HSLDA Opposes Anti-Bullying Bill<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>is actually the title of HSLDA\u2019s own article on a bill currently before the Iowa legislature. At least they\u2019re being honest about it, I suppose?\u00a0We\u2019ve talked before about the ways the Home School Legal Defense Association\u2019s\u00a0lobbying veers out into topics that have nothing to do with homeschooling, but honestly, this case is out there even for them. Let\u2019s have a look, shall we?<\/p>\n HSLDA opposes the anti-bullying bill now pending in the Iowa Legislature, SF 345, because of the breathtakingly broad authority it gives school officials off school grounds.<\/p>\n If the bill were only about running the public schools, HSLDA would probably stay on the sidelines. However, the bill is not just about running the public schools. It gives power to public schools to call law enforcement agencies, social workers, etc., if they believe\u00a0any\u00a0<\/em>person has bullied a public school student.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So let\u2019s get this straight. The \u201cbreathtakingly broad authority\u201d the bill gives school officials is the \u201cpower . . . to call law enforcement agencies, social workers, etc., if they believe any person has bullied a public school student.\u201d The bill doesn\u2019t add anything to the criminal code. The bill is about school discipline. Yes, it states that school officials may call law enforcement or social services about incidents that occur off of school property, but that\u2019s literally it. That doesn\u2019t sound either \u201cbreathtaking\u201d or \u201cbroad.\u201d<\/p>\n Legal Changes<\/p>\n Section 5 of the bill would create a new subsection of Iowa Code section 282.28. It would be labeled as subsection 9.<\/p>\n Paragraph (a), the first paragraph of subsection 9, only allows schools to punish public school students. Paragraph (a) is not uniquely problematic for homeschool families.<\/p>\n But the second paragraph of subsection 9, paragraph (b), operates completely independently of subsection (a). Paragraph (b) contains no limits whatsoever as to whom the school can punish for bullying. It could be a homeschool student, a private school student, or any adult.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Actually, as we\u2019ll see in a moment, this is wrong. Subsection 9, paragraph (b) is in fact dependent on<\/em> subsection 9, paragraph (a). They go together, and there are<\/em> limits. But there\u2019s something else weird going on here.<\/p>\n The punishment in that case would be the school \u201creferring\u201d the matter to law enforcement, social workers, and other vaguely defined agencies. If you don\u2019t think being investigated, intimidated, accused, or pressured by law enforcement or social workers is \u201cpunishment,\u201d you have probably never been through it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So wait a minute. Our legal process is designed to determine who has transgressed the law and what punishment is necessary for those who are convicted. But here, HSLDA attorney Scott Woodruff is saying that the legal process itself<\/em> is punishment. Look, I get that law enforcement can be corrupt or inept, and I get that disadvantaged populations may even find themselves exploited by the police, but the argument Woodruff is making is simply untenable.<\/p>\n But wait. Why would these individuals be reported to law enforcement to begin with?<\/p>\n Facing Allegations<\/p>\n And while paragraph (a) only gives the school power to mete out punishment if the bullying is \u201cfounded,\u201d paragraph (b) allows the school to initiate punishment if the bullying is merely alleged. So based on nothing more than an allegation, someone with no connection with a public school could find a policeman, social worker, and others knocking at his door to investigate him.<\/p>\n SF 345 gives the public schools the power to punish every citizen in their district by causing them to be investigated. This is inappropriate and unwise. Therefore HSLDA opposes the bill.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n HSLDA has veered into serious conspiracy territory here.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look at the bill text itself<\/a> for a moment.<\/p>\n 9. Authority off school grounds.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n a. A school official may investigate and impose school discipline in a founded case of harassment or bullying that occurs outside of school, off of school property, or away from a school function or school-sponsored activity if all of the following apply:<\/p>\n (1) An incident of harassment or bullying is reported pursuant to the school\u2019s policy adopted under subsection 3, paragraph \u201ce\u201d.<\/p>\n (2) The alleged incident of harassment or bullying has an effect on a student on school grounds that creates an objectively hostile school environment that meets one or more of the conditions set out under subsection 2, paragraph \u201cb\u201d.<\/p>\n b. A school official\u2019s investigation and response to an alleged incident of bullying or harassment that occurs outside of school, off of school property, or away from a school function or school-sponsored activity may include referring the matter to appropriate community-based agencies including but not limited to social services agencies, law enforcement agencies, and nonprofit organizations.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Paragraph (b) cannot operate independently of paragraph (a) because it is about the investigation process outlined in paragraph (a)<\/em>. Without paragraph (a), paragraph (b) cannot function. In other words, what this section says is that if an incident of harassment or bullying off of school property results in a hostile school environment for a student, the school has the authority to investigate the off-campus incident and impose school discipline accordingly\u2014and that their investigation and response may involve contacting social services or law enforcement. That is quite literally it<\/em>.<\/p>\n HSLDA points out that paragraph (a) specifies that school discipline can be imposed in \u201cfounded\u201d cases of harassment or bullying, but that paragraph (b) does not use the word \u201cfounded.\u201d But paragraph (b) is crystal clear<\/em> that reporting such cases may be part of schools\u2019 \u201cinvestigation and response\u201d<\/em> to incidences of bullying and harassment that take place off of school property and create an objectively hostile school environment. This isn\u2019t insidious, it\u2019s smart policy. Sometimes law enforcement will be best equipped to investigate these situations.<\/p>\n I cannot for the life of me understand how HSLDA takes this benign provision and comes away with the conclusion that the bill \u201cgives the public schools the power to punish every citizen in their district by causing them to be investigated.\u201d Look, in order to create \u201can objectively hostile school environment,\u201d an incident of harassment or bullying that occurs off of school property will likely involve another student. In other words, this isn\u2019t about homeschooled students. It\u2019s about kids bullied by fellow students off of school property.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s imagine, for a moment, that a homeschooled child manages to bully and harass a public school student\u00a0to the point that that student\u2019s \u201cschool environment\u201d becomes \u201cobjectively hostile. Wouldn\u2019t it be a good idea for this situation to be reported to law enforcement or social services, if the circumstances warranted it? Is this seriously<\/em> what HSLDA is opposing here? Are they honestly arguing that homeschooled students have a right to not be reported to law enforcement for harassment and bullying that trumps public schooled students\u2019\u00a0right to not be harassed and bullied?<\/em>\u00a0For real?!<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look at how\u00a0the existing law<\/a> defines \u201chostile school environment\u201d:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n