Comments on: Heckling Scott Raecker http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/ Politics in Iowa from a progressive viewpoint. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:18:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Doug Cutchins http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7522 Doug Cutchins Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:22:58 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7522 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. 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.

]]> By: CH http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7525 CH Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:06:25 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7525 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. 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.

]]> By: JW http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7532 JW Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:50:36 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7532 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. 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.

]]> By: iab http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7536 iab Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:44:57 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7536 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. 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.

]]> By: Geraldine http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7537 Geraldine Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:32:16 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7537 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. 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.

]]> By: JW http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7552 JW Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:59:27 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7552 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? 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?

]]> By: Geraldine http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7553 Geraldine Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:29:06 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7553 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? 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?

]]> By: JW http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7576 JW Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:20:58 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/08/heckling-scott-raecker/#comment-7576 It should be. Thanks for your reply. It should be. Thanks for your reply.

]]>