David Williams' Poison Pill for Bullying Bill

After refusing to allow an anti-bullying bill to move in the Senate for four sessions, Senate President David Williams finally capitulated. Or, did he? After "removing Jesus" from the House's version Williams designed a devilish counter punch.

As Mark Hebert tell us,

"[Williams] says kids who intimidate, harass or embarrass other kids should be sent to the court system where professionals can properly deal with them."

I wonder what Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Lambert thinks about that.

Is Williams really that far removed from the reality of today's schools? It's hard enough to get the courts to deal with a persistently violent 10-year old. They don't have anywhere to go with them.

The idea of criminalizing kindergartners who embarrass another student is so misguided that Hebert wonders aloud if Williams' bill is designed to kill itself.

This from Mark Hebert @WHAS.

Sen. Williams' Bully Bill Designed to Kill It???

Little Johnny and Little Susie could be in shackles for harassing their classmates under a new "Bully Bill" proposed by Sen. David Williams today.

Williams' version of the "Bully Bill" unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and later passed the full senate. The Senate has refused to even hear any version of a "Bully Bill" for the past four legislative sessions. But Senate President Williams has been catching plenty of heat from WHAS Radio talk show host "Francene" for refusing to push for a vote for Rep. Mike Cherry's version of the bill, which unanimously passed the House. So today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from Cherry and Williams co-opted his bill with a committee substitute. Here are the highlights:

When a teacher gets wind of a student threatening, harassing or embarrassing another student, the teacher MUST report it to the school principal.

The principal is REQUIRED to report every instance of alleged intimidation or threat to the police or county attorney within 48 hours. The cops or prosecutor are then REQUIRED to investigate the allegation.

Failure to report is a Class B misdemeanor, the same as failure to report suspected child abuse...

Also, Mike Cherry's version of House Bill 91 contained this language:

"...amend KRS 158.148 to require school districts to formulate a code of acceptable behavior and discipline that embraces the Golden Rule as the model for improving attitude and the rule for conduct for students..."

David Williams removed it. Why?

David Adams over at Kentucky Progress writes:

Senate Democrats are up in arms because the House's "bullying" bill got a committee
substitute from President David Williams that doesn't include the word "bullying" or the phrase "The Golden Rule." More symbolism over substance, as usual, from that chamber's minority party.

As a former school principal, I sure see it differently.

In a school system where all children enjoy the same rights (We all want that - right?) Cherry's focus on the Golden Rule is not just symbolism. It is everything. Everything teachers do flows from there. If a student acts in a hurtful way toward another student, schools have a moral obligation to look after those in need of protection. The school is also obliged to help the persecutors learn a better way - not to criminalize them.

No ancient law or prophesy could possibly be more Christian than the teachings of Jesus himself. Clearly "the Golden Rule" is central to Christianity. A public school disciplinary code that keeps the Golden Rule, keeps the faith.

But that's NOT why it should be the basis for student discipline in the public schools.

The Golden Rule should be the basis for all student discipline because it is also central to the other major religions - and I've never heard an atheist or agnostic object to it either.

Because of its wide-spread acceptance among the world's religions, it does not establish religion the way that posting the Ten Commandments would. ...or requiring daily reading from the Qur'an would. ...or requiring transcendental meditation would. ...or teaching transubstantiation would. Those acts would be specific to a particular religion, and would therefore be unconstitutional.

If David Williams has a superior moral basis for guiding Kentucky teachers in the disciplining of their students, let's hear what it is.