The Washington Times reports on yet another frontier where the Obama Justice Department thinks civil-rights laws apply only to minorities of color. This time it’s bullies. As the Times reports, if you’re a white punk, you’ll get their attention. If you’re a white victim of bullying, though, then you’re on your own. The view on the left that civil-rights protections are meant only for minorities goes back quite a ways; it is only in the Obama administration that civil-rights color-consciousness has been turned up to 11 (though it might have been this bad under Clinton had his first choice for the DOJ civil-rights division, Lani Guinier, been confirmed in 1993).
The view that civil-rights laws should not be color blind was perhaps most explicitly asserted way back in 1985, when Mary Frances Berry and Blandina Ramirez, two longtime leftist stalwarts on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, issued an official statement in their roles as commissioners that said, “Civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights protections to all Americans, as a majority of this Commission seems to believe. Instead, they were passed out of a recognition that some Americans already had protection because they belonged to a favored group; and others, including blacks, Hispanics, and women of all races, did not because they belonged to disfavored groups.”
Draw deeply on that first sentence: “Civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights protections to all Americans . . .” That would come as news to the folks who wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Someone ought to reads that sentence, or the whole statement, in an oversight hearing to Eric Holder, or in a press briefing to Jay Carney, and ask them whether they agree or disagree, and why. And then watch the rhetorical two-step begin.
Would it create a dilemma for the DOJ if a gay white kid was bullied?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If you’re a white victim of bullying, though, then you’re on your own."
Well you still have the STATE criminal justice system, which should be handling almost all criminal prosecutions. Bullying only becomes a federal case if there is some federal aspect to it, such as federal civil rights violations.
I agree that laws should be color blind and that a white person can be the victim of racially motivated bullying. But there's no reason to pretend that the federal government is the only prosecutor of crime. Ordinary crime should be prosecuted by states, not the federal government. Maybe the problem is making a federal case out of bullying in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Maybe the problem is making a federal case out of bullying in the first place."
In other words, you're arguing just to argue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In other words, you're arguing just to argue."
No, there's no reason why "bullying" should be an issue for the federal government.
Or any level of government, for that matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbeFroman, the only one here not contributing anything is you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I share your concern about the lack of race-neutral enforcement at the DOJ, I don't think this policy, or the article you quote, is any additional evidence of it.
If they are taking federal action based on the Civil Rights act, the discrimination must be because of the victim's race, religion, gender, etc. That is a jurisdictional issue. The question of whether enforcement is race neutral of not is whether they would pursue the case of white kids being picked on by black kids in a predominately black school with the same vigor they would a case of black kids being bullied by white kids at a predominately white school.
While we may have our suspicions on that account, this article - and the underlying policy - provides no basis yet to support such a conclusion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"AbeFroman, the only one here not contributing anything is you."
Very well, then. I shall contribute:
"Well you still have the STATE criminal justice system, which should be handling almost all criminal prosecutions. Bullying only becomes a federal case if there is some federal aspect to it, such as federal civil rights violations."
The TOPIC of the post is bullying which violates federal civil rights laws. In other words, you've added nothing with this paragraph, unless you're suggesting that "civil rights" only apply when the victim belongs to a minority group, whereas whites can avail themselves of the state criminal justice system. That would literally mean you believe that the law need not be color blind.
"I agree that laws should be color blind and that a white person can be the victim of racially motivated bullying. But there's no reason to pretend that the federal government is the only prosecutor of crime. Ordinary crime should be prosecuted by states, not the federal government. "
Here you're asserting the opposite, that the law should be color blind. You're also asserting, in a post about enforcement of FEDERAL civil rights laws, that there are people "pretending" that the federal government is the only prosecutor of crime. What does that even mean in the context of this post?
"Maybe the problem is making a federal case out of bullying in the first place."
That's a sensible conclusion, but as I noted in quoting it in my prior comment, everything else you wrote is arguing for the sake of arguing. And that's a rather benign way of putting it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhether about race, law, economics, health, environment, safety, commerce, or ANY area of human endeavor.....
When Government policy becomes about redressing grievances, real or imagined, instead of about following strict constitutional boundaries and duties, we ALL lose--no matter our color or position.
The rule of LAW is not the rule of payback. Ever. Nor should it be.
Meanwhile, any law (for example, all "hate speech" or other laws similar to this bullying issue now making headlines) that attempts to define and regulate and reward and punish based on somebody's opinion or state of mind is doomed to be prejudicially enforced. Regulate BEHAVIOR, please, not attitude. If you burn a cross on my lawn, you are an arsonist, no matter your reason. If you start a fight with me and assault me, you are a criminal, regardless of what hatred or opinion motivated your actions.
BEHAVIOR, folks. It really doesn't matter if it is bullying, let alone black-white or white-black bullying. What matters is that throwing a punch is illegal. Punish that. Period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. Steven Hayward, a reference or, better yet, a hyperlink to the original statement by Berry and Ramirez would be most appreciated.
2. IMHO there are two issues: whether bullying in local schools is an appropriate concern of the federal government (no!), and whether the feds are intruding on a preferential basis (apparently so). When discussing the second issue, conservatives should take care not to inadvertently give Washington a pretext for yet another illegitimate expansion of its reach.
I suspect that Barack and Michelle would be quite receptive to putting a federal monitor(s) into every school in the country. (As it were, "The cost? The cost?! If just one child's self-esteem is protected etc etc.")
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse