anything else. The other school of thought is to take small — very small — steps that don’t make us very happy, with the intent of going back and revisiting it later and strengthening it. And that tends to be many times how the Legislature works,” said Anderson. (To listen to the entire interview with Anderson, click here.)

Anderson has signed on as a co-sponsor of the Jelinek compromise bill. (To review Anderson’s bill, click here. To review the Jelinek’s bill, click here.)

“Sen. Jelinek introduced [what] I would say [is] a safe schools bill-lite — and I guess you might say quite light. But I do believe it’s a step in the right direction. It’s not where I would like to see us wind up in the long run; certainly it’s not,” Anderson said. “But what I’m hoping for is that we can get folks together and I guess develop a strategy. And like I said, I haven’t given up, and I’m not going to give up, on my legislation. My full intent is to see that every child in the state is protected when they go to school.”

The Jelinek bill will mandate schools to create an anti-bullying policy, hold a public hearing before adopting that policy and report it to the state Department of Education. It does not give a concise definition of bullying, nor does it provide for any required reporting procedures.

The Jelinek compromise bill is likely to pass the Senate, even as the LGBT community continues to argue over the ramifications. The statewide organizations have been split, with Triangle on one side of the issue pushing for the compromise bill and Michigan Equality and the LBGT and Ally Caucus of the Democratic Party pushing for a fully inclusive bill.

Ground game in the works

As the community fights to find its way, Triangle is preparing for the eventual passage of the Jelinek bill. According to multiple interviews with Triangle Foundation staff, a ground game following the passage of the Jelinek bill is being planned, which would include activists fanning out across the state to present local school boards with the state Board of Education’s model for anti-bullying policies. Activists would then ask the local school authorities to adopt that model language.

“I would like to see a plan for doing that. What will more likely happen is a handful of schools will be picked for the initial contacts, and we will go from there,” said Julie Nemecek, co-director of Michigan Equality. “My understanding is that you would work with local boards to bring enumeration into the local policies.”

And while questions linger about whether the strategy will work, Skillman contended that it can. “Triangle, working with local groups, will assist the grass-roots effort to help every local school district to adopt the model policy as established by the state Board of Education. Together, we must organize a ground game like nothing seen before in Michigan,” she said.

Don Wotruba, associate director of the Michigan Association of School Boards, thinks this strategy will work.

“Every board needs to have a policy about harassment and bullying. We think it [a law] would be a good way to have a discussion. They have the adopted [state of Michigan Department of Education] policy, and they can send that out,” said Wotruba. “We think that is a healthy path. The outcome has to be decided locally. An open discussion in an open meeting will further that.”

According to MASB spokesman Bob Ebersol, an estimated 85 to 90 percent of Michigan’s public school districts have some form of anti-bullying policy in place already. A review of policies from Ann Arbor, Marquette, Bay City, Detroit, Saginaw, Traverse City and Williamston Community Schools found that only two of those districts, Marquette and Traverse City, had board-level policies. The remainder had the policies in the student codes of conduct, a tool approved by administrators, not the elected governing body of the school district.

A slightly different version of this story appeared in the print and online editions of Between the Lines Newspaper.