The 2011 anti-bullying policy, the Matt Epling Safe School Law, required that every school district develop a policy to address bullying within the school. The law states that schools must ensure bullying is prohibited and have safeguards in place to protect against false reports, as well as the person doing the reporting. The policy must also have appropriate people identified to implement and monitor the procedures, as well as investigate and report (Matt Epling Safe School Law, 2011/2014). The law has very little reach beyond requiring a written policy. There is no requirement in the law for implementation of the policy or the extent to which the policy must be implemented. There are no requirements for monitoring the implementation. This
…show more content…
The LGBT movement is poised to be a much larger, vocal advocate in all arenas. Vaid (2012) looks at the importance of giving voice to LGBT issues and moving past the individual wins such as the right to marry and on to much larger social justice focused issues. Vaid points out that striving for legal equality and challenging biases in such things as school discipline is the next step in the movement. The article also points out that “queer activists have an opportunity to renew a focus on a safer and saner world for all” (p. 24, 2012). Morris (n.d) states that the lesbian, gay, and bisexual movement has worked to develop advocacy groups, vocalize discrimination issues, repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”, remove sodomy from many state laws as it pertains to same sex relationships, and push for equal marriage …show more content…
He cites statements from conservative politicians that indicate indifference, beliefs that the issue is being resolved without the need for a law, and that writing a law will create more problems (2013). He quotes Speaker of the House Jase Bolger as having said that “as soon as you start making a list of reasons you cannot bully someone, you’re automatically opening the door to a list of reason why you could bully someone” (p. 128) as being one of the arguments against enumeration. Lythgoe goes on to point out that Republicans, in general, wanted a minimalistic blanket statement to address bullying, avoiding any specifics that could box someone in (2013). Lythgoe acknowledges that liberals and Democrats had to make concessions and accept a final version of the law that was less than what they wanted in order to get it passed. The final product was not as rigorous and all-encompassing as the writers would have liked
The LGBT movement is poised to be a much larger, vocal advocate in all arenas. Vaid (2012) looks at the importance of giving voice to LGBT issues and moving past the individual wins such as the right to marry and on to much larger social justice focused issues. Vaid points out that striving for legal equality and challenging biases in such things as school discipline is the next step in the movement. The article also points out that “queer activists have an opportunity to renew a focus on a safer and saner world for all” (p. 24, 2012). Morris (n.d) states that the lesbian, gay, and bisexual movement has worked to develop advocacy groups, vocalize discrimination issues, repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”, remove sodomy from many state laws as it pertains to same sex relationships, and push for equal marriage …show more content…
He cites statements from conservative politicians that indicate indifference, beliefs that the issue is being resolved without the need for a law, and that writing a law will create more problems (2013). He quotes Speaker of the House Jase Bolger as having said that “as soon as you start making a list of reasons you cannot bully someone, you’re automatically opening the door to a list of reason why you could bully someone” (p. 128) as being one of the arguments against enumeration. Lythgoe goes on to point out that Republicans, in general, wanted a minimalistic blanket statement to address bullying, avoiding any specifics that could box someone in (2013). Lythgoe acknowledges that liberals and Democrats had to make concessions and accept a final version of the law that was less than what they wanted in order to get it passed. The final product was not as rigorous and all-encompassing as the writers would have liked