Anti-Bullying Proposals No Laughing Matter

The rules of the game have changed, and technology once again is ahead of policy. Take the case of new legislative proposals to confront bullying. My first reaction is to mock them. Waaaah! Toughen up. Learn to take it. How are you going to get along in the grown-up world if you don’t learn to suck it up and move forward?

But it’s not like things were when I was a kid, with schoolyard fights or intimidating threats if I didn’t hand over the answers to a homework problem. Some kids today have to confront a more vicious, more unrelenting kind of bullying. Combine a less civil society with the intrusiveness of hate and threats through texting, Facebook, twitter and email and you can end up with the tragic suicide of South Hadley 15-year-old Phoebe Prince.

As the Boston Herald’s Margery Eagan also points out, when we were kids we could keep the problem contained.

In 1996, when I was editorial director of WCVBTV Channel 5, I was on the receiving end of a series of threatening and frightening faxes, including one signed by “Son of Sam.” The District Attorney identified the perp and took the case all the way to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, which upheld lower court rulings that the state’s laws criminalizing telephone harassment didn’t cover such “high-tech communications” as faxes. The legislature set about remedying the situation and, in 2000, amended Chapter 265 of the General Laws to include harassment through electronic mails, internet or, yes, fax communications. Punishment can be up to 2 and ½ years and a $1000 fine. So the punishment is in place.

But the real solution to the Phoebe Prince’s of the world is bullying prevention and requiring school districts and principals to mandate training for teachers and anti-bullying classes for students.

Such programs do work. For several years, the social work department at Regis College (full disclosure: I consult with Regis) had an anti-bullying program one day a week at Sacred Heart School in Roslindale. Kids learned about what constitutes bullying and how to stop it. School administrators reported a definite improvement in kids’ behavior. In the wake of budget cuts, the MA Public Health Department has stopped funding the program.

In the legislature, Rep. Marty Walz of Boston, is in the midst of drafting anti-bullying legislation. For those of us who toughed it out in a previous generation, we shouldn’t simply deride or dismiss it. It could well mean the difference between life and death for students whose well-being in the face of predatory hurtful behavior of schoolmates lies with the diligence of teachers, principals and administrators. And if it takes legislation to do that, so be it.

The Supremes Hit a Sour Note

Even as a First Amendment virtual absolutist (with the usual crying-fire-in-a-crowded-theater exceptions), I find it hard to believe there won’t be a flood of bad results from the recent Supreme Court decision lifting limits on corporate spending on behalf of political candidates.

Before McCain-Feingold and other post-Watergate restrictions on corporate spending, we have images of Richard Nixon—and others from both parties-- receiving tons of money in brown bags from corporate executives (corporate free speech?). Remember Democrat Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who was known far and wide as the Senator from Boeing. We have long known that, while big money may not actually buy a congressman, it sure can rent him for a while. We haven’t always been able to prove the quid-pro-quo, but, as with Justice Potter Stewart’s wisdom about obscenity, we may not be able to define it, but we sure know it when we see it.

If a company now can spend freely from its general treasury in behalf of a political candidate, whose phone call will the busy elected official answer – the corporate chieftain, Susan small donor or the constituent who can’t afford the mortgage payment, much less donate to her elected representative? Unions are also now freed up to spend with abandon, but a declining union movement will likely be dwarfed by corporate capacity.

This ruling is unnerving, despite the assertions of highly regarded academics in today’s New York Times, that there are no metrics to support the belief that corporate money necessarily corrupts. They see no proof there is less public corruption or more public trust of government in states that have strict bans on corporate contributions to politicians than in states with no limits.

One Southern Congressman told NPR last week that, if a company decided to spend $10 million in his district on behalf of a candidate, that company could buy up all the television time and, with it, the election. One thoughtful and community-minded Massachusetts television executive sought to reassure me that this wouldn’t happen, that television executives have the power to turn down such over-the-top television buys in the interest of fairness, and that the broadcasters could just say no if there had been ample coverage of the race in the station’s regular news reports.

But here’s the thing: in an increasingly fragmented media marketplace where each station is struggling with shrinking revenues, will even the best -intentioned television executive today not begin to view the Supreme Court ruling as some kind of goose that lays the golden egg?

An even greater concern, raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent, and picked up by a Newsweek blogger, is the potential impact of this decision on money that can be spent on our elections by foreign corporations operating in the US, often influenced by their national governments.

Is this what the strict constructionist Supreme Court justices really think our Founding Fathers intended?

Patrick Speech: the To-Do's not the How-to's

The largest personage in the House chamber for Governor Deval Patrick’s state-of-the-state address wasn’t there at all. It was, of course, Scott Brown. The address, the Governor’s first chance to turn around an outraged electorate and rally his partisans in his reelection bid, was an opportunity to tout his accomplishments – and they are many – and list the challenges that must still be addressed – and they are daunting.



His finely crafted and, for the most part, well-delivered speech reflected an awareness of what’s bothering people and what propelled Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for U.S. Senate.

He acknowledged people’s anger but urged that they ”channel it in a positive direction.” He made clear he feels their pain and sense of powerlessness and tried to link policy accomplishments and challenges to real people’s real lives. He spoke repeatedly about “making it personal.” He is an empathetic person and perhaps persuaded some people on this score.

Taking another page from Scott Brown, Patrick positioned himself as an agent of change, both in his 2006 campaign running against the status quo and even today. “Change is never easy, and it’s rarely quick,” he said. Since the time of Republican Governor Frank Sargent, officials in the corner office have tried to be anti-establishment, but, if you want the legislature to work with you on your agenda, you can only beat up on them so much.

With the help of the legislature, the Governor has accomplished a great deal: reforms in ethics, pensions, transportation, education, automobile insurance, health law implementation, investments in clean energy and biotech, and, my own personal favorite, partial introduction of civilian flaggers at work sites. And, at the same time, they had to close a $9 billion budget gap. These initiatives are not flawless but are areas that for years had cried out for reform, with nothing happening.

Now the Governor pledges to fully fund education, put people back to work, lower health insurance costs, reform sentencing and modernize CORI laws, streamline government and bring property taxes down. Good luck to him and the Red Sox! If he has a plan to achieve that, he didn’t let on in his address.




Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker’s immediate spin was to say that Patrick had claimed “Massachusetts is just fine, and we’re making progress.” Baker, too, promises to cut spending, streamline government and break up the culture on Beacon Hill. But, as BlueMassGroup points out, he will be tagged as the “ultimate establishment candidate,” with the baggage that entails.

Massachusetts still faces a $3 billion deficit. We all want to know where it’s going to come from. Human services have already taken a huge hit. Neither Baker (a former Human Services Secretary) nor Patrick uttered the words “human services.”

At the end of the Governor’s address, he spent a long time applauding a Brockton High School volunteer program and praising its spirit of community. Is he looking for volunteerism to cover even deeper cuts in compassionate government services? Scary to think so. Scary times we live in.

Talking the Talk

If Congress tries to ram the Senate health bill through the House to avoid another Senate vote, there will be blood that will stain the rest of the Obama agenda and spill over into the congressional elections. President Obama said that the people of Massachusetts have spoken, and about-to-be Senator Scott Brown should be heard on the issue. This could be a good thing despite the clamor to redouble Democratic partisanship. Increasingly, the balance of voter power rests with activist independents who have no love for either of the parties or their representatives.


Another good thing is the tone of Brown’s first press conference after the election. This morning, he differentiated between the acidity of the campaign and what is needed to serve responsibly. He stressed his independence from reflexive Republican obstructionism. He voiced his distaste with “behind-the-scenes deals.” He called for transparency. He even praised Massachusetts Senate Presidents Travaligni and Murray for working collaboratively across the aisle on ethics, pension,and transportation reform, even stem cell research.


Brown pointed out that he voted for the landmark health care law here and feels reform is an important issue nationally. “Past campaign mode, it’s important to do something about health care,” he said, adding “there are some very good things” in the pending bill. His primary concern was that we consider Massachusetts first.

Brown hints he may be a new breed of Republican (or perhaps a throwback to a way earlier time?) “I’ve had a great relationship with Senator Kerry,” he said. “I have great respect for what he’s done.” Dismissing a question on Kerry’s recent partisan attacks on him, he said “the campaign is over.”


A long generation ago, Massachusetts was served well by a split delegation whose members worked collaboratively and across the aisle for the state and the nation. But that was a far different world from the partisan snake pit of today. Scott Brown’s press conference rhetoric of reasonableness matched the affability that helped propel him into office. The looming test ahead will be how he translates this gracious independent spirit into action once he joins Mitch McConnell and the Republican caucus.

Independents Are Kingmakers in Brown's Victory

photo by Charles Krupa/AP

John Kerry and Tom Menino may be the only Democratic officials actually on crutches, but, make no mistake about it: the entire state Democratic Party is among the walking wounded. Today’s results, unimaginable six weeks ago, places a Republican in this Senate seat for the first time in 60 years.

Scott Brown ran a campaign blended of skill and luck, blessed by timing. He rode a wave of public discontent: dislike of big government programs in general, opposition to national health reform in particular; frustration with a too slow economic recovery; antipathy toward the arrogance and corruption of one-party control at the state level. His opponent contributed to his success by running an embarrassing campaign and being an inadequate campaigner, with poorly articulated messages, astonishing serial gaffes, lateness to use her money on television, a dispirited GOTV effort and on and on. The campaign was Martha Coakley’s to lose, and she lost it.

It would be ironic if national health reform died today in this, the only state in the nation to have virtually universal access to health care. Scott Brown said, “We can do better.” We will soon see how he fulfills his victory speech pledge to work across the aisle and dissipate the toxic partisanship he has attributed to one party in Washington.

As Brown gets ready to be sworn in, the 2012 campaign for U. S. Senate begins. But, before then, Democrats here and elsewhere will be reading and misreading the tea leaves of this election. The enduring "blue state" image must be tempered by recalling that Ronald Reagan won twice here. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans in Massachusetts, but the growing and now dominant political force are the “unenrolled” Independents, and they are a force to be reckoned with in upcoming state and congressional elections.

Electronic Democracy in Action?

Both Martha Coakley and Scott Brown have deluged potential voters with robocalls. Amid the calls on behalf of Brown, a household of independent voters received the following live call this afternoon.

Caller: I’m calling to ask you to please vote for Scott Brown today. It’s very important that you get out and vote for him today.
Response: Thank you. Could you tell me why it’s important.
Caller: Because he’s opposed to the HELP bill. The HELP bill is bad. It’s bad for America.
Response: The HELP bill? Are you saying the HELP bill. H-E –L-P?
Caller: Yes
Response: Where are you calling from? Who are you working for?
Caller: I’m calling from Alabama, from a call center for the Republican Party.
Response: Why is this HELP bill bad? Isn’t helping usually a good thing? What kind of help does this bad bill provide?
Caller: I don’t know. I’m just calling from the Alabama Republican Party and they told me to tell people to vote for Scott Brown and the HELP bill is a bad thing.
Response: I’m confused. Do you have a supervisor who can explain things to me so I can make the right decision today?

LONG PAUSE

Supervisor: We’re talking about the health bill. It’s just bad for America. It’s important to stop it.
Response: Why is it bad?
Supervisor: It’s just bad.
Response: Why?
Supervisor: It’s all over the news. Look at Scott Brown’s website to see why it’s bad. It’s important to stop it.
Response: OK, If I agree that the bill’s a bad thing and should be stopped, what will Scott Brown do after stopping the bill to make health care better for Americans?
Supervisor: It doesn’t tell us what to say.
Response: Is health care in Alabama as good as it can be? Are you satisfied with your health care plan?
Supervisor: No
Response: So, if I vote for Scott Brown, what’s he going to do to make healthcare better for you and your family in Alabama and for others in America?
Supervisor: It doesn’t tell us what he’s gonna do. I guess with any politician you just gotta wait and see. I don’t know what to tell you to do.

Boston Children's Chorus Celebrates Martin Luther King

Under the superb direction of Artistic Director Anthony Trecek-King, the Boston Children's Chorus celebrated today's holiday with a glorious concert this evening at Jordan Hall in Boston. The vocal arrangements were sensitive and moving and included a tribute to the late Senator Edward Kennedy, whose unexpired term will be filled by voters tomorrow.






A speech by Martin Luther King at Boston’s Jordan Hall in the 1960’s inspired Hubie Jones to a lifetime fighting for social justice. Hubie, known simply by his first name in liberal activist circles, is equally recognized throughout the Commonwealth for his 20 + years of dueling Republican analyst and talk-meister Avi Nelson on WCVB’s oft missed “Five on Five” Sunday morning discussion program (which I admit to having produced and often hosted.)



City Year photo


Nowadays Hubie is back in Jordan Hall for the annual Martin Luther King Concert. If it weren’t for Hubie, there might not be such a stirring concert, and there most certainly would not be a Boston Children’s Chorus and all that it means for Greater Boston.

Hubie Jones’ life has been one of fighting for the disadvantaged, whether as Dean of the Boston University School of Social Work, playing a key role in Mass. Advocates for Children, or as a driving force behind City Year, which became a national model. It was at a City Year convention that he heard the Chicago Children’s Chorus and said “Wow, this is something that Boston ought to have."

He saw such a chorus as a way of bringing together children from different racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds to learn about singing, form friendships and have fun. And so he set about doing it, raising money, helping to identify musical talent, and making the Chorus the capstone of his long career.

Today more than 350 children are involved in one of the nine BCC choruses, and the Martin Luther King Concert is seen across the country, thanks to WCVB. The chorus has gone international, to Japan, Mexico, and most recently to Jordan, at the invitation of King Abdullah.

The Martin Luther King concert is a signature event for the Boston Children's Chorus, but these "Ambassadors of Harmony" do 50 performances throughout the year that are well worth taking in.