Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

Let’s stop pretending

Posted on July 17, 2008 by Staff

Chris Fitzsimon is right to characterize my opposition to the bullying bill as “having nothing to do with bullying.”

(“Standing up for all kids,” July 10, 2008) The flip side of this charge is that support for the bullying bill has nothing to do with bullying either. And therein lies the problem: The primary aim of the bullying bill is not to prevent bullying, but to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes recognized by North Carolina.

Federal law recognizes seven “protected classes.” Sexual orientation is not one of these classes, although some states and localities treat it as a protected class that, by definition, receives “special protection” against discrimination. Setting aside the question of whether sexual orientation should actually be a protected class, the irony of the bullying bill is that it has hindered genuine dialogue about sexual orientation — precisely because it has obscured the issue behind a mask of pious solicitude for “all God’s children.” Protecting all God’s children would have been better served by the Senate version of the bill, which avoided specifying that certain types of children merit extra special protection from bullying.

Every person on earth is “a child of God,” deserving of equal protection under the law. No one is questioning this fact, and it is unfortunate that the bullying bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Rick Glazier, chose to frame the debate as being about either God or children. If we were to be honest about the true intent of the bullying bill, though, it would become obvious that the school system is a terrible venue for working this question out.

The bullying bill, for instance, does not define sexual orientation or gender identity. At what point is a teacher or administrator supposed to determine that a child is a homosexual? After he engages in a homosexual act? How are teachers to know that? Moreover, don’t such acts, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual, contradict the state’s commitment to abstinence-only sex ed? So, then, is a student to be classified as a homosexual merely because he might have certain tendencies that are not being acted upon? And what about kids who are below the age of consent, not to mention young children who have no discernable sexual “orientation” at all? Once we begin to ask these difficult questions, it becomes apparent that we should leave kids out of this matter altogether. I am more than willing to have a debate about whether sexual orientation should be a protected class. But let’s stop pretending this legislation has anything to do with “protecting children.”

Dr. Jameson Taylor
The Civitas Institute
Raleigh

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme