This is appalling.

...you know......

Here is what concerns me: Beyond Dr. Esrig's comments, I don't see that this story has been corroborated--or at least, if it has, it is not clear in this article. Incidents that turns into a he said, she said and that can be very dangerous. As possible as it is that the young man in question said X to the 9 year old, it is equally possible that the parents targeted Millburn as a means to a lawsuit. I don't mean to sound cynical, but I think with this new law, anything is possible, especially now that we are extending the reach of this law to incidents occurring off property,

It is my sincere hope that Dr. Miron corroborates the story--otherwise, it's going to be open season for anyone to accuse a MHS student of doing whatever.....

....and if the student really did that, I am appalled.

Finally--I think any language like that towards any group or difference is unacceptable but at the same time, are we now limited free speech? Oy, this is going to get sticky.

The actions, if they occurred as described were certainly reprehensible. BUT, they have nothing to do with the school. Dr. Miron should be dealing with school matters, that is his job and there is plenty to do in that regard. He should not be spending his time on something totally unrelated to the school. This is a matter that should be handled by the police.

This is reprehensible, but it is not bullying as Dr. Miron referred to it. To be considered bullying it has to be repetitive. First and foremost, as was pointed out by the school's attorney, this did not happen at one of the areas covered under the NJ law, so the law does not apply. I urge everyone to check out the website www.stopbullyingnow.gov. It is not specific to NJ, but it is a very useful site that gives a better understanding of what bullying is and what parents can do to help their children if they are being bullied.

While perhaps not being bullying per se, the perpetrators were wearing shirts identifying themselves as Millburn High School Seniors. They were, for all intents and purposes, therefore representing the school. It behooves the school to condemn these actions. The principal spoke and acted admirably.

These kids were members of the team, not just the fans.

Unbelievable: Yes, exactly like when people wearing Yankee gear behave poorly so others paint the whole group with one brush and say "Yankee fans are jerks."
Newleaf: 1.This is Patch, not the NYTimes, they don't have the time or manpower to fully corroborate and flesh out stories; it is clear that the principal was not questioning the veracity of the story. 2. I know the Esrigs personally and to suggest that they would "target Millburn as a means to a lawsuit" is only NOT equally possible, it is simply impossible and antithetical to their nature as ethical human beings.

Right or wrong, for better or worse, yes. When I was in a sorority in college, we were admonished over and over to be on our best behavior in public while wearing "lettered" clothing. As an adult I solicit gifts for a local non-profit and have heard donors routinely say the organization is a certain way or "did something" when it was really the behavior of an overzealous volunteer they were referring to.
And, as Rachel succinctly put, they were not just fans but members of the team and deserve time in the penalty box.
That being said, no I don't think we need to pass more laws. We need to behave to a high civil and ethical standard and teach our kids to do the same.

There was no direct accusation of bullying, but the statute covers harassment and intimidation, of which this was clearly a case.

Why---and more importantly HOW--did this leak out to the media??????

Disgusting. My guess is the anti-semitic MHS student will have a criminal future, and will be punished hopefully in the future.

I hope the parents spoke to the students directly and informed them that their comments were unacceptable and that the students owed their son an apology. It is important to call out hateful speech when we are confronted by it and to model for our children appropriate responses.

No one here is condoning those students comments, but I hope the principal was able to speak with the students before he issued a statement of condemnation to the media.

The article states that Dr. Miron called the police. Do hateful comments constitute criminal behavior under the new anti-bullying law?

"We can admonish them, but unfortunately, there’s not a lot we can do legally.” This happened off school grounds and should not be referred to as being an incident to be handled legally -"limitations in the state's new anti-bullying law". Not every incident that is egregious and reprehensible such as this one falls under the bullying law. This article is sensationalizing the concerns about the law. Be careful not to rely solely on the media for your information.

This incident does not fall under this law. Here is what is mentioned on the district website. For the law to apply the incidents must "Take(s) place on school property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus, or off school grounds, as provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3, that substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other pupils, or tends to embarrass the target
student
*The term “school grounds,” pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-1.3, means and includes land, portions of land, structures, buildings, and vehicles, when used for the provision of academic or extracurricular programs sponsored by the school district or community provider and structures that support these buildings, such as school district wastewater treatment facilities, generating facilities, and other central service facilities including, but not limited to, kitchens and maintenance shops. School property also includes other facilities as defined in N.J.A.C. 6A:26-1.2, playgrounds, and recreational places owned by local municipalities, private entities or other individuals during those times when the school district has exclusive use of a portion of such land.

Laura Griffin-"Miron said he had hoped that he could use the new Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying laws to deal with this incident, but the district’s attorney advised him that because the victim goes to school in another town, he is unable to use the new law." I believe that statement from the article does give the impression that Dr. Miron was trying to "bring charges." Although this was not an actual quote, it does appear that was the thought process. If it wasn't, if I was Dr. Miron, I would be furious for the misrepresentation.

Well, then the "other ways of dealing with situations" could have been mentioned in the article instead of making so many inferences to legal action.

I think everyone is losing sight of the issue here by attacking Patch.
Regardless of anyone's motivations for doing so, Patch is merely reporting an event that a citizen informed them of.
Miron should not spend time on this. There may have been a question initially as to whether this falls under the anti bullying statute but clearly the anti-bullying statute does NOT apply.
There is no need to prosecute anything as I doubt a criminal offense occurred based on the quotes from the article which I believe were provided by Mr. Esrig.
While the behavior exhibited by the student is deplorable and morally reprehensible unfortunately there really isn't a criminal statute in NJ that would render such comments a violation of the law.

Take the well publicized comments by Michael Richards (aka Seinfeld's Kramer) who infamously laid into some hecklers with racist remarks and threats or Mel Gibson's anti-semetic tirade. The words uttered by those two were much worse and no criminal act was deemed to occur.

Let's view this incident for what it was- a stupid kid who made some stupid comments to an innocent child. The kid should be identified, his parents informed and leave it to them to deal with their son. I'm sure the public shame of what their son said will be enough motivation for them to deal with him effectively. After a stern talking to, I'd be sending my kid to the Esrig home to apologize in person to the entire family.

Its hard growing up in a fishbowl......

All educators in NJ are trying to figure out the ins and outs of this new bullying law. The new law absolutely covers HIB that happens ON or OFF school grounds. It also includes behavior that happens when school is not in session. It covers a SINGLE incident or repeated incidents. All reported incidents of possible HIB MUST be investigated. If, after an investigation, it is determined that the behavior constitutes HIB, the school must intervene. Interventions may include punitive consequences such as detention, suspension or even expulsion. However, non-punitive interventions such as counseling might also be put in place. The law can be compared to the law that mandates that suspected abuse must be reported to DYFS. If the school suspects possible abuse, they MUST report it and DYFS then investigates. If the school files a report wih DYFS and abuse is not substantiated, the school has done nothing wrong. They have complied with the law.If abuse is suspected and the school does not report it to DYFS they are in violation of the law. Botom line: Dr. Miron did the right thing. He followed the law.

My full support is behind the Esrig family and all people who use appropriate channels to report and bring consequences to hate speech. The parents proved to be good role models for their children when they stood up for them, the principal could have only become more enlightened regarding some of the students in his school and the perpetrator and his peers have likely learned a lesson they won't soon forget.

Adinah, no one has a problem with the parents standing up for their children by going to the high school principal, even though the high school really has nothing to do with this. Rather, the issue, for some, myself included, is going to the press - at minimum before even giving the principal an opportunity to take action. Involving the press so quickly disturbs me.

Hedley, I agree. I also think a better job could have been done on the article to make it sound less about the new bullying law and more about the real issue. Of course, Patch will disagree, and will defend that it has covered the story in a balanced way, but I personally have found this article to be the final straw for me with Patch. The sensationalized reporting is making me go elsewhere. Too bad. Originally, it was a great way to get local news.

I cannot think of a more appropriate role for the press than revealing injustice. This should be denounced publicly and loudly, not sotto voce.

Didn't television news reports of Jim Crow attacks on protesters sway millions? Could the Freedom Riders have achieved anything by writing polite letters to the CEO of Greyhound -- no matter how sympathetic that executive may have been (after all, Greyhound only enforced segregation in the South where it was the law)? How on earth did MLK's letter from a Birmingham Jail get into the press so fast?

Rachel--Freedom Riders? Give me a break...... we are talking about a teenager or two being rude hateful idiots.... They deserve to get their car and allowance taken away and possibly a suspension but in now way should this have been REPORTED by a newspaper.

This has been bothering me all day..... as a citizen who cares about the town I live in, I am disgusted that someone can come in, accuse a kid of doing whatever, send an email to the principal and then take that response and leak it to a reporter.

Good God, we have tossed common sense out the window.

This article lost credibility the moment I heard how it came about.....

1. This is not news. 2. I think the facts are suspect. 3. I think the origin is equally suspect given this came from a leaked email that should have been and stayed private.

The Patch may think it is reporting "news' but I think it has allowed itself to be used by someone with an ax to grind.

Disgusted all the way around. Dislike.

Momma, I have been friends with the Esrigs for several years, and it's amazing but I've never seen this ax you speak of. Are you serious?

Why are the facts suspect? Because you don't think that a Millburn senior is capable of ugliness?

Thanks so much for confirming my decision to never live in Millburn.

Let's all just admit we no longer read the Patch for *news*. This site is now a cyber space water cooler. Several years ago I showed up at my grandchild's school in Short Hills for an event and a 5th grader was wearing a shirt that said "Santa is real" with the word Santa crossed out and the designer label "Juicy" overwriting it (of course implying Santa was not real). I know for a fact this girl wore the shirt the entire day. Is this the kind of *news* the Patch wants to report now???

Thanks for all the comments. I would like to point out that Patch brings you all kinds of news -- some you might need to know, like our 24/7 coverage of Hurricane Irene and the recovery effort, to late-night school board and township committee meetings to issues like charter schools to crime and police news to sports coverage. We also bring you features about charity events, the arts and trends. A look through our site will show you all that and more.

I just reread the article, and in my professional judgment (I am a journalist), there is nothing wrong with it. The lead of the article is about a new-found limitation in the state's new anti-bullying law. The lead is NOT that this incident happened. I think that Laura made an excellent decision to lead with that, and not with the incident itself. Moreover, she does NOT mention the name of the student. The article focuses on the fact that Dr. Miron received this letter and that he was following up on it as the district tries to navigate the new law. But lo and behold, this type of incident is not governed by the law. This is what the piece is about. She does not need corroboration to cover it from this angle. The incident is being reported as it was reported by David Esrig. Indeed, it says, "David Esrig said he son, wife, ..." That's like a NYT piece saying, "Police said that a white male, about six feet tall and wearing a black tee shirt, approached the bank teller and showed his gun." That sentence is perfectly fine.

IF she had led with this -- "A Millburn high school senior lobbed anti-semitic remarks and gestures at a 12-year-old boy while the two of them were next to each other in line at Starbucks Friday evening" -- THEN she would need corroboration. Laura, you did nothing wrong journalistically.

You are welcome. There's nothing wrong with the article.