How Tim Pawlenty Clobbered an Anti-Bullying Bill

The former Minnesota governor promised to sign legislation to combat harassment in public schools. Then he vetoed it.

2012 GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/5487239982/">Gage Skidmore</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


As Minnesota’s governor, Tim Pawlenty earned a reputation for his prodigious use of veto power. In 2008, he even set a state record by out-vetoing all of his predecessors. Even so, one bipartisan bill he killed stood out, shocking even members of his own party.

The legislation, which passed the Minnesota Legislature in May 2009, was intended to curb bullying in public schools. Specifically, the measure would have required school districts to train staff to address bullying and harassment. The bill was supported by a host of education groups in the state, as well as gay rights activists and advocates for the disabled. It had gained unexpected momentum following the highly publicized death of an 11-year-old Massachusetts boy, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, who’d hanged himself in April 2009 following months of intense bullying by kids who thought he was gay.

Pawlenty had initially promised to sign the bill, with some modifications. But after months of haggling over small details, and dragging out negotiations, Pawlenty abruptly vetoed the bill. According to the Minnesota Independent, he said the bill was unnecessary, duplicating “current law relating to school board policies prohibiting bullying, intimidation, violence, and pattern of harassment in schools.” In fact, the bill would have added 14 different student characteristics that the new anti-bullying training would be required to address, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

Pawlenty’s surprise veto deeply angered the advocates who’d pushed for the bill’s passage—but the governor was playing to a different crowd: the religious right. Religious conservatives fought Minnesota’s anti-bullying bill—as they have similar measures—on the belief that it would lead to an incursion of the “homosexual agenda” in public schools by giving new protections to gay and lesbian kids.

After the veto, the conservative Minnesota Family Council declared victory in an email to supporters, according to the Minnesota Independent, writing that that the bill “gives preferential treatment and status to homosexuals, bisexuals, cross dressers, transvestites and transsexuals—persons who have sex change operations—by singling out sexual orientation and gender identity or expression for special protection. Homosexual activists will use it as ‘leverage’ to promote acceptance and normalization of homosexuality, homosexual marriage and unhealthy sexual behaviors.”

“It was pretty disgraceful his action because he completely violated his word in vetoing it,” says state Sen. Scott Dibble, one of the bill’s sponsors.

Up until his veto, Pawlenty’s office had assured supporters that the bill had been altered to meet every one of the governor’s requests and requirements. “It was pretty disgraceful his action because he completely violated his word in vetoing it,” says state Sen. Scott Dibble, one of the sponsors of the bill. “He even pulled out the rug under members of his own party who’d promised to vote for it knowing he’d sign it.”

Dibble had seen such turnarounds before. When Pawlenty was in the state legislature in 1993, Dibble points out, he’d voted for an anti-discrimination bill that updated Minnesota’s human rights statutes to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. “The first thing he did when he ran for governor was to back away from that,” Dibble says.

To Dibble, the anti-bullying veto telegraphed Pawlenty’s future political ambitions. Other observers of Minnesota politics also view the veto as Pawlenty’s opening move for the 2012 presidential campaign, where the evangelical vote plays a far bigger role than it does in Minnesota.

“My guess is that he was probably looking forward to the presidential race, and the about-face was an attempt to move him in the direction of the religious right that is very concerned about any legislation that might be viewed as pro-homosexual,” says Steven Schier, a political scientist at Minnesota’s Carleton College. He says that the veto was an early indicator that Pawlenty wasn’t interested in running for a statewide office. Otherwise, he probably would have supported the bill.

Pawlenty’s veto still infuriates Tammy Aaberg. Her openly gay, 15-year-old son Justin was relentlessly bullied at school due to his sexual orientation. Last summer, he killed himself—part of a troubling wave of suicides that earned Minnesota’s largest school district a designation by public health officials as a “suicide contagion area.” Last week, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit against the district alleging that it has perpetuated an anti-gay climate that violates the constitutional rights of LGBT students.

Aaberg says she can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Pawlenty had signed the bill, forcing Minnesota schools to take bullying more seriously two years ago. “Part of me gets really upset about that, because things might have been better for kids in schools,” she says.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate