Rise of the Thought Police


Five-year-old Suzie heads off to kindergarten in rural Minnesota. She settles into her class routine full of activity, discovery, and friendship.

Then the day takes a turn. As part of newly mandated diversity training, Suzie’s teacher brings out Heather Has Two Mommies for some light mid-morning reading. A typically precocious kindergartener, Suzie pipes up during the story to correct the teacher’s telling. “God gave us a mommy and a daddy,” she exclaims.

Though no student takes exception to Suzie’s remark, the teacher cringes and becomes keenly aware of her state-mandated role to report any incident which could be construed as bullying. So Suzie gets pulled out of class and taken to the principal’s office, where she’s met by a counselor.

There begins a process of formative intervention and remedial discipline. More than correction for objectively inappropriate behavior, this intervention focuses on changing who Suzie is, on correcting her values to ensure that she accepts each of her classmates and values their diverse backgrounds.

Confused, disturbed, and teary-eyed, Suzie comes away from the experience convinced she has done something wrong. Worse, she feels the very sense of rejection which her accusers claim to deplore. She learns her lesson, that the values taught at home are not welcome in school. A bit of her innocence dies. She grows more guarded, less expressive, and unfairly subdued.

Such a tale may be among the tamest of experiences awaiting children in Minnesota, if a task force of social engineers commissioned by Governor Mark Dayton succeeds in lobbying for legislation which has already been approved by the state House. House File 826, misleadingly titled the Safe and Supportive Schools Act, serves as a trial balloon modeling what its supporters would like to implement nationally – a radical transformation of schools from institutions of academic achievement into political reeducation camps which correct Orwellian Wrong Think.

Sold colloquially as an “anti-bullying bill,” the proposed legislation actually institutionalizes bullying, targeting political minorities with suppressive badgering. The bill would repeal existing anti-bullying statutes which have proven effective. It would create an invasive, overbearing, and unfunded new state bureaucracy to impose politically correct values upon students, teachers, parents, staff, and anyone serving in or around the educational system. It would affect both public and private schools. In a state which already has one of the worst achievement gaps between white and black students in the nation, the bill would burden struggling districts with new mandates diverting precious resources away from academics. Teachers and staff will become thought police and value mediators, shifting their disciplinary focus from correcting inappropriate behavior to remediating students’ belief systems. As with any state bureaucracy, reams of new data will be generated and follow students throughout their academic career, if not the rest of their lives.


Understanding the proposed legislation requires more than simply reading the bill. We must consider the political and historical context, as well as the expressed agenda of its supporters. One of the bill’s authors sat on a task force commissioned by Governor Dayton to address alleged bullying. A report came out of that task force, and much of its language has been transplanted word-for-word into the subsequent bill.

When considering whether new legislation is required to prevent bullying in schools, one may be inclined to ask: what kind of bullying is currently acceptable? Assault remains a crime. Schools enforce rules against inappropriate conduct. So what else needs to be done?

Page 18 of the task force report lets us know:

Effective strategies will promote values, attitudes, and behaviors that acknowledge the cultural diversity of students; optimize relevance to students from multiple cultures in the school community; understand the nature of human sexuality; strengthen students’ skills necessary to engage in healthy interactions; and build on the varied cultural resources of families and communities.

The articulated purpose of the executive order instituting the Prevention of School Bullying Task Force was to “ensure that all students in Minnesota schools are provided with a safe and welcoming environment wherein each student is accepted and valued in order to maximize each student’s learning potential.” From this we learn all we need to know.

To accept is to choose. To value is to judge. These acts occur inside an individual’s heart and mind. As warm and fuzzy as unconditional acceptance may seem, such a goal ignores objective reality. The mind cannot be compelled to consent, only badgered into acquiescence. What Governor Dayton thus proposes is the police of thought, the subjugation of judgment, and an imposition of official state attitudes. By definition, the promotion of certain values and attitudes occurs at the expense of others.

What does a state-defined “nature of human sexuality” look like? Does it match what you teach at home? Does it match what is taught in your house of worship? Whose job is it to teach children the nature of human sexuality anyway? Certainly, teachers may have a role. But shouldn’t parents determine what that role is?


While the task force report and the bill informed by it pay lip service to protecting all children, a review of the actors involved in crafting these documents (p. 31), along with a close examination of the text, reveals that the effort focuses specifically upon “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression.”

This raises vital questions. Does a transgender student have a greater right of expression than his or her sexually unambiguous peer? What of religious orientation? What of Christian identity or expression? Are they to be protected with as much vigor under this new law, or targeted for remediation?

From page 20 of the report detailing “Formative Interventions and Discipline”:

The goals of responding to bullying behavior are to stop the aggressive behavior, support the students who have been harmed, and teach that bullying is harmful and not allowed, in order to help all involved young people learn—and change—from the experience. [Emphasis added.]

The best way to prevent bullying behaviors is through the implementation of a whole school climate program. Because bullying is a relationship problem that requires relationship solutions (Pepler & Craig, 2006), responses to bullying should promote healthy relationships.

Formative discipline is defined as activities that not only provide a clear message that bullying is unacceptable, but also develops respect and empathy for others, helps students make amends and associates power with kindness and pro-social activities (PREV Net, 2011).

When the school climate is founded on restorative principles rather than solely punitive policies, misbehavior is understood as a violation of relationships, not rules; thus repair of relationships and support (rather than isolation through suspension or expulsion) of the wrongdoer is likely to reduce bullying (Smith, 2008).

Is repairing relationships really what we need teachers and administrative staff focused on? What if your student does not desire a relationship with his classmate? What’s wrong with limiting interaction to academics? What’s wrong with letting student’s retain their own judgments regarding the value of particular relationships? Are we forcing everyone to be friends now?


Expanding bullying beyond an objective definition of physical harm or other violations of individual rights, the bill targets any action deemed detrimental to the “emotional health of one or more student(s).” What is emotional health? How is it measured? What evidence indicates its compromise? And will the emotional health of all students be equally valued in the implementation of this law?

The definition of harassment expands to include any act judged “unwelcome if the student or employee did not request or invite it and considered the conduct to be undesirable or offensive.” So simply offending someone is harassment now. What if the “harasser” becomes offended by the charge of harassment? Does the universe implode?

All of this proceeds from Governor Dayton’s ludicrous notion that people have a “right” to be “accepted” and “valued.” That idea ignores the objective definition of each word. We all have the same rights as our neighbors, to proceed unharmed and exercise our freedom of conscience without fear of tyrannical reprisal. Respecting those rights means tolerating the unique value judgments of each individual, including whether they choose to accept you, condemn you, or ignore you. To mandate unconditional acceptance is to oppress individual judgment, to police thought, and to remove consent from relationships. The serious proposal of such a course by those wielding political power ought to garner our rapt attention.

A real solution to bullying requires identification of the real problem. While Governor Dayton’s task force seeks to conflate bullying with offending someone’s delicate sensibilities, actual bullying involves the initiation of force to coerce, intimidate, steal, or otherwise harm. Real bullying cannot be genuinely addressed by a brazen new bureaucracy imposing state-mandated values through its own coercion and intimidation. Instead, we must act to protect individual rights by removing force from human relationships.

In a very direct way, the nature of public education fosters bullying. Consider that, at its core, public education is coercion. Taxpayers fund it under the force of law. Students attend it under the force of law. Teachers adhere to its mandates under the force of law. No one in the entire system has the ability to act upon their own judgment in pursuit of their own values. Forcing people of differing beliefs, priorities, and objectives into close proximity with a mandated agenda will inevitably foster conflict.


Imagine a different world. Imagine choice. Imagine the freedom to select where you send your student, to choose what they will learn, and to consent to their associations. Under such liberty, were a bully to arise at school, he could be quickly and effectively neutralized with the threat of expulsion. In the event the school did not adequately respond to the bully, you would be free to take your student (and your money) somewhere else. A school which routinely allowed the abuse of its students would garner an appropriately horrendous reputation, and endure less business as a result. All this would be done through market incentives, the natural human desire for profit, and the individual values of parents and their children. What’s the downside?

For those supporting Governor Dayton’s heavy-handed approach, the downside would be tolerating people with whom they disagree. The idea of free association, of choosing with whom you consent to enter into relationship, fundamentally offends them.

Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the variety of approaches taken by its different activists. In his famous “Dream” speech fifty years past, Martin Luther King outlined an inspiring vision of a world where individuals would be judged by the content of their character. Were modern pretenders to his legacy honest in their discourse, they would admit to deploring that vision. After all, to judge someone by the content of their character requires an application of chosen values toward an exclusionary and discriminating conclusion. I accept you and not him. I value her and not you. I judge this to be appropriate and not that. Such differentiation, such choice, defies the “progressive” goal of unconditional value.

Since equal value of all people, things, and ideas defies objective reality, the closest to it that social engineers can get is employing force to grant advantage to the “disadvantaged” and disadvantage to the “advantaged.” So the white male suburbanite who never asked anyone to take a back seat must yield his place in line to a black lesbian woman who has never been truly oppressed. Rather than equality under the law, the dominant trend in civil rights became affirmative action.


So it is with this fresh prescription for “bullying.” Governor Dayton and his task force harbor no desire for equal treatment. On the contrary, they seek to promote a certain set of values at the exclusion of others. But unlike free actors making individual choices in liberty, they want to impose their values upon everybody else under the force of law. It’s not enough for them to choose a progressive school where they can send their progressive student to learn progressive values. So long as a single school exists where such values are not taught, their gut-wrenching intolerance drives them to legislate. Rather than live and let live, they demand you live as they say.

Citizens concerned with liberty and the protection of individual rights must rise in nationwide opposition to this effort by Governor Dayton and his task force of bullies. Over the years, many encroachments upon freedom of conscience have gone without effective challenge. Obamacare became the law of the land, upheld by the Supreme Court, and bolstered by last year’s election results. A myriad of scandals, from the IRS targeting of groups on the Right to NSA spying on American citizens, has amounted to little more than a pesky annoyance for the administration. In Minnesota, the Democrats own state government and throttle production and choice without check. It can be easy under such circumstances to become cynical and complacent. However, inaction at this moment will invite the nationwide transformation of schools into politically correct remediation centers. As bad as things have become, they can and will get worse unless you act.

If you live in Minnesota, resistance begins with a signature. Sign the petition at the Minnesota Child Protection League demanding legislators vote no on this rights-violating bill. For everyone else, dig into the task force report and support choice through whatever channels are available to you.

Hopefully, among opposition to this bill will emerge a credible effort to implement school choice as a solution to both real bullying and Minnesota’s shameful achievement gap. While Governor Dayton and his task force wring hands over “emotional health,” class after non-graduating class enters adulthood without the skills or job opportunities to succeed. Whatever emotional health is, surely it improves when exposed to genuine hope. Empowering parents to send their students to the institution which best serves them will help turn their American dream into reality.



  1. Wayne Abernathy

    I fear your rhetoric is running away with you, and certainly has run away from any foundation of facts, a hole that you seem to be filling with your fancy.

    There was nothing even remotely comparable to “shock troops” in the Pilgrims or even in the Jamestown colonists. If anything, their military prowess was relatively limited. What they did have was superior organization and technology, as well as superior social organization that allowed them to work, innovate, and keep the rewards of their effort. The more that they left their socialist and non-capitalist ways behind them, the more that they succeeded, but that did not mean that the sponsoring corporations succeeded.

    Unfortunately for the European corporations that funded the English colonists, very few of them succeeded, because the people that they sent to America very soon demanded control over their own lives, more than they had known in the Old Country. Freedom and opportunity are what drew the European colonists and have been drawing colonists to America from all over the world since then.

    This business about “stealing” the continent, how do you think that the existing natives got their particular land? Peaceful negotiation with the other tribes? They in fact were constantly “stealing” the land from each other, depending on who was more powerful. At the very least, the Europeans in terms of claiming land from the natives were following the same standard of law that the natives accorded to each other.

    And your diatribe about the Mormons is way anti-historical. Was it the Mormons rebelling against the United States who, while being forced by mobs to flee Illinois, struggling across the plains to settle in the deserts of the West, provided a whole battalion of young volunteers to the U.S. Army to help fight the Mexican-American War? Is that the rebellion you are referring to? Or are you referring to the laughable expedition of U.S. troops sent 10 years later to “put down” the “Mormon Rebellion” in the Utah territory only to find, after marching 1,000 miles that there was no rebellion? Or maybe you refer to the fact that Mormons have contributed more than their share of soldiers to fight in the World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam, and in the military since. Again, I fear that you have relied upon fancy for your facts.

  2. kldawson

    Like this is anything new. When I was a boy we had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord’s Prayer every morning as society tried to shape us into their mold. The only thing new is a change in emphasis that I think is wonderful compared to what my generation was taught in those segregated, sexist days.

    • Wayne Abernathy

      I am familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance and with the Lord’s Prayer. While I am no fan of recited prayers (where’s the interaction with God in that?), neither do I find anything segregationist or sexist in the the Pledge or in the Lord’s Prayer. And I don’t know how you maintain a nation without teaching the young the basic fundamental principles on which that nation is founded.

      • kldawson

        This nation was funded for profit. The Puritans and all the other earliest settlers were funded by business groups wanting to exploit the riches there. The forests (timber, especially big timber, was already becoming rare in Europe), the land and gold. They expected to find this in the same way as the Spanish had in Latin America. In fact, many of the earliest groups spent a great deal of time looking for mineral deposits. Religious freedom or freedom of any kind were of little importance. This is the American myth. Money was to be had and that’s what brought the Europeans to America.

      • Wayne Abernathy

        No nation can survive that is not run for a profit. The American experiment was often on the brink of failure for lack of profit. Profit and loss are indicators of whether the use of resources is exceeding the drain on resources. But that does not speak to the motivation of the people actually involved. The evidence is deep and incontrovertible that the Pilgrims came to America motivated by the search for religious freedom. The same is true for many other settlements in America and for many individual Americans. The thousands of Mormon converts who came to America in the 1800s, for example, came for religious reasons. Those are facts demonstrated by what they said, wrote, and did.

      • kldawson

        I don’t question the motives of the Pilgrims themselves, not for this discussion anyway. I always questions the motives of Christians. But they were funded and used as ‘shock troops’ by English business groups (corporations) to open up the Americas for exploitation by capitalists. As this included stealing the continent from those who were already here, I think it is fair to say that the founding of Anglo, Franco and Spanish America was a criminal enterprise. I don’t agree that the only way a nation can survive is by profit. I think this is the group think so many fall into because they are afraid of the discomforting truth. Do not hold the Mormons up as an example to me. They are a religious cartel that once tried to rebel against the nation.

  3. bjm21866

    This is an insightful article and its implications are frightening. We must remember that many atrocities have been waged as a byproduct of peoples’ attempts to create rules for the greater good of society. If it is politically correct not to disparage the color yellow, I will be afraid to say I don’t like the taste of bananas for fear that I will be labeled as prejudicial toward anything yellow in color. One has nothing to do with the other except by association, and the simplification which arises from contemporary politically correct thinking creates dangerously superficial associations. I find it interesting that the word “discrimination” has lost any positive definition and know just refers to :
    2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
    What happened to the positive, constructive meaning of this word as it follows?:
    1.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
    As human beings, by nature, we choose between different things. If we become afraid to make judgements which are based on fine distinctions because they may be construed as prejudicial, our relationships with others will be hollow. In the end, the perceived cure can be worse than the disease.
    Thank you for your article.

  4. Wayne Abernathy

    This is frightening. Our nation was founded by people fleeing government-sanctioned bullying, looking for safety from bullying in the frontier. Using the schools as the venue for this government-goaded bullying is de-educational.

  5. vonleonhardt2

    Brilliant article. My 2 scents as an ex-bully is that this type of enviroment will just make them flurish… (and the ones setting it up are the bullies!) when everyone is afraid to talk or thinks only positive things they don’t expect violence nor know what to do about it. These kind of enviroments make the victims turn inward and thus they never report.

  6. Susannah Ailene Martin

    It’s sad that in an age that is so bully-conscious that the worst bullying comes from the very place that pretends to be trying to abolish it. Admittedly, they probably do not realize what they are really doing (well, not all of them). I have never been happier to be homeschooled, free to express my opinions without fear of punishment.

  7. Shawn

    everyone needs to take a hard look at the UN policies and Agenda 21 to get a real big picture of what right an wrong behavior looks like to the Global community that will become law.

  8. Sunrie

    Remember, the liberals aren’t about equal treatment, they are for forced behavioral control. This isn’t about making people understand, it’s about forcing people to say and act how they wish.

    It’s sad when a satirical show such as South Park hits the nail on the head: “Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn’t mean you have to approve of it! Tolerate means you’re just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off!”

  9. harrypeat

    Doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, green or asian. You can be bullied for anything from being fat to having a haircut like that kid in “the shining”. The law will stop nothing.

  10. Maurício Szabo

    Maybe I’m missing a point here:

    > Imagine a different world. Imagine choice. Imagine the freedom to select where you send your student, to choose what they will learn, and to consent to their associations. Under such liberty, were a bully to arise at school, he could be quickly and effectively neutralized with the threat of expulsion.

    Okay… so, you’re saying that we should have a lot of schools, every one teaching something different (based on who-knows-what ideas are on their principal’s head), and “a bully” becomes somehow someone that disagrees with their idea? Segregationism “for a greater good”?

    What about some school that has better teachers, but you cannot send your children there because it will not teach what your children needs to learn, because of these “choiches of what he/she will learn”?

    I think you forget that although Christians are majority in your country, there are people who believe a lot of crazy things: that “UFOs created the earth”, or “Repitilians”, heck, even niilists have their own ideias that differ from Science. You wouldn’t have “more choice”, you’ll have even less-because, right now, you need to find a school that TEACHES what you think it’s right, AND find a good school on that matter too…

  11. Mediaspyder

    The fact of the matter is that it is not the government’s role – state or federal – to define the values of individuals or children. Those values are up to the individual. Sadly, our government is infringing more and more upon our lives, attempting to define the “proper” values of society.

    I’m no Christian, but if a child expresses the values their parents have instilled (such as the “immorality” of homosexuality), it is not the school’s place to correct that. Those values are up to the parents to teach.

  12. LexyWolfe

    Sorry to break it to you, but like it or not, schools have always been institutions that grooms thoughts and behaviors, from kindergarden to the PhD program. So do families, churches, military, work places, social gathering places… anywhere people gather and interact on some level conditions people on how to think and see. Some are more overt about it than others, both in the indoctrination they want to instill and the wrath they unleash when you do not conform.

    Just like you’re trying to do with your blog. Like we all try to do to each other, one way or another.

    I doubt little Suzie would be as scarred for life as you make her out to be, unless she were arrested and dragged off by the police, like they do for little boys being dragged out for sexual assault when they hug a classmate. There are a lot of “mandates” but people often exercise some sort of common sense to handle it without trying to make it criminal.

  13. babbleonbrooke

    Reblogged this on babbleonbrooke's Blog and commented:
    I have no problem with two mommies, two daddies one of each.. But when government steps in to try to regulate how children are molded into drones who blindly accept every circumstance in the name of anti-bullying, things just get ridiculous. There is a place for individual thought and opinion. Less and less importance is placed on values taught in the home by good parents. We have it all wrong. We need to teach young adults how to be good people and good parents so they don’t raise bullies!!!

  14. mrjfox

    I am not trying to sound mean, I am just trying to understand:

    You’re saying the state should not be allowed to tyrannize thought, that the individual should be free to think as he or she sees fit. But the parents of students should be allowed to dictate reality to the teachers and hence the students in the exact same way? Are you insinuating as well that it is okay for a religious institution to construct the thoughts of individuals? Most importantly of all, are you saying big government can’t ostracize people, but a non-institutional majority can?

    How is it acceptable for any group to choose to ignore other opinions to the extent of limiting its members’ own capability to think freely? I would argue your ideal of free association is congruent to hiding. Your entire post revolves around a girl who is “correcting” her teacher’s value-judgment. Of course the teacher is at fault for punishing disagreement, that is a failure of inclusiveness and democracy–and this is my point. How can exclusivity breed freedom when it is the greatest stimulant of ignorance? Does Conservatism argue for segregated pluralism, some federation of clans that meets only to fight over national policy? Should this be a country where Christians learn Christianity in a Christian school, and Anarchists learn Anarchism in an Anarchist school, and Liberals learn liberalism in a liberal school, etc.? I sense from your post you believe there is a right and wrong and that those who “know” they’re right should be in charge–but that is what we have right now, and what we have always had. So why are you upset? I legitimately want to know.

    • Kinetic America

      I’m not sure I follow your point. Certainly, as long as there has been public education, there has been institutionalized coercion of values. Indeed, this move by Governor Dayton in Minnesota would “pick up the pace” to say the absolute least (from half thrusters to warp speed). So… what? I’m not supposed to write about it? I’m not supposed to rally opposition? I’m supposed to give you some kind of medal for historical context?

      Where have I been? Where are you on this, now? What are you doing? Get to work and save the snark for those encroaching upon our precious waning liberties.

    • realexodos

      As I see it people can go [or not go] to the Church of their choice, but basicly schooling is manditory, if you don’t like the group think, you can leave the group.

  15. Christina

    Been there and done that. My seven year old son was accused by a third party adult who witnessed nothing but heard at a weekend party about a typical incident on the playground a week earlier that was corrected by the Principal himself at the time of the incident. Because she was on the BOE she was required by law to report it even though the mother did not want to and the Principal himself did not feel the need. A couple of interviews later and twenty six pages later, the “investigation” was closed and the accusations unfounded. Thought police indeed. Makes me question whether or not I really want to enter the teaching profession.

    • realexodos

      Teaching = Minefield In Wales UK there is already some strange idea that every time the name of the false prophet Mohamed is mentioned, the person using it (teacher or pupil) is supposed to parrot some phrase about him being great.

  16. michaelmarn

    Hey, I really liked your post! I’m new to blogging and I just set up one called politicalnoob.com and I don’t know if it is good or not. It’s directed towards people who want to know about politics but can’t understand what the news is trying to say. I tried to simplify some of the issues so that people can start to understand what is going on! I only have like two posts though and if you want to read them and give me some feedback with a comment, that would be really cool! It’s politicalnoob.com if anyone is interested. Again, really great post and I really like your writing!

  17. priscaathome

    Your definition of relationships is very narrow – like it or not, every individual within a community has rekationships with the other members. The best learning is based on the best relationships – that doesn’t mean one had to like it even agree with each other but their must be mutual respect. Perhaps this bill is a case of the pendulum swinging the other way after centuries of oppression for many minorities…. Just think, not too long ago it was seen as acceptable to both beat yr wife, and keep her at home. Not a value anyone wod currently support…

  18. immaterialideal

    While the action against Suzie was heavy-handed, I think it’s actually a good thing that children are taught that same-sex couples do exist. You know, reality. At least her comment should have been the impetus for discussion.
    I see hypothetical arguments, but can you back them up with evidence? Like the profit motive in action in education? And cases where white guys are discriminated, especially ones comparable to, say, discrimination against Muslims and the mentally ill?

  19. greatbooksdude

    This is why we need as a society to emphasize more NON-INSTITUTIONAL learning. Everything is about where you went to school, nothing is about what you LEARNED in the process, and we’ve created a generation (mine) of dimwits and morons who buy into this kind of stuff. It legitimately makes me sick to my stomach.

  20. rubble2bubble

    The story thread of Suzie is profoundly moving. I’ll leave it at that. My thoughts are in motion… Thank you for that.

  21. gliderpilotlee

    It might be another 50 years — This is a number thrown out to imagine I’ve done research As 50% of American Public lean toward Science with proof of the simple stuff- “how it works” . Eventually a 4 year old will grasp Couples , Trust , Mom and Dad. Educated what a bacteria is , what a virus is. Unexplained magic and god shit will eventually be replaced. I once thought of a concept “Religion is the absolute best example of evolution yet” other words – tell ten generations of trusting children that god did it and not to question.. nuf said?

  22. Melissa BarlowBowman (@mcbarlow36)

    Although you may think that bullying is only behavior which results in physical harm, that is not the case. Emotional taunting and bullying can be even more damaging than physical assault, as evidenced by the number of emotionally bullied kids who commit suicide each year.

    I agree with you that no group defined by gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation should be given special rights. However, I do believe that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law.

    • Christina

      Including kids who say stupid things because they’re still learning and apologize. The fact that an investigation resulting in wasted time and resources is a shame. And the only thing this does is teach the real bullies how to manipulate and deceive.

  23. AJ

    While this bill seems far from perfect, it doesn’t sound like the evil you make it out to be. In fact, I liked the idea that it mandated that parents and students work with the school to come up with anti-bullying policies. I often think new education legislation pulls decision making out of the school. Sounds like this bill put it right back in the hands of the people who should be making the decisions, the parents who will need to support the policy for it to work, the students who will have to follow the policy, and the teachers who will have to implement it.

    I noticed the version of the bill you write about was pulled. A new version might appear in February. I’m not quite sure why you chose to wait until September to write this rant. Maybe you should call your representative and work and improving the bill for it’s new arrival next year.

  24. smartstunningsearching

    What I find interesting about those who try to police the thoughts of others is the hypocrisy which you brought up. “Everyone’s views should be respected…but only if we think they should be respected!” Um, what? :/

  25. awjlogan

    Top-down imposition of values won’t work as you say, and this is more meaningless bureaucracy. A big system needs its bureaucracy to function, but this kind of thing is where the bureaucracy becomes the system, rather than its servant. The best way for kids to “value others” is to be around others and grow up with them, not told what’s valuable and what’s not. Children are very accepting naturally; 5 year olds don’t have prejudice and will play with whoever’s around. No one at school was anyone’s friend because the teachers said they had to be friends, quite the opposite! Children should be mixed at school, I disagree with you there, as segregation is more a projection of the parents’ preferences and values, which is in itself a form of “thought control”, well meant I’m sure!

    I don’t, however, share your optimism about profit making schools being a solution to the problem. In an ideal world, yes, it would be cost plus a bit to provide investment and salaries, but you can look to too many examples where the worst parts of the public (huge funding, lax control) and private (huge greed, race to the bottom) worlds meet to see that the situation would be less than ideal, and education is far too important for that to be the case.

    • undergroundmasjid

      Anytime you want the help of the East we can liberate you. Clearly you can’t help yourself so why did you screw around in our hood? Sounds like payback! Hope you guys fall hard, just don’t take us with you like you did with the collapse of your currency…Oh, hasn’t happened just yet 😛 You don’t have a finically situation its a Currency hell. Never liked your tyrannical Hitler system anyways. Too bad you didn’t abort your kids, you must be cruel people to force them into that system! What a nightmare Christianity has become! Thought I heard someone say “crucify them”….

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s