Proposed West Bend School District Harassment Policy
At tomorrow’s meeting of the West Bend School Board, they will he hearing the third reading and possibly passing a new harassment policy. This proposed policy goes way overboard. Here is the proposed policy:
Sorry for the images, but that’s all I have. A policy like this is a good idea. What constitutes harassment and what should be done about it should be defined to protect both the students and the faculty. But this policy is way too broad and fraught with problems. Let’s look at a couple of them. Here is the definition of “harassment:”
Harassment means verbal or physical conduct related to an individual’s membership in a protected class (including, but not limited to: sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability) that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or learning environment or interferes with the individual’s work or learning performance.
The problem with the wording of this definition is that it completely sets the threshold for harassment into the mind of the alleged victim. If a member of a protected class decides that he or she has been “offended” or “intimidated” then he or she - by definition - has been offended or intimidated. If a pregnant teen feels like everyone is staring at her and that it has the “effect of creating an intimidating… learning environment” then there’s no arguing with it. If a gay kid feels that a Christian kid saying that he thinks homosexuality is a sin is a hostile act, then it becomes fact under this definition.
This definition allows no objective standards and moves harassment from the realm of action to the realm of the mind. No longer must someone actually commit an act like offensive graffiti in the locker, threats, or anything else in order to be charged with harassment. Under this policy, anything that might make a member of a protected class feel harassed can bring charges of harassment and disciplinary action.
This problems with this definition is further aggravated by the definition of cyberbullying:
Cyberbullying encompasses any of the prohibited actions, such as bullying, discrimination, harassment, intimidation, threats, that are accomplished through electronic means.
Again, according to the proposed definition of harassment, it is in the mind of the alleged victim. If a student writes, “I think that unmarried teenage girls who have babies should be ashamed of themselves for setting up their kids for failure,” could it be defined as harassment is a fellow unmarried pregnant student read it ant took offense (as she likely would)? Yes, it could. And the kid who wrote it would then be subject to discipline at school.
The policy fails to put any regulators on its bad definition in the enforcement part of the policy. It says, in part:
Individuals who upon investigation are determined to have engaged in harassment under the provision of this policy may be subject to disciplinary action. In the case of employees, that action may include, but is not limited to suspension, discharge or nonrenewal. In the case of students, discipline may include, but is not limited to reprimand, suspension or expulsion.
Notice that there isn’t anything like a “reasonable person” test. The only determination is whether or not the act occurred. It has already been determined that it was harassment because the alleged victim is the sole determinant of whether or not he was harassed. Once it has been determined that the act of harassment occurred, it’s right on to the punishment. The only thing that gives the administration any leeway is the use of the word “may.” Given the prevalence of the “rules are rules” mentality of most school administrators, does anyone care to place odds that this policy will result in ridiculous overreactions to the smallest offenses?
The West Bend School Board should send this policy back to be severely tightened up. I encourage any of you who happen to live in the district to attend tomorrow’s meeting and voice your opinion of the policy. We want to protect the kids and faculty from harassment and cyberbullying, but this policy goes far beyond that. It sets up a mechanism for anyone to terrorize anyone else with accusations of harassment.
The School Board meeting is tomorrow at 1900 at the Education Service Center. Here’s the agenda.
UPDATE: The Board did the right thing. Read it here.
It’s also interesting that right before the definitions of harassment that are offered, the district also seems to assert supervisory authority over the “off campus activities” of students, which, given the previous few lines of text, seems not to refer to school-sponsored activities, but rather any behavior by a student whether related to school or not if the district feels that activity has the potential to be disruptive at school. (If it is referring to school-sponsored activities, the language is poorly chosen.)
Like you, I’m fine with districts developing these policies. And if they want to govern the behavior of their employees 24/7, whatever, that’s their prerogative. But students aren’t on the payroll. What business is it of the school to try and govern what kids do when not at school or at school functions that are off campus?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 08, 2008 at 1803 hrs
Again, according to the proposed definition of harassment, it is in the mind of the alleged victim.
How would this compare to a vetting of a concealed carry shooting?
Who makes the decision?
The “alleged victim”?
You think someone is about to use deadly force?
Notice that there isn’t anything like a “reasonable person” test.
So what is reasonable?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2008 at 2146 hrs
pjr,
Your concealed carry example doesn’t fit. Even in cases of self defense, a prosecutor can try you before a jury of your peers if he or she thinks that you were unjustified in using deadly force. The person is permitted all of the due process that the law allows.
For the “reasonable” standard… there is a “reasonable person test” in common law that has served us well for quite a while. Yes, it’s a moving target but at least it is not subject to the arbitrary whims of a single person’s opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
Posted by Owen on June 08, 2008 at 2155 hrs
I, for one, will be speaking at that meeting. First Amendment rights are being shut down and there is an overdefinition of “protected classes” among other things. Necessary, yes. Poorly written, ABSOLUTELY.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2008 at 2351 hrs
The problem with the wording of this definition is that it completely sets the threshold for harassment into the mind of the alleged victim.
This has long been the standard for harassment—it is well defined in case law and in similar policies everywhere in the country. I’m sure, Owen, that if you looked up your employer’s harassment policy there would be very similar wording. These things get crafted by attorneys who study the precedents and know what Cs their A and what will get them sued.
For comparison, the MPS policy (available here as a .doc) includes this: “Sexual harassment is generally defined as [. . .] conduct [that] has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” Almost word-for-word the proposal you quote.
Also, the “action may include” language allows for, as you suggest, a “reasonable person” standard. Your example of a student writing about pregnant teens would not attract attention if he were writing it in, say, a persuasive essay for class; however, if that same student sent that—or, more likely, more crudely rendered versions of that—to his pregnant classmate via email, targeting her personally, then he’s crossed a line.
Posted by folkbum on June 09, 2008 at 0637 hrs
I would, actually, have to respectfully disagree with folkbum on the above statements. Though the policy-quoted state statute 118.13 is used to assist in defining the protected classes and their harassment thereof in crafty lawyer lingo, it in no way pertains to student-to-student harrassment. This statute refers to those who “run” the school as opposed to discrimination and/or harassment by fellow students.
Furthermore, the statement that speaks of “creating an intimidating environment”, etc., is purely subjective. It boils right down to a shutdown of a student’s right to freedom of speech; a clear First Amendment violation. This harassment policy goes much further than “required”, since there are no state or federal laws that presently force the administration to make such a policy, and it also steps on, over and above our First Amendment.
If adopted, it has the effect of materially and substantially interfering with ordinary operations of the school and/or the rights of the “protected” class members mentioned to participate in educational activities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2008 at 0744 hrs
An afterthought -
If West Bend is “looking up to” MPS to create policies, we are in serious trouble. JMHO
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2008 at 0809 hrs
I have to agree with West Bend Taxpayer. This harassment policy is NOT written according to what is mandated by the state. They have really stepped over the line.
Why does the West Bend School District want to rule over people’s free speech, take away parent’s rights and then turn around and ask for more money through a fall 2008 referendum? I sure hope the School Board is listening!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2008 at 1308 hrs
Job well done tonight, Owen, and all who spoke about this very important issue at the school board meeting! I believe the school board took notice of our concerns and we will continue to monitor to see what comes of our suggestions.
For anyone who was unable to attend, or just plain curious, the school board made a decision to table the vote for the harassment policy revision and send it back to be worked on again.
Thank you, again, to all who stood together to be heard!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2008 at 2045 hrs
Thanks. It was a good night all around for West Bend.
Posted by Owen on June 09, 2008 at 2111 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 110
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 06:22 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).