Setting the Record Straight

By Rob Schofield

Now that the House of Representatives has taken its first pass at the budget, members of the General Assembly have been devoting more time to substantive bills in recent days. Longstanding issues like mental health and chemical dependency parity, school violence, and corporal punishment in the schools have again taken center stage as lawmakers rush to meet the May 24 “crossover deadline” (the date by which many bills must pass either the Senate or the House in order to remain eligible for passage this year).

As with a lot of controversial issues, each of these topics has forced lawmakers to examine and express some of their core beliefs – about society, about the role of government, and about fundamental notions of justice and fairness.

Some of the remarks offered by legislators have been encouraging – even inspiring. Whether it was Rep. Martha Alexander drawing parallels between her personal battle with cancer and the needs of persons confronting mental illness and addiction, or Rep. Rick Glazier eloquently defending the need for legislation that would direct school officials to target the bullying and harassment of all children, many of the debates has provided cause for optimism and pride in our state legislature.    

Clinging to the Past

Sadly, for every Alexander or Glazier, there appears to be at least a couple of polar opposites: Lawmakers fearful of progress and change and desperately defending a miserly, backward looking, or just plain hard-hearted policy – usually in the name of “family values” or of some mysterious aversion to helping persons that find themselves in a bad spot because of a “personal choice.”

In the case of mental health and chemical dependency parity, lawmakers like Rep, Drew Saunders continue to tout the insurance industry’s opposition to covering persons with substance addictions. While it would be okay, according to Saunders and others, to cover some mental illnesses, it would be a mistake to offer insurance coverage to persons whose health problem (i.e., addiction) is a matter of “choice.” 

In a very similar way, opponents of the anti-bullying and harassment bill like Rep. Mark Hilton purport to be in favor of the concept, but opposed to the bill because it makes mention of the fact that bullying and harassment commonly includes the targeting of children in a variety of vulnerable sub-groups –including those perceived to have a different sexual orientation. Here, again, lawmakers raised the issue of not wanting to single out children for “special treatment” (i.e. being protected from violence) because of their “choice.”

Hilton was bolstered in his efforts by the defenders of “traditional family values” at the N.C. Family Policy Council. That group distributed a fact sheet attacking the bill for including language about kids being targeted because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The group called the language an attempt to provide “special legal protections for homosexuality, bisexuality, cross dressing and other such sexual behaviors.” Interestingly, at the same time that the Council was opposing the bullying and harassment language, it was also helping to spearhead opposition to a bill that would ban corporal punishment in the public schools as another assault on traditional family values.    

Setting the Record Straight

Laying aside for the moment, the question of whether chemical addiction or sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic or a “choice,” it should be noted that neither the parity bill nor the school violence bill actually proposes to provide any kind of “special treatment” to any group.

The parity bill simply proposes to require the same kind of coverage for persons with substance addictions as are provided to overweight, middle aged persons with junk food-fueled hypertension.

Similarly, the school violence prevention bill was specifically amended in the House Education Committee at the sponsor’s behest to make crystal clear that it does not provide any kind of “special treatment” to children because of their perceived sexual orientation. Here is the language:

“(f) Nothing in this act shall be construed to create any classification or preference beyond those existing in present statute or case law."

The point of spelling out several categories of individuals that are most commonly subjected to bullying and harassment (see page 2 of the bill) is not to create “special” protections, but to help assure similar treatment for all by making absolutely clear to those who supervise the schools what bullying and harassment are. Too often in the past, thousands of innocent children have been physically and emotionally tortured as insensitive and/or uninformed teachers and administrators have stood by, oblivious to what was happening under their noses, letting “kids be kids.”  

As for the issue of “choice,” it is simply remarkable, nearly a decade into the 21^st century that otherwise intelligent adults continue to believe and argue that substance addictions or sexual orientation are simply a matter of personal behavior – as if young people would “choose” to endure the hostility that is so often heaped upon them for being gay, lesbian or trans-gendered or that inborn characteristics played no role in one’s predisposition to substance addiction. Indeed, in the latter case, one can make an argument that persons addicted to alcohol and other substances may have less personal “choice” in the matter that has led to their need for health care than those who simply lead overindulgent, sedentary lives.  

Ah, but to concede these kinds of facts might compromise “traditional family values.” This latter concept is, of course, what really underlies the opposition of many on the right: the notion that North Carolina must adhere to narrow, secular, “traditional” definitions of family and acceptable behavior.

It is the “family values” argument that also underlies the support of many for preserving North Carolina’s antiquated corporal punishment law. Today in North Carolina, 68 of the state’s 115 school districts still permit children to be beaten (i.e., “spanked”). Though used less frequently in recent years, as recently as 2002, nearly 5,000 North Carolina children were subjected to this painful and humiliating punishment – a practice that leaves North Carolina amongst a minority of states and modern nations.

Why such a policy amounts to a “traditional value” remains a bit mysterious. Indeed, it is a well-established “traditional value” in North Carolina (at least since 1917) that corporal punishment is forbidden for prison inmates:

§ 148-20. Corporal punishment of prisoners prohibited.
It is unlawful for the Secretary of Correction or any other person having the care, custody, or control of any prisoner in this State to make or enforce any rule or regulation providing for the whipping, flogging, or administration of any similar corporal punishment of any prisoner, or to give any specific order for or cause to be administered or personally to administer or inflict any such corporal punishment.

“Unjustifiable physical pain” has also been banned under state law when it comes to the treatment of animals since at least 1969.

In the days ahead, it will be interesting to hear how the defenders of corporal punishment attempt to make sense of these ironic and disturbing contradictions. Let’s hope it convinces some lawmakers of the need to start some new traditions.

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, May 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pm and is filed under Setting the Record Straight. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.