Anti-Bullying Policy Yardstick Released

Special Report - August 30, 2012
Just in time for the start of a new school year, a Christian civil liberties group has released an important tool to help schools evaluate their existing or proposed anti-bullying policies to determine whether the policies “protect all students” or help to advance the homosexual agenda. Released August 28 in a joint effort between Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the "Anti-Bullying Policy Yardstick" uses 10 of the most common legal components of anti-bullying policies to measure whether the policies are “good” or “bad.”

In a cover letter sent with the Yardstick to school administrators across the country, ADF explains that “homosexual behavior advocates are demanding that protections for ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ be inserted into existing anti-bullying policies so that inappropriate, sexually-based materials can be promulgated to our children.” The result of these efforts, according to ADF, is that “schools are being transformed from places of safety and learning to places of unprecedented sexual education.”

The Yardstick evaluates anti-bullying policies using 10 components, including the following five:

1. A definition of bullying, which should be “precise” and not “overly vague,” and should “address verbal expression not traditionally protected by the First Amendment” (such as: “lewd, indecent, obscene, advocating illegal conduct.”) The Yardstick notes that a “bad” anti-bullying policy uses “vague and overly broad definitions,” and “restricts student expression traditionally protected by the First Amendment.”
2. First Amendment protections, so that the policy “does not apply to religious, political, philosophical, or other protected student speech.” According to ADF, the “provision should expressly state that the bullying policy does not prohibit expression of religious, philosophical, or political views, provided that it otherwise does not meet the definition of bullying and does not cause a substantial and material disruption of the work of the school.”
3. Punishment based on intent or motive. ADF explains that a “good” anti-bullying policy “defines bullying based on conduct or action, not upon motive or intent,” whereas a “bad” policy “defines bullying based on motive or intent,” and “includes ‘re-education’ of persons accused of bullying to change the way they think.”
4. Categorizing vs. banning all bullying. According to ADF, a “good” policy prohibits bullying of all students, while a “bad” policy prohibits bullying of students based on certain characteristics, such as “sexual orientation.”
5. Promoting political agendas. A “good” policy “does not single out groups for special protection; rather, prohibits bullying against all students;” and “does not use materials or lesson plans from homosexual activist groups.”

 “All students deserve to be protected from bullying, not just ones favored by certain political activist groups,” said ADF Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco in a press release. “And all schools need help to ensure that their policies comport with their students’ First Amendment freedoms and other legal protections. This new Anti-Bullying Policy Yardstick helps schools identify which policies are driven by a narrow political agenda and which ones protect First Amendment freedoms.”

Under pressure from pro-homosexual advocacy groups in the state, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the "School Violence Prevention Act" in 2009. The law required all of the state’s 115 school districts to adopt anti-bullying policies by the end of 2009 that include the law’s definition of bullying that enumerates 14 possible “motivating characteristics” such as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” For more about North Carolina’s “anti-bullying” law, read our article, "The School Violence Prevention Act: How to Implement the New Law Without Promoting Homosexuality."

“Although North Carolina law does require school systems to define bullying in their anti-bullying policies to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ as possible motivating characteristics, nothing in the law requires schools to use these policies to promote homosexual and transgender behaviors as normal to students,” said Jere Royall, counsel for the North Carolina Family Policy Council. “Furthermore, the law does not mandate what a school district’s anti-bullying program should look like, nor does it require school districts to affirm, promote or even discuss the terms ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’”

Related resources:
Speech And Bullying Guidelines Released - May 31, 2012
ADF Submits Model Bullying Policy - May 23, 2011
LGBT Advocates Celebrate New Laws - July 13, 2009
"The School Violence Prevention Act" - FNC - Winter 2010

Copyright © 2012. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.