point. and let me make this point as well. this government -- because we take the crime of rape so seriously, we've actually boosted the funding for rain crisis centers but the real need which i think the whole house should unite over, is the fact that 94% of rapists are walking the streets free because they haven't been convicted. that's what we've got to change. >> here, here. >> mr. aiden burly. >> thank you, mr. speaker. there are currently 2.5,000 across the public sector paid not to do the service they represent but instead to do campaigning activities that should be funded by the unions. because the unions don't pay their salaries they can spell their sums on other things. do you think it's time to reform? >> well, my honorable friend raises an important point. whenever you raise a point about union funding, you get shouted down by the party opposite because they don't want any examination of what trade unions

do or how much money they give to the labour party. i think they protest a little bit too much. >> i'm absolutely delighted to be supported by the trade union. can i ask the prime minister why he has trusted advisor that it would show no mercy. it would be big opportunity for private profit and it would transform the nhs into an insurance provider and not a steered deliverer? >> well, i'm very, very grateful for the honorable gentleman to allow me to clear this up because when i read about him being my advisor i was slightly puzzled. [laughter] >> because i've never heard of this person in my life, and he's not my advisor but i did a little bit of research, and it turns out that he was an advisor to the last government.

>> here, here. >> oh, don't worry. there's plenty more he helped develop labour's nhs plan in 2000 which increased the role of the private sector. he was appointed by the labour as the chief executive as one of the 10 strategic health authorities set up by labour. and when the leader of the opposition was in the cabinet, mark britnell was director of the nhs. what i don't know him i suppose party opposite knows him very well. >> mr. andrew tyree. i can't understand why the house doesn't wish to hear mr. andrew tyree. >> here, here. >> i was i was rather impressed by that last answer but i will draw the prime minister on

something else. the government planned to have second chamber. could the prime minister tell the house whether he will use all means necessary including the parliament tax to protect the coalition's legislative programs. >> the short answer is yes, this is government legislation like any other piece of government legislation and it will be scrutinized and carried through, debated and then discussed and then passed in the same way. >> order. urgent question, paul flynn. >> will the prime minister make a statement on the outcome of the wakeman report >> here on c-span2, we'll leave the british house of commons now as they move on to other legislative business. you've been watching prime minister's questions time, aired live at 7:00 am. you can see this week's question time again sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. and for more information, go to c-span.org and click on c-span

series for prime minister's questions. plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can also watch recent video including programs dealing with other international issues. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information including twitter addresses, district maps and committee assignments and information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors, order online on c-span.org/shop. >> former white house chief of staff, rahm emanuel was sworn in as mayor of chicago on monday. at his inauguration ceremony, he talked about his plan for improving jobs and improving chicago public schools. this is a half hour.

>> the honorable timothy c. evans chief judge of cook county will now offer the oath of office to rahm emanuel, city of chicago. >> would you raise your right hand and repeat after me, i rahm emanuel do solemnly swear that i will support the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of the state of illinois. and that i will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of mayor of the city of chicago according to the best of my ability. congratulations! [applause] >> thank you very much. mraus mra[applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> honored guests, mr. vice president, dr. biden, mayor daley, maggie daley, members of the city council and other elected officials, residents, and friends of chicago, today more than any other time in our history, more than any other place in our country the city of chicago is ready for change. [applause] for all the parents who deserve a school system that expects every student to earn a diploma, for all the neighbors who deserve to walk home on safer streets, for all the taxpayers who deserve a city government that is more effective and costs less and for all the people in

the hardest-working city in america who deserve a strong economy so they can find jobs or create jobs, this is your day. [applause] >> as your new mayor, it is an honor to fight for the change we need and a privilege to lead the city we love. we have much to do, but we -- but what we should first acknowledge how far we have come. a generation ago, people were writing chicago off as a dying city. they said our downtown was failing. our neighborhoods were unlivable. our schools were the worst in the nation. and our politics have become so divisive. we were referred to as beirut on the lake. when richard daley took office as mayor 22 years ago, he

challenged all of us to lower our voices and to raise our sights. chicago is a different city than the one mayor daley inherited thanks to what he did. [applause] [applause] >> this is a magnificent place where we gather today, as a living symbol of that transformation. back then, this was an abandoned railyard. a generation later, what was once a nagging urban eyesore is now a world class urban park. through mayor daley's vision, his determination, his

leadership, this place, like our city, was reborn. we are a much greater city because of the lifetime of service that mayor daley and first lady maggie daley have given us. [applause] >> nobody ever loved chicago more or served it better than richard daley. [applause] >> now, mr. mayor, and forevermore, chicago loves you back. [applause] >> i have big shoes to fill and i could not have taken on this challenge without amy, my first love, and our new first lady. [applause]

>> and our children, zach, lana and leia. [applause] >> and i want to thank my parents, who gave me the opportunity to get a good education and whose values have guided me through life. i also want to thank president obama and turned our nation around and loved chicago so much. and i understand why he wanted me to come home to get our city moving again. [applause] >> new times demand new answers. old problems cry out for better results. this morning we leave behind the old ways and old divisions and begin a new day for chicago. i am proud to lead a city united in common purpose and driven by a common thirst for change. to do that, we must face the truth. it is time to take on the challenging that threaten the

very future of our city. the quality of our schools, the safety of our streets, the cost and effectiveness of city government and the urgent need to create jobs, the jobs of the future in the city of chicago. the decisions we make in the next two or three years will determine what chicago will look like in the next 20 or 30. in shaping that future, our children and their schools must come first. [applause] >> there are some great success stories in our schools. wonderful, imaginative teachers and administrators who pour their hearts into their mission and inspire students to learn and succeed. i honor those educators. i want to lift them up, support them and make them the standard

for the chicago public school system. but let us also recognize the magnitude of the challenge and the distance we must go before we can declare that the chicago public schools are what they should be. today our school system only graduates half of our kids. and with one of the shorter school days in the years in the country, we even shortchange those who earn a diploma. by high school graduation, a student in houston has been in the classroom an equivalent of three years longer than a student in chicago even when they both start at kindergarten on the very same day. our legislature in springfield has taken a historic first step and i personally want to thank senator leader, lightford, speaker madigan, flint curry and all those in the illinois general assembly, members from

both party who took the courageous and critical vote. finally chicago will have the tools we need to give our school children the schools they deserve. [applause] >> a longer school day and year on par with other major cities. and reformed tenure to help us keep good teachers and pay them better. each child has a chance, one chance, at a good education. every single one of them deserves the very best we can provide. and i'm encouraged that the governor will act soon to make these reforms a reality for our children. [applause] >> to lead our efforts in chicago, we have a courageous new school ceo and a strong and highly qualified new school board with zero tolerance for

the status quo and a proven track record to back it up. as some have noted, including amy, i am not a patient man. [laughter] >> and when it could to improving our schools, i will not be a patient mayor. [applause] >> my responsibility -- [applause] >> my responsibility is to provide our children with highly qualified and motivated teachers, and i will workday and night to meet that obligation. but let us be honest, for teachers to succeed, they must have parents as partners. [applause] >> to give our children the education they deserve, parents must get off the sidelines and involve their child's education. [applause] >> the most important door for a child's education is the front door of that homecreate a seaml.

from the classroom to help our children learn and succeed. we will do our part and, parents, we need you to do yours. [applause] >> second, we must make our streets safer. chicago has always had the build of a big city with the heart of a small town. but that heart is being broken as our children continue to be victims of violence. some in their homes, some on their porches, some on their way to and from school. during the campaign, i visited a memorial in roseland, one that lists the names of children who have been killed by gun violence. this memorial is only a few years old. 220 names it has already run out of space.

there are 150 more names yet to be added. i want you to think about that. think about what that means. memorials are society's most powerful tribute to its highest values and ideals, courage, patriotism, sacrifice. what kind of society have we become when we find ourselves paying tribute not only to soldiers and police officers but to children who are just playing on the block? what kind of society have we become when the memorials we build honor the life of innocence and the loss of childhood. that memorial does more than mourn the dead, it shames the living. it should prod all of us, every adult, to step in, stand up and

speak out. [applause] >> we cannot look away and we cannot become numb to it. kids belong in our schools, on our playgrounds, in our parks, not frozen in time on the side of a grim memorial. our new police chief understands this. as a beat officer who worked his way -- his way through the ranks and as a leader of a party who dramatically reduced violent crime, he is the right man at the right time for the right job. but here, too, like our schools, partnership is key. the police cannot do it alone. it's not enough to bemoan violence in our neighborhoods. those who had knowledge and information that can help solve and prevent crimes have to come forward and help. together we can make all our streets in every neighborhood

safer. third, we must put the city of chicago's financial house in order. because we cannot do any of these things if we squander the resources they require. from the moment i began my campaign for mayor, i've been clear about the hard truths and the tough choices we face. we simply can't afford the size of city government that we had in the past. and taxpayers deserve a more effective and efficient government than the one we have today. our city's financial situation is difficult and profound. we can't ignore these problems a day longer. it is not just a matter of doing more with less we must look at every aspect of city government and ask some basic questions. can we afford it? is it worth it? do we need it? is there a better deal? well, we are not the first city government to face these tough questions. it is my fervent hope that we become the first to solve them.

the old ways no longer work. [applause] >> it is time for a new era of responsibility and reform. now, i reject how the leaders in wisconsin and ohio are exploiting their financial crisis to achieve a political goal. [applause] >> that is not the right course for chicago's future. however, doing everything the same way we always have is not the right course for chicago's future either. we will do no favors for our city employees and our taxpayers if we let outdated rules and outmoded practices make important government services too costly to deliver. now, i fully understand there will be those who oppose my efforts to reform our schools. to cut costs and to make government more effective. some are sure to say, this is the way we do things. we can't try something new.

those are the rules. we can't change them. that is a prescription for failure that chicago will not accept. [applause] >> given the challenges we face, we need to look for better ways and smarter ways to meet our responsibilities. so when i look at new policies, i guarantee the one answer i will not tolerate it is we've never done it that way before. chicago is a city of yes we can, not no we can't. when it comes time for chicago to change, chicago will not take no for an answer. [applause] >> finally, we need chicago to be the best place to start a business, create jobs and gonna the knowledge and skills to fill the jobs for tomorrow. in the last decade, chicago lost 200,000 residents. no great city can thrive by

shrinking. the best way to keep people from leaving, is attract the jobs to give them a good reason to stay. the jobs of tomorrow will go to those cities that produce the work force of tomorrow. so we must make sure that every student who graduates from our high schools has a foundation for a good career or the opportunity to go to college. we must pass the illinois dream act so that children of undocumented immigrants have the chance to go to college. [applause] >> and we must make sure that our city colleges are graduating students that businesses want to hire. if chicago builds the skilled and knowledgeable work force, the businesses and the jobs of the future will beat a path to your city. stronger schools, safer streets. and an affordable and effective government, good-paying jobs -- these are the fundamental challenges confronting our city. if we can get these things

right, nothing can stop chicago. and people will come to see a city on the move. and we can only get them right by working together. i pledge to you today that's exactly what we're going to do. city council members, new and old, i reach out a hand of mutual respect and cooperation and i welcome your ideas for change. that also goes for businesses large and small and for all our labor unions. it goes for organizations from every neighborhood and our charitable and academic institutions, all of us have a role to play in writing chicago's next chapter. and when anyone -- and anyone open to change will have a seat at that table. together we can renew and strengthen our city. community by community, business by business, neighborhood by neighborhood and block by block. none of what we must overcome

will be easy. but i know this -- i know this in my heart, the challenges for the city of chicago are no match for the character of the people of chicago. i believe in our city. i believe in our city because i know who we are and what we're made of. the pride of every ethnic, religious, and economic background and nearly 3 million strong. almost 140 years ago a great fire devastated chicago. some thought we would never recover. an entire city had to be rebuilt from the ground up and it was. that is how we earn the title of the second city. less than 100 years later, portions of our city burned once again. they were ignited by the murder of dr. martin luther king and the injustices he fought to overcome. chicago still bears some of the

scars from that time. and while there is still work to do, we have made substantial progress. look at the three of us who are being sworn in today. treasurer stephanie neely and clerk suzanna mendoza. both are superb public servants who represent the best of our city. they are among a new generation of smart and capable civic leaders. i think it's fair to say, we are not our parent's chicago. an african-american family who came from grenada mississippi, in the great my-greg north. a daughter of immigrants who came from mexico. a son of an israeli grant who came from tel-aviv and a grandson of grants who came from eastern europe. our parents and our grandparents came not just to any city. they came to america's city. they came to chicago. [applause]

>> the three of us have achieved something our parents never imagined in their lifetimes. and while our three families traveled different mapaths, the came to the city where dreams are made. over the next four years, we have schools to fix. over the next four years, we have streets to make safe. over the next four years, we have a government to transform and businesses and jobs to attract. but above all, let's never forget the dream, the dream that has made generation after generation of chicagoans come here and stay here. i am confident in chicago's future. because i have seen it in the eyes of our school children and heard it in their voices. i saw it in the whitney young

kids who took first place in our state's academic decathlon in the third place in the division 1 national championship. [applause] >> i've seen it in the eyes of the five high school students from kenwood academy who won the gates millennium scholarship. and the high school team that won back to back state championships and showed us what they are made of throughout the season. [applause] >> in the graduates from the urban prep academy, a high school for african-american males which for the second year in a row is sending 100% of-it students to a four-year college. [applause] >> and the sophomores from angel wood high school who reached the semifinals in the spoken word contest. and jeremy winters a junior at simeon who started his own after-school arts program which will be a model for the city of chicago.

a young man whom i met at a l stop who after a full day of school at the chicago arts academy spends the rest of his time in the jofry ballet school. and duwan brown, a child i met in the campaign. [applause] >> who was in a struggling school became interested in public servicings got more serious about his studies and is now getting a's and b's in school. [applause] >> and i saw it in brian reed, the tenth grader who gave me a tour of ralph ellison high school. shortly after i met brian, i learned that he had been attacked at his bus stop by four young men who had beaten and robbed him. he was so -- he was injured so badly he was hospitalized. when i heard the news, i reached

out to his principal. day's later his teacher gave me a note from brian. and in the letter brian wrote, i'm doing fine now. and i'm back in school. my attendance is good and i try very hard here. i just wanted to tell you thanks for checking on me. despite the obstacles, our children, children like brian, just keep on working and never stop dreaming. there is no doubt the children of chicago have what it takes. the question is, do we? will we do our part? for the next generation of chicagoans, let us roll up our sleeves and take on the hard work of securing chicago's future. our problems are large, but so is our capacity to solve them. only if all those who profess a love for this city of big shoulders are willing to bear the responsibility for keeping

it strong. so today, i ask each of you, those who live here and those who work here, business and labor. let us share the necessary sacrifices fairly and justly. if everyone will give a little, no one will have to give too much. and together we will keep faith for future generations and the visionaries of our past who built on the shores of lake michigan, a city where dreams are made. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the city of chicago. [applause] ♪

♪ there are times we feel lost and the future seems unclear ♪ ♪ there are times we feel that no one cares ♪ ♪ and be careful of our tears ♪ ♪ ..

>> the u.s. commission on civil rights hosted a conference last week on bullying in schools. in this part of the event,

silver rights activists and educators discuss bullying based on race, disability and religion. this is two hours. >> i'll ask all panelists to please raise your right hand. and swear or affirm that the information you are about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief. is that a yes? okay, great. thank you. we will begin with ms. goss graves. you are up first. >> thank you and good morning. my name is fatima goss graves and then the vice president for education and employment with the national women's law center, and i so appreciate the invitation to testify today and really upon the commission on taking up this important issue. gender-based harassment including bullying and violence

manifests itself in many ways, includes sexual harassment and sexual violence and assault. ha it includes entrapment that is notno sexual in nature and instd st it is based on stereotype. so for example, the conduct of n group of students who have arrested and intimidated a female student to discourage hen participation in wrestlingathlec because they consider athletic t activity to be not feminine.it would constitute gender-basedsmt harassment. or a girl who targets formate fr repeated humiliation and name-calling through electionika means, as go, names like slutser and whore and things like that because her classmate issment. pregnant is engaged inget fr gender-based harassment. these are the sort of things we get prickly at the national women's law center, from parents are concerned about theirdren. children. trated by boys were

targeted at girls. students can be harassed by other students, by teachers, by coaches, school employees, their parties. it can involve the images that are posted on walls or through electronic means. comments can create a hostile environment. these are all core principles that have been developed over time as they have grappled with these issues. the office for civil rights has hopefully spelled out in guidance for education and institutions. as you heard earlier today, title number nine plays an important role in addressing harassment, and we really view bullying as a form of harassment when it rises to a certain level the supreme court has recognized that title nine provides for a private right of action under which students may pursue claims for damages and for incentive

relief to address harassments. you know, i raise this because i know that there has been some confusion over the standards purses' damages versus the standard for administrative enforcement or incentive relief. today it was explained that this distinction has been a long one, but the good news for students is that even though some courts around the country have interpreted the title nine standards for damages in ways that have really raised the bar for being able to us bring these cases, the standard for administrative enforcement and for interactive relief is whether school officials knew or should have known about the harassment. this should have known standard applies also when individuals file a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief only.

likewise, for enforcement action that has been brought by the administration, and these are standards that are closer to the legal protections for employees and the workplace. moreover, even the suit for damages, which has been talked about says only applies when the harassment does not involve an official school policy. as the purpose of the standard it is to ensure that the school is held liable for damages for its own act and not responding to harassment for third parties. so, for example, and since inverses university of colorado the tenth circuit held that the university had an official policy of delivering different sexual harassments. so they did not actually have to show that actual notice a

particular incidents of harassment. speaking in part to clarify what constitutes unlawful been debased harassment in the wake, around ten years ago the office for civil rights issued 2001 guidance that has been discussed today. that guidance it recognizes that conduct that is sufficiently severe from a persistent, or pervasive remains accessible under title nine. the office for civil rights also emphasizes that a harassment that rises to the level that denies this his ability to participate or benefit from the educational program and verifies the schools failed to respond to harassment of a student on the basis of the system's failure to conform to stereotyped notions of masculinity or femininity. despite the 2001 sexual harassment guidance to new base harassment continues to pervade our schools and in some cases

such conduct may have led to a particularly tragic consequences it was unclear whether educational institutions understood that the conduct that was referred to commonly in the media as bullying and buying schools as bullying included in some cases gender based bullying which could have implicated title mind. trying from this revised guidance we were pleased to see that in 2010 the department issued is new guidance reiterating from 2001 to providing a pedicles that allowed schools to really be able to see what the standards mean in practice. does not imply a break with or expansion importantly in 2011

the office for civil rights also released additional guidance on peer to peer sexual violence. among other things that guidance supplemented the 2001 guidance and expanded upon the standards that apply for sexual violence. we have really been gratified to see some institutions change their standards even in the past month that some of them announced they would be implementing, for example, upon dense of evidence rather than the higher threshold that they had before. we saw the university of virginia made that. >> thank you. you're next. >> thank you. i am the president and general counsel.

a conservative civil rights organization. for four years in the reagan and bush of ministration i was in this or rest division. my duties included supervising the educational. in my written statement i focus on the issue of bullying and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation. i make two basic points. one is that title nine does not cover that kind of bullying and harassment. the second point i make is that this is not an area where the federal government involvement is likely to help. additional statues bullying in

this area would be a bad idea. we're going to hear a lot today about how damaging bullying and harassment can be to individual students. it can certainly be heartbreaking. we are also going to hear about how widespread is. the first point is not really disputed. nobody disputes that bullying and harassment can be a terrible thing. the second point, how widespread it is. i would say at the commission needs to take it with a grain of salt, the numbers you are given by interest groups and by federal bureaucracies who want to expand the jurisdiction, especially when the two are working together. i also think that we have to bear in mind when we are looking at trends that there are changes in technology. you know, the internet has made it much easier to file

complaints. they have also made the kinds of harassment we are talking about here more widespread. i think that is something to bear in mind when people are trying to lay the groundwork to say that the federal government has to get in here because it's a problem that is not being addressed. as i say, this is of very difficult area with a lot of difficult line drive that has to be done. you know, when does protected speech become unprotected speech. when does that become harassment? when does horizon become a threat? when does the threat become an actual, you know, physical assault. these are difficult line drawing questions. i have heard nothing today from the administration

representatives to suggest why the federal government is going to improve the way that this line drawing is done. i'm not going to, you know, repeat what i say in my written statements on that point. but i would like to focus on a little bit in my oral remarks here is why i actually think that the federal government involvement will make things worse. i think that the burden is on the federal government to show why the federal government is story to make it better. i don't think they can carry that burden. in addition, i think that there are a lot of reasons, and some of the commissioners have alluded to this to my wife federal government is actually going to make things worse. it is pointed be the 800-pound gorilla. when the federal government gets involved this going to be pressure for them to have guidelines. these guidelines are going to end up creating not only for but

in some cases a ceiling. it is going to encourage local schools not to be as proactive in this area as they should be. the guidelines will inevitably lead to speech codes and sensitivity training. it will coerce schools into zero tolerance policies. the involvement of the federal government makes it much easier for interest groups to get involved on both sides of the aisle. get involved and use that as the means for affecting policy in this area. you can see that by the interest that these hearings today have attracted. this is going to create a a fact. as administrations change it will be pressure brought by interest groups to change the guidelines that have been put out. pass new or different laws, many

regulations. local schools are going to be caught in this bind where they are afraid of getting sued if they do and if they don't. it's going to chill the kind of local involvement and local attention to these issues which i think everybody that i have heard so far to date agrees needs to happen. this is really its policy in this area. it is very odd that the gay rights groups should need to be reminded that government legislating morality, particularly the federal government alleges that the morality, it's just something that we ought to be very wary of. it wasn't very long ago with a morality that was being legislated was aimed at gay rights or at case. now we are being asked to pass

laws that a going to the get the federal government involved in saying what a fifth christian says it is or is not something that ought to be, you know, ought to attract the attention of the federal government. finally, i also think that we ought to be -- both sides ought to agree it is carried in this area to have the federal government making up lost so that they can go after behavior that they view as being immoral. i don't think that tall , i think everyone agrees that title nine is about sex discrimination. it is not about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. the federal government is being very aggressive in concocting a legal theory that it is using to prosecute school districts.

accomplish something that is not there in the statute. >> thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, members of the commission, i'm pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss. appear violence and school bullying based on sexual orientation. a thank you for addressing this important matter. i am a professor of psychology at the university of california davis. as a social psychologist i have been conducting empirical research for more than 30 years. as detailed in mind was made, have published more than 100 scholarly papers and chapters on these and related topics in received numerous grants for my research. i am a fellow of the american psychological association and the association for psychological science and testified on behalf of the american supply school association for congressional hearings on anti-gay violence. been invited to participate and

present plans 1991 white house meeting on day crimes and recently convened by the national academy of sciences to prepare a report on the health of sexual, day, and bisexual people. these are detailed. my written statement details the findings of social science will there's -- research related to school violence. to put that research in context it also discusses current knowledge of sexual orientation and stigma. in my oral statement i will briefly summarize the material. sexual orientation is commonly used to refer to an enduring pattern of sexual romantic a pattern of males or females are both sexes. also used to refer to an individual's sense of identity, his or her patterns of behavior is expressing them, and his or her in the community of others to share them. all the sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, it is usually discussed in terms of three categories.

in terms lesbian and gay, commonly used. the mental health professions have long recognized that, such shoddy is in normal expression of human sexuality and there is no inherent linkage between sexual orientation and the person's mental health or ability to contribute to society and to lead a happy, healthy, and productive life. .. to the orientation.

thomas edge alladi remains stigmatized in the united state and such in the institutions of society and of individuals. large numbers of lesbian gay an bisexual people experienced harassment discrimination based on their sexual orientation and because of sexual orientation i not readily apparent in most social interactions virtually anyone can be a target of anti-gang violence or harassmen regardless of their actual orientation. children and adolescents and adults to behavior or per guaranteed to be here is appearance are frequently victimized often because the perpetrators have assumed the gender nonconformities on a marker for homosexuality or bisexuality. in addition gender nonconformit is itself stigmatized and some people are targeted entire yearly because of their gender. although there's no linkage between sexual orientation and mental health research indicate experiencing stigma related victimization as stressful and can lead to psychological and physical problems of those to the extent of heterosexuals are subjected to additional stress beyond what the heterosexual population normally experience is including stress resulting

from stigma they may as a group manifest poor or overall physical and psychological health. with this general discussion as background return to the main focus of today's briefing, violence and victimization base on sexual orientation are widespread in school settings. the problem may be more expensive today than in the pas because contemporary sexual minority youth appeared to be recognizing sexual orientation and coming out at earlier ages than was the case in previous generations. been identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual poses risks to students in middle and high school where negative attitudes toward homosexuality and sexual minorities are common. experiencing bleeding and victimization based on sexual orientation is associated with mental health problems includin depression, anxiety izzie and suicidal thoughts. it also is often associated wit truancy and poor school performance substance use and other risk beavers. although bullying and victimization are likely to hav negative consequences for all students to experience being targeted because one's sexual orientation is associated with more problems and greater

distress and is experiencing bleeding or harassment on related to one's identity. the psychological effects of anti-gang bullying and dictum a station can last long after students the high school. institutional practices and policies may help reduce your victimization based on sexual orientation and mitigate its negative impact when it occurs. research points to lowercase three promising strategies firs having antibullying and nondiscrimination policies that explicitly include sexual gende minority use it to reduce anti-gang behavior among students increased ceilings of states to discuss safety and create safer schools. second schools and teachers and staff are trying to stop and prevent harassment and victimization of the minority youth are likely to provide a safer environment for those i a focusing on your violence and sexual orientation was some of the research in my written statement also examine the experience of gender minorities

that is transgendered people an other individuals whose tender expression doesn't conform to the cultural norms. gender minority youth some are also lesbian gay or bisexual routinely experience harassment and violence and they are likel to benefit from a policy of intervention to protect sexual minority youth a comprehensive approach the problem of the victimization and schools will necessarily include attention t their specific needs as well. thank you. >> thank you. professor? >> good morning mr. chairman an members of the commission. i am a professor of clinical medical sciences at columbia university school of public health. my background is in psychiatric and social psychology. that is i study patterns and causes of mental disorder and mental health problems particularly as they relate to social factors. i submitted a report for the record that is in my oral testimony and includes references to the research as

well as my curriculum data. in my testimony today i will discuss three issues. the nature of the anti-gang stigma and how it forms threats for sexual minority. the sexual minority youth to stress related peer-to-peer violence and bleeding and the effect of such stress on mental health and well-being. the stigma is a function of having an attribute that convey the valued social identity in the particular social context. the related concept prejudice refers to the negative attitude and actions that society as a whole or individuals take against a stigmatized group member. for example, the discriminatory acts and anti-gang violence or expressions of stigma. i have developed a theory of minority threads that state whe compared with heterosexuals, stigma, prejudice to access and

as a result of increasing prevalence of mental disorders and other adverse health outcomes. stress can be defined as any condition that requires adaptation. researchers have shown stress - the impacts a multitude of health outcomes both mental and physical well-being. in addition to stress all peopl experience, the people are exposed to unique added stress. i have referred to these as minority stress. minority stress sexual minorities because they require adaptation to an inhospitable social environment. exposed to the threat is chroni in that it is attached to the enduring persistent social structures. exposure to this minority stres is a risk for mental disorders and other adverse outcomes. other general causal relationships are difficult to prove public health research results from studies of sexual

minority youth provide a solid and irrefutable support for the minority showing that social stress resulting from stigma an prejudice against expos them to the unique stress that in turn cause health problems. it has been shown in the numero studies that sexual minority individuals, especially youth have more stressful experiences than sexual peers. results in the social minority youth are abandoned and overwhelming in their evidence. indeed, of the numerous studies conducted many with large the samples conducted in the united states, canada and other nation i know what not one study that shows significant contradictory evidence. gay youth at home, at school an in the community at large significantly more frequently than their heterosexual peers experience adverse events.

at school, sexual minority yout experience bleeding including physical assault, being injured threatened and harassed, having their property stolen or damaged , out of school sexual minorities are more often victims of violence, physical and sexual abuse, verbal and physical sexual harassment and forced sex and dating violence. studies have also shown unlike other minority groups, rejectio can occur at home and anti-gang evens can be pritchard to perpetrated by family members and youth. it is important to note that th stress related stigma has a symbolic meaning even a scene during the minor instances such as being called derogatory name can be damaging because of the cultural meaning and creates a pain beyond a seemingly long magnitude.

in the context of school clement , minor experiences especially when chronic can cut the entire environment for the sexual minority youth sending the message of protection and sustained. this message is exacerbated whe it has been found to be the cas teachers and school personnel and more instances of such harassment such as name calling and joining the perpetrator in rejecting the sexual minority youth and sending a message tha the gay youths are to be scorned . studies of the assessment of th outcomes of to provide conclusive evidence of the depopulation including the yout of higher prevalence of the disorders and adverse health outcomes compared with heterosexuals. the gate populations are about 1.5 to three times as many disorders as heterosexuals including mood, anxiety and substance disorder and more tha twice as likely to have suicide

affiliation. against minorities does comedy people individually as well as gay communities as a group moun coping efforts that build resources that may cover all stress. research shows coping and socia support can reduce the adverse effect of stress, health outcomes. in the context of the minority stress, coping and social support must have an affirmativ function supporting the person as a gay person. for these reasons and because families and other community institutions such as the church are not always reporting and sometimes rejecting and even harmful it is important for schools and community organizations to provide sexual minority youth with resources t counter a minority stress. many studies and using a variet of methods have shown when families, friends and school environments are supported for sexual minorities that otherwis

observed the stress on health and school performance draw significantly. overwhelming observations on health and academic performance of comes and ameliorate it with the coping and social support have many schools and governments and non-governmenta organizations to create supported services to sexual minority students. studies in the effectiveness of such programs spend over a decade now. the have been conducted in different states and locales an using a variety of methods -- >> thank you. semidey show that such programs have been effective in improvin dating violence and improving the health and educational outcomes of sexual minority. >> thank you, professor. >> may name is hiram sasser i spent the better part of the decade of suing first amendment including free speech and religious liberty issues. the liberty institute like other

organizations such as the aclu seeks to protect the rights of students to express what are sometimes unpopular views at school, even views that reflect particular religious sentiments. decades ago, the student fights were much different. they had students who wanted to protest the vietnam war and very military-friendly towns were wearing black arm bands to school and they had to take their case to the supreme court in order to ensure their right to the free speech. you had students in the south who were wearing freedom buttons to protest desegregation. not a very popular stand for them to take at the time and they had to take their place to the supreme court and ensure the right they had the right to wear the freedom buttons. and in the middle of world war ii there were two elementary school children who did not want to say the pledge of allegiance.

they wanted to express their patriotism in other ways. they too won the right. these early victories have led to a body of clearly established law that protects students' free speech rights while they're at school specifically as relevant to this particular issue, the religious viewpoints or the viewpoints that students may express. the caste is very clearly established. there's been no wavering for more than half a century that students must be free from viewpoint discrimination perpetrated by the schools. unfortunately, the schools have not responded to the case law and that have continued inflicts with schools in roving censorships of religious speech. some examples i would like to share, these are not limited to any particular faith. it seems that students of all faiths have had their troubles

recently being -- invoking the laws that have been hard fought and won by our group and aclu and others. for example, there was a student in mucogee in oklahoma she wanted to wear her head covering that was consistent we are muslim faith and it took litigation to enforce clearly established law to make sure she can wear her headpiece at school. you have little kids who wanted to hand out candy cane pens but they had to be confiscated by the school because they were too dangerous for all those other kids to see because they had attached to them a religious message about the candy cane. jesus pencils being ripped out of kids' hands while they're standing in line after school outside the school building to get on the school bus because, you know, this type of message was not going to be tolerated.

there's a lot of intimidation and harassment that goes on in schools. unfortunately, a lot of it seems to be directed at religious students. students who are expressing their religious faiths and attempts by government rover censors. you'll notice many of the cases that we're citing are within the last few years and it seems to be a growing trend of this roving censorship of religious sentiments at school. another example that i might give is that, you know, again it's not a matter of one particular faith. there was a school district in texas recently that the aclu had a case on, that the kid wanted to wear his hair length longer than the dress code allowed because of his native faith. well, that law has been clearly established for many years in

the fifth circuit, yet, the school district continued to fight to try to ban him from wearing his hair. so this is a very sensitive issue, a very litigious issue that's going because the law like i say has been clearly established since world war ii. one of the outgrowths of sort of the call -- there's been a call for training students in trying to persuade them to hold particular views as it runs directly in conflict against west virginia versus barnett dealing with the pledge of allegiance. justice jackson in that marvelous opinion really expressed, i think, the sentiments that most americans agree with, which is that our school districts are not there to teach and ingrain into our students a particular orthodoxy. they're not to decide what is right and what is wrong on questions of social importance. those are to be left to parents and other institutions and that

has been our law since 1943. as a matter of fact, i think the supreme court said it best in tinker versus des moines and i would just like to read the quote because it's really a magnificent quote. it warns against this type of indoctrination to try to teach students of a particular -- whatever it is, whatever view it is. this happens to be the homosexual rights issue. but it could be on any issue. any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble, any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. and he spoke in word in class and on the lunchroom or campus that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. but our constitution says we must take this risk. and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom, this kind of openness that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence

and vigor of americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive free society. freedom to speak amongst our students has been a clearly established right for many, many decades. it affects a broad range of students fighting racial desegregation -- or segregation, students protesting the vietnam war and even students protesting military actions in other parts of the globe. these rights are very precious because as the supreme court has said, we have be careful lest we strangle the free mind at its source, and our students are the most impressionable and that impressibility is greatly impacted school officials have over them. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. my name is eliza byard, and i'm the executive director of glsen,

the gay and lesbian foundation sector founded by educators and parents. glsen is the educational issues focus to have cultures of respect and safe schools for all students. i want to begin by introducing you to joey, a fairly typical high school junior except in one respect. joey is gay. until he revealed this fact joey was a popular kid and never thought twice about his safety at school. after he came out, joey's school experience changed, he was harassed daily that escalated when another student threatened joey with a knife. rather than intervene, a school administrator's response was to encourage joey to act less gay and to suggest that the bullying he experienced was something that he deserved.

on joey's behalf, i thank you for shedding light on this important issue. but i must also urge to you act. visible or invisible, lgbt youth are in every district in this country and are drawn from every constituency that you are empowered to protect. they need your help to cut through the noise that too often surrounds this issue. lgbt students bullying, harassment and violence can deprive them of their educational opportunity and undermine their well-being and keep them from achieving their full potential. in glsen's 2009 national school climate survey, nearly 9 out of 10lgbt students reported they had been verbally, physically or sexually harassed in the past year at school because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. many skipped cook because they were afraid to go and 1 in 5 had

been physically assaulted. youth do well academic and less plan to graduate from high school. lgbt youth are more likely to engage in behaviors that put them at risk because of the discrimination and violence they suffer. these statistics are grim. equally disheartening is the fact that this situation has not yet sparked the response it requires. only 18% of lgbt students report that their school explicitly protects them on the basis of orientation or gender identity and the vast majority of lgbt students report that when a member of the school staff witnesses anti-lgbt behavior, they do little or nothing about it. a core challenge we face is the fact that bias-based bullying complicates adult response, whether out of fear of controversy, failure to recognize the seriousness of the behavior or active indifference of the fate of the students

involved. adults charged with the education and care of our children are not consistently living up to their responsibilities. federal leadership is necessary to make the basic level of the extent of their responsibilities crystal clear and to assure those who fear controversy or backlash that they are doing the right thing. we are grateful for the office of civil rights at the department of education and to the department of justice for their commitment to exercising what authority they have under title 9 to protect lgbt students but this statute only covers some of the serious challenges that lgbt students face. research consistently shows that the policies that most effectively address anti-lgbt behavior in our schools actually name the problem by specifically enumerating sexual orientation and gender identity as categories included within the commitment to protect all students.

lgbt youth schools who have these policies are less likely to be victimized and more likely to say school staff intervene when they witness antilgbt behavior. in recent months, school districts in oklahoma city, jackson, mississippi, dallas and park city, utah, have adopted enumerated policies that include sexual orientation and gender identity among their protections. and just last month, the state of arkansas passed an antibullying law, the eleventh state to do it. but state laws and district policies create only a patchwork quilt for protection of lgbt students. as a baseline matter of safety, we need to establish a national floor of protection upon which states and districts may build. as a national issue of equity we also need nondiscrimination protections for some of our nation's most vulnerable students. i encourage the commission to support the safe schools

improvement act, a measure introduced in congress with bipartisan support in both chambers and broad-based support among education, youth development, health, religious and civil rights organizations. and the student nondiscrimination act which would extend nondiscrimination protections to students on the basis of their sexual orientation. you have heard testimony that to extend these protections would somehow compromise the first amendment rights of other students with strongly held personal beliefs regarding homosexuality. as an carter and as a parent myself, i am firmly committed to the principle of respectal debate and dialog as part of a good education but let me be very clear. the words faggot and dyke are not part of any religious creed. those who deny the action and attack the principle of enumeration i challenge them to provide data to support their arguments. for every jackson, mississippi,

and park city, utah, there are places where bullying prevention efforts do not explicitly protect all students and where the consequences are real. joey knows this all too well. his family had to move across state lines to find a school where he would be treated with the same respect as every other student. fortunately, his family had the means to find that safe school. many parents don't. nor should any parent have to make this choice. every child in this nation deserves a school environment where they are safe and respected. each deserves the same chance to excel. and they need your help to have that equal opportunity. thank you. >> thank you, ms. byard. professor eastman. >> members of the committee, thank you for having me here. back at this civil rights commission it was a number of years ago i was the director of the commission of the public affairs office so it's nice to be back although different digs

than we had back then up in vermont. i'm not going to address a particular topic of this panel but a broader question of federal authority generally in peer on peer harassment that is the broader purpose of this hearing because i think we've greatly misunderstood the role of the federal government here. in fact, the misunderstanding of federal authority, i think, is evident of the opening sentence which states acts of bullying, violence and harassment are reportedly pervasive in k-12 schools. even if true, and with all due respect that statement does not begin to establish the necessary premise for federal intervention. rather, federal intervention is warranted under the 14th amendment only to remedy violations of that amendment which speaks to state action, not private conduct. congress' law-making power under section 5 is in enforcing the fifth amendment. and congress needs to act proactively to protect potential

harms there must be a conpursuant to and proportionality between the injury to the means adopted to that under and under that 14th amendment we're talking about state action not conduct of private actors. so federal intervention might be warranted if the pervasive acts bullying, violence and harassment were being perpetrated or facilitated by the school district itself. and the intervention was designed to remedy that unconstitutional state action. yet, even if that was the case, in either the can commission's briefing summary and the department of education lead to it appears to be aimed at that concern, the description of prior federal interventions being deemed appropriate by the supreme court indicates a much higher threshold before congress itself, much lesson elected administrator agencies, intrude on core principles. the state rights act of '65

speaks of the flagrant violations for decades. it sought to banish the flight of those discriminations that had been in place for nearly a century. the court also proved using strong and remedial preventive measures were necessary to respond to the widespread deprivation of constitutional rights that was going on by the government officials itself. none of those preconditions are evident here. there's no indication that school districts have damaged in widespread and deprivation of constitutional rights. either through their own harassment or in the manner in which they had responded to student on student harassment. there's no hint that any such failure on the part of schools even if it exists has been flagrant or long-standing. indeed, the dear colleague letter sent last october from the department of education to school districts across the nation demonstrates just the opposite. in that letter assistant secretary ali praised the state departments of education and local school districts for the steps they have taken to reduce bullying in schools.

describing the efforts as a movement that reflects school's appreciation of their important responsibility to maintain a safe learning environment for all students. it is impossible to tease out of that complementary picture of flagrant constitutional rights by officials themselves that is the necessary precondition for federal intervention of the 14th amendment. but the department of education further claims that a number of federal statutes and acted pursuant to the spending clause fully authorized federal intervention here. holicong's power under the spending clause is not limited by its other enumerated powers it may not use its spending powers as a pretext to accomplish indirectly what it cannot do directly. the limits on congressional regulatory authority under the 14th amendment are, therefore, quite germane to the issues before us today. and if congress cannot accomplish indirectly through federal funding, then it is even more clearly the case that an

administrative agency cannot impose new conditions on the receipt of federal funding toha are not authorized under law. congress sites authority on the case from 1998 but i think it's misreading that case. thus, the department's claim that the liability standards in the davis case do not limit the terms of its funding contracts is highly misleading at best. the latitude given to the agencies is narrow, and the deviations from the dear colleague letter from last october and the civil rights statutes are large. the supreme court may not think the interpretation is protective enough for the rights at issue here but it has no conceivable basis to fundamentally alter the meaning of those statutes in the name of enforcing them. i should be clear, in fact statutes cited in that letter were passed with a child on child playground bullying even in mind much less out of concern about flagrant violations of

constitutional rights by the school officials in dealing with the bullying. that alone makes it extremely problematic to extend those statutes to cover the child on child prior conduct here. i see my time is running out so let me skip toward the end. you know, the department's discussions about the specific kinds of conduct that would trigger remedial actions is somewhat erroneous. harassing conduct may take several forms including verbal names, acts and name-calling, graphic statements, et cetera. but the supreme court has expressly disclaimed such conduct as a trigger for school district liability. courts must bear in mind that schools are unlike the adult workplace. and that children may regularly interact in a manner that would be unacceptable among adults as noted in the davis case. it's understandable that you're going to have those kind of insults and bantering and teasing et cetera. damages are not available for those acts even if the comments

target differences in gender under title 6, race, national origin, et cetera. rather than in the context of school on school -- student on student harassment, damages are available only when the behavior is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies victims equal action to the education and the deliberate indifference response by the school district must be systemic not just with respect to individual instances of harassment. in the end i think it's important for us to recognize that in our federal system there are some things that are left not just primarily but exclusively to state and local control. this is one of those things. it's time to let the school districts, their principals and their teachers do their jobs without being second-guessed by folks in washington, d.c. often thousands of miles away. only then can we take the laboratory of experiment that our federal system provides and maybe they can come up with solutions yet envisioned here in washington, d.c. >> thank you, professor eastman. we're now going to open it to questions from the commissioners. i remind commissioners keep your questions concise, if possible.

indicate what panelist you're asking the question to. and then we will have enough time for follow-ups, hopefully. commissioner yaki, commissioner kirsanow -- [inaudible] >> interesting comments seem to be made from what we just heard but i want to go back to something that i was think was best addressed by mr. herek and mr. meyer. to me one of the most important factors in determining why we're having this hearing and why i believe we need specific federal legislation protecting lgbt youth has to do with the harm associated with this kind of -- this kind of bullying behavior

to individuals in that -- in that grouping. could you elaborate a little bit more about the susceptibility and the vulnerability of -- especially, young people in the lgbt category who in terms of -- in terms of bullying, in terms of this kind of conduct that i think it's important to draw out why it is that protection is necessary in these instances? >> well -- [inaudible] >> many surveys looking at especially middle and high school aged boys and girls have found that those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual or those who have a history of same-sex attraction or behavior often appear to be nonfunctioning as well, at least on average. you know, many are functioning well but on average they look like they are doing worse than many kids and they often manifest higher depressive

systems and anxiety. they miss class more often. they skip school. they often engage in risky behaviors. and that was one pattern that was observed in research but then when researchers started asking about the kids' experiences with victimization and harassment in the school setting, it turned out that helped to explain quite a lot of the disparities there. and so it seems the experience of being target for harassment and violence in the school setting leads kids to have more psychological problems, leads them to be afraid of school, to perceive it as being an unsafe place. and this often leads them to both be as healthy and to engage in more behaviors that are going to be detrimental to their own well-being. it also appears to be the that's when that -- when questions have been asked about whether that teasing harassment violence were specifically targeted at them because they were perceived by someone else to be lesbian, gay or bisexual, that is associated

with a greater negative impact than other -- what might be called routine teasing and harassment and violence that isn't based on a particular aspect of the child's identity. >> i think it's important to add that we're not talking about the vulnerability that the child has coming in. we're talking about a reaction that the child has to the environment that not as something the panelists characterize it such as teasing and saying some things. this is a severe -- and i'm not saying this is for every single child who is gay. many of them are not out and nobody knows about it. but when a child or youth is out and people want to fight him or her as being lgbt, they suffer from persistent harassment intimidation. things from a stress perspective required immense adaptation if they are to sustain themselves

in that environment. we've had adults tell us in research every experiences that said prior to this. they still remember freshly about not being able to walk to school. having to change their route. having to be able -- having to walk in different times than other time. missing school. so this is not minor events. not minor teasing and it's not about freedom of speech. this is about making the environment completely intolerable for these kids and that is why they suffer from these types of outcomes that i described before. i just want to add one thing that two of the panelists said there's not sufficient evidence. and i think that is something that i strongly disagree with. there are many, you know, studies. there are many studies that have looked at accumulation of studies. that is they look over the accumulation studies what are the trend that have problems

with the studies in terms of limitations. that is they representative of population of students. and this showed as i said before incredibly strong evidence for, number 1, the experience of stressors that i described. number 2, the evidence of the outcome that come out of this as well as the evidence for the mediating as we call it roll off those experiences. that those experiences respond for those outcomes. >> commissioner kirsanow? >> i want to thank all the panelists this has been very informative and i thank the previous panel however they did not answer the two questions i posed to them. pursuant to the testimony of professor eastman, i am curious as to the extent of the deprivations of civil rights based on protected class perpetrated by school districts that would necessary engender

federal involvement or federal jurisdiction. and to that extent i would repeat my question and i would like to know if any of you have an answer to when there's been reliable data collated and tracked by either the department of education, justice, or any other entity as to the number of complaints of protected class harassment, when that tracking began, what the number was when that tracking began and what the number is now? in terms of again deprivations of civil rights based on protected class status related to harassment? does anyone have any such data or know where we can find such data because we've gotten copious amounts of information in advance of this hearing from a number of people and we appreciate that, but in going through the data i've not been able to assess it. >> can we get an answer? any panelists? >> thank you. i appreciate