Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Looking for stuff about birds?
Lean more about lions
In a remarkable act of cynicism and moral bankruptcy, Iowa legislators are considering removing LGBT students from the protection of a Safe School law. So it would be illegal to bully students unless they are gay. Then it would be OK.
Reps. Shultz & Windschitl Introduce H.F. 2291 to Exclude Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) Students from Safe Schools Law... House Representatives Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig and Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, co-sponsored legislation introduced today which seeks to exclude LGBT students from the 2007 Iowa Safe Schools Law.
The law protects ALL students from harassment and bullying in Iowa's schools.
"When our state is facing record budget deficits and unemployment, House Republicans feel their time is best spent picking on Iowa's LGBT youth," said Ryan Roemerman, Executive Director of Iowa Pride Network. "There is no better example as to why we have this law, so youth in Iowa don't grow up to be like these bigots."
H.F. 2291 has been referred to the House Education Committee. Iowa Pride Network will continue to monitor this legislation to ensure all of Iowa's students are safe and protected from harassment and bullying.
Hat tip: Drugmonkey.
Politics
Comments
On a better note, both Iowa Houses rejected efforts to introduce a resolution to ammend the Iowa Constitution to specifically recognize marriage between one man and one woman thereby repealing same-sex marriage. The Republicans were trying to do an "end-run" around House rules by pulling the resolutions out of committee so they could be placed on the debate calendar. These folks just keep trying even though a recent poll indicated 62% of Iowans don't think the issue of gay marriage is worthy of the legislators' time.
Posted by: nankay | February 10, 2010 11:14 AM
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | February 10, 2010 11:15 AM
These people suck.
Posted by: Kate from Iowa | February 10, 2010 11:35 AM
While 'sexual orientation' and 'sexual identity' should be on the list, removing them should have no effect at all, since it's just a list of examples. Then again, IANAL.
Posted by: SQB | February 10, 2010 11:52 AM
SQB,
IANAL either, and neither am I familiar with how (anti)discrimination law plays out. However,
First, "... includes but is not limited to ..." - how does this fit in with established case law? Is it unreasonably vague? Can it be said to include red hair? Pedophilic tendencies? With the history of treatment of the non-heteronormative socially and legally (and that history is ongoing), it makes a very strong point for those classes to be enumerated. The fact that someone deems it important (even if only for quixotic grandstanding, I don't know) to strike those classes itself indicates the importance of their inclusion.
Second, I've often wondered whether the enumeration of classes in laws like this implicitly weakens protection for those not enumerated. Consider an ex-post-facto justification of firing a gay person because the law permits it - after all it specifically mentions race etc., but not sexual orientation. But see above.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | February 10, 2010 12:18 PM
As long as the soulless red haired people are kept out from under the protective umbrella of the state, I'm happy.
Posted by: Ginger Snap | February 10, 2010 12:25 PM
So here's a thought. Rather than have a law about who you can or can't beat up in school, why not just teach kids not to be dickwads?
I mean, I get that kids can be complete assholes, but how badly are teachers and parents failing if bullying needs to be specifically addressed in state law?
Posted by: itzac | February 10, 2010 1:28 PM
To me, this seems like a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. People cannot be excluded from protection by law.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Posted by: daedalus2u | February 10, 2010 1:33 PM
Not that this isn't completely fucking ridiculous, but why is there even a list in the first place? Why not just define bullying and ignore what kids might be getting bullied for?
I mean seriously, bullying is bullying. Does it really matter why someone is bullying another child?
Posted by: DuWayne | February 10, 2010 1:43 PM
unbelievable.
Posted by: rob | February 10, 2010 1:47 PM
I Owe the World an Apology (IOWA)
Posted by: eigenvector | February 10, 2010 1:48 PM
Because, DuWayne, they see bullying as a possible way to pressure students into behaving as they see fit, thus suppressing the exposure of their own kids to homosexual individuals. It's kind of a "well, that's ok, because I don't want my kids exposed to those people"
Although it does sound awfully similar to the way racial assaults and discrimination were rationalized...
Posted by: Jared | February 10, 2010 1:51 PM
Schultz told NBC affiliate WHO-TV that the rationale behind the move is to force a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, since the Iowa Supreme Court pointed to laws like Iowa’s Safe Schools Law in making its April decision to legalize same-sex marriage.
Posted by: nankay | February 10, 2010 2:22 PM
What Jared said.
I wonder if the existing law covers perceived status? (The bit I quoted is the fragment from the proposed bill, not the existing law which I didn't look up.)
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | February 10, 2010 2:27 PM
Posted by: aratina cage | February 10, 2010 4:47 PM
eigenvector reminded me of:
Idiots Out Walking Around
also totally unfair, except, perhaps for Reps. Shultz & Windschitl.
Posted by: rob | February 11, 2010 11:21 AM