American Muslim Voters And The 2016 Election


A Demographic Profile and Survey of Attitudes


Released: October 13, 2016

Conducted by Triton Polling & Research

Report Author: Robert S. McCaw

CAIR Director of Government Affairs Department

Commissioned by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003

Tel 202.488.8787 Fax 202.288.0833

Twitter: @CAIRNational


download CAIR 2016 Election Report

Brief on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)

Produced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Updated: July 2015

What is Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)?
In part due to the field's recent expansion, there is no consensus definition of CVE, including from the administration. One working definition is "the use of non-coercive means to dissuade individuals or groups from mobilizing towards violence and to mitigate recruitment, support, facilitation or engagement in ideologically motivated terrorism by non-state actors in furtherance of political objectives."

CVE components include intervening in an individual's path toward violent extremism, interdicting in criminal activity and reintegrating those convicted of criminal activity into society.

Isn't CVE a good thing?
The government's CVE initiative raises many issues. They include concerns that government-led CVE is not an effective use of public resources, that it often relies on subjective measures and its efficacy is questionable. Observers note that CVE is generally driven by news events, that the current program exclusively targets American Muslims and find that claims that the government is targeting all forms of violent extremism are inconsistently supported.  There are arguments that the current CVE initiative undermines our national ideals, such as government not having a role in the free exercise of religion.

CAIR Recommendations to PCLOB on Government Watchlists, Surveillance, Profiling

July 23, 2014

CAIR Statement of Views on Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Mid-term and Long-term Agenda

by Robert McCaw

Good afternoon. My name is Robert McCaw and I am the government affairs department manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.

CAIR appreciates this opportunity to address the PCLOB and provide its views and recommendations on what civil liberties issues the board should address in its mid-term and long-term agenda.

A number of the issues I raise today take into account the troubling impacts of certain national security programs on the privacy and civil liberties rights of Arab, South Asian, Muslim, and Sikh Americans.

Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation

Avoid Piecemeal Anti-Immigrant Bills & Amendments

The U.S. House of Representatives Should Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform

  • In July the U.S. Senate adopted the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744, which provides a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. While this act is far from perfect, the fight for inclusive immigration reform now turns to the U.S. House of Representatives.
  • CAIR urges House representatives to reject piecemeal measures that would increase racial profiling, unconstitutional detention and militarization of the U.S. border. Rather, Congress should adopt comprehensive immigration reform that provides a framework for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to obtain legal status and eventual citizenship.

Congress Should Oppose State-Based Immigration Reform, Like H.R. 2278, i.e. the “Safe Act”

  • Piecemeal immigration reform that includes anti-immigrant measure are "poison pills" intended to stop the immigration reform process.
  • In July, the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, “SAFE Act," H.R. 2278, introduced by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was adopted by the House Judiciary committee and referred to the House floor. This act promotes an enforcement-only approach that would criminalize all undocumented persons in the U.S., effectively barring the millions of individuals and families eligible to apply for legalization under the Senate’s already adopted immigration bill.
  • This act also mirrors Arizona’s anti-immigrant law S.B. 1070, by authorizing states and local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws while proving Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers with greater detention and deportation authorities.
  • Congress should reject this act as enhanced state immigration authorities have led to abuse, racial profiling and an increase in the detention and deportation of undocumented U.S. residents seeking citizenship.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Include a Ban on Racial, Religious Profiling

  • The House should adopt comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the serious problem of racial and religious profiling by federal law enforcement agencies – a problem which affects immigrant and minority communities alike. Such a ban on law enforcement profiling would:
    • Prohibit federal officers from engaging in acts of profiling based on religion or national origin.
    • Close loopholes that permit federal officers to profile at the border and for reasons of national security.
    • Remove any language that requires immigration legalization applicants from certain regions or countries to undergo additional security screenings, background checks.
  • While Section 3305 of S. 744 prohibits the blanket use of race and ethnicity by federal law enforcement, it fails to prohibit profiling based on religion or national origin and includes troubling exemptions in cases of national security and border protection.

Congress Should Oppose Screening Measures that Single Out Certain Nationalities

  • All immigrants, regardless of national origin, should be treated equally. That is why Congress should to reject redundant screening measures, like those found in Section 2101 of S. 744.
  • Section 2101, among other things, would require immigration legalization applicants from certain regions or countries to undergo additional screenings, i.e., background checks, out of national security concerns.
  • Introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), this provision is reminiscent of the now-defunct and discredited National Security Entry-Exit System (NSEERS) program, which had required certain nonimmigrant men from predominantly Muslim nations to register with the federal government.

Oppose Indefinite Detention and Immediately Close the Prison at Guantanamo Bay

Immediately Close the Prison at Guantanamo Bay

August 2013


  • As of July 2013, 166 detainees remain at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp without charge or trial, and many of them have been held for more than 11 years.
  • Since 2010, 86 detainees have been approved for release by the Administration’s Guantanamo Review Task Force, yet none have been cleared for transfer.
  • At present, 96 detainees remain on hunger strike in protest of their indefinite detention status. These prisoners are being force-fed through nasal tubes by military doctors, a practice condemned by the World Medical Association, the American Medical Association, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
  • Operating Guantanamo is fiscally imprudent: the cost of holding a detainee there is approximately $1.6 million per year, compared to $34,046 per year at a Federal Prison.

What Is Being Asked of Congress and the President

  • A return to due process and the rule of law - the immediate release or civilian trial of all remaining detainees.
  • That the 86 prisoners already cleared for release be transferred to their home countries or other countries for resettlement without delay.
  • That the US immediately and permanently stops force-feeding Guantanamo prisoners and for an independent medical professional team to review and monitor all hunger-strikers.
  • Moreover, CAIR cautions against the closure of GITMO being accomplished by creating a comparable facility with the same inadequate judicial processes inside the US.


  • Reports of abuse and a lack of due process at Guantanamo have internationally tarnished our nation’s ability and moral authority to prosecute suspected terrorists in U.S. custody.
  • In 2005, Amnesty International referred to Guantanamo as the “Gulag of our times.”
  • In 2009, President Obama signed an executive order to close the prison within in a year, stating this action would “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war. ...”
  • In July 2013, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on closing Guantanamo, “Our national security and military leaders have concluded that the risk of keeping Guantanamo open far outweighs the risk of closing it because the facility continues to harm our alliances and serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists.”
  • At the same hearing, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) remarked, “This [Guantanamo] is a massive waste of money.”
  • On July 26th, 2013, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel signed off on the transfer of two detainees who have been approved for release to their homes in Algeria.

Oppose Warrantless Government Spying on American Phone Calls and Emails

Oppose Warrantless Government Spying on American Phone Calls and Emails

The Issue

Recent leaks in national and foreign press have revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA), in cooperation with the FBI, is covertly carrying out at least two nationwide surveillance programs which collect information on the private calls and online activities of U.S. citizens and non-permanent residents alike while targeting foreign nationals. These programs are being carried out in secret partnership with some of the nation's top telecommunications and internet and technology companies.

Through secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) orders the federal government is obtaining, without any probable cause or suspicion of wrongdoing, data from millions of American Verizon Business Network Services customers and user account information from Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Microsoft (Hotmail, etc.), Apple, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype and AOL. It is strongly suspected that the federal government is also collecting call data from all other major phone carriers.

FISA Court/Verizon Background

On June 5, The Guardian exposed a top secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court order that authorized the NSA to collect data on Verizon customers "on an ongoing daily basis," which included calls made "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls."

The Guardian described the surveillance program as collecting "information gathered as you use technology ... [That] generally does not contain personal or content-specific details." Examples of such metadata include phone numbers between parties on a call, as well as timestamps, GPS location signatures, call duration, and other unique identifiers -- but not the names of persons participating in the calls (although such information is easily attainable) and the content of their conversations.

During recent congressional hearings, NSA officials testified that under the current Verizon surveillance program, such metadata is retained for a period of five years.

PRISM Background

On June 6, The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed the existence of PRISM, a clandestine national security internet surveillance program overseen by the NSA to collect broad customer data from participating internet and technology companies. Collected data includes information on personal emails, chats, videos, photos, stored data, VoIP, file transfers, video conferences, logins, and details on online social networking.

Established under the authorities granted by section 702 of FISA, civil liberties groups contend that PRISM exceeds its congressionally intended purpose to only collect information on non-U.S. persons residing overseas.

Contradictory accounts exist on how PRISM actually gathers the data it collects from participating internet and technology companies. The NSA has either direct access to the servers of these companies, a claim denied by Microsoft, Google, and Facebook, access to remotely secured file drop-boxes, or other mechanisms. CAIR questions the overall constitutionality of the NSA being able to have access to, collect, or store data on the communications of American citizens without any probable cause of wrongdoing.

While it is reported that stored data collected under PRISM cannot be accessed by national security or law enforcement until it becomes relevant to an investigation of a foreign national, once relevant, communications between non-citizens and American citizens, family, friends, academic colleagues, or business partners can become part of a larger investigation.

The White House claims that these separate domestic spying programs are designed to only target "non-U.S. persons outside the U.S." and "minimize ... acquired information about U.S. persons." Rights groups question PRISM's less than stringent standards to protect against unconstitutional privacy breaches. PRISM program safeguards for reviewing collected data are only "designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target's 'foreignness.'"

CAIR has expressed serious concerns over this test. It remains unclear to the public who in the NSA or FBI ultimately decides what constitutes "foreignness" and whether or not discriminatory criteria, such as national origin or religion, are being used in these assessments. CAIR contends that if there is only a 51 percent "certainty" that the targets of surveillance are foreign, that leaves a 49 percent chance of "incidental collection" from American citizens.

Under such loose standards, the incidental collection of details on the communications of American citizens becomes highly probable when targeting foreign nationals. Especially when NSA analysts are trained to collect data on all contacts twice removed from initial targets. While training materials acquired by The Washington Post instruct new analysts to make quarterly reports on such incidental collection of U.S. communications, they add "it's nothing to worry about."

CAIR also questions how long the NSA is able to retain information collected by PRISM. As reported by The Associated Press, "Two decades from now, the government could have a trove of American emails and phone records it can tap to investigative whatever Congress declares a threat to national security."

What Is Being Asked of Congress and the Administration

While some in Congress and the White House say that these spying programs are lawful under the Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, CAIR and the civil rights community believes that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ...

CAIR recommends Congress to amend Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to ensure that the unwarranted surveillance of internet activity and phone records from citizens residing in the US is, in fact, illegal and to ensure that violations would be reviewed in a public court.

CAIR recommends for the creation of an investigative committee to reveal the extent and scope of these spying programs, and for a possible inquiry by the congressional ethics committees, depending on the results of the investigation. This should be done with the intent of holding elected officials accountable for their involvement in furthering or enabling this unwarranted surveillance.

CAIR also recommends for this investigation to determine what criteria have been used to collect records, and to determine for how long these records are being stored. Without information regarding these criteria that purportedly establish "foreignness," CAIR remains concerned that these programs have been discriminating against citizens on the basis of religion and national origin.

Legislative initiatives like these are necessary to protect the fourth amendment rights of all American citizens, including members of the American Muslim community which has been subject to unwarranted and discriminatory acts of surveillance for more than a decade.

What Has Been Said About the FBI & NSA Domestic Spying Programs

President Obama:

"What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails ... and have not."

NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander:

"In recent years, these programs, together with other intelligence, have protected the U.S. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe to include helping prevent the terrorist -- the potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11."

Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.):

"The NSA's collection of millions of Americans' phone call records is the type of overreach I have warned about for years. Although I strongly believe some authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provide valuable information that helps protect our national security, Americans with no link to terrorism or espionage should not have to worry that their private information is being swept up."

Representatives Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.):

"We accept that free countries must engage in secret operations from time to time to protect their citizens. Free countries must not, however, operate under secret laws. Secret court opinions obscure the law. They prevent public debate on critical policy issues and they stop Congress from fulfilling its duty to enact sound laws and fix broken ones."

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

"It's called protecting America."

Representative Mike Rogers (R-Mich.)

"One of the things that we're charged with is keeping America safe and keeping our civil liberties and privacy intact. I think we have done both in this particular case."


"We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don't participate in it."


"Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data."

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois):

"Also in future gathering of information, minimization is critical. To minimize the information to gathered to protect innocent Americans ... instead of gathering all of the metadata, phone records of one area code to focus on the suspects ... "

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT):

" ... we have not yet struck the right balance between the intelligence-gathering needs of the FBI and the privacy rights of Americans."


Braun, Stephen, Anne Flaherty, Jack Gillum, and Matt Apuzzo. "Secret to Prism Program: Even Bigger Data Seizure." The Big Story. The Associated Press, 15 June 2013. Web. 19 June 2013.

Team, Guardian US Interactive. "A Guardian Guide to Your Metadata." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 12 June 2013. Web. 24 June 2013.

Isikoff, Michael. "NSA Considers Ending Collection of Data on Americans' Phone Calls." NBC News. NBC, 18 June 2013. Web. 19 June 2013.

Gellman, Barton, and Laura Poitras. "U.S., British Intelligence Mining Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad Secret Program." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 07 June 2013. Web. 19 June 2013.

Phillip, Abby D. "President Obama: NSA Spying Programs 'Transparent'." ABC News. ABC News Network, 17 June 2013. Web. 19 June 2013.

Sullivan, Sean. "NSA Head: Surveillance Helped Thwart More than 50 Terror Plots." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 18 June 2013. Web. 19 June 2013.

Lardinois, Frederic. "Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL And Apple Deny Participation In NSA PRISM Surveillance Program."

CrunchGov. Tech Crunch, 6 June 2013. Web. 19 June 2013.

2012 Legislative Fact Sheets

CAIR 2013 Legislative Fact Sheets

Drone Wars: The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killing

Written Statement of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
Drone Wars: The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killing

Submitted to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights

Testimony Prepared by: Robert S. McCaw

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
453 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20003
Phone: (202) 742-6448
Fax: (202) 488-0833

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cruz and other members of the subcommittee, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thanks you for holding this first-ever Senate hearing on the constitutional and counterterrorism implications of targeted drone warfare and respectfully submits this written testimony for your consideration.

CAIR and the American Muslim community unequivocally condemn all acts of terrorism and support our nation's war against al-Qaeda and its allied forces. While pursuing this enemy, we as a nation must ensure that the rule of law and respect for human life is preserved while responsibly targeting al-Qaeda.

Our nation's use of and growing reliance on armed drones in remote areas of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia has raised serious questions. Has the administration established a viable legal framework and procedures to oversee the use of targeted drone strikes inside and outside of designated zones of hostility? How is due process upheld for American citizens targeted by lethal drone strikes? What steps has the U.S. government taken to avoid civilian deaths and injuries, and has it compensated victims, their families, or communities when wrongful drone strikes occur?

Questions about Executive Authority and Process

Openness and transparency are the pillars of democracy. Despite this the Obama administration has publicly struggled with Congress to provide details on the legal framework, procedures and internal guidance governing its lethal drone strike program.

The administration has not disclosed to Congress or the public how it identifies or approves the placement of suspected individuals on "kill lists;" its operating procedures governing the positive identification of targeted individuals, implementation of targeted drone strikes, assessment of drone strike effectiveness, and confirmation of militant or civilian deaths or injuries; or what oversight is built into this process to ensure effectiveness and minimize civilian casualties.

While the administration has provided the Senate Intelligence Committee with classified Justice Department memos on its legal justification for the use of drone strikes against suspected al-Qaeda leaders and allied militants, the administration has not provided these memos to the U.S. Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Department of Defense (DoD) or the Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Department of Justice.

As commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, President Obama claims that his executive authority to lethally target suspected terrorists who pose an "imminent threat" derives from Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force act permits the administration to target "those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," being al-Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as "associated forces" as defined by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

The limit of this executive authority is tested outside of active combat zones in Afghanistan. Between 2004 and 2013, the U.S. has engaged in covert drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, and recently Somalia, in which the DoD and CIA have lethally targeted al-Qaeda as well as Pakistani Taliban and others suspected to be militants based on their characteristics and patterns of behavior alone.

Targeting groups and suspected militants other than al-Qaeda and the Taliban has raised significant concern in Congress and the civil rights community over executive overreach and the U.S. pursuing an indefinite war against those not responsible for the events of September 11, 2001.

Questions about Due Process before Targeting American Citizens

The American Muslim community firmly repudiated Anwar al-Awlaki's incitement to violence, which began after he left the United States. In addressing the September 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki and the attack two weeks later that killed his 16-year-old son Abdurrahman, CAIR was joined by a number of prominent civil liberties organizations in urging Congress and the president to address the constitutional issues raised by the assassination of American citizens without due process of law.

CAIR remains concerned that the administration has not fully informed the nation or allowed judicial oversight of the legal justifications currently being used to kill American citizens abroad. While a few members of Congress have been given access to Department of Justice memos that outline the Obama administration's constitutional and legal justification for the targeted killings of Americans citizens overseas, CAIR believes that greater public transparency and disclosure is needed.

Questions about Civilian Deaths and Moral Authority

During CIA Director John Brennan's February 2013 confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee he reported that the number of civilian casualties caused by U.S. drones strikes each year have "typically been in the single digits."

While the U.S. drone strike program remains classified, the "Year of the Drone" project by the New America Foundation currently estimates that from 2004 to 2013, the U.S. has engaged in 428 drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen that have resulted in 2,439 to 3,982 deaths. Of these 1,982 to 3,251 were classified as militants, 276 to 368 were civilians, and 200 to 330 were unknown.

Media and non-profit organizations have reported that in its first term the Obama administration carried out six times as many lethal drone strikes as the Bush administration in its eight years in office. And while media report that the use of drone strikes is waning in Pakistan, there are an equal number of reports of new drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia.

While CAIR does not concede that the Obama administration has the legal authority to use force outside of recognized zones of armed conflict, we are particularly concerned about how the drone program has killed and injured persons with no established connection to terrorism. In pursuing al-Qaeda and its allied forces, the U.S. cannot concede its moral authority by hastily using its lethal weapons and technology to needlessly take lives and injure innocent civilians.

Groups like al-Qaeda seek to capitalize on such preventable mistakes and popular resentment built around civilian casualties. Likewise, civilian and government opposition to drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have been fueled by such civilian deaths that have been judged by local communities to be not "collateral damage" but as reckless and indiscriminant killings by the U.S. government. If drone strikes are meant to cripple organizations like al-Qaeda, then our counter-terrorism programs should not be used to inspire the next generation of militant leaders.

Recommendations to Congress

With regards to establishing a more transparent and accountable legal framework under which the U.S. targeted drone strike program can reasonably operate, CAIR recommends that Congress:

  • Continue to exercise oversight by requesting all administration operating procedures and guidelines governing its covert drone strike program, declassifying and making public as much information as possible.
  • Determine how international law applies to U.S. drone strikes inside and outside of areas Congress has declared as zones of hostility.
  • Ensure that the administration and corresponding defense and intelligence agencies are operating under similar guidelines and legal frameworks.
  • Ensure that the administration has clearly defined how it determines whether a person is labeled a militant or a member of a militant group or is considered to be a civilian.
  • Ensure that the administration is correctly recording and reporting the number of militant and civilian deaths and injuries contributed to the drone strike program, as well as other lethal and destructive modes of combat.
  • Ensure that the U.S. government is adequately compensating civilian drone strike victims, their families, and communities.
  • Publicly address and debate the impact of civilian deaths and injuries and breaches of other nations' sovereignty as it relates to the war on terrorism.
  • Hold follow-up hearings on the operating authority and legal framework under which the administration carries out its armed drone strike program.
  • Hold follow-up hearings on the number of civilian casualties, amount of property damage, and rise in militancy that has resulted from the administration's U.S. targeted drone strikes.

With regards to the high number of civilian casualties, CAIR recommends that Congress seek clarification from the administration in the following areas:

  • How the administration categorizes persons killed or injured in drone strikes that are in close proximity to officially targeted individuals; when a bystander is killed or injured are they recorded as a civilian or a militant; and, are military age males killed or injured in such strikes always considered militants.
  • What procedures exist to record and report the total number of civilian or militant deaths or injuries that have resulted from the U.S. drone program?
  • What procedures exist to protect civilians from targeted drone strikes? Do these procedures differ between drone strikes carried out by the CIA or DoD?
  • According to the administration, what is an acceptable number of civilian lives lost?
  • What is the administration's policy for collecting information about who was killed after drone strikes occur?
  • What is the administration's policy for acknowledging civilian casualties from drone strikes and compensating victims, their families, or communities?
  • What overview or accountability exists for departments, agencies or individuals who make outstanding mistakes in incorrectly nominating or targeting civilians in drone strikes or carrying out strikes that cause unacceptable levels of civilian casualties?


CAIR looks forward to Congress exerting its authority over the administration to hold the executive branch responsible for establishing transparent and accountable guidelines and procedures that better define the U.S. drone program's legal framework. We hope that this program can be used to effectively combat al-Qaeda and its allied forces without sacrificing the rule of law, due process, or the goodwill of civilian populations.

Support Comprehensive Anti-Bullying Legislation

Legislative Fact Sheet

(January 1, 2013)

The Issue

  • Bullying crosses the boundaries of age, gender, race, religion, and national origin and affects the wellbeing of all children, whether they are directly involved or bystanders.
  • For the past two years Congress has considered but not agreed on any form of comprehensive anti-bullying legislation. With the recent founding of the Congressional Anti-Bullying Caucus, CAIR hopes for renewed interest in adopting such legislation.
  • In particular, CAIR supports the bipartisan introduction of legislation similar to the Safe School Improvement Act of 2011, sponsored by Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Casey (D-PA) and Representative Linda Sánchez (D-CA). The act calls for an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to address anti-bullying guidelines and extend protection to encompass students of all races, religions, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds.

What is being asked of members of Congress?

In the 113th congressional session, support and co-sponsorship legislation similar to the Safe School Improvement Act of 2011. If signed into law, such a bill would:

  • Require guidelines and set parameters through state funding that creates a safe school environment for all students. Create and enact anti-bullying guidelines and regulations in regards to a student's background including race, color, natural origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and religion.
  • Require school officials and authorities to inform and report on the issue of bullying to the general public through alternative means, such as anonymous surveys completed by the student body and or staff.
  • Require the president and Congress to be informed in a biennial report by the Secretary of Education that highlights state-by-state assessments of bullying incidents and preventative action taken thus far.

Reasons to support anti-bullying legislation

  • Bullying will continue to afflict our schools unless we take comprehensive action on a national scale.
  • In 2011, during a White House conference on bullying President Obama stated "If there's one goal of this conference, it's to dispel the myth that bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up. It's not."
  • In 2011, Senator Mark Kirk, while addressing the Safe School Improvement Act, said, "Our children need to feel protected and safe so they can learn, and I hope the Casey-Kirk bill will encourage schools and districts to develop effective prevention and responsible protocols."
  • Bullying can be deadly and can result in severe consequences not just for the victim but also for the bully.
  • Bullying undermines the very principles that this nation was built upon; the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.