huzkerbob
All-Conference
Pretty freakin' ridiculous isn't it? I often wonder what America would be like if it's citizens acted with the same kind of compassion and tolerance that their country and faiths so fervently claim to stand for.
5 students sent home for wearing American T-Shirts on Cinco de Mayo
- Thread starter Apathy
- Start date
I'm so sick of hearing about how these kids must have been racist. This isn't a racism issue. It's so easy to pull the racism card, and most people will shy away from the argument because it's so politically correct. Well, I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with racism. This has to do with teenagers being sent home because they dared to stand up and wear an American flag to school....oh the horror...
And did any of you people screaming racism actually look into the situation and discover that at least one of the kids wearing the American flag had a father that was full blooded Mexican?
We live in America, and I'll say it again, for these kids to be sent home because they were wearing the U.S. colors on their shirts is wrong.
And did any of you people screaming racism actually look into the situation and discover that at least one of the kids wearing the American flag had a father that was full blooded Mexican?
We live in America, and I'll say it again, for these kids to be sent home because they were wearing the U.S. colors on their shirts is wrong.
husker B-rent
All-Conference
i hate politically correct crybabies.
it was not a racist thing to do, as was pointed out in the article one of the kids has 5+ shirts with the American flag on it and as someone else in this thread pointed out one of the students that wore the shirt had a full blooded Mexican as a father!!
give me a break.
it was not a racist thing to do, as was pointed out in the article one of the kids has 5+ shirts with the American flag on it and as someone else in this thread pointed out one of the students that wore the shirt had a full blooded Mexican as a father!!
give me a break.
We're all the same country...I believe the Supreme Court would say that even if the school administration believed the t-shirts were meant to stir up sh#t, they cannot be treated as such and are protected speech as the shirts were directed at the world at large and not the, "person of the hearer."
I think this is the fighting words test, but someone who is better educated about it is more than welcome to correct me. Basically some Jehova's witnesses were pedaling some material that spoke not so kindly of the Catholic church in a Catholic neighborhood:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=310&invol=296
Cantwell's conduct, in the view of the court below, considered apart from the effect of his communication upon his hearers, did not amount to a breach of the peace. One may, however, be guilty of the offense if he commit acts or make statements likely to provoke violence and disturbance of good order, even though no such eventuality be intended. Decisions to this effect are many, but examination discloses that, in practically all, the provocative language which was held to amount to a breach of the peace consisted of profane, indecent, or abusive remarks directed to the person of the hearer. Resort to epithets or [310 U.S. 296, 310] personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.
That is where the courts basically define fighting words.
We find in the instant case no assault or threatening of bodily harm, no truculent bearing, no intentional discourtesy, no personal abuse. On the contrary, we find only an effort to persuade a willing listener to buy a book or to contribute money in the interest of what Cantwell, however misguided others may think him, conceived to be true religion.
I think the Tinker case was more relevant. The kids were sent home for wearing armbands symbolic for their protest of the Vietnam war:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/com...ch/tinker.html
The District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. See West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). Cf. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966). As we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to "pure speech" [506] which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 555 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).
First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in opinions by Mr. Justice McReynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents States from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. Statutes to this effect, the Court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. [note 2] See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [507] (1925); West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (concurring opinion); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, ante, p. 97 (1968).
Those t-shirts clearly weren't, "fighting words," as defined by the SCOTUS, at the bare minimum because they weren't directed at anyone. If someone shanks them over it, that person gets in trouble. That's how this works. The system is in place to protect freedom of speech. Even if in our age of spending too much time on the internet we treat passive (or passive-aggressive, whatever) protest as, "trolling."
Morse v. Frederick
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZO.html
Our cases make clear that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969) . At the same time, we have held that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,” Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986) , and that the rights of students “must be ‘applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.’ ” Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 266 (1988) (quoting Tinker, supra, at 506). Consistent with these principles, we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. We conclude that the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it.
While this one does say that kids can't wear whatever they want at school, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo is comparable to, "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS." I put this one in to show the limits of constitutional protection of the free speech rights of students. In this case, that limit is the schools right to prohibit promotion of an illegal activity, i.e., illegal drug use. They are not talking about the schools right to prohibit people from getting mad about their American flag.
And that, is as much effort as I'm willing to put into this at 9am. In short, bad, bad, school district. It's unfortunate that in this age of the internet we have people, even in this thread, that can take a symbolic act (which is what this is and what the courts will treat it as, mark my words) and treat it like some kind of internet troll or Howard Sternesque, "shocking act." Whether you like it or not, agree or not, and whether it would make some people mad/angry or not, it's well within the law to wear those shirts, and protected speech. The purpose of free speech is, like it or not, to protect unpopular speech. It is the kind that needs the most protecting. If some Mexican stabs a kid over it? Then that Mexican gets in trouble. That's what the law is for.
EDIT: I'm sorry, but this:
I think this is the fighting words test, but someone who is better educated about it is more than welcome to correct me. Basically some Jehova's witnesses were pedaling some material that spoke not so kindly of the Catholic church in a Catholic neighborhood:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=310&invol=296
Cantwell's conduct, in the view of the court below, considered apart from the effect of his communication upon his hearers, did not amount to a breach of the peace. One may, however, be guilty of the offense if he commit acts or make statements likely to provoke violence and disturbance of good order, even though no such eventuality be intended. Decisions to this effect are many, but examination discloses that, in practically all, the provocative language which was held to amount to a breach of the peace consisted of profane, indecent, or abusive remarks directed to the person of the hearer. Resort to epithets or [310 U.S. 296, 310] personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.
That is where the courts basically define fighting words.
We find in the instant case no assault or threatening of bodily harm, no truculent bearing, no intentional discourtesy, no personal abuse. On the contrary, we find only an effort to persuade a willing listener to buy a book or to contribute money in the interest of what Cantwell, however misguided others may think him, conceived to be true religion.
I think the Tinker case was more relevant. The kids were sent home for wearing armbands symbolic for their protest of the Vietnam war:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/com...ch/tinker.html
The District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. See West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). Cf. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966). As we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to "pure speech" [506] which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 555 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).
First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in opinions by Mr. Justice McReynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents States from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. Statutes to this effect, the Court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. [note 2] See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [507] (1925); West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (concurring opinion); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, ante, p. 97 (1968).
Those t-shirts clearly weren't, "fighting words," as defined by the SCOTUS, at the bare minimum because they weren't directed at anyone. If someone shanks them over it, that person gets in trouble. That's how this works. The system is in place to protect freedom of speech. Even if in our age of spending too much time on the internet we treat passive (or passive-aggressive, whatever) protest as, "trolling."
Morse v. Frederick
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZO.html
Our cases make clear that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969) . At the same time, we have held that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,” Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986) , and that the rights of students “must be ‘applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.’ ” Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 266 (1988) (quoting Tinker, supra, at 506). Consistent with these principles, we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. We conclude that the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it.
While this one does say that kids can't wear whatever they want at school, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo is comparable to, "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS." I put this one in to show the limits of constitutional protection of the free speech rights of students. In this case, that limit is the schools right to prohibit promotion of an illegal activity, i.e., illegal drug use. They are not talking about the schools right to prohibit people from getting mad about their American flag.
And that, is as much effort as I'm willing to put into this at 9am. In short, bad, bad, school district. It's unfortunate that in this age of the internet we have people, even in this thread, that can take a symbolic act (which is what this is and what the courts will treat it as, mark my words) and treat it like some kind of internet troll or Howard Sternesque, "shocking act." Whether you like it or not, agree or not, and whether it would make some people mad/angry or not, it's well within the law to wear those shirts, and protected speech. The purpose of free speech is, like it or not, to protect unpopular speech. It is the kind that needs the most protecting. If some Mexican stabs a kid over it? Then that Mexican gets in trouble. That's what the law is for.
EDIT: I'm sorry, but this:
is a big joke. School is exactly the place to be teaching children about free speech and the importance of it. I will proudly say by your definition, I am a big, ignorant, rednecked racist, because I judge things based on one of our most sacred rights as Americans, not by my fear of making people uncomfortable. Keep wearing kid gloves, I'm sure your children will love big brother in 50 years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apathy
All-American
That is extremely incorrect. "Isolated and inconsequential" cases such as this, are how the Supreme Court and other judicial bodies establish precedent and doctrine. Precedent is something that, once established, justices are extremely reluctant to overturn. They are important because they can set the tone for your rights in certain landscapes for the next century. I studied "inconsequential" cases from the beginning of the twentieth century that are still part of the courts doctrine on free speech.
Last edited by a moderator:
holvy83
Starter
I have a co-worker from El Salvador, he came here 10 years ago and worked his butt off to become a citizen and learn the English language, he made sure he did everything the right way to become a citizen. He is no different from any of our ancestors, but at the same time he gets just as upset about these issues because he gets stereotyped as an "illegal"
Things I have gleaned from the replies to the OP.....
I'm confused. Aren't all the students Americans? Who is being disrespected by the display of our shared national flag? The five students didn't tell anyone else not to wear the colors of the Mexican flag; why should Hispanic students demand that their classmates not wear the colors of the American flag — which is, of course, also the flag of the Hispanic students? With all the "identity politics" inundating students on a daily basis under the guise of instilling pride and self-esteem they have been convinced that they are somehow distinct from and separate from the other American students. The symbol of the American flag is now insulting, offensive, and disrespectful. A perfect example of cultural xenophobia exhibited by the Mexican-American students.
This is for the math challenged who think 5 people....let's count again for all the slow people....5 people....who can make 200+ people feel so uncomfortable they couldn't shove a greased BB up their collective asses. Either the 200+ can't fathom ignoring a small non-vocal minority, or is it their fragile little psyches can't accept someone who has an opinion that differs from theirs. Wait a minute....(5 < 200+)....who's actually the minority here?
In what could have been a real teaching moment, the school's administration could have explained the celebration of Cinco de Mayo was a celebration of one victory by Mexico over the French -- the very war in which the US was allied with Mexico. Had it not been for American involvement in the French-Mexican War, Mexico would have been the property of France. The school missed a golden opportunity to have an open dialog, instead as it is the usual case, the spectre of political correctness further opens the chasm of divisiveness.
This precedent of letting groups of people think they have no right to be offended is dangerous and stupid.
Yes...We know...You are so far more superior than those rubes who believe in the boogity boogity. Buy another CD -- this tune is getting tired and worn out.
Swastikas....really? Yeah, these kids look like your average run-of-the-mill skin head white supremacists. Invoking Godwin's Law already...
You keep your hammer and sickle. It doesn't represent the America I know, where all speech is protected -- not just some cynical, neo-progressive, conformist view.
I'm confused. Aren't all the students Americans? Who is being disrespected by the display of our shared national flag? The five students didn't tell anyone else not to wear the colors of the Mexican flag; why should Hispanic students demand that their classmates not wear the colors of the American flag — which is, of course, also the flag of the Hispanic students? With all the "identity politics" inundating students on a daily basis under the guise of instilling pride and self-esteem they have been convinced that they are somehow distinct from and separate from the other American students. The symbol of the American flag is now insulting, offensive, and disrespectful. A perfect example of cultural xenophobia exhibited by the Mexican-American students.
This is for the math challenged who think 5 people....let's count again for all the slow people....5 people....who can make 200+ people feel so uncomfortable they couldn't shove a greased BB up their collective asses. Either the 200+ can't fathom ignoring a small non-vocal minority, or is it their fragile little psyches can't accept someone who has an opinion that differs from theirs. Wait a minute....(5 < 200+)....who's actually the minority here?
And...who are actually the racists and here? The 5 students who exercised their 1st Amendment rights or a school administration who assumed the Hispanic students would respond with violence, in their words; "the patriotic shirts could trigger fights." The insinuation that the Hispanic students would erupt in violence at the sight of an American flag, and the only preventative measure is to cower at the presumptive violence and to preemptively cave in to the mob's demands in banning the flag from campus. Whites must tolerate contrary speech — but not Hispanics, because they can't handle it. What a vile, oppressive, and lying meme to inject into the brain of an adolescent. Others have charged this is somehow a form of "disrespect." Are Hispanics too emotionally fragile to understand that ethnicity is not the same as nationality, and neither is equivalent to identity? This my friend is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
In what could have been a real teaching moment, the school's administration could have explained the celebration of Cinco de Mayo was a celebration of one victory by Mexico over the French -- the very war in which the US was allied with Mexico. Had it not been for American involvement in the French-Mexican War, Mexico would have been the property of France. The school missed a golden opportunity to have an open dialog, instead as it is the usual case, the spectre of political correctness further opens the chasm of divisiveness.
Actually not an isolated incident sd sker.....Here's the proper example of what should have happened.
It's so very simple. If you let everyone know they will be treated by the same standards....no trouble. What a concept!
This precedent of letting groups of people think they have no right to be offended is dangerous and stupid.
Apathy
All-American
HOLY SMOKES :worship :worship :worship :worship :worshipThings I have gleaned from the replies to the OP.....
Yes...We know...You are so far more superior than those rubes who believe in the boogity boogity. Buy another CD -- this tune is getting tired and worn out.
Swastikas....really? Yeah, these kids look like your average run-of-the-mill skin head white supremacists. Invoking Godwin's Law already...
You keep your hammer and sickle. It doesn't represent the America I know, where all speech is protected -- not just some cynical, neo-progressive, conformist view.
I'm confused. Aren't all the students Americans? Who is being disrespected by the display of our shared national flag? The five students didn't tell anyone else not to wear the colors of the Mexican flag; why should Hispanic students demand that their classmates not wear the colors of the American flag — which is, of course, also the flag of the Hispanic students? With all the "identity politics" inundating students on a daily basis under the guise of instilling pride and self-esteem they have been convinced that they are somehow distinct from and separate from the other American students. The symbol of the American flag is now insulting, offensive, and disrespectful. A perfect example of cultural xenophobia exhibited by the Mexican-American students.
This is for the math challenged who think 5 people....let's count again for all the slow people....5 people....who can make 200+ people feel so uncomfortable they couldn't shove a greased BB up their collective asses. Either the 200+ can't fathom ignoring a small non-vocal minority, or is it their fragile little psyches can't accept someone who has an opinion that differs from theirs. Wait a minute....(5 < 200+)....who's actually the minority here?
And...who are actually the racists and here? The 5 students who exercised their 1st Amendment rights or a school administration who assumed the Hispanic students would respond with violence, in their words; "the patriotic shirts could trigger fights." The insinuation that the Hispanic students would erupt in violence at the sight of an American flag, and the only preventative measure is to cower at the presumptive violence and to preemptively cave in to the mob's demands in banning the flag from campus. Whites must tolerate contrary speech — but not Hispanics, because they can't handle it. What a vile, oppressive, and lying meme to inject into the brain of an adolescent. Others have charged this is somehow a form of "disrespect." Are Hispanics too emotionally fragile to understand that ethnicity is not the same as nationality, and neither is equivalent to identity? This my friend is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
In what could have been a real teaching moment, the school's administration could have explained the celebration of Cinco de Mayo was a celebration of one victory by Mexico over the French -- the very war in which the US was allied with Mexico. Had it not been for American involvement in the French-Mexican War, Mexico would have been the property of France. The school missed a golden opportunity to have an open dialog, instead as it is the usual case, the spectre of political correctness further opens the chasm of divisiveness.
Actually not an isolated incident sd sker.....Here's the proper example of what should have happened.
It's so very simple. If you let everyone know they will be treated by the same standards....no trouble. What a concept!
This precedent of letting groups of people think they have no right to be offended is dangerous and stupid.
Manhattan
Special Teams Player
That is actually a very good point. Never thought of it like that.
It is just really hard for me to believe that anyone actually looks at this situation like that, from either side of the debate. I feel like most people resort to making every situation a racially hostile stand off instead of actually taking a more sensible approach.
huzkerbob
All-Conference
:laughpound Only on a Husker message board would I be accused of being a conformist! Cynical? Hell yeah, but a neo-progressive conformist? Come on, and seriously is it even possible to be progressive and a conformist at the same time? You might as well have thrown pinko and commie in there while you where at it.....oh wait you opened with the hammer and sickle reference, so I guess you already did. :facepalm:
This whole argument is pretty ridiculous when you really get down to it. And those who are trying to make this a free speech issue are making a huge leap IMO. Why? Because this happened in a public H.S. where sure the students have the right to express themselves, but that doesn't mean they're immune from the consequences if doing so is deemed offensive or disruptive to the learning environment. They where given a chance to change their shirts, it was their refusal to do so that got them sent home.
Obviously my opinion isn't a popular one, or one that you will ever agree with, and that's cool with me. But if you really believe that your views are any more american that mine, or that you have the right to question my patriotism because of them; well then quite frankly 'Sarge' you can kiss my all-american a$$ because "the country you know" is my country to. So why don't you LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
Last edited by a moderator:
and I say again... when there are consequences to wearing an American flag to a public place, there is something wrong!
huzkerbob
All-Conference
Well then I would say it wasn't the tool, but it's intended use that was the problem here.