Heckling Scott Raecker
February 8th, 2007 at 01:17pm Geraldine
Iowa Progress has previously profiled a cutthroat Grinnellian, now we turn our attention to a Grinnell alum who has come up with a really dumb idea. Scott Raecker ‘84 is a Republican member of the State Legislature who introduced an amendment in the Iowa House to the anti-bullying bill which recently passed the State Senate. The bill is designed to prevent the real problem of bullying in Iowa’s public schools. How does Raecker’s amendment address the problem of bullying and harassment? It’s designed to protect the most vulnerable people in the state, members of Iowa General Assembly.
While it’s nice to protect such frail and fragile members of society, the amendment, if passed, would create all sorts of issues. If while Scott Raecker was speaking at a campaign event, you shouted “Hey Raecker, the only thing dumber than you is that amendment to the bullying bill you introduced,” and Raeker then stopped speaking, you would be guilty of bullying and harassing. You would have engaged in conduct based on a “mental ability or disability” that would have substantially interfered with Raeker’s “campaign performance.” This only skims the surface of the massive First Amendment issues this amendment would have created. However, there was another issue with the amendment that ultimately prevent its passage. It has nothing to do with bullying in schools.
So why did Scott Raeker introduce this amendment, (which was instantly ruled non-germane)? Because it was designed as a wrecking amendment. If it’s added to the bill, it makes a hash of it. And if it isn’t added, all the Democrats are on record supporting “bullying and harrassing of and by public officials.” The Republicans immediately tried overturn the Speaker’s ruling that the amendment was non germane. Predictably, it failed on a party-line vote.
Although the bill ended up passing the House by a vote of 62-37, it did so after hours of debate and more pointless wrecking amendments introduced by House Republicans. But none were quite as pointless and badly thought out as Scott Raecker’s. Many legislators introduce bills or amendments that are stupid, many others introduce bills or amendments that are unconstitutional. But few can say they’ve ever done as good a job of interweaving those two threads as Scott Raecker did yesterday.
Related Posts
- Lazy Iowa House Republicans
- Iowa State Senate’s Most Vulnerable Seats
- Who Has The Power In The Iowa Caucuses?
- Caucus Correction
- For what shall it profit Chet, if he shall gain Yepsen, and lose his party?
Entry Filed under: State Politics, Republican Party
Related Searches: iowa general assembly, bullying and harassment, party line vote, campaign performance, campaign event
8 Comments Add your own
1. Doug Cutchins | February 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Ok, so Raecker was off-base on this one. But generally he’s a good R, and I’m proud to have him as a Grinnell alum in the House (what are the odds that the ONE Grinnell alum in the Iowa House and the ONE alum in the US House are both Republicans?) Heck, I even heard Grinnell Democratic stalwart Bea Wall once tell Scott, “It’s ok, you’re one of the goooood Republicans.” He’s a guy who the college gave the Wall Alumni Service Award to in order to help him in his work to build an orphanage in China. He has been one of the best advocates on either side of the aisle for internationalizing high schools in Iowa by allowing school districts to count international students for funding purposes.
2. CH | February 8th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
What an insensitive bully to put an amendment on such a bill. He obviously has no sympathy for the school kids who get bullied. Just because he’s not a xenophobe doesn’t mean he’s not a homophobe.
3. JW | February 9th, 2007 at 8:50 am
So, serious question that the Republicans brought up and no one ever answered: why did the classes of people included in the bill have to be enumerated? It seems to me that if we want to stamp out bullying we wouldn’t single out certain groups but would just say bullying of any kind is unlawful. I’m not a homophobe — I have lots of friends who are gay — and I know that they probably take a brunt of bullying. But no one should be bullied. By enumerating the members of the protected class it simply makes it appear that this was targeted toward specific groups. Love to see a response. I respect your blog.
4. iab | February 9th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Sorry to burst your bubble, I work in that building and personally know a number of people, not usually legislators, that are and have been subjected to environments that are hostile. It’s not fun and in one persons case I’m pretty sure they won’t last the session and will probably not choose to be involved in political organizations in Iowa ever again. It’s not worth it.
5. Geraldine | February 9th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
JW, the way I understand is that the bill requires school districts to develop policies to deal with the most common types of bullying, one of these common types of bullying that based on sexual orientation. Bullying of all kinds is unlawful and the bill makes it clear that school districts can establish policies on any type of bullying that hasn’t been specifically ennumerated. All the bill does is establish basic standards for school districts to follow relating to the most common and pernicious types of bullying.
6. JW | February 10th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Thanks Geraldine,
But I understand that the GOP wasn’t against the bullying legislation if it had been a blank slate. Why did the Democrats insist on specific inclusion of gay students?
7. Geraldine | February 10th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
JW, I don’t know if you have actually read the bill but I would suggest you do so. It is SF 61. It clearly states “it is the policy of the state of Iowa that school employees, volunteers, and students in Iowa schools shall not engage in harassing or bullying behavior.” It is a “blank slate” as you put it. The bill defines bullying as “any conduct toward a student which is based on any actual or perceived trait or characteristic of the student and which creates an objectively hostile school environment that meets one or more of the following conditions…” It later state that those traits and characteristics “includes but is not limited to age, color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or disability, ancestry, political party preference, political belief, socioeconomic status, or familial status.” It is a pretty all-encompassing list of common reasons why students bullied but is not exclusive. School districts can add whatever other traits and characteristics they want. Frankly, the problem was that there are many Republicans who are against absolutely any statutory mention of sexual orientation. That, to them, helps legitimize that people can be openly gay or lesbian. That was why the Republicans opposed it. And why did the Democrats want to protect gay and lesbian students? For the same reason that they want to protect kids who overweight or wear glasses (both of whom are specifically protected in the bill) or any child who’s being bullied. The real question is that if you’re trying to specifically spell out every issue to force school districts to actually address the problem, why shouldn’t sexual orientation be included among the 18 catagories?
8. JW | February 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
It should be. Thanks for your reply.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed