An anti-harassment policy should permit discipline of a student only where the verbal abuse is so severe or pervasive that it effectively collides with the right of the targeted student to receive an education, or where the speech actually results in substantial disruption. Furthermore, the Title VII standard requires both an objectively abusive environment, one that a reasonable person would find to be hostile, and the victim's subjective perception that the environment is abusive. See Harris . In addition, the purpose prong of the definition would find harassment to exist, even where no student was in fact affected by the speech, and no hostile environment actually created. Speech on other topics, no matter how disruptive, is untouched by this bill.
All students have a right to a sound basic education.
If a hostile environment exists such that the student's performance is affected, it should not matter whether that student is targeted on the basis of race, height, eye color, or her parents' politics. It is the effect on the educational environment, not the content of the speech, that permits government intervention, and we encourage you to reflect that principle in the bill. This includes but is not limited to harassment based on a student's actual or perceived race, national origin, ethnic group, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex. This definition would prohibit harassment when the speech in question is so severe and pervasive that it substantially interferes with a student's education or well-being. It incorporates an objective standard, based on a reasonable student, so that no one is punished because another student has an extreme and unpredictable response to otherwise acceptable comments.