Anti-Bullying Bill in Texas

1. Title of the Suggested Bill

Texas State’s ‘anti-bullying’ house bill possesses the following key features. Its title appropriately alludes to the protection of children’s rights (CAIR Texas, 2017). If enacted, the law would:

a. Offer tools to educational institutions: This bill would authorize educational institutions to examine cases of bullying outside of school, develop a tip line that maintains anonymity, and enable greater educational institution latitude in penalizing pupils who engage in major cyber bullying (e.g., urging a child to kill him/herself).

b. Reduce the number of victims: Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates reveal suicide to be the second main cause of adolescent deaths.

c. Offer tools to law enforcers: Law enforcers can, by means of summonses, increasingly expose anonymous users on social media websites who post or convey intimidating messages. The law will render e-bullying and e-harassment of a minor child (via channels such as SMS messaging, social networks, apps and internet sites) a criminal offense.

d. Offer tools to pupils and their parents: Parents will receive notifications from their child’s school if anybody bullies their child on the digital platform. Both the bully and the victim will be provided rehab and counselling.

2. Summary of the Bill

Texas State’s House ratified a state Senate bill which would curb cyberbullying among school-age kids. This Bill concentrates on several fixes, such as offering more leeway to schools to wipe out cyberbullying. This would include providing additional chances to school districts to collaborate with law enforcers on the local level, besides providing an anonymous threat-reporting system to educational institutions and their enrollees. Moreover, the law intends to provide bullies as well as the bullied with further rehab and counselling facilities. School administrative faculty would be given a day’s time to inform parents of their kids’ victimization by bullies, besides informing the parents of bullies if an inquiry into potential bullying activity on their part gleans positive outcomes. Furthermore, this law creates a felonious offense, commencing with ‘class B’ transgression and escalating to one under ‘class A’ for students with a history of e-bullying or of bullying a minor and goading him/her to commit self-harm or suicide (Chang, 2017). 

At present, this bill (HB 304) has reached the stage where the state legislature has approved of it, with the formal legal description of it being worded as: ‘relating to civil liability for bullying of a child’. It will be formally enacted beginning 1st September, 2017 (Minjarez, 2017; Texas House Bill 304, 2017). Of the several features of this law, a key aspect is its rendering of e-bullying/harassment of a minor via SMS messaging and social networks a crime. The law would necessitate incorporation of e-bullying in school district policy and alerting parents whose kids prove to be bullies, or the bullied. Another provision is civil liability, where bullied kids’ families can sue the families of perpetrators, facilitating summons power to identify the bully. This would necessitate school district formulation of a system for anonymous bullying-related reporting and greater leeway to expel pupils or place them in alternative punitive academic programs if they are found committing severe bullying such as urging a fellow student to take his/her own life.

3. Political / Historical Context of the Bill

Texas’s 2011 legislation necessitates school districts’ adoption of their own respective anti-bullying policies. A few school districts had already instituted policies. However, the legislation provided a more comprehensive description of bullying behavior and how schools ought to respond to it. For example, policymakers explained that digital expression occurring on campus, within a school district-operated bus or at any school-connected activity may be taken as bullying. Nevertheless, it failed to incorporate similar expressions made outside the school premises, like social network posts and videos which percolate school life. According to policymakers, bullying led to physical child harm, property damage or the cultivation of a frightening, abusive or hostile atmosphere for children if it was sufficiently cruel, enduring and inescapable. (Chiquillo, 2015)

In several instances, schools need to judge by themselves regarding when to take action. School authorities need to ensure that pupils are protected, in the course of investigations by, for instance, making the suspected bully sign a pact, with parental consent, to steer clear of a fellow student. Even in case of behavior not satisfying bullying criteria, district intervention is required if pupils infringe their conduct code. However, with regard to taking disciplinary action on pupils for their off-campus doings, attorney for the Texas Association of School Boards, Blanton claimed schools need to meet a rather lofty bar owing to pupils’ Amendment I rights. According to case law, districts can act if they can establish that any speech significantly disrupts the academic process (e.g., causing an educator to lose her control over the class). In case of a perceived threat, the district must ensure pupils are safeguarded and allow law enforcers to ascertain whether or not a given activity may be considered ‘criminal’ (Chiquillo, 2015).

This bill that was ratified by all but 11 members has been labelled ‘David’s Law’, for David Molak, a sixteen-year-old who, tired of ceaseless bullying, committed suicide (Chang, 2017). 

Some occupants of the House moan while speaking about the supervision of students’ activities on the internet, averting bullying-provoked child deaths, and kindness towards each other. The latter was especially moving for a few members, since the current house session recurrently included hot discussions on abortion, migration, LGBT rights, and other contentious subjects. Wayne Faircloth, Texas State’s Republican from Galveston, when supporting the bill, claimed it was high time people began respecting one another, beginning from the House. He further added that disputing one another’s policy was fine, but offering personal rebukes wasn’t. He believes there is a need to establish an example right there in the state legislature and that it is about people’s treatment of one another, the way they speak, the way they carry themselves, and the way they pay attention and attempt at understanding and making a difference. (Chang, 2017)

Titled "David's Law" to honor the tragic suicide victim, David Molak, who took his own life at age sixteen, in January of 2016, following several months of mockery by peers at Alamo Heights High School with regard to his appearance, in addition to threats of physical violence, the Senate Bill No. 179 was modified by Republican representatives who earlier voiced concerns that they was going overboard with levying punishments and making novel rules obligatory for school districts (Ward, 2017).

Legislation Challenges and Stages

According to numerous courts, educational institutions’ purposeful negligence towards bullying activities directed at special education pupils leads to denial of ‘Free Appropriate Public Education’ (FAPE).  But the 5th Circuit Appellate Court that enjoys jurisdiction over the State of Texas fails to directly tackle the above problem. The 2011 case, T.K. vs. NYC education department (__ F.Supp.2d __, 2011 WL 1549243 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)) case looked into the issue of whether or not one can utilize bullying as one of the grounds for pronouncing a FAPE denial.  T.K. was a special education (learning disability) recipient. T.K.’s parents claimed their daughter was repeatedly bullied by schoolmates owing to the abovementioned disability, that school authorities knew of the bullying, and that they didn’t appropriately deal with the problem.  They sought ‘due process’ trial, asserting their daughter was denied FAPE by the school. However, this motion was ruled in the school’s favor and the case went on to a federal-level court which came up with the standard in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act bullying disputes described below (Lee, 2013): 

i. During the response phase of bullying cases that have the potential to impact any special education pupils’ opportunities, schools need to act in a proper and timely manner. There is a need to first look into whether or not the reported harassment incident actually took place. If this scrutiny results in the finding that harassment has indeed occurred, educational institutions need to take the right steps in order to ensure this doesn’t happen again.  

ii. Proving that bullying activities prevent every opportunity for special needs pupils to enjoy a proper education isn’t essential. Rather, one merely needs to establish that it has the potential to impact a child’s chances to enjoy a proper education.  

4. Importance to UHCL Community

Incidents that have recently occurred in Texas State as well as in Houston University have rendered the Bill ever more crucial. A hundred and thirty house members ratified the bill (11 voted against it) which has been labelled ‘David’s Law’, following a tragic case of e-bullying in San Antonio-area. Prior to reaching the governor, this amended bill requires senate approval. As per a news report, the bill was a product of collaborative efforts between Minjarez and Menéndez’ offices, the victim’s family members, and family members of a leukemic youth named Matthew Vasquez who couldn’t  find the necessary support to recuperate from the psychological torture he underwent following e-bullying (Dimmick, 2016). Rep. Joe Moody’s remarks included Texas City resident, Brandy Vela’s (18 yrs.) funeral card. This young woman committed suicide by shooting herself before family members who later reported she was tormented by experiences of bullying and stalking (Chang, 2017).  

5. Positives of the Bill

The pros of Bill No. 304 as identified by legislative journals and media reports may be summed up as follows (Dimmick, 2016).
a. This bill will help school districts look into incidents of bullying outside of school to determine whether they have a significant impact on the school’s atmosphere. Further, it will enable law enforcers’ and school authorities’ collaboration on such investigations. School districts will need to incorporate cyberbullying polices into their respective district polices with respect to bullying, in addition to informing the parents of bullies as well as the bullied regarding the incidents occurring in their children’s lives. Lastly, school districts will need to come up with a system for anonymous threat and bullying reporting.
b. This bill will increase school district leeway in the areas of expelling or placing their enrollees within an alternative disciplinary academic program if they are found guilty of extremely serious bullying (e.g., forcing a peer to attempt suicide or actually take his/her own life).
c. Law enforcers can, by means of summonses, increasingly expose anonymous users on social media websites who post or convey intimidating messages. Both the bully and the victim will be provided rehab and counselling.

6. Negatives of the Bill

The shortcomings listed below have been identified for Texas House Bill No. 304 (Schwartz, 2017). 

a. The bill offers extremely broad and ambiguous definitions for the terms “cyberbullying” and “bullying”. For instance, they have included one single email aimed at a pupil by another violates the former’s rights at school. Furthermore, they fail to outline the aforementioned unspecified rights’ scope.

b. The bill allows school authorities to expel any pupil who is found guilty of engaging in any form of bullying which spurs a fellow pupil to kill him/herself. The above rule fails to consider the expelled pupil’s motives, the repercussions their actions have led to, or the way any reasonable child would interpret the words of the expelled pupil.

c. The bill sanctions civil litigations and threefold damage awards against any pupil found sending an email message to a peer, goading him/her to take his/her own life. Once again, the above statement is overly general owing to the fact that it fails to consider the motives of the speaker, the repercussions of the message, and a reasonable individuals’ reaction to such a message.

d. This bill allows for pre-litigation summonses for the purpose of investigating possible legal claims that stem from unclear “injuries” to any child under 18 years of age. This novel process could pose a threat to the Amendment I right of carrying out anonymous communications over the World Wide Web. The right proves particularly crucial for individuals who are members of unpopular groups expressing unpopular thoughts, who may see fit to remain silent instead of risking retaliation. Consider a hypothetical case of a pupil who posted an anonymous message about a peer’s classroom remarks on a blog, concluding such a statement could only be made by a “jerk.” The latter may attempt at utilizing the pursuit summons process under the bill for identifying the sender of this anonymous blog post, stating grounds of an extremely doubtful defamation claim. This can, once again, prove true, not in relation to the anonymous post’s content, whether it was in favour of LGBT rights or gun rights. The risk associated with getting exposed would frighten several anonymous speakers.

e. Finally, the bill enforces damages liability on a student’s (<18 years) parents if he/she is found to have sent any forbidden email message, irrespective of whether the parents were innocent or contributed to the email sent by their child. A majority of parents don’t demand parental permission for their kids prior to sending SMSs, emails, social network posts. In fact, this isn’t even required.