Pedantic Political Ponderings: West Virginia

Showing posts with label West Virginia. Show all posts

20 February 2012

20 February 2012: Marriage News Watch

08 November 2011

Praise: West Virgina Dept of Education Student Code of Conduct

The period for public comments ended earlier today (8 November 2011) on West Virginia's Student Code of Conduct, Title 126, Code 4373. This new anti-bullying law is a great step in the right direction. The West Virginia Education Association describes the benefits as

Impact: This new comprehensive policy will provide school employees, students and parents with one policy that includes all aspects of what is expected regarding student behavior and what is expected from school systems in order to create safe and supportive schools. This will be a positive change from the existing structure that fragments the issue among five different policies. This new policy will also require schools to coordinate their efforts across all content areas to assure the comprehensive teaching of student dispositions that are essential to success in school and in the community. Finally, this policy will require schools to create more in-school options to intervene with inappropriate behavior because the new policy limits the use of out-of-school suspension and discourages its use except in situations in which safety must be restored by removing a student from the school grounds.

The Huffington Post indicates that this is very good for the LGBTQ community.

A proposed anti-bullying policy for West Virginia schools acknowledges for the first time that sexual orientation and gender identity are common reasons for harassment.

Fairness West Virginia has been pushing for this legislation.

We support an enumerated policy, or a policy that places an emphasis on certain categories or classes – such as race, religion, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, or disability – because of their prevalence in bullying instances. Enumerated policies have been shown to protect all students more effectively across the board and significantly curb bullying instances.

The Code of Conduct has rules that should be obvious.

§126-99-3. Student Code of Conduct.

3.1. All students enrolled in West Virginia public schools shall behave in a manner that promotes a school environment that is nurturing, orderly, safe and conducive to learning and personal-social development.

3.1.1. Students will help create an atmosphere free from bullying, intimidation and harassment.

3.1.2. Students will demonstrate honesty and trustworthiness.

3.1.3. Students will treat others with respect, deal peacefully with anger, use good manners and be considerate of the feelings of others.

3.1.4. Students will demonstrate responsibility, use self-control and be self-disciplined.

3.1.5. Students will demonstrate fairness, play by the rules, and will not take advantage of others.

3.1.6. Students will demonstrate compassion and caring.

3.1.7. Students will demonstrate good citizenship by obeying laws and rules, respecting authority, and by cooperating with others.

The new section on bullying is praise-worthy.

A student will not bully/intimidate/harass another student. According to West Virginia Code §18-2C-2, “harassment, intimidation or bullying” means any intentional gesture, or any intentional electronic, written, verbal or physical act, communication, transmission or threat that:

A reasonable person under the circumstances should know will have the effect of harming a student, damaging a student’s property, placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person, and/or placing a student in reasonable fear of damage to his or her property;
Is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening or emotionally abusive educational environment for a student; or
Disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school.

An electronic act, communication, transmission or threat includes but is not limited to one which is administered via telephone, wireless phone, computer, pager or any electronic or wireless device whatsoever, and includes but is not limited to transmission of any image or voice, email or text message using any such device.

Acts of harassment, intimidation, or bullying that are reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived differentiating characteristic, or by association with a person who has or is perceived to have one or more of these characteristics, shall be reported using the following list: race; color; religion; ancestry; national origin; gender; socioeconomic status; academic status; gender identity or expression; physical appearance; sexual orientation; mental/physical/developmental/sensory disability; or other characteristic.

When harassment, intimidation or bullying are of a racial, sexual and/or religious/ethnic nature, the above definition applies to all cases regardless of whether they involve students, staff or the public. Detailed definitions related to inappropriate behavior of this nature are as follows:

Sexual harassment consists of sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical conduct or other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature when: submission to the conduct or communication is made a term or condition, either explicitly or implicitly, of obtaining or retaining employment, or of obtaining an education; or
submission to or rejection of that conduct or communication by an individual is used as a factor in decisions affecting that individual's employment or education; or that conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially or unreasonably interfering with an individual's employment or education; or
creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive employment or educational environment.

Amorous relationships between county board employees and students are prohibited.

Sexual harassment may include but is not limited to:

verbal harassment of a sexual nature or abuse;
pressure for sexual activity;
inappropriate or unwelcome patting, pinching or physical contact;
sexual behavior or words, including demands for sexual favors, accompanied by implied or overt threats and/or promises concerning an individual's employment or educational status;
behavior, verbal or written words or symbols directed at an individual because of gender; or
the use of authority to emphasize the sexuality of a student in a manner that prevents or impairs that student's full enjoyment of educational benefits, climate or opportunities.

Racial harassment consists of physical, verbal or written conduct relating to an individual's race when the conduct:

has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment;
has the purpose or effect of substantially or unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance; or
otherwise adversely affects an individual's employment or academic opportunities.

Religious/ethnic harassment consists of physical, verbal or written conduct which is related to an individual's religion or ethnic background when the conduct:

has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment;
has the purpose or effect of substantially or unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance; or
otherwise adversely affects an individual's employment or academic opportunities.

Sexual violence is a physical act of aggression or force or the threat thereof which involves the touching of another's intimate parts, or forcing a person to touch any person's intimate parts. Intimate parts include the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks or breast, as well as the clothing covering these areas. Sexual violence may include, but is not limited to:

touching, patting, grabbing or pinching another person's intimate parts, whether that person is of the same sex or the opposite sex;
coercing, forcing or attempting to coerce or force the touching of anyone's intimate parts;
coercing, forcing or attempting to coerce or force sexual intercourse or a sexual act on another; or
threatening or forcing exposure of intimate apparel or body parts by removal of clothing.

Racial violence is a physical act of aggression or assault upon another because of, or in a manner reasonably related to, race.

Religious/ethnic violence is a physical act of aggression or assault upon another because of, or in a manner reasonably related to, religion or ethnicity.

As a teacher, this explicit enumeration of expected behavior and what behaviors cannot be tolerated make it much simpler to work with students. Clear expectations are always a good thing.

Of course, there are always those who will object. The Family Policy Council of West Virginia, writing at Citizen Link, believes that this policy will discriminate against those who believe in the Bible.

If a student makes a comment about homosexuality on Facebook or teaches a Bible study on Romans 1, there’s reason to believe they’ll be in violation of the policy.

After reading the policy, I believe that students in Bible study are not at risk of violating the policy unless they choose to also preach Romans 1:26-27 to those who are not part of their Bible study. In terms of Facebook, the rules on Cyberbullying are not as clearly laid out. Under individual skills, students are to

Refrain from cyber-bullying

Of course, this is open to some interpretation. The decision by bigots to select Romans 1:26-27 out of the entire Bible as a focus is a problem. There is so much love in the Bible, to focus on one section that is hateful is a deliberate choice. West Virginia is moving in a wise and healthy direction.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

03 October 2011

Political Landscape: Voting Rights

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law has published a review of Voting Law Changes in 2012. These changes restrict voting rights for millions of citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. The entire sixty-four page document is worth reading. Here are a few highlights of types of changes and my opinions.

1. Photo ID laws. The idea of requiring a government issued photo ID in order to vote makes sense on a gut level. No one wants voter fraud and showing your id would decrease the likelihood of fraud. The Brennan Center has a study that indicates that there is little voter fraud in the United States. Is there another view? Of course, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners believes that the numbers are much higher in an article they published in 2006. There are many other studies out there (Google it).

My opinion: a picture ID is a reasonable requirement only if it is reasonably easy to obtain and free; to do otherwise is a new poll tax. In Alabama, US Representative Sewell is concerned about people's ability to get to a location where they can get the new ID. In Kansas, the ACLU is concerned about residents born out of state acquiring valid birth certificates in order to qualify for the new ID. Rhode Island is different among these states in that any official Rhode Island or federal photo ID is good. In South Carolina, the new ID requirement may cost hundreds of thousands the opportunity to work; twenty-five were given free rides to acquire their ID. There is concern in Tennessee about the elderly being able to vote. In Texas, the voter ID law is being challenged because it may be discriminatory to minorities. In Wisconsin, the DMV is charging $28 for the new voter ID unless people happen to know to request that it be free.

It does not look like these are all being implemented in a fashion that is free and fair. Again, I favor requiring a photo ID for voting ... as long as it can be easily obtained by those entitled to vote and that it not be a new poll tax.

2. Proof of Citizenship laws. As with photo ID, this makes sense on a gut level.

My opinion: the problems with these laws are the same as those for photo ID. In Alabama this slows down automobile licensing and eventually voting. Republicans feel this enhances the integrity of voting in Kansas. There are concerns in Tennessee about ambiguous requirements.

3. Making voter registration harder. Maine removed same day registration to vote. Ohio removed same week registration to vote. Florida and Texas are restricting voter registration drives. Florida and Wisconsin are changing requirements to vote after moving.

My opinions: Same day voting sounds problematic at the gut level. However, we have citizens who are legally entitled to vote whose jobs keep them on the road. We have ex-patriots who return to the United States for the purpose of voting (or vote using an absentee ballot) all legally. Requiring them to stay in town for extended periods could be a hardship ... and unfair burden. There have been experiments with provisional ballots that make more sense than restricting registration.

Restricting registration drives does not make sense. It simply doesn't. The principle of one person - one vote (originally one man - one vote) has long been enshrined as a hallmark of American democracy. Unlike requiring a photo ID, this limits new voters only. It is partisan and flatly unAmerican.

Similarly, restricting eligibility to vote based on moving does not make sense. If moving means that there is a need to double check and make sure that the voter is not voting twice, then use provisional ballots until there is verification. Don't stop people from legally voting.

4. Reducing early and absentee voting. I have mixed feelings here. Eliminating the option for either early or absentee voting would be wrong. Limiting it depends upon the details.

Florida's early voting has more hours for eight days with extended hours instead of fourteen days. Georgia is cutting back from forty-five days to twenty-one days but adding a Saturday. Ohio's new restrictions in early voting appear to be on hold. Tennessee and West Virginia have tightened their schedules as well. Early voting for all states is on-line at long distance voter.

5. The most controversial of the laws, Florida and Iowa have made it more difficult, if not impossible, for ex-cons to regain their voting rights. While ex-cons are always uncomfortable to discuss, these are citizens who have already paid their dues to society for their crimes and have been allowed to rejoin society. Never allowing them to become full citizens again seems wrong.

Conclusion: While photo IDs may be implemented as a reasonable requirement to vote, I question them way many states are doing so, particularly Wisconsin with its "free if you are in the know" IDs. The governors and legislatures enacting these laws claimed that their goals were to reduce taxes and increase jobs. Restricting voting does neither. Most of these restrictions appear to have the goal of disenfranchising new eligible voters. Limiting access for those who are legally entitled to vote is unAmerican.

More changes may be in the works. Governing the States and Localities has an interesting take on the future of voting regulations.

14 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
22 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
6 November, FollowUp 3.
14 November 2011, FollowUp 4.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
8 March 2012, FollowUp 6.
2 April 2012, FollowUp 7.
3 June 2012, FollowUp 8.

Various Direct Links