When The School Is The Bully

---

This case follows the legal path of a white, 14-year old 8th grade student named JJ whom the school accuses of bullying another student named NS, who is black and is in 7th grade.

This saga occurs in the New Jersey town of Boonton (not to be confused with Boonton Township, which is different, and Boonton isn’t part of Boonton Township). Boonton is the original home of the famous Boontonware of the 1940’s.

Note: The author wishes to note for the reader that the article is written on behalf of the parents of the accused bully in this case, and no one other than the parents were interviewed for the article. The article relies completely upon communication between the parents, the school, the judge, and the commissioner. To minimize bias, nothing in this article appears which does not appear in said communication. On a few occasions, references to statutes are additionally mentioned in order to justify or explain concepts.

Before moving into the legal matters of the case, it may help first to explain some background on law and bullying in general.

Note: The author wishes to identify all students in a bullying case identified by their initials. Most adults are identified by their full name here, and the parents are identified by their initials to avoid identifying any of the students in this case.

Note: In the context of this blog, JJ is the victim; NS is the victim according to the school. As the reader becomes familiar with the case, it will become plainly evident who the victim truly is in this case.

Actors

---

Terms

HIB

Stands for “Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying”. As a noun, it refers to the act of harassing, intimidating, or bullying someone. So, JJ stands accused of a HIB, meaning, in this case, NS accuses JJ of bullying her. “He got a HIB” means he received a notation in his records that he bullied someone. HIB statutes are a collection of laws and guidelines that dictate how schools must handle cases of HIB, what students’ rights are, and what responsibilities each person has in a HIB incident.

Code of Conduct

This is a code, or a list, of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors expected of all students. New Jersey DOE guidelines recommend each school adopt a Code of Conduct. So here, things like foul language, destruction of property, theft, drugs, weapons, etc. are all discussed here. Codes of Conduct also describe consequences for violations. The student handbook typically describes all of this, and Boonton School District gives all students a copy of it.

Pro Se

Means representing yourself without a lawyer. AJ has filed this case to the Commissioner’s office pro se. He represented JJ in court pro se. He argued with the school and the school’s Board of Education pro se. Filing pro se doesn’t mean much; the court doesn’t really care. You get no special privileges or rights. It’s always dangerous to navigate the court system without a lawyer, because there are many nuances of the law and of procedure, and one innocent mistake can derail your case forever. On the other hand, lawyers are expensive. In civil cases, one does not get a public defender as would be the case in a criminal matter. And in this case, the expense did not justify the means.

Note: The phrase pro per means the exact same thing as pro se, and some people will use one phrase or the other. They are interchangeable.

IEP

Stands for “Individualized Education Plan”, and applies to students who have disabilities. It is only important to know that JJ has an IEP plan, and that means he has a federally-recognized disability. It also means that he has a special resource called an IEP case manager (Jennifer Coleman, in this case – see the actors, above).

Note: Due to recent headlines making one student’s IEP in school notorious, JJ’s father wishes to briefly explain JJ’s IEP, despite that all IEPs are private and confidential. At the time of the incident, JJ had an IEP for attention-related issues. He merely needs accommodation in taking tests, doing homework, and sitting still in class, due to the fact that his ability to organize and focus is hampered by his disability.

---

Bullying Case Synopsis

Here is the entire synopsis, and the reader can see the actual course of behavior and action from the school’s sworn statement in [23].

JJ was standing and talking with two of his friends, B and another.

Nearby, NS was standing and talking with two of her friends.

The two groups were within earshot of each other, approximately 10 feet apart. The school supports this claim by sworn testimony, and it also asserts that security video substantiates their claim. The school refused to produce the video in court, and neither JJ nor JAJ nor the author have ever seen the video since. NS claims she overheard JJ refer to one of JJ’s friends as “n-word“. She complained to the school, the school investigated, and the school concluded that JJ committed a HIB and a Code of Conduct violation.

The school claims that NS is the victim of “indirect bullying”, because she overheard what she thought was one person calling another person a racial slur.

JJ claims he never said a thing.

All witnesses, including two of JJ’s and two of NS’s, claim JJ said nothing offensive. [23]

Note that NS was neither the subject nor the object of the discussion between JJ’s friends. She merely overheard one refer to the other using a slur and thus determined she was the victim of bullying.

---

Bullying Case Procedure

JJ stands accused of bullying NS.

To fight the accusation, the state requires participants in such a case to follow a defined policy. In this case, the path to fighting a HIB allegation is to first meet with the school and discuss the incident, and have JJ offer his side of the story. The school then convenes to decide one way or another. [43]

Note: Either side can appeal to the Board of Education if they do not like the outcome. [26]

The Board of Education privately meets in executive session to decide one way or another, and the accused may attend. [43]

Note: Either side can appeal to the Commissioner of Education if they do not like the outcome. [37]

If the complaint contains disputed facts, then the Commissioner hands the case over to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to make an initial decision who resolves those disputed facts: [37] [38]

• The ALJ resolves those disputed facts via a formal court procedure.
• After both sides present sworn testimony and evidence, the ALJ makes an Initial Decision.
• The Commissioner receives and reviews the Initial Decision.
• Together with the remaining facts of the case, the Commissioner makes a Final Decision.
• In doing so, the Commissioner can adopt the judge’s Initial Decision, or can reject the decision entirely, or can modify it in some way.

Note: Either side can appeal the Commissioner’s Final Decision to the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division. [37]

Failing that, either side can appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

What Is At Stake In A Bullying Case?

A check-mark. Social stigma. Psyche. Oh, and 1.2 million bullied students because of what JJ said. [44]

Check-mark

At stake is JJ’s school records, which contains a check-mark somewhere on it. This mark denotes an accusation of bullying, and that it’s of a racial nature. Another check-mark indicates his suspension for it. If he transfers to another school within the district, all information pertaining to bullying will follow him. If he leaves the school, his transcript may follow him. Maybe. It is noteworthy that initially, the school refused to disclose that race had anything to do with the bullying incident. It is equally noteworthy, and unfortunate, that the school would release the details nine weeks later.

Hide The Checkbox?

The parents may have the option to suppress that information on his transcript. According to the judge and the school lawyer who sparred over state law [45] [46] [47] [48] and federal law [49], in some circumstances of bullying, student records may not suppress all details when transferring to another institution. New Jersey passed a law to seal certain transcript information, but neither one of them cited applicable law. My own research yielded a confusing set of contradictory laws. And so, the ALJ and school lawyer sparred over whether the school can seal JJ’s transcript information. The school says it can, but the judge says it’s not clear that the law applies here or not. Neither of them followed up conclusively. Nevertheless, it is possible the laws change anyway, regardless of a concrete decision. As a result, this was a moot point as far as JJ’s family was concerned.

It’s Complex

One would think that a judge and a seasoned school lawyer would know how to handle a bullying case. It turns out, it’s complex. A HIB is an accusation; a suspension is a consequence. Sealing parts of school records depends on the kind of HIB, and the kind of Code of Conduct violation, and the reason for the consequence. The school cannot seal racial incidents like bullying. But it can seal information about consequences. So his record will state that he bullied someone, but it can’t say what consequences arose for it.

Social Stigma

Besides the legal ramifications, there are also social implications for JJ as well.

JJ’s peers know that JJ stands accused of bullying by calling someone a racial slur. This can create racial tensions between JJ and black students, particularly among his black friends.

1.2 Million Bullied Students

Another implication is that if the school successfully argues its case of 3rd party bullying, then it leaves open the possibility that all students in the school, the district, and the state could claim to be victim of JJ’s actions, simply taking offense at what they thought he said. There were 1.2 million public school students in New Jersey at the time of this incident [44]. In this case, JJ stands accused of referring to a friend, B, and not NS, using a racial slur. She only overheard JJ’s conversation, and was not a party to the conversation, nor was she the subject or object of the slur. She was thus not a direct victim of bullying. AJ argued that she didn’t – and couldn’t – know that what she heard is attributable to JJ, if she heard anything at all.

Psychological

The final implication is psychological: JJ stands falsely accused. Of something. We won’t tell you.

Anxiety, much?

Supporting this type of bullying has serious consequences on bullying claims everywhere: any student can claim victim because “someone said something offensive”. Of course, these types of incidents are typically private, but there’s nothing stopping the victim from telling friends who the perpetrator is, and then word gets around and then it’s no longer private.

In the end, the balance of all this is JJ, who maintains he is completely innocent of the allegations. The school is telling him that he said or did something that he did not say or do. Someone has to believe him and fight for him. And that person is his father, AJ.

Bullying is serious. False claims are serious. The records issues are very real. And as well, the school’s behavior in this case is thoroughly inexcusable.

---

Day 1 – The Incident

On the morning of Wednesday February 6, 2019, JJ, who is white and is in 8th grade, asks his father, AJ, to drop him off at school that day. AJ enters the car lane for drop off and JJ gets out of the car at about 5 minutes before the bell rings. As his dad leaves, JJ sees and joins his friend, B, who is nearby and is talking with a younger student.

JJ says, “Yo B, sup!” <dap>. In teen parlance, a “dap” is a kind of fancy handshake or fist bump.

B, who is black, replies back, “Yo, sup, JJ.”

JJ, upon observing B’s attire, which includes cutoff jeans, asks, “What’s up with those?”

B replies, “What’s wrong with my shorts?”

JJ replies, “Shorts?! Those ain’t shorts. White people call them jorts!”

They both have a laugh. But B is already talking with his friend, and are bouncing a basketball between them. So JJ minds his own business, and prepares to go into the building, since the bell will ring at any moment.

Sure enough, the bell rings, and everyone quietly and calmly enters the school and begins their otherwise uneventful day.

Day 2 – A Morning Phone Call Reveals Bullying

JJ wasn’t feeling well the next day, he had a mild fever. It is school policy to stay home if a student has a fever. So, home he stayed.

But that afternoon, JJ’s parents got a phone call from Principal Nosal.

“JJ stands accused of bullying another student. He’ll receive a one day suspension, it’s up to you whether it’s in-school or out-of-school”.

AJ replied, “JJ would love the opportunity to not go to school. Whatever happens, he stays at school. What happened?”

“I can’t tell you. That would violate student privacy. I’m sorry. But you’ll have to get all of the facts from JJ”.

“Well, what can you tell us?”

“Not much. We are still investigating. But we have most of the facts which seem to support that JJ was bullying another student and that is both a HIB and a violation of Code of Conduct. His suspension is for the Code of Conduct violation.”

Back-And-Forth With The School

And then it went back and forth, over several phone calls variously involving Principal Nosal, the anti-bullying specialists Sorochynskyj and Maier, and JJ’s parents. And the calls were not particularly cordial. Which is understandable: the school accuses your son of bullying another student, and it won’t disclose details. And he serves a suspension. Tomorrow.

Can We Be Present?

The school did tell the parents that it would interview JJ tomorrow just before he serves his suspension. The parents asked to be present, but Nosal refused the request, saying that information about the incident could violate student privacy. Odd. JJ would be able to tell us everything anyway, so there didn’t seem to be any reason they couldn’t be present. The parents insisted “yes, we want to be there”, the school insisted “no, you cannot”. And on it went, and that was that: The parents forbidden to be present. The school was now bullying the parents.

Day 2 – Afternoon Discussion With JJ About Bullying

So later that day, the parents asked JJ what happened yesterday. Remember, JJ had not yet served his suspension and had not yet met with the school. He was still home in bed with a fever.

Start With Mild Question

“What do you mean ‘What happened’? Nothing happened. I did my homework, I stayed out of trouble, I walked home.”

“The school seems to think you bothered someone. Does that ring a bell?”

“No, I didn’t bother anyone. Why would they say that? Who said that? Bothered who?”

Get To The Point

“Ok, so the school thinks you were bullying someone. Does that jog your memory?”

“No way! I didn’t bully anyone! What did I do?”

“The school won’t tell us what happened, when it happened, where it happened, or to whom it happened.”

“What am I supposed to tell you? I didn’t bother anyone! I didn’t bully anyone!”

“Can you think of anything that happened out of the ordinary?”

<…brief thinking…>

“Well, someone’s book bag fell off before school started. Are they accusing me of knocking it off? I didn’t touch anyone!”

“Did you say something on Instagram or Snapchat?”

“No!”

“Did you take an inappropriate picture with your phone?”

“No!”

“Did you say anything to anyone?”

“No!”

“Did something happen at gym, recess, or lunch?”

“No!”

“Did something happen at the library?”

“No!”

“Did something happen before or after school?”

“No!”

“Who were you with when you walked home?”

“I walked home alone! By myself!”

“Did you stop in the deli or candy store on your way home?”

“No!”

“Did you see anyone as you were walking home?”

“No!”

No Idea What Happened

He had absolutely no clue what happened. He had no idea whether he said something, or did something, or did something on his phone. In his mind, he didn’t do anything which anyone could possibly construe as bullying.

Remember, by this time the school had not yet disclosed the nature of the allegations.

And then the parents and JJ began to get suspicious.

But first…

Bad Mojo: School Bullying The Student – the Prequel

Day 3 – Back To School

And now it is Friday February 8, the day upon which JJ returns to school and serves his in-school suspension for bullying. It would also involve an interview about the incident, since up to this point, the school hasn’t yet interviewed him. Strange… the school already accused and sentenced him, yet they did not yet interview him to get his side of the story. The school made a grave mistake here. The Supreme Court of the United States addresses this very thing in its decision in Goss v. Lopez [1]. But the school would insist that the suspension was only for the Code of Conduct violation, not the HIB. Yet, Goss does not make such a distinction.

Principal’s Office

As JJ arrived at school, he was to report to Nosal. And he sat in the anteroom to the principal’s office while several administrators privately met for about 45 minutes. That meeting included Maier (ABS#1), Sorochynskyj (ABS#2), Coleman (IEP case manager), and Nosal (principal). Eventually, the administrators left, leaving only Nosal and Maier in Nosal’s office.

Now, the interview would last only a minute or two, and no one was present except those three.

Remember, the parents were not present, and the school would not reveal details of this conversation until several months from now.

Question A Student With Permanent Mark Without Parents

An agitated JJ asked what he’d done wrong. In response, Nosal asked what JJ was talking about to B before school began.

“I don’t remember.”

“Did you say anything offensive or inappropriate?”

“No.”

Nosal reminded JJ who he was with that morning, since the incident happened 2 days ago.

“Did you use the “n-word” at any time in your conversation?”

JJ suddenly and angrily responded, “I’m not getting a HIB for that! I wasn’t saying it to anyone. I only use that word with my friends who aren’t offended by it and they say it too, in private conversation.”

This response will be pivotal in the interactions with the principals in this case.

JJ went on to say, “If I go to class I could hear that word 30 times by a lot of people! It’s the way people talk! If someone is eavesdropping on my conversation and they are offended, that’s their problem!”

He went on to say that while he wouldn’t intentionally use those words or curse in front of “little kids” or anyone else, he might not be aware they are around and can hear. He remained angry, and he told Nosal that “he could name two other people in that conversation who used that word, but he’s not going to snitch”.

This response will also be pivotal in later interactions with the school. The school insists his statement is an admission of guilt – that of using “the n-word“. JJ insists otherwise, to this day, that he did not admit to it. The school, to this day – even in court – insists that JJ admitted to his guilt. Spoiler alert: a judge would later support JJ on this point.

Suspension for Bullying

And that was it. He served his in-school suspension (for the Code of Conduct violation). The HIB had to be ratified by the Board of Education, which has an upcoming session.

Over the day, and again over the weekend, the parents and the school engaged in (bitter) conversations about the incident. The parents just wanted to know what happened. So they wrote a letter to the school demanding to speak to the principal and the anti-bullying specialists [27]. In the letter, they wrote that the school violated JJ’s civil rights, that it was too quick to take action, and that it failed to provide a hearing. They mentioned they were concerned about past administration behavior was creeping up again, and reminded them of the 15 days of suspension JJ received due to an extraordinarily incompetent administration just 3 years ago.

They all agreed to meet on Tuesday, February 12 at the school.

Day 7 – The Principal And The Principal’s Principal Principles

On Tuesday, February 12, at the appointed time, the parents were present, as was Christine Maier (ABS and a guidance counselor), Judy Sorochynskyj (ABS), Jennifer Coleman (IEP case manager), and Peter Nosal (the principal).  JJ was not present.

The conversation here is an excerpt, but the quotes are verbatim. Remember again, the parents were not privy to the conversation the school had with JJ – only that JJ met with them. The meeting was too short to remember much, so JJ forgot (conveniently, maybe?).

JAJ asked, “What happened?” 

Sorochynskyj piped up apologetically, “We cannot tell you that, because it would identify the victim of bullying, and that is a violation of student privacy.”

“Well, what can you tell us?”

“We can only confirm that a Code of Conduct violation had occurred, and that JJ was suspended for it.  There is also a HIB, but that needs to be confirmed by the Board of Education.”

“What happens to JJ if the Board confirms the HIB, will he be suspended for it?”

“No, he’s already served his suspension.  No matter the decision by the board, he will not be suspended again.”

“Ok, so you can’t tell us anything about the HIB because it would identify the victim of bullying.  What was the Code of Conduct violation for?”

“We can’t tell you that, either, because it’s related to the HIB and that would identify the victim.”

Plethora Of Gathered Information On Bullying

The itinerary for the meeting was fairly short. It had only one item on that list (“What happened”), and the parents weren’t getting anywhere with anything on the list.  The school was not giving up any information about the who, what, where, when, how. But there were some pieces of information that the school mentioned. One was about someone representing JJ during his meeting on Friday (Day 3). Another was that there may have been either a fourth person, or one of JJ’s friends was the victim. Another was that someone may have used a racially insensitive phrase. And the last was that the school accuses JJ only of “indirectly” bullying the victim.

JJ Was Represented

One thing that came up, oddly, was that Coleman was in the room with JJ while Nosal questioned him “in order to preserve his rights”.  Coleman was also an Anti-Bullying Specialist, but she decided not to act in that capacity as an ABS, but rather, as his IEP case worker.  The parents said they were glad that she was present to preserve his rights.

Another Person On The Grassy Knoll

Another thing that came up accidentally was that the victim overheard JJ use a “racially insensitive phrase”.  The parents assumed there was a fourth person (so, there’s JJ, his 2 friends, and now possibly a 4th person) who was apparently the bullying victim.  The parents assumed that JJ’s friends were not the victim. JJ was not there to confirm or deny the presence of a fourth person, but he would later flatly deny it, and that there were only two friends with him – a total of three people. His encounter with B was extremely short – perhaps a minute, and that no one else was there. But this fourth person, the parents deduced, was the victim of JJ’s bullying and was with the group of boys, and that JJ wasn’t fessing up. Or, one of the boys claimed to be bullied, which JJ also vehemently denied.

Racially Insensitive Phrase

When “racially insensitive phrase” came up, it was not at all clear about the context. Did he call someone “a nigger“? Or say something like, “Yo, sup nigga“? Maybe he used a phrase directed at any of the Asian, Latino, Indian, or Pakistani students in the school, of which there are many. Did he recite a song with offensive lyrics? What about a book passage? (The students in JJ’s grade were reading To Kill a Mockingbird, so this was a real possibility).

There was some broad discussion about racially insensitive phrases. The school lamented that students use racial slurs all the time, and such appears in pop culture. But at no time did the school confirm or deny what JJ had said, nor did it confirm that it was what he said which was the reason for the bullying allegation, or that it was something he’d done which was the reason for the bullying. Or possibly both. Or possibly some other explanation. And still, there was the hint that maybe some other type of bullying occurred. Maybe he hit or taunted someone, or maybe it was a religious or gender-offensive phrase. Did he send something over social media, or use his phone’s camera inappropriately. Maybe it was that bookbag. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Lots of “maybes”, but no explanations.

Direct or Indirect

One last thing that came up.  Sorochynskyj mentioned that JJ didn’t actually “directly” bully the victim.  Instead, he “indirectly” bullied the victim.  [50] [51] [53] [53] [54] [55] She says indirect bullying goes something like this:

• Al and Bob are friends and don’t like Charlie.
• So Al and Bob create a friendship that involves the two of them, but which explicitly excludes Charlie.
• Unless any other element of bullying applies, Charlie is thus “indirectly bullied”.

While indirect bullying certainly has effects, that is for a separate debate. Indirect bullying is not actionable. And that is what is happening here instead: action against indirect bullying.

Since the school provided no details about what JJ supposedly said or did, only that he indirectly bullied someone, the parents had to figure out on their own how to indirectly bully someone.  A deed is easy to imagine, but words are more complicated.  And there is no dispute that the timing of JJ’s arrival at school was within 5 minutes of the bell – far too little time to hatch a plan for a duo to exclude one from a trio. Thus, the breadcrumbs the school left the parents as to what transpired led them to think that it was something JJ did and not something that he said.

Bookbag…

Day 7 – JJ’s Take On One of The Principal’s Principal Principals

When the parents got home, they sat down with JJ to discuss their meeting with the school, and JJ’s separate meeting with the school.  Since no information was provided to the parents, there was very little to talk about.

They mentioned to JJ that Coleman was present, but JJ immediately objected and stated that, NO, she absolutely was not present. In fact, he told them there were only two other people present – the principal and a guidance counselor anti bullying specialist, Nosal and Maier.

So apparently, either JJ was lying and Coleman really was present, or, the school was lying and Coleman was not present at all and should have been.  Whoever was lying had little to gain, so it was strange that such a detail came up at all. Only the school arguably had something to gain, which has something to do legally with his IEP, and Coleman was his IEP case manager. But his guidance counselor was there, ostensibly someone charged with looking after his rights, if but for a brief period of time. The discussion, according to JJ, didn’t have anything to do with an IEP, so this seems like a small detail to quibble over.

Yet, it shows someone was lying.

So then they mentioned to JJ about the fourth actor, and JJ was adamant that there wasn’t anyone else there.  It was just him, B, and B’s friend: three people. He claimed there must be a mistake somewhere.

The parents thus concluded that someone was definitely lying, although it wasn’t clear who or why.

The discussion with JJ continued with something about “indirect bullying” and “racially insensitive phrase”. Indirect bullying concepts were lost on AJ and JAJ, and lost even more on JJ.

Agree To Disagree

The parents, JJ, and the school were not agreeing on who was present.  Someone was lying, and since the school provided scant information, AJ wanted all details in case they uncovered something larger that needed attention.

To be fair, it seemed possible that perhaps both sides were telling the truth: Coleman, they said, was absolutely present during his questioning.  JJ, the school surmised, must have been confused about the meetings he was at and who was present.

But JJ stuck to his story and absolutely, unequivocally, and resolutely denied that she was present.  He was only at one meeting, he said, and it only lasted a minute, so how could he be confused? “I’m an 8th grader, not a 1st grader, and 8th graders don’t get confused”, he reasoned.

The parents thought the school was above lying, and so perhaps maybe it was equally possible that the school made a mistake and that there were several meetings and JJ was only part of one of them.

JJ claims, as does the school, that he was in an anteroom of the principal’s office waiting for the administrators (which included Coleman), so, perhaps that is where the confusion lay – from both perspectives, both sides were telling the truth.

But JJ wasn’t buying it, she was simply not present when they questioned him, and that’s that.

Fourth Actor Bullied?

As to the fourth actor, the school wasn’t fessing up about who it was.  So for all JJ knew, B or his friend was the bullying victim who reported him to the school over his “white people call them ‘jorts’” comment.  And yet, he knew these kids, and they wouldn’t do that, and what he said wasn’t really racist, let alone bullying.  The school made no mention of racial slurs, but the tenor of the conversations strongly suggested something of a racial nature. But of what race, and whose?

JJ insisted the bullying must have been about the book bag, and not about what he said about B’s shorts. Besides, “white people call them ‘jorts’“, which JJ directly said to B, is not in any way an example of indirect bullying. Unless, the parents surmised, the school was privy to some strange archaic rule that such speech could be “indirectly directed” at the person next to him, even though he wasn’t talking to or about him. Or… something like that.

---

Meet With The Board of Education About Bullying

On February 26, the parents received a letter in the mail [26].  It reported that JJ committed an act of HIB, specifically bullying, and that the Board of Education was going to rule on that on March 11.  In the letter, it stated that JJ received a one-day suspension and three counseling sessions on the matter as a consequence for violating a Code of Conduct.  In it, it also told the parents that if they do not agree with the result, they can request a hearing with the Board of Education.

The Parents Doth Protest School’s Handling Of Bullying

The parents requested a hearing [24].  The school must conduct this hearing within ten days of a request, per state statute.  But since the BOE wasn’t ruling on the HIB until March 12, it would be 11 days later, so the school’s date math was off.  Nevertheless, AJ sent out an email indicating his desire to fight this – if only to get information about what happened.

Several days later, the parents received a letter in the mail from Superintendent Presuto, acknowledging the parents’ disagreement with the outcome of the HIB.  He set up a BOE meeting for April 8, at which time, he said, the “HIB incident will be reviewed”. [25]

Meet The Board

April 8 was the appointed date for the BOE meeting so that the parents could review the HIB incident.  The board was in session with the entire board over other matters, and so, the board had to conclude its business in order that the executive board members can remain and discuss the bullying issue, as is protocol.

You First

The board asked AJ to “go first”.  He didn’t know what to expect or what to do, and he thought he was going to be provided information about the HIB. That is the purpose and definition of a hearing – the formal exchange of information.

But apparently, the board was asking AJ to explain JJ’s side of the story. The only problem was, there was nothing for him to explain, since AJ had absolutely no information to explain. JJ insists the school told him nothing, and the school didn’t provide context about what happened, such as who said what when. AJ could only read the riot act to the board about his accusations against the school about its behavior handling the bullying incident.

Prepared Statement About Bullying and Racism in Schools

So, he read a prepared statement to the Board, who politely listened without any interruption.  At the end, there were no questions, although there was some friendly chit-chat.

During AJ’s monologue, he recapped the events that occurred, including mentioning some information the school recently hinted at after they conferred with JJ about his questioning.  The parents became aware that a fourth actor was probably the third person in their group of friends, and that one of them was the victim who reported JJ, even though JJ was insistent that these friends weren’t the type to rat on someone, so he still insists it must have been about the book bag.  The parents were hoping to resolve that at the BOE hearing.

N-Word

What AJ did address was the Nosal’s questioning of JJ – and “n-word”.  The school never mentioned whether he used “nigger” or “nigga”, they always said it was just “n-word”.  The parents argued that the latter is perfectly acceptable in the school; everyone uses it, and uses it to refer to anyone, not just about or by blacks, but by and about everyone.  And the fact that society at large ubiquitously uses it. [56] [57] [58] [58] And it couldn’t be the former, because no one used that word in his conversation.  So, again, he assumed incident had to be about the book bag, despite quickly mounting evidence that the incident was really about a racially-insensitive phrase.

To Kill A Mockingbird

AJ mentioned that at the time the incident occurred, the students were reading “To Kill a Mockingbird” for class.  One of the Board members quipped, “That book is tough to read, there’s about a half-dozen references to n-word in there”.

He was wrong.

AJ clarified that there are actually 48 references to “nigger” alone, and more than dozens of other racially insensitive phrases in the book. [6]

But the board member did correctly note that districts across the country are getting rid of the book because of its patently racist content.  AJ wondered why Boonton didn’t get rid of it, but no one at the board had an answer.

Well, that was it.  End of meeting.  No information was provided by the school.  By this time, JJ was summarily suspended “because you said or did something, but we’re not going to tell you what and so you are suspended.  Now.”

Need To Know

Presuto previously told the parents at the board meeting that they were entitled to information about the incident, and, that the school would give it to them as soon as possible. The parents told him they’d already asked for that information – several times – and the school explicitly told them “no”, and that they’d have to get the information from JJ himself.

Strange, because both Maier and Presuto would later testify that parents are not given information about a HIB incident “in order to avoid tainting an investigation”. So the Italian ham lied.

What happens now is the board convenes after the “hearing” and decides whether or not a HIB occurred.  And that is what they did – apparently for two hours.

The parents were notified the next day that the Board affirmed the decision it had already made: the HIB stands.  It cited absolutely no information about why it made its decision, other than to say that “no new information” had been introduced. [32]

And a week later, the parents received for the first time the Investigative Report [23] which outlines the investigation and other details that the school heretofore withheld from them.  This report is a redacted report, in that the school blacked-out student-identifying information, except for JJ’s name.

The Bullying Plot Thickens

The report is explosive. It completely exonerates JJ. See the redacted report at [23].

First, it identifies exculpatory evidence. Besides JJ (the designated “bully”) and NS (the designated “victim”), the school only interviewed four other people.  All four people support JJ’s contention that he said nothing offensive.  Of these four people, two were friends of JJ, and the other two were friends of NS.

Second, the report indicates that the school itself concluded that JJ’s actions were accidental and without malice.

Third, it indicates JJ denied having said anything offensive.

Fourth, it indicates that only two people – Nosal and Maier, and not Coleman – were present during JJ’s questioning.  In other words: the school was actually lying: JJ was telling the truth all along.

School Snitches

Most interesting of all, the school didn’t completely redact the report. The report names NS as the victim – and uses her real name. So for all of the school’s reliance on student privacy laws as the reason to withhold information from the parents, it identifies the victim anyway.

Curiously, it does not indicate what JJ supposedly said that bullied NS.  It only states that JJ referred to another student “with the n-word”, and this was from NS’s statement. In other words, NS claims to be bullied because she overheard JJ referring to one of his friends using the “n-word“.

More Evidence???

The parents are pissed off at the school.  How can the school withhold that information from them?  The report indicates that there was camera footage which corroborates what the other interviewed students said.  The students indicated JJ said nothing offensive, and the footage corroborates that.  This is the school’s own words!  And why can’t the parents see the video?  (Oh yeah… student privacy…)

JJ is innocent, this report proves it, and the board chose to side with the school anyway.

The parents then set out to meet with the board of education one more time, and sent a letter to Superintendent Presuto [28].

Presuto refused the parents’ request for a “re-do” of a hearing. [29]

The parents sent back another letter saying there was precedent for a “re-do”, and indicated that the Commissioner asks parties to do everything possible before reaching out to the Commissioner. [30]

Again, Presuto refused to meet with the parents via the BOE. [31]

---

The Commissioner

The Commissioner of Education is the chief executive school officer of New Jersey and supervises all public schools. [36]

The Role Of The Commissioner In a Bullying Case

When the Board of Education makes a disagreeable decision or action, the parents can appeal that decision or action.  In New Jersey, that appeal goes to the Commissioner of Education. [37]  The Commissioner receives a petition which objects to the findings or actions of a school board, and then the Commissioner rules for or against the petitioner. The petitioner is the plaintiff; the respondent is the defendant.

The Role Of An Administrative Law Judge In A Bullying Case

If there are facts in the petition that the respondent (in this case, the school) disagrees with, then the Commissioner forwards the case to an Administrative Law Judge, or ALJ, to rule on the facts which are in disagreement.  [38] The ALJ then makes a decision, called an Initial Decision, and forwards it back to the Commissioner.  The Commissioner uses the information provided by the ALJ, coupled with any facts in the petition which are not in dispute, and makes a Final Decision.  In making a final decision, the Commissioner can accept the ALJ’s findings, can reject the ALJ’s findings, or can modify them in some way.  But having the ALJ resolve those disputed facts is paramount to making the final decision.

The Role Of The Petitioner In a Bullying Case

The petitioner is the plaintiff – the one who brings the complaint. The respondent is the defendant, and is the one whom the complaint is aimed at. AJ is the petitioner, and the Boonton School Board is the respondent.

AJ set out to appeal the board’s decision affirming the HIB, and he wrote a scathing petition to the Commissioner outlining all of the ways the school violated JJ’s rights and how the school violated the law and how there could not possibly be an incidence of HIB. [33]

Meet The Bar Of Being Arbitrary, or Capricious, or Unreasonable

In his petition, AJ had to argue that the board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously in determining that the school concluded that a HIB occurred. To do that, he had to argue that there was absolutely no way that the school could reasonably conclude that a HIB occurred. [39] [40] [41]

A court can find a school to be in error, and still that it acted reasonably, ie., that it reasonably came to the wrong conclusion [41]. So to overcome that, AJ also needed to show that the school violated JJ’s rights, since no school can be excused for that. A decision can not only not be arbitrary or capricious, but it cannot be contrary to law [39]. In doing this, AJ claimed that the school violated JJ’s 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment rights, as well as claimed that the school violated statutes in handling bullying cases, Supreme Court rulings, and violation of student privacy laws. AJ claimed:

• He claimed a 1st amendment speech violation because whatever JJ said, it was not offensive (per all witnesses), and the school suspended him for otherwise protected speech. [33] (page 12, section D)
• He claimed violation of 5th amendment right to counsel because the school did not provide JJ his rights, and inculpated him for his answers to questions the school asked without his parents being present. [33] (page 11, section B)
• He claimed violation of JJ’s 6th amendment right to know his accusers and the nature of the crime, because the school refused to divulge who was accusing him, and what he was being accused of. [33] (page 11, section C)
• He claimed violation of JJ’s 14th amendment due process rights, because he was suspended without ever being told what he was being accused of. [33] (page 10, section A)

How To Fight A Bullying Accusation

Before talking about HIB and bullying, it might be helpful to understand the state’s statute on what bullying actually is. There is a link at the beginning of this article which explains it all.

In short, as this case applies:

1. JJ has to be motivated by NS’s race.
2. His actions have to substantially interfere with her rights. [3][61][62]
3. His actions have to have the effect of demeaning or insulting NS.

So, AJ made a list describing how the school applied the statute. The school is required to show evidence of these three things. The way to fight the HIB is to show that these three things were not met, and that not only were these not met, but the decision to find that they were met was egregiously wrong – capricious (or arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to law).

The first two elements make up what’s called the “threshold” of the HIB statute. If you can’t support these two elements, then the third, fourth, and fifth elements are moot. If you can argue that the first two occurred, you have to argue that either the third, or the fourth, or the fifth also occurred.

So what AJ did was to make the argument that neither the threshold, nor any of the optional (third, fourth, fifth) elements were met. He did it initially because the school wouldn’t tell him which of the three optional elements they were arguing for, so, he had no choice but to argue all three.

AJ’s Arguments

AJ made these arguments in his petition: [33]

Motive

JJ could not see and did not know NS and therefore he couldn’t be motivated by her race.

Note: later testimony would reveal that video would show JJ incapable of directly seeing NS, and, importantly, that NS could not see JJ directly. JJ did indicate he had no idea anyone was listening in on their conversation, and that he was referring only to B’s shorts. NS would also state that JJ was not referring to her. Neither AJ, JAJ, nor JJ ever saw the video, and the person who testified as to its existence and its content is Maier.

JJ’s motivation for anything he said had to be a motivation due to a relationship as a friend he had with B.

Substantial Disruption

NS’s rights were not “substantially disrupted”, and not just “disrupted”. The Supreme Court in Tinker [3], Burnside [4], and Bell [5] (and as well, see [61][62]) state that opinion can’t be prohibited solely on the grounds that it might substantially interfere with the rights of other students. In JJ’s case, using a racial slur could arguably and reasonably interfere with the rights of other students, and perhaps substantially so; but using “nigga” could not reasonably meet that threshold, because students ubiquitously used that phrase in the school system. As a result, “nigga”, AJ argued, couldn’t be prohibited.

The problem for AJ was that the school refused to disambiguate “n-word”, so no one ever knew which word he was accused of using to refer to B or his friend or anyone else. Importantly, none of the witnesses, who are all black, indicated that JJ said anything offensive.

Hostile Environment

AJ also argued that JJ did not create a hostile environment, because kids in that school/grade regularly refer to one another as “Yo”, “Dude”, “Homie”, “Nigga”, etc. He also argued that the school itself created a hostile environment by having JJ’s class read To Kill a Mockingbird. [6]

Free From Racially Charged Language

AJ argued that the school’s assertion that NS’s rights of “the right from being subjected to racially charged language were violated”, was invalid because, he argued, that right does not actually exist. He pointed out that if it were, then books like Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, and Huckleberry Finn would have, should have, and could have been taken off the bookshelves, and yet they weren’t. Also, students wouldn’t be asked to read Mockingbird’s passages – with “n-word” – aloud in class.

The author of this blog wishes to remind the reader that acceptance of speech, however disagreeable, is a cornerstone of the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Imbalance Of Power

AJ argued that bullying is defined, outside of statute but in psychology circles, as an imbalance of power. [42] As JJ’s actions were deemed accidental and without malice, and not directly or indirectly aimed at NS, no sort of bullying could have occurred.

Arbitrary, Capricious, Unreasonable

Presumption Of Correctness

JJ had to overcome another hurdle.  Not only did he have to show that bullying didn’t occur, but he had to show that the school board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably.  This is because the school has the “presumption of correctness”. Meaning, the school’s actions are presumed to be correct, unless one can show the school acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably.

This is an important concept to understand. The school could have made an honest mistake, or an honest mistake in its conclusion; or, that its evidence can be interpreted in many ways and it chose one of those many ways. In these cases, then, the school is presumed to be correct – even if it made a mistake. [39]

This is how schools look out for themselves. If the school willfully makes a mistake, or violates a student’s rights, or behaves recklessly, then the school is first presumed to be correct in its actions, until the one suffering can show the school was not acting reasonably.

This can be a tough bar to meet. The “system” by nature protects the school, even when the school acts incorrectly. People don’t know this. Even if the accused can show that a HIB simply did not occur, even though the school earnestly tried but came to the wrong conclusion, the commissioner will not override the school. So not only does the HIB have to be disproved, but the school must be shown to have acted unreasonably (capriciously, arbitrarily, etc).

The Constitution

To that end, AJ spelled out violations of JJ’s 1st and 14th amendments rights, in order to show the school acted unreasonably.

1st Amendment Violation

AJ argued JJ’s 1st amendment rights were violated by censoring his “white people call them ‘jorts’” comment, and the still-undisambiguated “n-word” (which JJ and all witnesses agree he didn’t use no matter the disambiguation). Because the school at the point AJ argued with the BOE hadn’t indicated what JJ had said or done, but did find out after the board meeting’s report and before meeting with the commissioner, for continuity he kept both arguments (jorts and nigga) in his argument. In retrospect, AJ feels the jorts thing was not needed, but that didn’t detract from the argument too much.

AJ was making the argument that schools can’t prohibit “nigga“, because students use it and accept it and does not cause problems within the school community.

Might Cause A Disruption

In Burnside [4], the Supreme Court ruled that speech can’t be prohibited because it might cause a disruption. AJ probably shouldn’t have made this argument because JJ didn’t refer to anyone using either disambiguation, he merely argued that even if JJ did use the acceptable phrase, then his use of it is protected speech, and therefore, the school can’t suspend him for it. But because the school refused to say which disambiguation JJ used, AJ was making it appear that JJ used “nigga“. Further, AJ says, the school claims it prohibits either disambiguation. Which isn’t true; that phrase is not specified in the school handbook, and nowhere does the handbook state that the phrase is unacceptable.

Who Determines What Is Acceptable

What is notable is that it’s not up to the school to determine whether “nigga” is acceptable or not, as a reasonable person would have to make that determination – not the school. As it turns out, the Supreme Court says that a student of a similar age and maturity level would have to be the determinant. Both JJ and B made a statement that students commonly use and accept “nigga“, and that JJ didn’t use either disambiguation, and that someone else in their group did use “nigga“. Full disclosure: none of the three admitted to using this phrase, only that JJ didn’t use it. AJ thus complicated the argument needlessly, I think. It is also notable that the school offered no testimony – other than it’s own verbal assertion – that “nigga” is unacceptable.

Also, AJ argued that because the school punished JJ without any mention of what he said or did, the school effectively suspended him “Because you did something. We won’t tell you what. But we are suspending you for it. Now.” This is a violation of statute based on Supreme Court in Tinker [3], and NJ statute. It would turn out that school policy prohibits this, which is pretty much what the administrators were claiming all along from the beginning. But that doesn’t make it right, and if the school is to be believed, then it was following a policy that is contrary to law – the very example of the definition of “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or contrary to law“.

14th Amendment Violation

AJ argued that the school violated JJ’s 14th amendment rights to due process because JJ never got a hearing, and the school failed to provide any information about the accusation as state law requires. AJ also argued that the definitions of “target”, “victim”, and other phrases did not meet the standard according to law. He cited state and federal law which guarantees a student’s right to this information when a school makes an accusation.

---

Meet the Court

Administrative Law Judge Reviews Bullying Case

As expected, the Commissioner turned the case over to an Administrative Law Judge to remediate any disputed facts. When the ALJ remediates those facts in an Initial Decision, the Commissioner can adopt the ALJ’s decision, or it can override it, or it can modify it in some way. The commissioner thus writes a Final Decision.

Discovery Hearings

Now, before there would be a court date, there were several on-line court hearings. The first several hearings are status hearings, to be sure that discovery has completed.

For those who don’t know, discovery is a phase of a trial whereby both sides of an issue exchange information that they have in order to support their case. Both sides submit questions they would like to ask of the other side, called interrogatories.

This is all done to avoid surprises because judges apparently don’t like surprises.

There is also the element of saving time. It would be tedious indeed to have to stop at every single piece of newly introduced evidence, just so that the other side can separately examine it and then come back to court again. This would amount to a huge waste of time, particularly in large, complex cases.

Each side, then, tells the other what they have and what they’re going to ask. Each side can object to evidence or questions, another time saver.

So, AJ formed a list of questions, and submitted it to the school and court. The school similarly did the same. Each side answered the questions, and submitted them to the other side.

Interest In Settling?

In each hearing, the judge asked if there was any interest on either side wanting to settle the case. Strange question; the school sought nothing, JJ sought only the removal of a check mark. One would think that the use of court resources was hardly warranted. The judge even remarked so. The school and AJ were very stubborn, and very sure of their side of the facts of the case.

So no – no interest in settling the case.

Court Date

Next up was preparation for court date. During one of the hearings, the school for the first time disclosed its theory that it was relying on 3rd party bullying. Basically, “can a bystander claim to be bullied based on what she sees/hears, even though she’s not a direct party to the interaction she witnessed?” The judge gave the school 10 days to submit a brief to show case law of 3rd party bullying.

School Tries To Show Case Law For 3rd Party Bullying

In an approximate 10-day time frame, the school made an attempt to support the proposition that a student in New Jersey can be found to commit a HIB for actions which are not directed at a student, and it cited four case law examples which it says supports its contention that such a thing is possible. [34] See the notations and links below, but in short, the school raised these case law examples of 3rd-party bullying:

G.T.S. v. Union County Vocational School

In this case, G.T.S. sought to clear her records of a bullying charge. Problem was, there was no record of her bullying anyone, so, the court in G.T.S. dismissed the case as being moot (ie, there’s nothing to do). [7]

J.G. v Hackettstown School District

In this case, there was an instance of indirect bullying.  J.G.’s daughter referred to a fictional corrupt cop in a book they were reading for class as a “pig”. This offended a student not present who later found out what happened and made a HIB complaint (because her father was a cop).  J.G. did not contest the HIB, and later contested it on constitutional 1st Amendment grounds.  The commissioner dismissed the case because the commissioner does not handle constitutional cases. [8]

Melynk v. Teaneck School District

In this case, Melynk showed a photo of her Dutch relatives in blackface, something commonly done in The Netherlands.  A student filed a HIB complaint and the school affirmed it.  Melynk found out there was no appeals process for her, so she filed a grievance with her union, and an arbitrator found in her favor, as did NJ Superior Court. [9]

Geiger / Jones v Township of Mount Olive School District

In this case, two teachers got into an argument resulting in their termination.  Students overheard the two referring to a group of students as “Negro”.  The ALJ and the commissioner determined that the context of their conversation – and not just the words they used – constituted a breach of statute that ultimately led to tenure charges (termination of their jobs).  At no time did anyone raise the issue of any students being bullied. [10]

AJ Rejects School’s Bullying Case Law Examples

AJ determined that none of these cases were good examples – or examples at all. He filed a reply brief refuting each example, and further, refuted other statements made in the school’s brief:

Nothing To Do With Bullying

In [7] G.T.S., AJ is arguing that this is not a case of indirect bullying. Also, the ALJ dismissed the case, not because the ALJ agreed that her actions amounted to bullying, but because of a technicality: G.T.S. sought removal of disciplinary records when there was nothing removed. The court’s decision had nothing to do with bullying.

Constitutional Issues Are Out Of Jurisdiction

In [8] J.G., AJ concedes that this is an example of indirect bullying, but J.G. did not argue the merits of HIB, only a constitutional issue, which one is allowed to argue only in state and federal supreme courts. The Commissioner dismissed her case on jurisdictional grounds: he cannot rule on constitutional issues, or any issue that relies on policy outside of the school system. Further, it was the school, not the court, which asserted indirect bullying, and no court upheld that assertion. That someone like J.G. who does not contest a specious claim of indirect bullying does not make an example of case law.

Due Process

In [9] Melynk, is AJ arguing this is not a case of indirect bullying. Melynk was accused of a HIB, but she had no redress. This is a 14th amendment violation of Due Process. The commissioner had to dismiss her case, because he cannot rule on constitutional matters. Melynk then went to her union who fought on her behalf in binding arbitration. The arbitor found in her favor and ordered her records cleared, which was a written reprimand. The case then ended up in New Jersey Superior Court which also supported the arbitrator. Her records were cleared. Whether there was HIB involved is unclear; there certainly was no indirect HIB.

Conflict Is Not Bullying

And in [10] Geiger/Jones, is AJ arguing that this was a case of conflict, not bullying. Board fired the teachers on accusations of unbecoming conduct.  No court or commissioner ruled that any bullying – direct or indirect – had occurred.  The nature of the appeal was about tenure, and not about anything that students might have have overheard.

The school in JJ’s case (the instant case) asserts that the kids in Geiger overheard the inflammatory terms the tenured teachers used and caused a direct impact on the school environment.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

AJ, in the instant case, argues that the Boonton school’s argument is post hoc ergo propter hoc: “The kids in Geiger overheard the teachers’ conduct, so, the teachers were fired for their conduct.” But nothing suggests that BECAUSE the kids overheard, the teachers were fired. It also happens, in Geiger, that there is no evidence yet presented that suggests any student who overheard these two arguing had filed a HIB report against the teachers.

AJ, in Geiger, further argues that by the Boonton school’s logic in JJ’s case, that would be reasonable (to suggest there was bullying), since all of the HIB statute elements seem to have been met, although arguably their squabble would fall under conflict, not HIB. Also by the school’s logic, two kids who, for example, get into a fight over a girl and use racially inflammatory words against each other would likely be considered an act of conflict – but the bystanders could claim to be bullied?

Not to be outdone, but, AJ not only refuted with reasonable logic that the school’s examples were not examples at all, but he refuted other statements the school made in that briefing.

Motivation For Bullying

The school raised JJ’s “motivation” issues. AJ argued that the motivation clause alone is enough to disallow third party bullying, and cited four examples of case law supporting his assertion that motivation has to come from the victim, and not in general:

• [11] N.M. v. Chathams School District
• [12] K.L. v. Evesham School
• [13] W.D. v. Township of Jefferson Board of Education
• [14] C.K. v. Township of Voorhees Board of Education

Motivation By Something Known About The Victim

In [11] N.M., AJ is arguing that the petitioner in that case sought to challenge the child’s bullying allegation in part by arguing he did not know the victim’s status as a special ed student. The court disagreed, saying that the child had to have known, given the victim was in special ed for 9 years, and had routinely been pulled in and out of class, and has a 1:1 aide in class. Therefore, the accused in N.M. had to have known about the characteristic, and, his words were ultimately found to be motivated by it.

AJ argues similarly in that JJ could not have known NS’ race, therefore, he could not have been motivated by it. There is no indication that JJ had any other means to know her race, unlike the child in N.M., who reasonably had knowledge of the victim’s special ed status. It’s important to note that in N.M., the Commissioner did not rule that “knowledge of the victim’s special ed status was irrelevant“, but rather, that “the victim’s status was obvious“.

Motivation Only By Something Else

In [12] K.L., AJ is arguing that according to the case about another case (see explanatory note below), the court notes that harmful or demeaning conduct motivated only by another reason does not come within the statutory definition of bullying.

As JJ was unaware of the complainant, and didn’t know her; nor talk to, toward, or about her; nor about anyone else other than the boys he was with; nor was he being aggressive in any way; AJ argued that any action or statement JJ made/did was from a motivation that could only have been because of a relationship of friendship he had with the boys he was talking to, and not about anyone else. As a result, AJ asserts that JJ and the boys’ conversation and conduct do not constitute HIB.

Mere Use Of A Phrase Not Necessarily Bullying

In [13] W.D., AJ is arguing that the court notes that mere use of a word does not automatically constitute an act of HIB without other factors being met.

Even if JJ did say something offensive, the case in W.D. suggests it doesn’t automatically mean he committed a HIB, as the school asserts.

Knowledge Of Victim’s Characteristic Is Requisite

In [14] C.K., AJ is arguing that the girl accused of being a bully committed an act that was not found by the commissioner to be an act of bullying, because she couldn’t have been motivated by any characteristic of the petitioner/victim. As such, knowledge of the victim’s characteristic is a requisite to establish motivation.

Substantial Disruption

The school also raised the substantial disruption argument that AJ had been raising since the beginning. The school says that students have the right to be “in an environment free from racially insensitive language”. AJ first argued that, no, she has no such right, or else the school would not have required students to read To Kill a Mockingbird. Then he argued that the school’s assertion of substantial disruption had not even been met, and cited two cases:

• [15] A.J. v. Pinelands Regional School District
• [16] D.D.K. v. Readington, Hunterdon County

In [15] A.J. the court noted severe effects of the bullying.

In [16] D.D.K., the court noted that when the aggressor referred to D.K. (the victim) with “you’re already yellow. . . you’re Asian.” does meet one of the elements of the HIB, because it’s reasonable to see the motivation of D.K.’s race; however, it also found that the statement did not substantially disrupt the student’s rights, or the rights of others.

Note that in JJ’s case, NS claimed to not like the school “because it’s racist”. She continued her day in school, having made the report at the end of the day. The school gave her a single counseling session – hardly indicative of a substantial interference But the school gave JJ three counseling sessions, and without any guidance for him as to what to cover in the counseling sessions for an act the school deemed accidental and without malice. And by the time the BOE hearing occurred weeks later, the board made no mention of school absence. Indeed, by the time the court was in session a year later, the school made no mention of any absenteeism, falling grades, or anything negatively attributed to bullying.

Is The N-Word Bullying?

AJ then argued n-word needed to be disambiguated. Because one disambiguation is patently racist, and there’s no defense against using it (other than reading it aloud in class for an assignment). However, the alternative is perfectly okay to use, the student base commonly uses it, to the chagrin of the school administrators who, according to AJ, do nothing to stop it. And while “nigga” is one of those phrases that the school says the students are informally told not to use, AJ argued that the school has no right to forbid students from using it per the Supreme Court.

AJ points out that JJ is not being accused of using either disambiguation, but instead only “n-word“. The school asserts that it doesn’t matter, any disambiguation is wrong to use. AJ asserts that that is incorrect: “nigga” is allowed, since the students use it in a friendly way. The Supreme Court bans the prohibition of speech that might cause disruption, and “nigga” is one of those phrases which does not cause disruption. This is specified not only in contemporary journalism, but witness statements in this case, including the involved administrators, who indicate that the phrases are commonly used. [56][57][58][59]

The judge did not rule one way or another about the school’s assertion of third party bullying, nor did it rule on AJ’s counter arguments on motivation, substantial disruption, or use of n-word‘s disambiguated variations. However, the school also did not respond to AJ’s arguments either, seemingly apparent that they were dropping the issue altogether.

So This Is What The Inside Of A Courtroom Looks Like

January 13 was the court date, less than a month shy of one year since the incident occurred.  Newark is a tough place to park.  No matter what anyone says, if a uniformed guy comes to your car telling you that you can park in a private area designated “No Parking”, don’t park there.  The only legal uniformed attendants will attend to are lots and garages clearly designated for public parking.

The Witnesses

AJ’s witnesses include only Maier (ABS#1), Nosal (principal), and Presuto (superintendent).  Nosal never showed up – how nice.  The school’s witnesses included only Maier and Presuto, despite that Nosal was in their witness list as well.  No matter.  AJ needed only the information in the redacted investigative report – the smoking gun – for the bulk of his arguments.

AJ had done some extensive research.  A seasoned lawyer could have done in a week what AJ took nine months to do, but AJ was not a lawyer and was filing JJ’s case pro se.  Moreover, AJ had a day job, whereas the school’s lawyer’s day job WAS lawyering.  Clearly, AJ was in way over his head.  But he showed up prepared.  Only thing was, he had no idea how to lawyer in court, and it would show.  (Is “lawyer” a verb?  Yes.  It is now.  Get over it.)

Popular School

There were few people who sided with the school, from AJ’s point of view.  In those nine months, AJ had conferred with several lawyers, some wanting to take on the case.  At least four law firms were willing to not only take on the school, but to follow up on a civil suit – they were that confident of the asinine behavior by the school.  AJ did not want to sue, he merely wanted JJ’s record to reflect that he is not a bully.  (And, JJ wanted someone to believe him, that he said nothing offensive).  AJ had conferred with:

1. JJ’s neurologist
2. JJ’s psychologist
3. JJ’s behavioral therapist
4. JJ’s psychiatrist
5. JJ’s ESS case workers
6. JJ’s pediatrician
7. A friend who is Division Director for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at a state university and who trains physicians and medical students
8. A friend who is a child psychologist in a nearby school system
9. A friend who is a child psychologist
10. A friend who is a practicing lawyer
11. A brother-in-law who is a 1st grade teacher
12. A friend who is a 6th grade teacher

All are of the opinion that this case just does not warrant bullying, and that the school is trying to make an example of JJ.

Erosion Of Bully Law Intentions

What’s more, the school’s actions erode the intention of the anti-bullying laws.  There are children who are genuinely abused by bullies and they are scarred for life.  Some take their life.  As mentioned earlier, there is a litany of self-destructive behaviors that accompany bully victims.

And in this case, the so-called victim went about her day normally.  By the time they got to court, almost a year later, she reported no off-behaviors.

She felt the school was racist because of what she thought JJ had said, but there is no justification to label the school “racist” over the friendly banter between a single instance of three friends using language everyone else uses.

As a result, nearly all of AJ’s resources – black and white – simply felt the school was delving into dangerous territory.  “What’s next?” they all say.  Someone will be offended by what someone else says or does, and so the school punishes by suspending without telling the who, what, where, when, and why.

It turns out, the school simply does not like JJ.  He will never get the benefit of the doubt in that school.  He’s afflicted with ADHD, and takes quite a bit of medication for it. He has weekly private therapy sessions and daily sessions with the ESS staff at school.  Such children are hard to work with, and children who don’t conform to the box they put you in wind up with schools that label them as troublemakers and not worth the school’s efforts to deal with.

The Judge

Court day was interesting.  As mentioned earlier, AJ is no lawyer, and he found it daunting to be there representing his son, who was present, in the proceeding.  AJ was the petitioner, so, he got to go first.  Actually, the judge gave him first refusal.  The school allowed him to go first.  In a case like this, it’s not really a big deal.

AJ focused primarily on the redacted investigative report.  The school lawyer made mincemeat of AJ’s questioning – objecting to nearly every question as leading, asking for an understanding of law, asking for opinion, or relevance.  Or some other reason.  The judge knew what AJ was trying to ask, and so, after numerous sustained objections to AJ’s questions, the judge stepped in and suggested a rephrase of the questions so it would be more in line with proper court procedure.

AJ in an ad-hoc way asked if he could put JAJ on the stand.  She was not a witness, and the lawyer grumbled, but didn’t object.  The judge also grumbled, but allowed it.  AJ was trying to introduce testimony that could be done by being on the stand, and then questioning himself.  Kind of.  The judge suggested this after a while, and AJ explained he only had a few more questions to ask, so, the judge allowed this to proceed. And also, he told the judge he didn’t know he could do that.

School Makes Revelations

Not Trained

After the school put its witnesses on the stand, some things came to light which were surprising.  Maier testified that she didn’t train for her job as Anti-Bullying Specialist, but yet the statutes Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act [17], NJSA 18A:37-17 [18], and NJSA 18A:26-8.2 [19] require that she be trained.

Silent Security Video Exits

Also, the school disclosed that the video footage was silent.  So one cannot deduce from the video whether or not JJ said anything at all, nor can it show his lips moving, and it can’t show what he actually said.  And it can’t show what anyone else said, either. The video can only potentially show whether anyone else facing the camera said something, but not what they said.

NS didn’t see JJ say anything

And, the report (and later testimony) discloses that NS was facing away when she heard someone utter “n-word”.  So she couldn’t have positively identified JJ as the speaker.  Notwithstanding that, two of NS’s friends and two of JJ’s friends gave a statement that they did not hear JJ say anything offensive.

Conclusion

Next up on the stand was Superintendent Presuto. By this time, the judge was getting tired of the questioning and didn’t think AJ could glean much from Presuto’s testimony, and so he concluded the case. AJ never got a chance to ask Presuto what his reasoning was for twice refusing to meet with the parents once they got a copy of the investigative report. He did disclose that it was school policy not to provide parents with a copy of the investigative report or any other information about the HIB to the parents. This is apparently in opposition to statute, which stipulates that the school must provide this information to the parents as soon as feasible. Statute states that in several places ([20] and [21]), and the Supreme Court mandates it [22]. And yet, the school actively defied the statute, thus potentially exposing it to civil liability.

Closing Instructions

Eventually, it was the judge who concluded the case.  Instructions for both sides were to submit closing briefs within 30 days after receiving the transcripts; after that, they each had 15 days to rebut each other’s closings.  After that, the court would make a decision within 30 days and would email them to the parties.

AJ had never done any of this before, so he wasn’t sure what to do. He had gone online to get some tips, and he conferred with some lawyer friends about what to do.

Transcripts

What AJ didn’t know was that litigants must order the transcripts ahead of time. In New Jersey, you can get an audio of the transcript for free, as long as you mail in a blank, writable CD or DVD, and a self-addressed stamped envelope for the court to return it. If you want a text transcript, you’ll have to pay for that.

AJ didn’t know any of this, and when he got an email from the lawyer about submitting closings, he got suspicious. He was hoping that the court would notify him that the transcripts were complete so that he could get them and use them for his closing brief. Since he didn’t order the transcript, he wasn’t notified that it was ready. Worse, he only had about 10 days left to submit his closing brief. So, he had to recap his case based on memory and notes he’d taken. Not a wise move, but then again, all of his evidence came directly from the school’s own paperwork, and so, it wasn’t fatal to his case. Had this been a more complicated case, he’d have been in quite a bit of trouble.

Closing Briefs

When writing a closing argument, you need to summarize everything you’ve presented. You can’t introduce new evidence, but you can refer to case law and statutes, even if you didn’t mention them in discovery or during trial. So, his tactic was to create an outline of his entire argument, with indentation.

The school’s lawyer took a completely different tactic. What he did was to summarize all of the testimony and evidence. Looking at the school’s closing brief, it seemed weak. Looking at AJ’s closing brief, it seemed long.

AJ could still have ordered the audio, but he decided instead to wing it and rely on his notes, figuring that it would take too long to get the audio, then listen to it, and then to rely on it. Note also that the court does not require closing briefs, although lawyers strongly recommended to submit one.

He submitted his brief, apparently ahead of the school’s, and shortly thereafter, he received the school’s closing briefs. At that point, he had 15 days to rebut the school’s closing argument, if he chose to.

School Makes Errors In Its Closing

The School Lied?

It turned out, the school made some serious errors in its closing statements. For one, the school claimed that AJ never appealed the Code of Conduct allegation, and thus, it objected to the demand to drop the Code of Conduct allegations. AJ responded in his rebuttal that the school never provided any documentation about appealing the Code of Conduct allegations, and that he had otherwise followed every single step as required by both the law and district policy as far as appealing the HIB.

School Says N-Word Always Bad, Always Racist

The school also dismissed AJ’s assertion that there is no difference between either disambiguation of “n-word” – both are patently racist and that the school forbids their use in the Boonton Schools, it said.

AJ responded to that objection by stating the school never disambiguated “n-word” so it was hard to defend against that. He also reminded the court that all witnesses state that JJ never said anything offensive.

AJ didn’t mention it in his rebuttal, but he should have mentioned that the school never explicitly spelled out “nigga” as unacceptable in its Student Handbook, and even if it did, it would not likely pass Supreme Court muster. The Student Handbook also does not explicitly spell out the alternative phrase, but AJ concedes that using it is forbidden and wholly unacceptable.

School Lied… Again?

The school, in its closing brief, suggested that it informed JJ as to the nature of the allegation. AJ responded by saying, no, he absolutely was not. In fact, AJ and JAJ both claim the school told them to fish details of the incident from JJ, even though the school acknowledged that JJ had no recollection of it.

AJ reminded the judge that JJ, AJ, and JAJ had to guess at the nature of the allegations based on the questioning. However, there were explosive exculpatory details that the school never disclosed that the parents or JJ could not deduce from a 2-minute meeting with the administrators, and so, there were details missing which meant the school did not follow guidelines spelled out in statute or by the Supreme Court.

Although AJ didn’t mention it in his rebuttal, the school also testified that it routinely does not provide parents information about a HIB case – directly contradicting itself. AJ wrote his rebuttal in haste and neglected to mention this point.

The school did not rebut AJ’s rebuttal, although AJ did offer to give the school more time to rebut. There was no response, so, the clock counted down: the judge had 30 days to render a decision.

---

The Court Makes a Decision

On April 9, AJ and the school received the ALJ’s Initial Decision. It was extremely brief, but the judge found in favor of JJ. He briefly described everyone’s testimony, and concluded – literally in a single sentence – that the school failed to establish JJ had said anything offensive.

Here, the respondent Board has failed to establish that J.J. even uttered the “n” word on the morning in question.  I, therefore, CONCLUDE that any resulting HIB violation and/or code-of-conduct violation must be overturned.

ORDER

Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that any finding of an HIB violation and any corresponding code-of-conduct violation are hereby OVERTURNED, and any allegations of an HIB violation against J.J. are dismissed.

I hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

New Jersey OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10470-19; AGENCY DKT. NO. 158-7/19

JJ Gets A Break – Judge Finds In His Favor

Since this was a disputed fact, the judge performed his job as expected, although likely not to the school’s satisfaction.

And dissatisfied the school was: It immediately filed a brief objecting to the judge’s conclusion. The school filed an Exceptions Brief, and babbled and whined about the exceptions it raised. The school listed four exceptions in its brief:

1. The school did not agree with the ALJ’s finding that JJ denied saying “n-word“.
2. The school did not agree with the ALJ when he concluded JJ denied saying “n-word“. (This sounds a lot like the previous exception.)
3. The school called out the ALJ for not ruling on whether or not the school acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably
4. The school called out the ALJ for other minor statements made in his decision

The difference between #1 and #2 is this: in the first, the ALJ found that JJ did, in fact, deny that he said “n-word“. The second concludes that JJ didn’t actually say “n-word‘. The school is objecting to both statements the ALJ made. In any case, there’s about 10 pages of blubbering over whether or not JJ said “n-word“.

What Is The School Really Whining About?

Because the only thing the ALJ based his conclusion on was whether or not JJ said “n-word“, the school attacked that first. It is also interesting that the school appears to concede that JJ uttered only “nigga“. This is important, because AJ argues that prohibited speech includes the latter, but the not the former, per [3] Tinker.

In Tinker, a school can’t prohibit speech because it thinks it might cause problems. The other wordform is patently offensive, and is universally regarded as inappropriate to use to refer to another person, and so is perfectly acceptable to prohibit. But “nigga” is wholly different.

There are some people who believe it is wholly inappropriate, while others say it’s perfectly acceptable. AJ provided journalistic articles as examples showing that society has not taken a universal stance as to whether “nigga” is appropriate or not. [56][57][58][59]

Students Say It’s Fine

Further, all of the witnesses in AJ’s case who mentioned “nigga” being appropriate or not say that it’s fine to use because everyone uses it. And not just by or about black people: the phrase is used by and about anyone. And, importantly, Boonton junior high school student population commonly uses the phrase.

This last point is important also, because in the HIB definition, “a reasonable person should know, under the circumstances, will have the effect of emotionally harming a student, or placing a student in reasonable fear of emotional harm to his person.”

POV: You’re A Student

A reasonable person in this case is from the point of view of the students, not the administrators.

In other words, will students hearing “nigga” reasonably perceive that as harming a student in some way? The answer is, no: students hearing that will not reasonably perceive the statement to harm anyone. Conversely, those same students will likely perceive “nigger” as harmful.

Disagreeable, But Not Harmful

It is also noteworthy that reasonable students – and administrators – may not like the word “nigga“, but may still concede that despite their disdain for the word, they agree that the word is not harmful. In other words, the phrase is distasteful, not harmful.

So just because the administrators don’t like it doesn’t mean its use is considered wholly offensive.

Must Disambiguate

Hopefully then, one can see the need to disambiguate “n-word“. It is probable that JJ or anyone else in his group didn’t use the exact phrase “n-word“, and more likely used either disambiguation. This is the point AJ had been trying to make all along: Disambiguate.

If he said the former, then he should take his lumps and be suspended. If he said the latter, then no: he wasn’t trying to harm someone, and a reasonable student would not perceive him as harming a student by using it.

Shut Up, Be Brief

AJ’s error appears to be in arguing too much about “even if he said it“, and not enough about “he didn’t say either word“. Indeed, all of the witnesses say he didn’t say anything offensive, and there are two statements (one from JJ and one from another witness) that state that someone else in their group used “nigga“.

Ok, so getting back to the case. The school was annoyed at the ALJ for finding that JJ denied saying “n-word“. In other words, the ALJ found that JJ denied having said it, and the school asserts he didn’t deny it (in fact, they say he admitted having said it).

Victory is relegated to a won battle. To win the war, the victor needs the commissioner’s final decision on the matter, and that won’t happen for several weeks – even longer than usual because of the COVID pandemic. In fact, the commissioner’s office sent an email to all the parties saying just that – because of the pandemic, they’re looking for an additional month to make a decision.

Not sure why this would take longer, but the other issue is that the actual commissioner, Dr Lamont Repollet, has just left his post as commissioner to take up president at Kean University. That means, the Department of Education is scrambling to find an interim commissioner until the governor taps a full-time commissioner into office. So, I suspect that is the real reason for delays.

---

Back to the Commissioner

The parties received word that the interim commissioner made a decision that reversed the initial decision.  The regular commissioner, Dr Lamont Repollet had left his post to take a job at Kean University.  The interim commissioner, Kevin Dehmer, is a schlimazel.  He did not address any of the arguments made by AJ, and seemed to ignore all of the arguments made in spite of the irrefutable evidence that the school misbehaved.

---

Notations

---

[36] Who Is the Commissioner?

The Commissioner of Education is the chief executive school officer of New Jersey and supervises all public schools. He or she is also a member of the Governor’s cabinet, appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the New Jersey Senate. As education leader of the state, the Commissioner recommends legislative initiatives and changes, suggests rules and regulations for state board consideration, produces educational research, conducts initiatives to meet the state’s educational needs, and serves as liaison between the local school districts and the federal government.

State law grants the Commissioner a broad range of powers and responsibilities, such as deciding legal controversies and disputes that arise under school law or state board regulations. The Commissioner’s decisions have the force of law.

The Commissioner also has the following responsibilities:

• serves as secretary to the State Board of Education;
• develops code proposals for state board discussion and consideration;
• apportions state aid to local districts;
• administers regulations for classifying students with disabilities;
• ensures that local districts adhere to all legal and state board requirements relating to school district operation; and
• conducts statewide tests.

The Commissioner appoints members to and serves as chairman of the New Jersey State Board of Examiners, a 14-member group of educators that issues, suspends or revokes state certificates of elementary and secondary teachers and other professionals. The board also determines whether alternative experiences meet course of study requirements for certification and recommends certification standards and requirements to the State Board of Education.

What is the role of the New Jersey commissioner of education?

[37] When To File Appeal With Commissioner

Effective July 7, 2008, the Commissioner of Education has the authority pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36, to hear appeals – previously heard by the State Board of Education – of determinations made by the School Ethics Commission finding that the School Ethics Act has been violated and decisions made by the State Board of Examiners to suspend or revoke an individual’s certification. The Commissioner’s determination on any such appeal is a final agency action appealable to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.

Appealing an action made by a school’s board of education

[38] Role Of Administrative Law Judge

Upon determining a matter to be a contested case, a state agency transmits the contested case to the OAL. Litigants do not apply directly to the OAL for a hearing. As a general rule, hearings are public, except special education and certain human services cases, where confidentiality is required by federal regulations. An administrative law judge (ALJ) presides over a contested case, which is conducted according to hearing rules established by statute and by the OAL. The ALJ provides a neutral forum where the evidence of all parties, often including the agency with subject matter jurisdiction over the case, is presented.

What happens when the commissioner receives a complaint where facts are in dispute?

[39] Standard Of Review – How will commissioner rule?

6A:4-4.1 Standard of review

How a commissioner reviews an administrative law judge’s decision

[40] Definition of “Arbitrary and Capricious” in New Jersey

“Arbitrary and capricious action of administrative bodies means willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of circumstances. Where there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.”

(NJ) OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11780-17

Bayshore Sewerage Co. v Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (App. Div. 1973), citations
omitted.

[41] More on the definition of “Arbitrary and Capricious”

Arbitrary and capricious is a standard for judicial review and appeal, often seen in administrative law. Under this standard, the finding of a lower court will not be disturbed unless it has no reasonable basis, or if the judge decided without reasonable grounds or adequate consideration of the circumstances.

What is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable?

[42] Imbalance Of Power

“An Imbalance of Power: Kids who bully use their power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.”

The reader should be aware that in this link, Bullying also presumes repetitive action. However, New Jersey explicitly states, as a matter of law, that an incidence of bullying need only occur once.

What is bullying?

[43] Role of The School Board

This link discusses the role of the school board, and why some meetings are held “behind closed doors”. In Boonton, the phrase “executive session” means the same as meeting behind closed doors, and means that the meeting is held from the public.

Role of the school board and executive session

[44] Data About New Jersey Schools

This link reflects the latest data in New Jersey, currently at 2022.

New Jersey’s public school demographics

[45] Student Records Transferal

New Jersey Administrative Code § 6A:32-7.5 discusses the transferal of student records.

NJ Statute: Transferal of student records

[46] Programs to Support Student Development

New Jersey Administrative Code § 6A:16-5.3 Deals with “Incident reporting of violence, vandalism, and alcohol and other drug abuse” discusses reporting under (a) and (c).

NJ Statute: Reporting bullying

[47] Student Records

Title 18a section 36-19a discusses the transferal of student records – including disciplinary information. Specifically, “The school district of last attendance shall provide to the receiving district all information in the student’s record related to disciplinary actions taken against the student by the district and notify the receiving district, in writing, if it has obtained any information pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1982, c.79 (C.2A:4A-60) or section 1 of P.L.2009, c.157 (C.2C:43-5.1). If the receiving district, after having requested in writing the student’s records from the school district of last attendance, does not receive those records, it shall use every available means to obtain the records. If the school district of last attendance does not receive a written request for the student’s records within two weeks of the student’s transfer, it shall use every available means to determine which local school district the student has enrolled in, and to send the student’s records, including any information received regarding criminal history pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1982, c.79 (C.2A:4A-60) or section 1 of P.L.2009, c.157 (C.2C:43-5.1), to that district.”

Another NJ statute on transfering student records

[48] Investigation, reporting of certain pupil absences, transfers

Title 18A section 36-25.2 discuses the reporting of certain pupil absences and transfers. Note specifically, “The principal shall provide the information supplied by the parent, guardian, or other person having charge and control of the child to the district superintendent.”

Yet Another NJ statute on transfer of student and records to another school

[49] USCODE (2017) Title 20:31:III:4:1232g(h)

United States Title 20 discusses educational laws. Specifically, USCODE (2017) Title 20:31:III:4:1232g(h) discusses disclosure of disciplinary records: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit an educational agency or institution from — (1) including appropriate information in the education record of any student concerning disciplinary action taken against such student for conduct that posed a significant risk to the safety or well-being of that student, other students, or other members of the school community; or (2) disclosing such information to teachers and school officials, including teachers and school officials in other schools, who have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of the student.”

Federal code on disclosure of disciplinary records

[50] Indirect Bullying

National Voices for Equality Education and Enlightenment
https://www.nveee.org/indirect-bullying/

Exhibit AJ-23 (Attachment X) – Indirect Bullying _ NVEEE

[51] Indirect Bullying: Working with Students and Schools to End the Cycle of Bullying

APRIL 11, 2014 BY KIMBERLY PENDERGRASS
https://blog.udemy.com/indirect-bullying/
Copyright © 2019 · Udemy, Inc. · Built on the Genesis Framework

Exhibit AJ-24 (Attachment Y) – Indirect Bullying_ Working with Students and Schools to End the Cycle of Bullying

[52] Types of bullying

© 2019 Bullying No Way! For copyright information about this site, and circumstances in which reproduction of this website are permitted, please see our Copyright notice
https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/SiteInformation/Pages/Copyright.aspx

Article: https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/WhatIsBullying/Pages/Types-of-bullying.aspx

Exhibit AJ-25 (Attachment Z) – Types of bullying

[53] Bullying in Schools: Indirect Bullying

BY SOS SAFETY MAGAZINE MARCH 9, 2014
Copyright © 2013-2019 SOS Safety Magazine. All rights reserved. Edmonton Web Design & Edmonton Social Media by SOS Media Corp

YT – Whitehorse

Exhibit AJ-26 (Attachment AA) – Bullying in Schools_ Indirect Bullying – SOS Safety Magazine

[54] Types of Bullying – Indirect Bullying – Bullying – It’s Not On

jasonanddanielassessmentask.weebly.com/types-of-bullying—indirect-bullying.html

Exhibit AJ-27 (Attachment AB) – Types Of Bullying – Indirect Bullying – Bullying – It’s Not On

[55] Bullying is Not a Fact of Life

15+ : make time to listen, take time to talk about bullying
Contributors: Dan Olweus, Center for Mental Health Services (U.S.)
Publisher: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, 2004
Original from: University of Minnesota
Digitized: Apr 25, 2019
Length: 35 pages

Exhibit AJ-28 (Attachment AC) – Some Facts About Bullying

[56] Nigga – Wikipedia

“Nigga (/ˈnɪɡə/) is a colloquial term used in African-American Vernacular English that began as an eye-dialect form of the word nigger, an ethnic slur against black people. In some dialects of English, the two words are pronounced the same in non-rhotic speech.”

Exhibit AJ-17 (Attachment Q) – Nigga – Wikipedia

[57] Nigger vs Nigga _ HuffPost

“The term ‘Nigger’ is a derogatory term used against Black people. The word was originated from the Spanish word ‘Niger’ and ‘Negro’ meaning Black, which was used to describe Black people. The meaning of the word ‘Nigger’ is an ignorant person.”

Exhibit AJ-18 (Attachment R) – Nigger vs Nigga – HuffPost

[58] New Word Order – Nigger and Nigga

With the help of Quentin Tarantino and a decade of gangsta rap, the word ‘nigger’ has worked its way back as a staple of pop culture. But has enough healing occurred to make the word safe for humanity?
By J. Douglas Allen-Taylor

Exhibit AJ-19 (Attachment S) – New Word Order – Nigger and Nigga

[59] The N-Word

The evolving N-word: News uses divide the races and the generations
By Kevin Aldridge, Richelle Thompson and Earnest Winston
The Cincinnati Enquirer

Exhibit AJ-20 (Attachment T) – The N-Word

[60] Banning “To Kill A Mockingbird”

‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ remains among top banned classical novels

To Kill A Mockingbird remains a top banned-in-school book

[61] What does “substantial” mean?

You’ll not find much here. It’s a case-by-case introspection. I include it here because AJ used it in his argument. See [62] for a better set of examples.

Exhibit AJ-32 (Attachment AG) – What exactly is a “substantial disruption” – Freedom Forum Institute

[62] Examples of substantial disruption

Substantial disruption means without limitation that any one or more of the following occur as a result of the bullying: • Necessary cessation of instruction or educational activities;• Inability of students or educational staff to focus on learning or function as an educational unit because of a hostile environment • Severe or repetitive disciplinary measures are needed in the classroom or during educational activities;

How LawInsider defines “Substantial Disruption”

---