This sounds like a disproporionate reaction to me? I mean, this is a bland restatement of the 1st amendment. If it stops there - "*expression* of moral viewpoints is okay - then at best a judge can say "Okay the legislators intended special care to be taken to not misinterpret religious debate as bullying." But it doesn't say "bullying that is religiously motivated is okay." (Or if it does, then that doesn't come through from the article, although people are clearly interpreting it as such.)
I agree. Particularly because the religion language is right next to language saying that the bill doesn't infringe on first amendment rights.
The religion language is in the bill is clearly directed at an incident where
a student in a Michigan school spoke out in a class about being offended by homosexual conduct because it was against his religion and the teacher disciplined him for it. You can see how this would make religion-conscious legislators a bit more cautious.
-------------------------
Here are the relevant parts of the bill, 2011 MI S.B. 137, so decide for yourself. Sorry about the caps. For what it's worth, I'm completely convinced that if a student engaged in a course of conduct directed at another student that included frequent reminders that student A did not approve of student B's sexual orientation on account of student A's religion, and it was objectively clear that student A's conduct would upset student B, then student A would be found to be "bullying" student B as defined under the act.
(1) NOT LATER THAN 6 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, THE BOARD OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SHALL ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A POLICY PROHIBITING BULLYING BY PUPILS AT SCHOOL, AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION.
(10)(B) "BULLYING" MEANS ANY WRITTEN, VERBAL, OR PHYSICAL ACT, OR ANY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, BY A PUPIL DIRECTED AT 1 OR MORE OTHER PUPILS THAT IS INTENDED OR THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD KNOW IS LIKELY TO HARM 1 OR MORE PUPILS EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY DOING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(I) SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERING WITH EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, BENEFITS, OR PROGRAMS OF 1 OR MORE PUPILS.
(II) SUBSTANTIALLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ABILITY OF A PUPIL TO PARTICIPATE IN OR BENEFIT FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OR PUBLIC SCHOOL'S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES BY PLACING THE PUPIL IN REASONABLE FEAR OF PHYSICAL HARM.
(III) HAVING AN ACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON A PUPIL'S PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OR CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
(IV) CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION IN, OR SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH, THE ORDERLY OPERATION OF THE SCHOOL.
(9) THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO CONDUCT BY A PUPIL DIRECTED AT 1 OR MORE OTHER PUPILS AND, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDUCT BY ANY OTHER PERSON, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, A SCHOOL VOLUNTEER WHO IS NOT A PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN.
(8) THIS SECTION DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN.
As for the argument that this bill is "worse than nothing" I have to disagree because,
(7) THIS SECTION DOES NOT PREVENT A PERSON FROM SEEKING ANY OTHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL REDRESS AVAILABLE UNDER LAW.
