“Jack Reid Law: Protect All Students Act”

Memorandum of Opposition
Amendments Sought

Re: S.4544-A Hoylman-Sigal
Creates the “Jack Reid Law: Protect All Students Act” 

The above-referenced legislation requires nonpublic schools, like their public-school counterparts, to have anti-bullying and harassment policies, and requires school employees to enforce those policies. While the legislation has been amended to eliminate the costly and unnecessary data collection and reporting requirements set forth in previous versions, the measure nonetheless continues to create an unacceptable dilemma for many religious schools, forcing them to either violate their own missions, policies, and tenets or close their doors. The New York State Catholic Conference has offered reasonable amendments that would eliminate these and other concerns. Without such amendments, we remain strongly opposed to this current version. 

It is important to note that sections 313 and 3201 of the Education Law and Section 296 of the Executive Law include within their framework, fundamental protections of religious practice that remain vital to religious communities throughout New York State. When enacting the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA, Chapter 482 of the Laws of 2010), lawmakers recognized and respected these protections and not only limited DASA’s application to public schools, but they went so far as to explicitly exclude nonpublic schools from the application of the law by setting forth in Section 17 of the act: “Nothing in this article shall: 1. Apply to private, religious or denominational educational institutions . . .” At the time and in the intervening years since, lawmakers have realized that by imposing provisions on religious schools that violate religious tenets, they would be forcing such schools to cease operating, thereby denying thousands of parents the right to elect a religious education for their children. 

Since the tragic death of Jack Reid, Jack’s parents, Elizabeth and Bill Reid have been working to enact laws in multiple states to not require anti-bullying and harassment policies in all schools, but to require school employees to enforce those policies when they become aware of an incidence of bullying and/or harassment. Although Jack’s school had an anti-bullying policy, the administration acknowledged their failure to respond when they became aware of the harassment. So that no other child suffers in the way Jack did, the Reids simply want all school administrators to enforce their policies. They have expressed respect for religious schools and do not seek policies that infringe on religious practice. Yet the current version, at a minimum would permit a student to claim harassment, should school policy not accommodate their chosen name, pronouns, dress, or use of facilities, and the like. It would then be up to a court to decide whether lawmakers intended such claims to prevail and/or whether religious protections set forth elsewhere in law apply in these instances. 

The amendments we have offered accomplish both objectives: requiring strong anti-bullying policies and enforcement in nonpublic schools while simultaneously respecting the practice of religion. We sincerely hope the amendments will be adopted. Without them, we remain Strongly opposed.