Bentonville School Board member Brent Leas has an idea for protecting from discrimination those people -- that's right, those people -- who most often experience it. Here the idea: Make sure school board policy and, perhaps, state law doesn't identify who should be protected.
The district's bullying policy, last revised in 2011, refers to "attributes" that could make a person the target of bullying. Those include "without limitation race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, socioeconomic status, academic status, disability, gender, gender identity, physical appearance, health condition, or sexual orientation."
What’s the point?
The idea that a bullying policy can be made stronger by eliminating the mention of groups historically targeted for harassment is ridiculous.
Leas, at a recent school board meeting at which he read a letter detailing his proposal, said the list omits such attributes as obesity and stature.
"The list could go on and on," he said. "I want to be able to protect all kids."
The comment sounds so noble. Protecting the kids. That's what it's all about. Let's not suggest that any particular groups are more likely to be subjected to abusive behavior. We're sure the white, physically fit, well-off male student superbly confident in his sexual identity has just as much trouble in the hallways as the poor, chubby female who looks a "little butch."
Leas' suggestion might even be viewed as more inclusive except for the context in which he's proposing it. Since April, the board has been in the midst of a controversy after board member Grant Lightle proposed changing the school district's Equal Employment Opportunity policy. Lightle wants that policy to provide specific protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Leas has consistently opposed those additions, while supporters have often pointed to the bullying policy as an example of existing policy that spells out those groups as intended targets for protection.
More context: In the letter explaining his proposal, Leas warns that the school district "cannot allow well-intentioned policies to be perverted and used as cloaks for the promotion of homosexuality programs."
Homosexuality programs? He cites in-school programs promoted by the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign and another by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Those groups advance as diversity training these types of programs. The introduction of them, if ever pursued, should very much be a school board-level issue. But the existence of policies to prevent bullying on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity does not open the door for such programming.
Not long after announcing his proposal, someone pointed out that state law requires sexual orientation and gender identity as specific groups to be protected in school district bullying policies, and indeed those groups should be afforded such protection in a public educational environment. Specifically. Let no one pretend that young people do not face incredible challenges in dealing with the transition from childhood to adulthood. Development of sexuality is powerful part of that, and teasing or harassment based on sexuality (or perceptions of it) can be extraordinarily cruel and damaging.
So, in the face of state law, Leas backed off, right? Sort of.
Sure, state law trumps board policy, but Leas says there's hope for his idea. Given the current makeup of the Legislature (i.e., Republican majorities), perhaps that law could be changed. He's approach state Rep. Jim Dotson of Bentonville and state Sen. Bart Hester of Cave Springs for their feedback.
Sadly, Leas may be right about the Legislature's potential response to his proposal. But just because the majority favors something doesn't make it right.
We've not been all that keen on Lightle's introduction of the employment policy changes because it's clearly driven by an agenda rather than school district needs. Nonetheless, Lightle is right about Leas' proposal.
"Taking a policy and making it more nebulous does not create an environment where you'll have stronger enforcement," Lightle said. "I think (Leas) misreads the public's sentiment and their concern about bullying. The way you improve behavior is not by creating more ambiguity."
Leas clearly worries that public schools will become a gay and lesbian training ground. But that's not a legitimate excuse to create ambiguity about bullying. The school board and school administrators have a serious responsibility to create a safe environment in which learning can occur, and education is vital for every single student enrolled in Bentonville Public Schools, whether tall, short, skinny, fat, straight, gay or any of the other attributes with proven histories of eliciting a reaction from bullies.
Commentary on 06/30/2015