Below is the comment that Fairness submitted to the WV Board of Education on Policy 4373, the proposed safe schools policy that would provide stronger protections against bullying for all students. Thank you all for your endless support in this effort!
Fairness WV, the statewide advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) West Virginians, is dedicated to ending bullying for all students in West Virginia. While we are an LGBT rights advocacy group, our organization is committed to ending bullying for all students by advocating for effective anti-bullying policies.
We support an enumerated policy, or a policy that places an emphasis on certain categories or classes – such as race, religion, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, or disability – because of their prevalence in bullying instances. Enumerated policies have been shown to protect all students more effectively across the board and significantly curb bullying instances.
A number of surveys indicate that bullying on the basis of certain classes is more prevalent than others. We’ve looked at three national surveys – two conducted of students by Harris Interactive and one of NEA members – which, together, were completed by over 10,000 students and over 6,000 teachers and education support professionals. The surveys clearly indicate that enumerated policies are far more effective in curbing instances of bullying, and that policies that do not enumerate are about as effective as no policy at all.
Two-thirds of teens report that they have been verbally or physically harassed or assaulted during the past year because of their perceived or actual appearance, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression, race/ethnicity, disability or religion. The two highest reported reasons for bullying were on the basis of a student’s physical appearance (39%) and a student’s perceived or actual sexual orientation (33%).
Nearly 9 of 10 LGBT students experienced harassment at school in the past year and nearly two-thirds felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation. 30% of LGBT students skipped at least one day of school in the past month because of safety concerns, compared to 7% of the general student population. Their grade point averages were almost half a grade lower than the general student population’s (2.7 vs. 3.1).
Teachers in the NEA survey report that the four most observed reasons for a student to be bullied are for a student’s weight (23%), sexist remarks (20%), perceived sexual orientation (18%), or disability (12%).
Enumerated policies help ensure safety and reduce absenteeism for all students, whether they fit into one of the previously mentioned categories or not. The strength of an enumerated policy is that it underscores that those students who research shows are most likely to be bullied and least likely to be protected by non-enumerated anti-bullying policies are in fact protected, as well as ALL other students. Proponents of non-enumerated bullying laws argue that enumerated categories protect fewer students because only certain students are protected. However, although enumerated bullying laws place an emphasis on certain categories because of their prevalence, all students are still protected. In Policy 4373, the phrase “or other characteristic” is included at the end of the enumeration clause, showing that even if students are being bullied because of another actual or perceived characteristic, they are still guaranteed to be protected. Enumerated policies protect all students.
Students from schools with an enumerated policy are 50% more likely to feel very safe at school (54% vs. 36%). Students without such a policy – or with a non-enumerated policy – are three times more likely to skip a class because they feel uncomfortable or unsafe (16% vs. 5%). Students report less overall harassment when they know their school has a comprehensive policy that includes enumeration. Students from schools with an enumerated policy report that others are harassed far less often in their school than students from schools with non-enumerated policies for reasons like their physical appearance (36% vs. 52%), their sexual orientation (32% vs. 43%), or their gender expression (26% vs. 37%). Students whose schools have a policy that specifically includes sexual orientation and gender identity/expression are less likely than other students to report a serious harassment problem at their school (33% vs. 44%).
Enumeration gives teachers and other educators the tools they need to implement anti-bullying and harassment policies, which makes it easier for them to intervene to prevent bullying. School personnel often fear that they will be targeted themselves for intervening on behalf of students (i.e. LGBT students). When they can point to language that provides clear protection for students most likely to be bullied, they feel more comfortable enforcing the policy. Students reported that teachers were significantly more likely to intervene always or most of the time in states with enumerated policies, as compared to states with either non-enumerated policies or no policies at all (25.3% vs. 15.9% and 12.3%). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education acknowledges that schools are currently required to protect LGBT youth from school bullying under Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As such, enumeration does not increase teacher liability, but it clarifies the bullying policies to better allow teachers to comply with federal mandates.
People opposed to policies like Policy 4373 ignore the reality that these policies actually reduce bullying for students across the board. Policies that do not include enumeration increase instances of bullying in our schools, especially for students who are most vulnerable to bullying – such as students who are overweight, students who have a disability, and students who are perceived to be LGBT. They also point to possible violations to the First Amendment and to religious liberty. To quote directly from the ACLU of WV’s comment regarding this specific issue: “It is certainly true that when students engage in private non-curricular expression at school, such as hallway conversation, they are entitled to the full protection of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines. A school may restrict student speech only where the school has a specific fear of substantial disruption of the educational environment or intrusion upon the rights of others. A school may not single out speech for disfavored treatment simply because it disagrees with the viewpoint expressed by the student. But when something about the speech other than its viewpoint becomes invasive of the rights of others, schools have the constitutional authority to act. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit wrote in Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regional Board of Education, ‘Students cannot hide behind the First Amendment to protect their ‘right’ to abuse and intimidate other students at school’ where that abuse or intimidation causes disruption in the school or deprives a fellow student of his or her equal access to educational opportunities. Schools have wide latitude to take steps other than restricting speech to protect the rights of students who are undergoing harassment without violating the Constitution. A school may likewise require all students to conduct themselves in a manner that does not disrupt the educational mission of the school. What a school may not do, however, is restrict speech simply because others might disagree with the speaker’s message, even if that message is abhorrent to some or all others in the school.”
Support for enumerated policies is widespread. The United States Department of Education supports an enumerated anti-bullying policy and uses one as a model that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as other classes, such as physical appearance and academic status, and begins with the inclusive clause, “Bullying or harassing behavior includes, but is not limited to…”, guaranteed to make the policy all-inclusive.
In addition, federal legislation that includes enumeration and is LGBT-inclusive is endorsed by the American Counseling Association, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, NAACP, National Association of School Psychologists, National Education Association, National Association of School Nurses, American Association of School Administrators, African American Ministers in Action, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Black Justice Coalition, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network, Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, and the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, to name but a few.
In sum, enumerated polices are an accepted and very effective way to curb instances of bullying. We wholeheartedly support the policy.
