A recent Boston Globe article by Bella English reports that bullying, at least among girls, starts at an earlier age than one might think. Based on relatively new research on cruelty among girls, “it is clear that the use of friendship as a weapon begins as early as preschool.” Whether bullying among younger girls is new remains unclear; “ ‘I think what’s different is how uninhibited it [bullying] has become. There’s just a real lack of empathy,’ said Deborah Weaver, executive director of a self-defense and safety program for Boston girls called Girls’ LEAP. The Massachusetts state Senate unanimously passed a bill on March 11 that, according to James Vaznis of The Boston Globe, “aims to curb bullying at schools and in cyberspace.” The Boston Globe reports that “the bill, Senate 2283, defines and bans bullying and cyberbullying; prohibits retaliation against anyone who reports it; requires schools to develop bullying prevention programs; requires staff to report bullying to the principal; and requires the principal to investigate and take appropriate action. The principal must also notify the police if he or she believes criminal charges are warranted.” English writes that, despite the bill, “some say that there is reluctance to accept that children picking on each other amounts to bullying.” Nationally known bullying expert Barbara Coloroso explains that “ ‘we still have this problem that we only get serious about it [bullying] when it’s physical. . . . The old ‘sticks and stones’ adage is a lie, an absolute lie.’ ” The antibullying bill would require bullying prevention programs in every grade across the state of Massachusetts.
Facing Today
Facing Today helps educators connect the study of history to issues in our world today. We select current websites, articles, films and blogs that reflect universal themes, such as identity, membership and participation, represented in our scope and sequence. Each media resource is linked to related Facing History materials, including study guides, videos and lessons.
Subscribe to get the latest Facing Today updates directly into your feed reader-
March 17, 2010
-
March 15, 2010
Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda. If the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 gets passed, some Ugandan homosexuals could receive the death penalty. ABC News reports that “the bill creates a new category of crime called ‘Aggravated Homosexuality,’ which calls for death by hanging for gays or lesbians who have sex with anyone under 18 and for so-called ‘serial offenders.’ ” Additionally, the bill “calls for seven years in prison for ‘attempt to commit homosexuality,’ five years for landlords who knowingly house gays, three years for anyone, including parents, who fail to hand gay children over to the police within 24 hours and the extradition of gay Ugandans living abroad.” The bill has incited international outrage, with some countries threatening to withdraw aid from Uganda if the bill is passed into law. Within Uganda, activists reject the bill, saying it would force health and social workers to spy on and report their clients, Reuters Africa reports. Additionally, as AIDS activist Rtd Maj Rubaramira Ruranga told The Independent, “ ‘We’ll lose what we’ve achieved in the AIDS fight. . . . Gay infected patients will fear to go for treatment since the law requires the doctors to report the patient within 24 hours.’ ” According to The Monitor, a Ugandan newspaper, activists petitioning against the bill said it “ ‘goes against the Ugandan Constitution which promises freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, creed, birth or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability. . . . We need laws to protect people, not ones that will humiliate, ridicule, prosecute and kill them en masse.’ ” The bill’s sponsor, David Bahati, defended the bill by saying that “in Uganda, 95 percent of our population does not support homosexuality.” As one gay Ugandan told Times Online, “ ‘they want to legislate us out of existence.’ ”
-
March 12, 2010
Justice Robert W. Doyle is in the midst of selecting a jury for the case of Marcelo Lucero, a 37-year-old Ecuadorian immigrant who was attacked by seven teenagers and stabbed to death in Patchogue, New York in November of 2008. The New York Times reports that “Lucero’s death prompted widespread outrage and exposed racial tensions in Patchogue, where a number of Latinos came forward after the attack to describe muggings and assaults that had them living in fear.” The teenagers who attacked Lucero had, according to the police, “made sport out of assaulting Hispanic men, calling it ‘beaner hopping.’ ” Now, as the first defendant is about to go on trial, the process of jury selection is underway. Jury selection has “proven difficult, in part because of the views on Latino immigration held by some prospective jurors in Suffolk County.” One prospective juror said that “her father, a mechanic, has a ‘huge opinion about illegal immigration,’ and that his views on the subject have ‘become my opinions as well.’ ” Another prospective juror took a different view, saying that “most of the clients in her job are illegal Latino immigrants. ‘I don’t think that because of that they should be killed,’ she told Justice Doyle.” Prospective juror Carla Panetta, who was also excused, “criticized those prospective jurors who said they could not be fair because of their views on illegal immigration.” Panetta said, “ ‘I don’t care whether the man was legal, illegal, white, black, purple or green. . . . There was a murder. It almost seemed like the poor victim was the one going on trial.’ ”
