Well, I can't argue with a history of abuse. These kids looked to intensify the acts of the previous year, and it was tolerated the first year already.
Gotta change my point of view towards being behind the school.
first: kudos, captain, for posting all the legalese before i had a chance to.
i actually got into a heated argument about this because some of my less intellectual friends couldn't be bothered with settled law; instead, i was repeatedly told, "ZOMG you should never censor an american flag, and if you agree with its censoring, you're unamerican!" (note: i have less "less intellectual" friends today than i did last week; one of them was so upset with me having facts on my side that she libeled me repeatedly on facebook in such a way as to try to destroy my career.)
i think the words "controlled" and "government" here are a bit harsh. generally, a school's "control" of students is limited by, essentially, their ability to censor whatever the school deems inappropriate or provocative. (this case falls under "provocative.") as far as "government," well, that gives the illusion that decisions fall to a large bureaucracy, where, really, each school handles its own business based on its own needs. with a large mexican population, and the prior cinco de mayo's flag-waving incident, the school has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its students, faculty, administration and other staff.
Actually, "control" is fairly accurate as the student must attend under compulsory education unless they have a legal excuse. Only emancipated minors are allowed to write their own excuses, but specifically these days attendance is limited by how many sick days a student can have. Also, parents must get permission from the school for prolonged time away from school and they must be "educational." Although I use a parenthesis as most principals let students go so as long its not something absurd.
The educational hierarchy is supposed to be a state and local affair. Local is trumped by Dillon's Rule, and from power creep on education federal trumps state. Although, it's mostly a murky substance with the "control" vs. real control, however you define either.. Custody is very much a local affair where loco parentis is concerned, however the federal and state are taking a greater affair in what is actually taught in schools. In certain states, this extends to even the textbook used in the classroom.
So content is more of a state and federal affair for the broad view, local adds in some modifications. The loco parentis falls to teachers and administration, while the policies are handled by the board and administration. And yes, it's a large beaurocracy going through the various levels of government between task forces, school boards, dept. of education (state/federal level), and all the way down to the teacher.
Schools after the 1980's are anything but a local affair with the Standards Movement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
They were sitting at a lunch table. They were not getting into people's faces. They were not screaming insults...
"OH NOES SOMEONE IS WEARING AN AMERICAN FLAG AND SITTING AT A LUNCH TABLE. I AM SO INTIMIDATED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT THREATENED ME!"
Really, what is there to be intimidated about?
Are you ok with students wearing Swastikas and holding Mein Kampfs on Chanukah in public school? Or how about students wearing a "I went to party with al-Qaeda on 9/11 and all I got was this stupid t-shirt" t-shirt on 9/11? I'm just wondering if you are also ok with those as long as it was done at a lunch table?
Obviously there are lines and someone needs to draw them.
Actually, "control" is fairly accurate as the student must attend under compulsory education unless they have a legal excuse.
while i agree with your specificity here, i interpreted your use of "control" a little differently, as you acknowledged later (i think...). we're veering off the censoring issue into other territory now; i was interpreting your statement as such to keep it applicable to the issue at hand.
Custody is very much a local affair where loco parentis is concerned, however the federal and state are taking a greater affair in what is actually taught in schools. In certain states, this extends to even the textbook used in the classroom.
So content is more of a state and federal affair for the broad view, local adds in some modifications. The loco parentis falls to teachers and administration, while the policies are handled by the board and administration. And yes, it's a large beaurocracy going through the various levels of government between task forces, school boards, dept. of education (state/federal level), and all the way down to the teacher.
Schools after the 1980's are anything but a local affair with the Standards Movement.
i agree with all of this; however, again, i took your meanings as such because i was trying to keep things relevant to the topic. apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
as far as what is and is not acceptable in a given school, while there may be federal/state/local guidelines for handling sensitive incidents, the final decision rests with the administration of the school in question only. they're the "boots on the ground," as it were.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
Okay, I understand now. But where do you get off claiming that the First Amendment is not just wrong but so obviously wrong that there ought not even to be a debate about it, and insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with you?
Where do I get off? I suppose at about the point where I realize I'm a self-aware individual with my own thoughts and opinions with which you cannot interfere.
As for the idea that the First Amendment is so obviously wrong that this shouldn't be a debate, that's an entirely inferred and slanderous invention of your own. Allow me to explain myself and also encourage you not to attempt doing so on your own, because I say what I mean, and my meaning is not dependent on how you interpret it:
Quote from Benalicious Hero »
I am lamenting that this and similar topics actually spark debate.
That is to say, it saddens and frustrates me that people defend what I feel are obvious cases of abuse of free speech. I don't understand the perspective of people who choose to defend all acts regardless of intent. This results from a lack of knowledge and empathy from all parties including myself, and ultimately is a matter of opinion.
This is an exclusive (albeit related) topic from my opinion that
Quote from Benalicious Hero »
the First Ammendment is wrong in protecting intently offensive speech.
which I only bothered to explain because you got me wrong to begin with.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Clear and present risk of a flame war, as evinced by his previous Bush-related comment already having successfully trolled bLatch (sorry for making an example of you, bLatch). As I've said from the beginning, and mikey has recently reiterated, if the school can demonstrate clear and present danger, then the First Amendment does not apply.
As Captain_Morgan has brought up, the First Amendment is already dissected within the school system.
Secondly, expand my question and your answer to the scenario of moderators and trolling comments at large, and maybe you will gain some insight as to why my question was a rhetorical one, and I why I believe these kids were rightfully punished.
If that actually sparks violence, then the fault is not with the kids.
I am baffled by this statement.
Quote from Highroller »
And in this is an indication that there's a problem on your end.
According to you. Maybe you could provide some insight as to what that is?
Quote from Highroller »
No it wasn't.
Yes, it was. It caused a disturbance. Schools can toss kids out for having dyed hair that may warrant distractions, never mind that the culprits in this case were insulting the cultural heritage of a good number of the other students.
Quote from Highroller »
If you take offense at an American flag in America, that's fine, but you absolutely do not have the right to prohibit anyone from showing it. That is absolutely an infringement of freedom of speech.
You're right, I don't. School administrations do under the protection of US law.
Quote from Highroller »
So any problem any Mexican has on Cinco de Mayo automatically is ruled on the side of the Mexican because he's Mexican, because we want to minimize racism?
This makes sense.
Is that what you took me to mean? Allow me to correct you: the fact that jackass patriots and Mexicans celebrating Cinco de Mayo have a history of not getting along is a legitimate means to infer that these kids conspiring fashion trends at a lunch table were probably up to the same trouble, not to mention the specific problems the school in question has had with racial/cultural tension in the past years.
Quote from Highroller »
I'm sure many things are done to avoid potential problems. I'm sure that school that installed security cameras did so to avoid potential theft. Motivation does not make the action irrelevant.
You're right; in this case, motivation justified the action.
Quote from Highroller »
See, here's the thing, you might be against freedom of speech, and that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean we should be.
I am not against free speech, and never implied that anyone else should be. It was simply an expression of displeasure. At this point in your post, I think you've managed to stick more words in my mouth than Blinking Spirit, and you know what? Two people in one thread assuming to understand me and berating me accordingly, when all I do is afford them my ears (figuratively) and my own opinions? That's pretty damn disappointing.
Quote from Highroller »
So you want to say one thing, but you don't want to say the obvious logical conclusion of that thing? Seems you don't know what you want to say then.
If you find "obvious logic" in the statement that "offensive" speech should be entirely abolished, then clearly I'm not the one with the problem. I made sure to clarify that that wasn't my implication because of its inherent fallacies.
Quote from HighRoller »
Well, actually you do, you want the First Amendment to function only in the way you want it to. Not unusual, in fact, it's what everyone else wants as well. That's exactly why we have it the way it is.
A final instance of assuming my stance, no surprise there. I certainly do not want the First Amendment to function strictly how I want it to; you were closer to being correct with your first assertion, that I "don't know what I want to say". More to the point, I don't know what a proper solution is; what I do know is that I don't find an amendment that protects one person's right to insult/offend/terrorize/dominate or otherwise harm another individual with his or her words or actions to be an optimal one.
Mostly with supporters of loco parentis, it begins with either two presumptions:
1. School is "the child's workplace" and therefore it must be "akin to a work place"
This is a more modern approach, dating around the 1910's or 1920's but really galvanized around the 1950's whenever Sputnik tied national security to education and corporations were seeing the benefits of a cheap and highly educated work force.
2. Schools are in charge and are parental custodians of the children in the care of the state
-This is a much older interpretation, and can be traced back to John Dewey's work on education to connect trying fix the issues of bad parenting and such through education. The loco parentis is older as it has grounds in the traditional schools prior to the Common Schools movement, which were mostly apprenticeships or private schools where the student or apprentice was under the authority of an adult.
It really waned whenever corporal punishment saw its demise and people saw education more as a way to train children to become workers in plants and such.
I take a more nuanced view, I feel at the core of the issue really is compulsory education itself and how students view themselves versus how they actually are seen by adults. There really is no transition phase between child and adult, as people are often more dependent as young adults to their parents than two generations ago. So much so that some social scientists have tried to place the idea of "twixter" into our lexicon and phase out the term "young adult" to describe someone between 18-25.
I feel that compulsory education is necessary, but the way it is achieved creates unequal distribution of power and wealth. Where the zip code determines many times the success of a school with its financial resources and leadership. A voucher system with more flexibility in early post secondary education start is better. Basically, a student that for whatever reason quits at the tenth grade upon completion of an associates program is eligible for a high school diploma. GED's are only those without completing 13 years of school education or 11 years and 1.5-2 years of post secondary school.
It allows dissenters to go to a place that is more tolerant and even embracing of certain behaviors that schools are intolerant of. It also allows students to get out of under performing, academically and/or socially, schools earlier.
Also, the "minor" and "adult transition phase needs to be more codified. It's really murky when we "charge someone as an adult" versus "as a minor" and other such things that would be cleaned up legally with a legal entity that ends at 10-13 travels through to their 18th birthday. However, upon the 18th birthday a person should be able to run for any office or use any substances deemed legal to citizens.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
First off, anyone trying to claim that these students were not trying to make a political point are being naive. There is no way that five friends all wore heavily patriotic clothing on the same day without premeditation. Not a single one defended themselves by saying they always wear that kind of clothing, so it is obvious that they were trying to make a point. The legitimate discussion to be had is whether their political point is important or just inflamatory.
If the students were wearing clothing depicting the French flag I could understand the outrage. But they are supposed to be Latino-Americans. Considering themselves Latino first, and Americans second is a huge cause of much of the anti-immigrant ferver in this country. I could care less if the US invaded Germany, Spain, Lithuania, or England, because while my ancestors came from those countries I am not a German, Spaniard, Lithuanian, or English. I could care less if a group of students wore US or even Russian flags on German Unity Day.
I think a political message that a large group of people who want to be treated like equal citizens are offended by the American Flag on a Mexican holiday is an important one. I think that institutions such as schools should limit hateful speech (such as a T-shirt celebtrating 9/11), but the very fact that the American Flag is considered hateful speech is appalling.
I take a more nuanced view, I feel at the core of the issue really is compulsory education itself and how students view themselves versus how they actually are seen by adults. There really is no transition phase between child and adult, as people are often more dependent as young adults to their parents than two generations ago. So much so that some social scientists have tried to place the idea of "twixter" into our lexicon and phase out the term "young adult" to describe someone between 18-25.
without veering too much off topic... ... from what i recall from my developmental psych class, this phenomenon is, at least, partially attributed to the advancement of technology. as our society's technological level (and technological complexity) increases, it forces children of each generation to learn more things. since it takes time to assimilate things into our knowledge base, it takes progressively more time (or more intense instruction) to prepare students for adult life. this forces developmental maturity to slow down to a degree on the whole; YMMV on the individual level, of course.
I feel that compulsory education is necessary, but the way it is achieved creates unequal distribution of power and wealth. Where the zip code determines many times the success of a school with its financial resources and leadership. A voucher system with more flexibility in early post secondary education start is better.
having public schools distribute their finances in a more even-handed manner (read: not by zip code) would achieve similar benefits. "encouraging" schools to push their students to achieve more would, as well. again, YMMV, largely because not all parents are created equal - hence the arguments for loco parentis as you described (particularly the older one).
Also, the "minor" and "adult transition phase needs to be more codified. It's really murky when we "charge someone as an adult" versus "as a minor" and other such things that would be cleaned up legally with a legal entity that ends at 10-13 travels through to their 18th birthday. However, upon the 18th birthday a person should be able to run for any office or use any substances deemed legal to citizens.
attempting to reasonably codify any maturity-based actions legally by chronological age is inherently arbitrary. i will admit it is necessary in many circumstances (as it is for what you described), but it will be difficult to concur on what those limits should be, and will have just as many (if not more) "gray areas" than our current system does.
i'm not disagreeing here, just pointing out that what you propose is, at best, equally as arbitrarily binding as the status quo is, and, at worst, adding complexity to a simple, comprehensible, and still equally arbitrary system.
also, what differences would mark the "adult transition" phase, legally? what rights/punishments change from minor to transition? what do we do for people who have legitimate developmental difficulties? i'm sure i have more questions for clarification, but i'm pressed for time right now.
EDIT: @ ranton: it's not that the flag is considered hateful speech, in general; it's that the flag, in this case, is being specifically used in order to openly provoke negative reactions from a substantial segment of the school's population. (never mind that the previous year's incident showed that the flag waving was, in essence, trolling.) as with spoken words, the words themselves are often innocent enough, but it is the intent behind the words that leads to the negative reactions. the flag, itself, is not hateful, but it is being used in a hateful manner in order to provoke a negative incident.
also, america has always been special in that we encourage our immigrants to still celebrate their culture. i'm an american of 100% italian descent living in a traditionally italian section of brooklyn, new york, and i will tell you that italian culture is alive and well, even amongst third/fourth-generation americans (like i am, though i largely dismiss my italian heritage, as i don't express it much, even having lived all my life in this environment). the CHAOS that erupted in my neighborhood for hours after italy won the world cup a few years back was far greater than when the yankees won the world series last year.
Hmm. I don't know that I would have chosen to use the article linked here as the one to explain the situation. It's pretty light on some relevant facts.
1) Bandannas, which the students were wearing, are against the school dress code.
2) At least one of the students stated that they were specifically wearing the flags because it was Cinco de Mayo.
Now, obviously it's a First Amendment case. Point 2 actually helps the student's case, because it student dress is not protected speech unless it conveys a message that a reasonable observer could be expected to understand. Certainly schools have more power to restrict student speech-through-clothing than the government at large has to restrict speech at large. They can restrict dress insofar as they are making minimally restrictive attempts to ensure a safe and productive learning environment.
As I see it, I find it hard to construe the simple wearing of a flag, even during a cultural holiday from another country, as expressing an idea that in some way offensive or inflammatory. A ban on flag clothing is clearly overbroad.
I certainly strongly suspect that the it was clear to everyone involved that the students were wearing their flags in order to be inflammatory. However, it also seems clear that they must have been doing more than simply wearing the flags for that to become clear.
If the school felt that they were engaging in some behavior that was aimed at inciting other students and disrupting the learning environment, they were justified in taking action to stop it. However, they were not justified in making a broad statement against flag clothing, which by itself is protected speech. What they should have done is punished the students for the other behavior that was actually inciting. They can't go and arbitrarily restrict protected speech as a shortcut to doing a thorough job of ensuring student discipline.
If, however, it turns out that the students were doing nothing beyond wearing the flag clothing, and had not made any inflammatory actions or statements, and it was simply a case of some students being offended by the flags, the school was entirely unjustified in taking any action.
Basically, barring any significant unknown factors, the school is at fault here, and is probably open to a successful lawsuit. However, given that the school district appears to have distanced themselves from the school's decision, I suspect such a suit would quickly be settled without damages.
Also, schools aren't considered grounds for "free speech" - by agreeing to enter the school your parent's agree to the dress code of the school, of which every school I've seen has a dress code with POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE listed as a reason that they can be forced to flip a garment inside out and/or be asked to go home and return once they've changed.
And that was with schools 20-odd years ago mind you, when people didn't try to sue or push other people's buttons nearly as much. I'd imagine if anything schools have become stricter on their dress codes these days. (They didn't have rules for gang colors back then for my schools for example, and I'm pretty sure I've heard that's a common dress code no-no these days)
Heck, I remember the one kid who through a fit for refusing to flip his Andrew Dice Clay shirt inside out (or maybe it was 2 Live Crew - both were the same era and similarly offensive) nothing offensive on the shirt itself, just the performer and their name was on the shirt [w/ performance dates on the back IIRC] - his parents tried to take it to court and failed since they had agreed to the dress code.
Also, schools aren't considered grounds for "free speech" - by agreeing to enter the school your parent's agree to the dress code of the school,
Not a good start. This is quite simply false. To quote Tinker,
It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate
of which every school I've seen has a dress code with POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE listed as a reason that they can be forced to flip a garment inside out and/or be asked to go home and return once they've changed.
Just because lots of schools have such a clause doesn't make this specific attempt at enforcing it legal.
And that was with schools 20-odd years ago mind you, when people didn't try to sue or push other people's buttons nearly as much. I'd imagine if anything schools have become stricter on their dress codes these days. (They didn't have rules for gang colors back then for my schools for example, and I'm pretty sure I've heard that's a common dress code no-no these days)
Heck, I remember the one kid who through a fit for refusing to flip his Andrew Dice Clay shirt inside out (or maybe it was 2 Live Crew - both were the same era and similarly offensive) nothing offensive on the shirt itself, just the performer and their name was on the shirt [w/ performance dates on the back IIRC] - his parents tried to take it to court and failed since they had agreed to the dress code.
An Andrew Dice Clay shirt is not protected, because it is not speech. It can not be understood by a reasonable observer to be conveying any substantive message. It's completely different than the flag shirts.
Someone said earlier that the school acted after the fact and that is wrong. However, from the article 'Source' provided:
In response to those complaints, school authorities had asked students not to provoke other students by wearing or waving flags this year, Sullivan said.
So these students were forewarned about wearing flags on May 5 before the actual day. I don't think it's wrong for the school to ask the kids to turn the shirts inside-out, especially because it's only for this one day, the school told the students before not to wear it, and that there were incidents the prior year that prompted the school to issue this warning and to act in this way.
Not a good start. This is quite simply false. To quote Tinker,
The Tinker case revolved around an actual message being presented - only one of the five students involved actually admitted to having any message, and his message was intentional provocation. And provocation isn't considered protected speech in some cases, one of those primary cases being within school grounds under many cases (i.e. look at how many states now have anti-bullying laws - and in most of those states it's a far cry from battery to qualify for anti-bullying).
An Andrew Dice Clay shirt is not protected, because it is not speech. It can not be understood by a reasonable observer to be conveying any substantive message. It's completely different than the flag shirts.
A symbol without stating a message or having the message clearly outlined on the garment is merely a symbol - not "free speech". (Just like the Dice Clay shirt was back in the day)
As far as any "reasonable observer" could take it, they were either saying "Screw you, Hispanics", "I love America", "Oh I just picked up this shirt at Old Navy isn't it snazzy oh wow it's got a flag on it, didn't really notice", or "Wait till lunchtime and watch me torch this shirt after I toss it on the ground!" - that's got quite a range to it. Assuming it's only #2 like those defending the students keep doing is to ignore the possibility of the other 3 options - of which #1 falls under anti-bullying laws in most states, and #4 would be considered inappropriate by most for school grounds as well - and #3 is trivial. (Although as you stated yourself #3 would obviously be "dress code" safe)
That definitely changes things, though I still find it wrong that the school would ask that students not wear the flag this year on their clothing.
i'm pretty sure that the request was a CYA for the school. if they don't tell the kids not to wear them, it would be a little more difficult for the school to defend their decision (if the kids weren't warned, they weren't given the option to willfully obey the school's decision), though they'd still win any potential lawsuit. putting it out there allows them to say that the students were clearly disobeying the school's dress code, without having to wait for an incident to occur. plus, by forewarning the students, the school gave them the option of not causing trouble for themselves.
the fact that there was at least one previous incident severe enough to warrant talking to the students at all indicates, to me, a potentially much more pervasive problem at the school than just that incident would indicate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
So these students were forewarned about wearing flags on May 5 before the actual day. I don't think it's wrong for the school to ask the kids to turn the shirts inside-out, especially because it's only for this one day, the school told the students before not to wear it, and that there were incidents the prior year that prompted the school to issue this warning and to act in this way.
Yeah, that does change things a bit about the situation. I still have concerns about prohibiting the behavior, because I think it doesn't really address the underlying issues of mutual respect and tolerance, but if the school had set a policy and stated that something wouldn't be tolerated, then it seems to me the students shouldn't have done that. The school is likely well within its right to set that as a policy and enforce that policy.
Again, I'm not saying that I agree with the policy or the way the school handled it, as I think that's still not the way to handle things. I just dislike the idea of banning anything that people find offensive. It's one thing if there's the threat of violence, or some kind of situation is actually developing, but preemptive banning of offensive material seems a bit much to me. Especially as most people really don't always have a lot of control over what others could potentially find offensive.
Is that really context, or is that just content? Because my experience as a student always lead me to believe that school policy was largely in absolutes, especially regarding dress code. There was never a "You can't do X on Y day.", it was just "You can't do X." Heck, even the cheerleaders back when I was in high school were required to make sure their skirts met the same requirement to not end more than 2" above the knee.
Is that really context, or is that just content? Because my experience as a student always lead me to believe that school policy was largely in absolutes, especially regarding dress code. There was never a "You can't do X on Y day.", it was just "You can't do X." Heck, even the cheerleaders back when I was in high school were required to make sure their skirts met the same requirement to not end more than 2" above the knee.
I was referring to his claims of it falling under "free speech" even though 80% of the students involved weren't stating what their message was - not how the school enforced things.
And I'm pretty sure these days with some of the volatile nature of the past decade that there's certainly "blackouts" to certain types of clothing depending on the day. (i.e. I'm sure a student would be sent home for wearing a "Osama for Prez!" shirt on 9/11, but that they could likely get away with it the rest of the year [and yes, I've seen someone wearing that shirt before - one of the few times clothing has offended me for it's content rather than amount that it covered someone])
I was referring to his claims of it falling under "free speech" even though 80% of the students involved weren't stating what their message was - not how the school enforced things.
True, and that is something to consider in the circumstances.
And I'm pretty sure these days with some of the volatile nature of the past decade that there's certainly "blackouts" to certain types of clothing depending on the day.
I'd agree that's probably the case as well. But those that mean it's acceptable or reasonable to have those kind of blackouts? Or are people being overly "quick" to preempt things, as opposed to seriously address the actual problem of a lack of respect for other cultures?
Or are people being overly "quick" to preempt things, as opposed to seriously address the actual problem of a lack of respect for other cultures?
well, you can't force someone to respect other cultures. obviously, it is a problem that should be addressed (in general) - it may be difficult to do this in a school, if the funding or other resources aren't available. but you can't convince anyone that race X is not evil/corrupt/reprehensible/etc. if they refuse to accept that. some people are just stubborn.
i think the overly litigious nature of americans, and the concern of others that they will find themselve subject to litigation, leads to preemptive action - in order to avoid lawsuits, people neuter what they and others say/do/etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
without veering too much off topic... ... from what i recall from my developmental psych class, this phenomenon is, at least, partially attributed to the advancement of technology. as our society's technological level (and technological complexity) increases, it forces children of each generation to learn more things. since it takes time to assimilate things into our knowledge base, it takes progressively more time (or more intense instruction) to prepare students for adult life. this forces developmental maturity to slow down to a degree on the whole; YMMV on the individual level, of course.
That's a minor part of a larger demographic approach to it, but this remains outside of that science and more of a realm for resource management, history, and economics. Without going too far in depth, one of the issues is how college is structured. We go 2 semesters a year with an optional summer course load, which leaves the facility idle for 3 months.
By stopping the idling you can process more students faster through the college system. 4 years x3 months off=1 year. This is great for farmers, but not really good for a highly industrialized society that's begun to shift management roles into requiring masters degrees against a glut of bachelors degrees.
Furthermore, a cultural comparison is also necessary between our schooling versus foreign schooling. Foreign schooling specializes sooner than the well rounded education points we seem to throw out. There's also the myth that high school prepares children for college, which it does not. Remedial education at the collegiate levels are up, and frankly from people I know personally some of their college students shouldn't be there. I mean these people cannot even write a report to save their life, and would be better served in another setting.
Another part of demographics is the "disappearance of middle class jobs," which is technological in nature. However, America has become a more stratified society looking at various indicators such as the Gini coefficient. In essence our basic jobs do become transitive to real living wage jobs like in other countries. I'll address this more in my conclusion, I try to nuance this stuff between multiple fields rather than just demographics and psychology.
having public schools distribute their finances in a more even-handed manner (read: not by zip code) would achieve similar benefits. "encouraging" schools to push their students to achieve more would, as well. again, YMMV, largely because not all parents are created equal - hence the arguments for loco parentis as you described (particularly the older one).
It's about having options to get out of trash schools, either through home schooling or attending better performing schools. There are also other reasons why people leave school, such as bullying. Let's take the Pheobe Prince case for instance, had she the option to locate to another school. It might have had enough impact on her life to be able to socially "reboot" and learn not sleep with other kids in her district.
I see too much responsibility in the hands of too few, and not enough power in the individual child and adults. The issue right now is nothing more than a power struggle between parents, teachers, and administration. While in the case I brought up precisely provides a context for administrative malpractice, her individual decisions also contributed to her situation to sleep with those people. However, had she been a worker, she would have had the power to quit and relocate for a new job. This is why I attune myself between the two schools of thought.
attempting to reasonably codify any maturity-based actions legally by chronological age is inherently arbitrary. i will admit it is necessary in many circumstances (as it is for what you described), but it will be difficult to concur on what those limits should be, and will have just as many (if not more) "gray areas" than our current system does.
It's very incoherent and many law changes have occurred from Boomer meddlings that worked fine prior to the "get tough on crime" movement that's lead to a huge amount of people in jail. Poor blacks especially are in this demographic, because they're in greater number in a degraded cultural zone in the urban ghettos and easier to track in the city.
i'm not disagreeing here, just pointing out that what you propose is, at best, equally as arbitrarily binding as the status quo is, and, at worst, adding complexity to a simple, comprehensible, and still equally arbitrary system.
Most of these are proposals and programs that have worked in small experimental groups. The charter schools though do not perform better on tests, however socially these children that have had issues in the past (drugs, bullying, you get the idea) do indeed perform much better. We can fix environmental problems by allowing migration and "do overs."
Whenever I heard of schools giving veterans that dropped out of high school their diplomas because "they served in a war," I feel that people that drop out of school to escape school problems are equally deserving. Some legislative suggestions to phase out the GED altogether is in part to have people get an associates degree and get their high school diploma as well.
also, what differences would mark the "adult transition" phase, legally?
Ability to compete with older generations that make the rules set by being able to legally become president at the age of 18. Consumption of alcohol is already done "preciously" during the teens for us, but it leads to issues later in life. However, European culture uses drinking as a part of a meal rather than beer games as seen in high school and college. It also leads to coherence socially between being a soldier, a voter, and yet "not mature enough to drink." It's a legacy issue really.
On the point with getting charged as an adult I agree legally should be up to the sentencing phase. However, laws exist that are incoherent as they are case by case to "charge a person as an adult" for a drug felony yet are not for something like murder. Extinguishing the benefits by raising the driving age and such, yet leaving in the ability to be charged as an adult for crime is cognitive dissonance. Either the person in question is an "adult," "minor," or something else. It seems society is clawing for a "something else" between those two extremes.
what rights/punishments change from minor to transition? what do we do for people who have legitimate developmental difficulties? i'm sure i have more questions for clarification, but i'm pressed for time right now.
Running for office where people have power over you is a pretty big deal as well as voting for or against people. School boards lack accountability to the student body. College and private schools suffer from people "voting with their feet," but public schools have a mandate from the people to give power over our children without giving basic consideration to that the "child" or really adult under loco parentis may not want to be in that school.
A child in all senses of the word needs someone to make decisions in their stead, however an 18 year old high school student that today needs their high school diploma are at the beckon call of their school to advance in education for secondary features such as getting into strong schools, scholarships, and ect. Declining grades and shenanigans that we see with the Pheobe Prince case and others similar to hers place these people at risk and often the price is too much for bad leadership.
In truth, schools do work for most people at a rudimentary level. It's the exceptions to the rule that we as a society fail at, and as well going beyond the rudimentary level for our children's education.
If we allow precious children to get into trade school or college faster, what's the harm? We have a welder at the age of 18 instead of 20 having a real career than being "stuck in school" making everyone miserable. For the worst, we have a person that takes remedial college classes, like they already do, and add a few years onto going to college. So instead of the student graduating with an associates degree at 20-21, they're out the door by 18-19.
also, america has always been special in that we encourage our immigrants to still celebrate their culture. i'm an american of 100% italian descent living in a traditionally italian section of brooklyn, new york, and i will tell you that italian culture is alive and well, even amongst third/fourth-generation americans (like i am, though i largely dismiss my italian heritage, as i don't express it much, even having lived all my life in this environment). the CHAOS that erupted in my neighborhood for hours after italy won the world cup a few years back was far greater than when the yankees won the world series last year.
It's really the work of people like Elizabeth Warren and articles like this one that make me pause for concern:
What is less well understood is that the American jobs machine has stalled badly. Granted, employment has been rising—non-farm payrolls were up by 162,000 in March—and may gain strength in the months ahead as cyclical joblessness falls. But the recovery has not yet brought jobs for the millions of workers idled by recession. This is at odds with what economists refer to as Okun’s law, a rough but empirically regular connection between changes in GDP and changes in unemployment. Over the past 12 months unemployment has not fallen as quickly as economists have come to expect. The hitherto tight link between economic activity and job creation looks disturbingly slack.
Quote from Something"s not working »
A lasting blight
The long-term effects of all this are hard to predict, especially when the recession ended so recently. But history provides some guide to the unpleasant shifts that lie ahead for many Americans.
Lots of laid-off workers will never regain their former earning power. A study of those who lost stable jobs in 1981-82 found that their earnings fell at once by 30%; they had made up less than half the gap 15-20 years later. New graduates entering the labour force will earn less than they might have done a few years ago, although the effects will fade during their careers. A recent study by Yale’s Lisa Kahn estimates that each percentage-point increase in the national unemployment rate produces a loss in initial wages of 6-7%. New graduates take less prestigious jobs and stay in them longer, stunting upward mobility.
For those aged 16-24 the effects are even greater. Some have chosen to carry on studying, which should lead to increased productivity and pay. Enrolment rates at high schools and colleges have increased by several percentage points since the recession began. But many other young people have become idle, neither in work nor in school, and can expect low pay when they do find a job. Idleness in this age group has risen most among males, and especially black males—to 24%, from just under 18% before the recession. That this trend has not coincided with an increase in crime has surprised many analysts. Rates of violent and property crimes ticked up in the early 1980s and in 1991, but tumbled in 2008 and 2009. Larry Katz, an economist at Harvard, has mused that video games and online diversions may have absorbed the attention of young, idle people.
Older people have less time to make up for lost earnings. Some have put off retirement plans in order to rebuild lost wealth but half as many again, says a recent estimate, have retired early because job prospects are poor. These people face a longer retirement on reduced means, especially because early drawing of Social Security (ie, state pension) benefits means a lower payout. The shift will place extra strain on public finances, because older people will pay less in taxes and collect more in benefits. By reducing payroll-tax revenues, the recession has hastened the arrival of an annual deficit in Social Security, once forecast for 2016 but now expected this year.
Income inequality is likely to widen. Educated people were less likely to lose their jobs during the recession. For workers without a high-school diploma, the unemployment rate peaked at 15.6%; for those with one, it was more than four percentage points lower. A college degree knocked off another six points. The educated may be favoured by future job growth too. That would place upward pressure on wages that are already above average, while the incomes of less skilled workers stagnate. Richer households will also find it easier to adjust to structural obstacles in the labour market. They can more easily afford to send children to university, absorb property losses or move to another city.
The knock-on effects from these shifts are hard to predict. Research indicates that recessions in early adulthood can shape attitudes toward success and government intervention. If these people vote, they may demand more redistributive government policies. They may also prefer economic nationalism to free trade.
Some may see in this the beginnings of a shift in the American economy towards a pattern more familiar to Europeans. High unemployment, especially of the long-term variety, sets in. That calls forth demands for a more generous social-safety net, which in turn exacerbates the structural flaws in the labour market.
In closing, this is why I prefer to stop wasting our precious time on worrying about dealing with racial inequality and tolerance versus basic economic factors. These kids are immature, sure. However, why is it that they view these people as "dirty Mexicans?" It ties in with being poor, and the ironic part is that some of these same high schools may end up working alongside these "dirty Mexicans."
I'm a minority, I grew up poor, and I learned the value of hard work. However, hard work doesn't get you ahead in society. It's connectivity that gets you ahead in society and ease of transition. We've been hurting transition for the Latino population for a few generations now, and the blacks have been in that boat for a while.
Racial views are tied to economic status. Every race goes through the "jokey haha" phase as the ass of many discriminatory jokes. Right now it's Muslims, Latinos, and gays(in the sense of a demographic as the ass of many jokes). In comparison with Asians that are viewed as a "high educated bunch," but that has its own issues for their cultural narrative. Honestly, if we had hispanics on the level you see the the Irish "drunks" or the Italian "papists" are now, we'd be in a better standing. Asians as a "model minority" aren't exactly ideal, though, but it's a leg up from "dirty Mexican."
It's all interconnected on making children more mature themselves socially by engagement into a larger connective culture, but also one of economic uplift for these poorer social groups to lift themselves out of poverty and change how they are perceived by society. It's basically getting people less focused on what everyone else is "up to," and people more focused on living and improving their own lives with societal expectations to be "more" with great incentives to be connected. This is the same thing that happened with the Irish, they got involved and connected and uplifted themselves within the framework. Their special day "makes everyone Irish," up from being the ass of every joke a century or more ago. When Cinco De Mayo becomes the next St. Patrick's Day, I will rejoice.
What's wild, is that if a Mexican student and a group of his friends wore Mexican flag t-shirts on 4th of July, even with the intent to show some kind of opposition to the people celebrating 4th of July, they would be considered courageous heroes fighting the white oppression in their school and standing up for what they believe in.
What's wild, is that if a Mexican student and a group of his friends wore Mexican flag t-shirts on 4th of July, even with the intent to show some kind of opposition to the people celebrating 4th of July, they would be considered courageous heroes fighting the white oppression in their school and standing up for what they believe in.
The difference being in how justified we perceive the protest. Are the Mexican students oppressed by the racial majority? That still doesn't make them any less inciteful punks, but it does cast their cause in a sympathetic light. So to a degree, the sentiment can be applauded while the tactics derided.
Contrast that with the actual situation. What exactly were these students protesting? Mexican-Americans having a day to respect and honor their heritage and history? I doubt they were protesting Mexican oppression. Of course, I also doubt they were seriously protesting much of anything at all, which is why it's hard for a lot of us to sympathize with them. Here the sentiment seems to be "piss people off and make a group of people feel bad", which I don't think many are going to applaud.
The Tinker case revolved around an actual message being presented - only one of the five students involved actually admitted to having any message, and his message was intentional provocation. And provocation isn't considered protected speech in some cases, one of those primary cases being within school grounds under many cases (i.e. look at how many states now have anti-bullying laws - and in most of those states it's a far cry from battery to qualify for anti-bullying).
A symbol without stating a message or having the message clearly outlined on the garment is merely a symbol - not "free speech". (Just like the Dice Clay shirt was back in the day)
This is simply not true. You do not have to spell out the message of your symbol to make symbolism protected speech. The only relevance to this case of the fact that the kid said what his message was, is that it lets us, who don't have any particular familiarity with the situation beyond news articles, figure out what the message was. As long as the message was intended by the students (which I think we are all in agreement on), and was clear to those in the school (which I think we are also in agreement on), it is speech, and has some degree of first amendment protection.
As far as any "reasonable observer" could take it, they were either saying "Screw you, Hispanics", "I love America", "Oh I just picked up this shirt at Old Navy isn't it snazzy oh wow it's got a flag on it, didn't really notice", or "Wait till lunchtime and watch me torch this shirt after I toss it on the ground!" - that's got quite a range to it. Assuming it's only #2 like those defending the students keep doing is to ignore the possibility of the other 3 options - of which #1 falls under anti-bullying laws in most states, and #4 would be considered inappropriate by most for school grounds as well - and #3 is trivial. (Although as you stated yourself #3 would obviously be "dress code" safe)
Context, context, context.
Yes, context is important, in fact, it is the context that is objectionable here, not the shirts. Without context it is impossible to interpret a flag shirt as in any way provocative. Clearly, in order for a flag shirt to be understood as somehow threatening, the students must have been engaged in other behavior to provide such a context. That behavior would almost certainly constitute grounds on which the school could punish the students. That would have been the appropriate course of action here. A ban on flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo is a classic overboard restriction that is consistently struck down in First Amendment cases.
As for the students wearing the american flag...Society has become so afraid of being politically incorrect that people panic on the tiniest thing. Some people may have been afraid mexican-american students would be offended (even if there was no indication any of them were). Note that the boys were not really advertising their shirts of anything, they were just having lunch minding their own business.
I am perfectly aware that society became a bunch of pussies. I think society just needs a recession so people can start thinking more of themselves than what others think. This whole politically correct bull☺☺☺☺ is what's killing the country. Minorities aren't oppressed by the majority, the majority is a bunch of screwhead pussies who let themselves be manipulated by minorities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is a poor soldier who insists on seeing things not as they are, but as he wants them to be. One day reality hits, and his illusions fail him, and he dies stupidly. What honor is there in that?"
—Thel 'Vadamee
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Gotta change my point of view towards being behind the school.
Actually, "control" is fairly accurate as the student must attend under compulsory education unless they have a legal excuse. Only emancipated minors are allowed to write their own excuses, but specifically these days attendance is limited by how many sick days a student can have. Also, parents must get permission from the school for prolonged time away from school and they must be "educational." Although I use a parenthesis as most principals let students go so as long its not something absurd.
The educational hierarchy is supposed to be a state and local affair. Local is trumped by Dillon's Rule, and from power creep on education federal trumps state. Although, it's mostly a murky substance with the "control" vs. real control, however you define either.. Custody is very much a local affair where loco parentis is concerned, however the federal and state are taking a greater affair in what is actually taught in schools. In certain states, this extends to even the textbook used in the classroom.
So content is more of a state and federal affair for the broad view, local adds in some modifications. The loco parentis falls to teachers and administration, while the policies are handled by the board and administration. And yes, it's a large beaurocracy going through the various levels of government between task forces, school boards, dept. of education (state/federal level), and all the way down to the teacher.
Schools after the 1980's are anything but a local affair with the Standards Movement.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Are you ok with students wearing Swastikas and holding Mein Kampfs on Chanukah in public school? Or how about students wearing a "I went to party with al-Qaeda on 9/11 and all I got was this stupid t-shirt" t-shirt on 9/11? I'm just wondering if you are also ok with those as long as it was done at a lunch table?
Obviously there are lines and someone needs to draw them.
i agree with all of this; however, again, i took your meanings as such because i was trying to keep things relevant to the topic. apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
as far as what is and is not acceptable in a given school, while there may be federal/state/local guidelines for handling sensitive incidents, the final decision rests with the administration of the school in question only. they're the "boots on the ground," as it were.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Where do I get off? I suppose at about the point where I realize I'm a self-aware individual with my own thoughts and opinions with which you cannot interfere.
As for the idea that the First Amendment is so obviously wrong that this shouldn't be a debate, that's an entirely inferred and slanderous invention of your own. Allow me to explain myself and also encourage you not to attempt doing so on your own, because I say what I mean, and my meaning is not dependent on how you interpret it:
That is to say, it saddens and frustrates me that people defend what I feel are obvious cases of abuse of free speech. I don't understand the perspective of people who choose to defend all acts regardless of intent. This results from a lack of knowledge and empathy from all parties including myself, and ultimately is a matter of opinion.
This is an exclusive (albeit related) topic from my opinion that
which I only bothered to explain because you got me wrong to begin with.
As Captain_Morgan has brought up, the First Amendment is already dissected within the school system.
Secondly, expand my question and your answer to the scenario of moderators and trolling comments at large, and maybe you will gain some insight as to why my question was a rhetorical one, and I why I believe these kids were rightfully punished.
I am baffled by this statement.
According to you. Maybe you could provide some insight as to what that is?
Yes, it was. It caused a disturbance. Schools can toss kids out for having dyed hair that may warrant distractions, never mind that the culprits in this case were insulting the cultural heritage of a good number of the other students.
You're right, I don't. School administrations do under the protection of US law.
Is that what you took me to mean? Allow me to correct you: the fact that jackass patriots and Mexicans celebrating Cinco de Mayo have a history of not getting along is a legitimate means to infer that these kids conspiring fashion trends at a lunch table were probably up to the same trouble, not to mention the specific problems the school in question has had with racial/cultural tension in the past years.
You're right; in this case, motivation justified the action.
I am not against free speech, and never implied that anyone else should be. It was simply an expression of displeasure. At this point in your post, I think you've managed to stick more words in my mouth than Blinking Spirit, and you know what? Two people in one thread assuming to understand me and berating me accordingly, when all I do is afford them my ears (figuratively) and my own opinions? That's pretty damn disappointing.
If you find "obvious logic" in the statement that "offensive" speech should be entirely abolished, then clearly I'm not the one with the problem. I made sure to clarify that that wasn't my implication because of its inherent fallacies.
A final instance of assuming my stance, no surprise there. I certainly do not want the First Amendment to function strictly how I want it to; you were closer to being correct with your first assertion, that I "don't know what I want to say". More to the point, I don't know what a proper solution is; what I do know is that I don't find an amendment that protects one person's right to insult/offend/terrorize/dominate or otherwise harm another individual with his or her words or actions to be an optimal one.
1. School is "the child's workplace" and therefore it must be "akin to a work place"
This is a more modern approach, dating around the 1910's or 1920's but really galvanized around the 1950's whenever Sputnik tied national security to education and corporations were seeing the benefits of a cheap and highly educated work force.
2. Schools are in charge and are parental custodians of the children in the care of the state
-This is a much older interpretation, and can be traced back to John Dewey's work on education to connect trying fix the issues of bad parenting and such through education. The loco parentis is older as it has grounds in the traditional schools prior to the Common Schools movement, which were mostly apprenticeships or private schools where the student or apprentice was under the authority of an adult.
It really waned whenever corporal punishment saw its demise and people saw education more as a way to train children to become workers in plants and such.
I take a more nuanced view, I feel at the core of the issue really is compulsory education itself and how students view themselves versus how they actually are seen by adults. There really is no transition phase between child and adult, as people are often more dependent as young adults to their parents than two generations ago. So much so that some social scientists have tried to place the idea of "twixter" into our lexicon and phase out the term "young adult" to describe someone between 18-25.
I feel that compulsory education is necessary, but the way it is achieved creates unequal distribution of power and wealth. Where the zip code determines many times the success of a school with its financial resources and leadership. A voucher system with more flexibility in early post secondary education start is better. Basically, a student that for whatever reason quits at the tenth grade upon completion of an associates program is eligible for a high school diploma. GED's are only those without completing 13 years of school education or 11 years and 1.5-2 years of post secondary school.
It allows dissenters to go to a place that is more tolerant and even embracing of certain behaviors that schools are intolerant of. It also allows students to get out of under performing, academically and/or socially, schools earlier.
Also, the "minor" and "adult transition phase needs to be more codified. It's really murky when we "charge someone as an adult" versus "as a minor" and other such things that would be cleaned up legally with a legal entity that ends at 10-13 travels through to their 18th birthday. However, upon the 18th birthday a person should be able to run for any office or use any substances deemed legal to citizens.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
If the students were wearing clothing depicting the French flag I could understand the outrage. But they are supposed to be Latino-Americans. Considering themselves Latino first, and Americans second is a huge cause of much of the anti-immigrant ferver in this country. I could care less if the US invaded Germany, Spain, Lithuania, or England, because while my ancestors came from those countries I am not a German, Spaniard, Lithuanian, or English. I could care less if a group of students wore US or even Russian flags on German Unity Day.
I think a political message that a large group of people who want to be treated like equal citizens are offended by the American Flag on a Mexican holiday is an important one. I think that institutions such as schools should limit hateful speech (such as a T-shirt celebtrating 9/11), but the very fact that the American Flag is considered hateful speech is appalling.
having public schools distribute their finances in a more even-handed manner (read: not by zip code) would achieve similar benefits. "encouraging" schools to push their students to achieve more would, as well. again, YMMV, largely because not all parents are created equal - hence the arguments for loco parentis as you described (particularly the older one).
attempting to reasonably codify any maturity-based actions legally by chronological age is inherently arbitrary. i will admit it is necessary in many circumstances (as it is for what you described), but it will be difficult to concur on what those limits should be, and will have just as many (if not more) "gray areas" than our current system does.
i'm not disagreeing here, just pointing out that what you propose is, at best, equally as arbitrarily binding as the status quo is, and, at worst, adding complexity to a simple, comprehensible, and still equally arbitrary system.
also, what differences would mark the "adult transition" phase, legally? what rights/punishments change from minor to transition? what do we do for people who have legitimate developmental difficulties? i'm sure i have more questions for clarification, but i'm pressed for time right now.
EDIT: @ ranton: it's not that the flag is considered hateful speech, in general; it's that the flag, in this case, is being specifically used in order to openly provoke negative reactions from a substantial segment of the school's population. (never mind that the previous year's incident showed that the flag waving was, in essence, trolling.) as with spoken words, the words themselves are often innocent enough, but it is the intent behind the words that leads to the negative reactions. the flag, itself, is not hateful, but it is being used in a hateful manner in order to provoke a negative incident.
also, america has always been special in that we encourage our immigrants to still celebrate their culture. i'm an american of 100% italian descent living in a traditionally italian section of brooklyn, new york, and i will tell you that italian culture is alive and well, even amongst third/fourth-generation americans (like i am, though i largely dismiss my italian heritage, as i don't express it much, even having lived all my life in this environment). the CHAOS that erupted in my neighborhood for hours after italy won the world cup a few years back was far greater than when the yankees won the world series last year.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
1) Bandannas, which the students were wearing, are against the school dress code.
2) At least one of the students stated that they were specifically wearing the flags because it was Cinco de Mayo.
Now, obviously it's a First Amendment case. Point 2 actually helps the student's case, because it student dress is not protected speech unless it conveys a message that a reasonable observer could be expected to understand. Certainly schools have more power to restrict student speech-through-clothing than the government at large has to restrict speech at large. They can restrict dress insofar as they are making minimally restrictive attempts to ensure a safe and productive learning environment.
As I see it, I find it hard to construe the simple wearing of a flag, even during a cultural holiday from another country, as expressing an idea that in some way offensive or inflammatory. A ban on flag clothing is clearly overbroad.
I certainly strongly suspect that the it was clear to everyone involved that the students were wearing their flags in order to be inflammatory. However, it also seems clear that they must have been doing more than simply wearing the flags for that to become clear.
If the school felt that they were engaging in some behavior that was aimed at inciting other students and disrupting the learning environment, they were justified in taking action to stop it. However, they were not justified in making a broad statement against flag clothing, which by itself is protected speech. What they should have done is punished the students for the other behavior that was actually inciting. They can't go and arbitrarily restrict protected speech as a shortcut to doing a thorough job of ensuring student discipline.
If, however, it turns out that the students were doing nothing beyond wearing the flag clothing, and had not made any inflammatory actions or statements, and it was simply a case of some students being offended by the flags, the school was entirely unjustified in taking any action.
Basically, barring any significant unknown factors, the school is at fault here, and is probably open to a successful lawsuit. However, given that the school district appears to have distanced themselves from the school's decision, I suspect such a suit would quickly be settled without damages.
Also, schools aren't considered grounds for "free speech" - by agreeing to enter the school your parent's agree to the dress code of the school, of which every school I've seen has a dress code with POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE listed as a reason that they can be forced to flip a garment inside out and/or be asked to go home and return once they've changed.
And that was with schools 20-odd years ago mind you, when people didn't try to sue or push other people's buttons nearly as much. I'd imagine if anything schools have become stricter on their dress codes these days. (They didn't have rules for gang colors back then for my schools for example, and I'm pretty sure I've heard that's a common dress code no-no these days)
Heck, I remember the one kid who through a fit for refusing to flip his Andrew Dice Clay shirt inside out (or maybe it was 2 Live Crew - both were the same era and similarly offensive) nothing offensive on the shirt itself, just the performer and their name was on the shirt [w/ performance dates on the back IIRC] - his parents tried to take it to court and failed since they had agreed to the dress code.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I hadn't spotted that part. Well that changes everything. Burn the kids!
Not a good start. This is quite simply false. To quote Tinker,
Just because lots of schools have such a clause doesn't make this specific attempt at enforcing it legal.
An Andrew Dice Clay shirt is not protected, because it is not speech. It can not be understood by a reasonable observer to be conveying any substantive message. It's completely different than the flag shirts.
So these students were forewarned about wearing flags on May 5 before the actual day. I don't think it's wrong for the school to ask the kids to turn the shirts inside-out, especially because it's only for this one day, the school told the students before not to wear it, and that there were incidents the prior year that prompted the school to issue this warning and to act in this way.
The Tinker case revolved around an actual message being presented - only one of the five students involved actually admitted to having any message, and his message was intentional provocation. And provocation isn't considered protected speech in some cases, one of those primary cases being within school grounds under many cases (i.e. look at how many states now have anti-bullying laws - and in most of those states it's a far cry from battery to qualify for anti-bullying).
A symbol without stating a message or having the message clearly outlined on the garment is merely a symbol - not "free speech". (Just like the Dice Clay shirt was back in the day)
As far as any "reasonable observer" could take it, they were either saying "Screw you, Hispanics", "I love America", "Oh I just picked up this shirt at Old Navy isn't it snazzy oh wow it's got a flag on it, didn't really notice", or "Wait till lunchtime and watch me torch this shirt after I toss it on the ground!" - that's got quite a range to it. Assuming it's only #2 like those defending the students keep doing is to ignore the possibility of the other 3 options - of which #1 falls under anti-bullying laws in most states, and #4 would be considered inappropriate by most for school grounds as well - and #3 is trivial. (Although as you stated yourself #3 would obviously be "dress code" safe)
Context, context, context.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
the fact that there was at least one previous incident severe enough to warrant talking to the students at all indicates, to me, a potentially much more pervasive problem at the school than just that incident would indicate.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Yeah, that does change things a bit about the situation. I still have concerns about prohibiting the behavior, because I think it doesn't really address the underlying issues of mutual respect and tolerance, but if the school had set a policy and stated that something wouldn't be tolerated, then it seems to me the students shouldn't have done that. The school is likely well within its right to set that as a policy and enforce that policy.
Again, I'm not saying that I agree with the policy or the way the school handled it, as I think that's still not the way to handle things. I just dislike the idea of banning anything that people find offensive. It's one thing if there's the threat of violence, or some kind of situation is actually developing, but preemptive banning of offensive material seems a bit much to me. Especially as most people really don't always have a lot of control over what others could potentially find offensive.
Is that really context, or is that just content? Because my experience as a student always lead me to believe that school policy was largely in absolutes, especially regarding dress code. There was never a "You can't do X on Y day.", it was just "You can't do X." Heck, even the cheerleaders back when I was in high school were required to make sure their skirts met the same requirement to not end more than 2" above the knee.
I was referring to his claims of it falling under "free speech" even though 80% of the students involved weren't stating what their message was - not how the school enforced things.
And I'm pretty sure these days with some of the volatile nature of the past decade that there's certainly "blackouts" to certain types of clothing depending on the day. (i.e. I'm sure a student would be sent home for wearing a "Osama for Prez!" shirt on 9/11, but that they could likely get away with it the rest of the year [and yes, I've seen someone wearing that shirt before - one of the few times clothing has offended me for it's content rather than amount that it covered someone])
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
True, and that is something to consider in the circumstances.
I'd agree that's probably the case as well. But those that mean it's acceptable or reasonable to have those kind of blackouts? Or are people being overly "quick" to preempt things, as opposed to seriously address the actual problem of a lack of respect for other cultures?
i think the overly litigious nature of americans, and the concern of others that they will find themselve subject to litigation, leads to preemptive action - in order to avoid lawsuits, people neuter what they and others say/do/etc.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
That's a minor part of a larger demographic approach to it, but this remains outside of that science and more of a realm for resource management, history, and economics. Without going too far in depth, one of the issues is how college is structured. We go 2 semesters a year with an optional summer course load, which leaves the facility idle for 3 months.
By stopping the idling you can process more students faster through the college system. 4 years x3 months off=1 year. This is great for farmers, but not really good for a highly industrialized society that's begun to shift management roles into requiring masters degrees against a glut of bachelors degrees.
Furthermore, a cultural comparison is also necessary between our schooling versus foreign schooling. Foreign schooling specializes sooner than the well rounded education points we seem to throw out. There's also the myth that high school prepares children for college, which it does not. Remedial education at the collegiate levels are up, and frankly from people I know personally some of their college students shouldn't be there. I mean these people cannot even write a report to save their life, and would be better served in another setting.
Another part of demographics is the "disappearance of middle class jobs," which is technological in nature. However, America has become a more stratified society looking at various indicators such as the Gini coefficient. In essence our basic jobs do become transitive to real living wage jobs like in other countries. I'll address this more in my conclusion, I try to nuance this stuff between multiple fields rather than just demographics and psychology.
It's about having options to get out of trash schools, either through home schooling or attending better performing schools. There are also other reasons why people leave school, such as bullying. Let's take the Pheobe Prince case for instance, had she the option to locate to another school. It might have had enough impact on her life to be able to socially "reboot" and learn not sleep with other kids in her district.
I see too much responsibility in the hands of too few, and not enough power in the individual child and adults. The issue right now is nothing more than a power struggle between parents, teachers, and administration. While in the case I brought up precisely provides a context for administrative malpractice, her individual decisions also contributed to her situation to sleep with those people. However, had she been a worker, she would have had the power to quit and relocate for a new job. This is why I attune myself between the two schools of thought.
It's very incoherent and many law changes have occurred from Boomer meddlings that worked fine prior to the "get tough on crime" movement that's lead to a huge amount of people in jail. Poor blacks especially are in this demographic, because they're in greater number in a degraded cultural zone in the urban ghettos and easier to track in the city.
Most of these are proposals and programs that have worked in small experimental groups. The charter schools though do not perform better on tests, however socially these children that have had issues in the past (drugs, bullying, you get the idea) do indeed perform much better. We can fix environmental problems by allowing migration and "do overs."
Whenever I heard of schools giving veterans that dropped out of high school their diplomas because "they served in a war," I feel that people that drop out of school to escape school problems are equally deserving. Some legislative suggestions to phase out the GED altogether is in part to have people get an associates degree and get their high school diploma as well.
Ability to compete with older generations that make the rules set by being able to legally become president at the age of 18. Consumption of alcohol is already done "preciously" during the teens for us, but it leads to issues later in life. However, European culture uses drinking as a part of a meal rather than beer games as seen in high school and college. It also leads to coherence socially between being a soldier, a voter, and yet "not mature enough to drink." It's a legacy issue really.
On the point with getting charged as an adult I agree legally should be up to the sentencing phase. However, laws exist that are incoherent as they are case by case to "charge a person as an adult" for a drug felony yet are not for something like murder. Extinguishing the benefits by raising the driving age and such, yet leaving in the ability to be charged as an adult for crime is cognitive dissonance. Either the person in question is an "adult," "minor," or something else. It seems society is clawing for a "something else" between those two extremes.
Running for office where people have power over you is a pretty big deal as well as voting for or against people. School boards lack accountability to the student body. College and private schools suffer from people "voting with their feet," but public schools have a mandate from the people to give power over our children without giving basic consideration to that the "child" or really adult under loco parentis may not want to be in that school.
A child in all senses of the word needs someone to make decisions in their stead, however an 18 year old high school student that today needs their high school diploma are at the beckon call of their school to advance in education for secondary features such as getting into strong schools, scholarships, and ect. Declining grades and shenanigans that we see with the Pheobe Prince case and others similar to hers place these people at risk and often the price is too much for bad leadership.
In truth, schools do work for most people at a rudimentary level. It's the exceptions to the rule that we as a society fail at, and as well going beyond the rudimentary level for our children's education.
If we allow precious children to get into trade school or college faster, what's the harm? We have a welder at the age of 18 instead of 20 having a real career than being "stuck in school" making everyone miserable. For the worst, we have a person that takes remedial college classes, like they already do, and add a few years onto going to college. So instead of the student graduating with an associates degree at 20-21, they're out the door by 18-19.
It's really the work of people like Elizabeth Warren and articles like this one that make me pause for concern:
http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16010303
In closing, this is why I prefer to stop wasting our precious time on worrying about dealing with racial inequality and tolerance versus basic economic factors. These kids are immature, sure. However, why is it that they view these people as "dirty Mexicans?" It ties in with being poor, and the ironic part is that some of these same high schools may end up working alongside these "dirty Mexicans."
I'm a minority, I grew up poor, and I learned the value of hard work. However, hard work doesn't get you ahead in society. It's connectivity that gets you ahead in society and ease of transition. We've been hurting transition for the Latino population for a few generations now, and the blacks have been in that boat for a while.
Racial views are tied to economic status. Every race goes through the "jokey haha" phase as the ass of many discriminatory jokes. Right now it's Muslims, Latinos, and gays(in the sense of a demographic as the ass of many jokes). In comparison with Asians that are viewed as a "high educated bunch," but that has its own issues for their cultural narrative. Honestly, if we had hispanics on the level you see the the Irish "drunks" or the Italian "papists" are now, we'd be in a better standing. Asians as a "model minority" aren't exactly ideal, though, but it's a leg up from "dirty Mexican."
It's all interconnected on making children more mature themselves socially by engagement into a larger connective culture, but also one of economic uplift for these poorer social groups to lift themselves out of poverty and change how they are perceived by society. It's basically getting people less focused on what everyone else is "up to," and people more focused on living and improving their own lives with societal expectations to be "more" with great incentives to be connected. This is the same thing that happened with the Irish, they got involved and connected and uplifted themselves within the framework. Their special day "makes everyone Irish," up from being the ass of every joke a century or more ago. When Cinco De Mayo becomes the next St. Patrick's Day, I will rejoice.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The difference being in how justified we perceive the protest. Are the Mexican students oppressed by the racial majority? That still doesn't make them any less inciteful punks, but it does cast their cause in a sympathetic light. So to a degree, the sentiment can be applauded while the tactics derided.
Contrast that with the actual situation. What exactly were these students protesting? Mexican-Americans having a day to respect and honor their heritage and history? I doubt they were protesting Mexican oppression. Of course, I also doubt they were seriously protesting much of anything at all, which is why it's hard for a lot of us to sympathize with them. Here the sentiment seems to be "piss people off and make a group of people feel bad", which I don't think many are going to applaud.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
This is simply not true. You do not have to spell out the message of your symbol to make symbolism protected speech. The only relevance to this case of the fact that the kid said what his message was, is that it lets us, who don't have any particular familiarity with the situation beyond news articles, figure out what the message was. As long as the message was intended by the students (which I think we are all in agreement on), and was clear to those in the school (which I think we are also in agreement on), it is speech, and has some degree of first amendment protection.
Yes, context is important, in fact, it is the context that is objectionable here, not the shirts. Without context it is impossible to interpret a flag shirt as in any way provocative. Clearly, in order for a flag shirt to be understood as somehow threatening, the students must have been engaged in other behavior to provide such a context. That behavior would almost certainly constitute grounds on which the school could punish the students. That would have been the appropriate course of action here. A ban on flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo is a classic overboard restriction that is consistently struck down in First Amendment cases.
I am perfectly aware that society became a bunch of pussies. I think society just needs a recession so people can start thinking more of themselves than what others think. This whole politically correct bull☺☺☺☺ is what's killing the country. Minorities aren't oppressed by the majority, the majority is a bunch of screwhead pussies who let themselves be manipulated by minorities.
"It is a poor soldier who insists on seeing things not as they are, but as he wants them to be. One day reality hits, and his illusions fail him, and he dies stupidly. What honor is there in that?"
—Thel 'Vadamee