5 students sent home for wearing American T-Shirts on Cinco de Mayo

[Apathy]

Besides the fact that I don't 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!

Huzkerbob you need to step back away from the computer a little bit.

 

Some of us don't agree with your opinion and it could be because you basically called these kids a gang of white kids or that they are racist. What makes you assume that they are racist because they wear t-shirts of our AMERICAN flag on it or because that wearing t-shirts w/ the American flag on it during a Hispanic holiday. One of these so called racist kids has a father that is 100% Hispanic but yet decided to wear this Amercian t-shirt.

 

You assume that their actions were deemed racists but yet there were no anti racial slurs nor did they organize an anti racial rally protesting the holiday....but instead they wore t-shirts with the American flag that my buddies have fought for over in Iraq to keep us safe and free. I bet you're against the new Arizona law which is ok but I'm all for it but thats a different topic and conversation.

 

[sarge87]

: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:

First of all, neo-progressive conformist is just longhand for "group think." And you have made yourself quite clear on many occasions in respect to the role of government and individual citizens rights. If it benefits the general welfare of an aggrieved group through the transfer of wealth, properties, and labor then the individual be damned.

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.

This shows how really out of touch with the laws you are in regards to your rights. Those students who wore the American flags on their shirts do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gates.

Administrators cannot ask students to relinquish their freedom of speech and expression due to the fear that something might happen. When a person's right to freedom of speech or expression is restricted to prevent another party from reacting, it's known as the heckler's veto. This is a perfect example of how heckler's veto was used to displace the students' freedom of speech. Every viewpoint has a particular averse viewpoint. That's why the First Amendment is there - to support unpopular expression.

 

Now, I will tell you why the shirts cannot be deemed offensive by the school. On any other day those shirts are perfectly acceptable to wear. If the school had a written policy that all students cannot wear nationalistic wardrobe at any time because it is disruptive. Then that would be a valid rule because it is applied equally across the board. However, there is no such policy. If you allow one group to wear the Mexican flag then you have to let the group who wears the American flag the same privileges. Equal protection means exactly that.

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!

Wow, out of all that you somehow come to the conclusion I was questioning your patriotism or is it you really had nothing else to bolster an extremely weak argument. I mean really, you've already played the religion, race, and xenophobe cards. It would be logical to play the "are you questioning my patriotism" defense card to somehow put me on the defensive. However, I just don't play that way.

Now you did use the quote below, did you not?

Besides the fact that I don't appreciate some little punks using my flag to promote their misguided xenophobia.

I was just replying in the same context as you used when referring to your flag and you went and got all indignant on me about questioning your patriotism when I didn't. However, I am satisfied it had the desired effect so you can see what it is like when you're on the receiving end.

 

[sarge87]

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.

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.

Manhattan it's all about how political correctness is dividing this country. The entire pretense of Political Correctness is a veiled attempt at curving free speech and for all tense and purposes a sham. I see political correctness to be about enforced conformity in behavior not conformity in values. It's about changing the words people use, not about changing the ideas and prejudices that underlie those words. We're so damned worried about offending this or that group to the point we can't even communicate with each other anymore. Personally, I would rather people be honest with the words they use than create an impression of being tolerant or inclusive that hides the very ugly reality of their beliefs and intentions. In my opinion, the loudest voices of tolerance are usually the most intolerant.

 

[sd'sker]

these stories are annoying. the are isolated incidents that are completely inconsequential and yet they inflame the entire nation. it is really a waste of time to pay any attention to these stories.

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.

i'm extremely impressed with your knowledge of precedent and of what you have studied. you should be very proud of yourself. i did not know this was a case in front of the supreme court, actually i haven't heard about this incident anywhere but here on huskerboard.

also, sarge 87, the isolated incident is that they got kicked out of school. you proved my point by stating an example that demonstrates that not everyone who wears american shirts do get kicked out of their schools. when everyone who wears an american flag shirt gets kicked out of a public school, then i'll be worried, until then, i really don't care about what happens in one school to five kids in southern california. let the parents and administrators of that school fight it out in court with their claims of first amendment rights being denied, i don't really care. what i do know is that whatever the result of this story, you're life will remain completely unchanged.

 

[sd'sker]

read this article it should put an end to the conversation: the article

Principal: Sorry, you can wear the flag


From Jimmy Orr of the Los Angeles Times:

Good news for Morgan Hill, Calif. students who like America. Now they can wear patriotic clothing to school and not risk being booted from campus.

This marks a stunning reversal since an episode in which five high school students were kicked out of school for wearing T-shirts adorned with images of the American flag on Cinco de Mayo.

Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez threw the students out for wearing what he called “incendiary” apparel on Cinco de Mayo.

Turns out, school officials just acted too “quickly.” Perhaps even without thinking.

Live Oak High School Principal Nick Boden accepted the blame while apologizing Friday, saying, “In this situation, I may have moved too quickly in drawing the line of when to take preventative action.”

I think students rights end at the schoolhouse door, but it was a kid thing that escalated. Instead of obsessing over race and the like, schools should emphasize academics. I know they cannot ignore it. Principals get every one of society’s problems left on their front step.

The guy made a mistake. He apologized. Move on.

a couple things to consider, this appears to be a situation where the principal has too many issues before him and is liable to make a bad decision because of stress, rather than the beginning of a stalinist/statist government. not that this justifies the principal, but he probably thought that the students were being wise and there was the potential for a problem. he obviously overreacted. also, a student's rights do end at the schoolhouse door, which does not mean they should be prohibited from wearing patriotic clothing, but public schools do have dress codes and you can't say anything you want. there are many examples of how a student doesn't have the full rights they would outside of school.

 

[HUSKER 37]

Here is what the other side has to say i guess... :dunno

/monthly_05_2010/post-4479-127326264518.jpg">View attachment 5200

Holvy..Where'd you get that picture?

Now.. I'm not saying there aren't some people that don't feel that way, but I can't imagine someone wouldn't get more publicity or even retaliation for expressing those sentiments.

I work with several people that barely speak any English..A co-worker was fired last month after Ten years on the job because they're starting to crack down on illegals and he couldn't produce a valid SS#..Learning another language after you get to be in your twenties is very difficult..I'm almost afraid to try.

I'm not sure Building a giant wall will be that beneficial in the long run (Like the local politicians seem to think the majority of us want) If it wasn't for the terrorists threat, I'd probably be against patrolling our borders.

Most of these "Illegals" grew up closer to "here" than I did in Nebraska, and as long as they don't mind me wearing a Husker shirt or waving my Nebraska flag on holidays like Football Saturdays, I see no problem with the locals waving ASU crap or even Mexico flags whenever there's some big soccer doin's.

I'm just astounded by the number of "Americans" that insist that we "keep them on their side" of some imaginary line when we pretty much stole the land from them in the first place.

Sorry in advance for all the disjointed ramblings..having trouble with my words tonight.

More so than usual?

 

[sarge87]

read this article it should put an end to the conversation: the article

Principal: Sorry, you can wear the flag


From Jimmy Orr of the Los Angeles Times:

Good news for Morgan Hill, Calif. students who like America. Now they can wear patriotic clothing to school and not risk being booted from campus.

This marks a stunning reversal since an episode in which five high school students were kicked out of school for wearing T-shirts adorned with images of the American flag on Cinco de Mayo.

Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez threw the students out for wearing what he called "incendiary" apparel on Cinco de Mayo.

Turns out, school officials just acted too "quickly." Perhaps even without thinking.

Live Oak High School Principal Nick Boden accepted the blame while apologizing Friday, saying, "In this situation, I may have moved too quickly in drawing the line of when to take preventative action."

I think students rights end at the schoolhouse door, but it was a kid thing that escalated. Instead of obsessing over race and the like, schools should emphasize academics. I know they cannot ignore it. Principals get every one of society's problems left on their front step.

The guy made a mistake. He apologized. Move on.

a couple things to consider, this appears to be a situation where the principal has too many issues before him and is liable to make a bad decision because of stress, rather than the beginning of a stalinist/statist government. not that this justifies the principal, but he probably thought that the students were being wise and there was the potential for a problem. he obviously overreacted. also, a student's rights do end at the schoolhouse door, which does not mean they should be prohibited from wearing patriotic clothing, but public schools do have dress codes and you can't say anything you want. there are many examples of how a student doesn't have the full rights they would outside of school.

The above bolded was the author of the articles opinion -- not the Principal's.

Nobody is disputing the fact that students' rights are somewhat limited in the school setting. I've been a member of our local school board on and off the last 15 years, and I know enough to know this particular Principal ignored his chain of command and made a decision that could ultimately cost the district millions of dollars if the aggrieved parents decide to litigate.

All the Principle had to do was contact the school district's lawyer (every district has one) for advice on the matter and he would have been told he couldn't do what he did and saved himself a huge headache.

This case has been the litmus test for free speech in public schools for over 50 years....

 

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

In December 1965, Des Moines, Iowa residents John F. Tinker (15 years old), John's younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, (13 years old) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands showing peace symbols on them to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth) in protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The school board apparently heard rumor of this and chose to pass a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to violate this policy, and the next day John Tinker also did so. All were suspended from school until after January 1, 1966, when their protest had been scheduled to end.

The court's 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

As for your mention of dress codes...Yes they are legal because the dress code encompasses all the student body which falls under the equal protection status. As long as the student handbook designates what is proper and improper attire within reason.

 

[dubsker]

these stories are annoying. the are isolated incidents that are completely inconsequential and yet they inflame the entire nation. it is really a waste of time to pay any attention to these stories.

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.

i'm extremely impressed with your knowledge of precedent and of what you have studied. you should be very proud of yourself. i did not know this was a case in front of the supreme court, actually i haven't heard about this incident anywhere but here on huskerboard.

I don't know if you were patronizing me or not (it pretty much sounds like it) but this one is not in front of the supreme court. I said such as this, because it reminds me of the Tinker case. Would you please go ahead and tell me what you meant so I know how to respond. I was just trying to impress upon you the danger of ignoring seemingly isolated incidents like this. You and the law are still influenced by things the SCOTUS decided 100 years ago. I was not trying to belittle you.

@Sarge: I had completely forgotten about the heckler's veto. Not wanting to upset the Mexican students would be a perfect example. Maybe they will read the Tinker case since you posted it again for me.

 

[dubsker]

Besides the fact that I don't appreciate some little punks using my flag to promote their misguided xenophobia.

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.

: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!

It isn't a huge leap to make it a free speech issue. We gave even gave you a legal argument with precedent. It's just that you're choosing to ignore it and respond with an emotional one.

 

[sd'sker]

these stories are annoying. the are isolated incidents that are completely inconsequential and yet they inflame the entire nation. it is really a waste of time to pay any attention to these stories.

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.

i'm extremely impressed with your knowledge of precedent and of what you have studied. you should be very proud of yourself. i did not know this was a case in front of the supreme court, actually i haven't heard about this incident anywhere but here on huskerboard.

I don't know if you were patronizing me or not (it pretty much sounds like it) but this one is not in front of the supreme court. I said such as this, because it reminds me of the Tinker case. Would you please go ahead and tell me what you meant so I know how to respond. I was just trying to impress upon you the danger of ignoring seemingly isolated incidents like this. You and the law are still influenced by things the SCOTUS decided 100 years ago. I was not trying to belittle you.

@Sarge: I had completely forgotten about the heckler's veto. Not wanting to upset the Mexican students would be a perfect example. Maybe they will read the Tinker case since you posted it again for me.

i was being facetious, but don't take it personally, sarcasm is my character flaw, nothing against you. i did feel patronized by being given the definition of precedent and the workings of case law.

my point being, why do any of you care about this story when you know there is strong precedent on your side. this is just a principal's poor judgment and mistake, and it will end up being meaningless. everyone gets on their soapboxes when it is a non-issue.

really, it is my fault, i knew i just have entered this conversation.

also, i know you are going to respond to what i said, but i don't plan on responding anymore to this thread, especially after the article i posted pretty much put an end to this discussion.

 

[dubsker]

these stories are annoying. the are isolated incidents that are completely inconsequential and yet they inflame the entire nation. it is really a waste of time to pay any attention to these stories.

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.

i'm extremely impressed with your knowledge of precedent and of what you have studied. you should be very proud of yourself. i did not know this was a case in front of the supreme court, actually i haven't heard about this incident anywhere but here on huskerboard.

I don't know if you were patronizing me or not (it pretty much sounds like it) but this one is not in front of the supreme court. I said such as this, because it reminds me of the Tinker case. Would you please go ahead and tell me what you meant so I know how to respond. I was just trying to impress upon you the danger of ignoring seemingly isolated incidents like this. You and the law are still influenced by things the SCOTUS decided 100 years ago. I was not trying to belittle you.

@Sarge: I had completely forgotten about the heckler's veto. Not wanting to upset the Mexican students would be a perfect example. Maybe they will read the Tinker case since you posted it again for me.

i was being facetious, but don't take it personally, sarcasm is my character flaw, nothing against you. i did feel patronized by being given the definition of precedent and the workings of case law.

my point being, why do any of you care about this story when you know there is strong precedent on your side. this is just a principal's poor judgment and mistake, and it will end up being meaningless. everyone gets on their soapboxes when it is a non-issue.

really, it is my fault, i knew i just have entered this conversation.

also, i know you are going to respond to what i said, but i don't plan on responding anymore to this thread, especially after the article i posted pretty much put an end to this discussion.

I'm not taking it personally. I corrected an erroneous statement of yours, and some people get a little "sharp" after that. While I'm not proud of the fact that I can actually comment on the legality of the issue with fact, I feel no shame in doing so. It's an internet message board. What you write is meant to be responded to. I am glad I could be part of this teaching moment with you. Now that was me belittling you, since you misread it the first time.

EDIT: I'm also glad that you predicted I would continue to respond here. You were right. Obviously, not everyone here feels the same way about the issue, so I don't know why you think of a discussion as a soap box.

 

[sd'sker]

these stories are annoying. the are isolated incidents that are completely inconsequential and yet they inflame the entire nation. it is really a waste of time to pay any attention to these stories.

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.

i'm extremely impressed with your knowledge of precedent and of what you have studied. you should be very proud of yourself. i did not know this was a case in front of the supreme court, actually i haven't heard about this incident anywhere but here on huskerboard.

I don't know if you were patronizing me or not (it pretty much sounds like it) but this one is not in front of the supreme court. I said such as this, because it reminds me of the Tinker case. Would you please go ahead and tell me what you meant so I know how to respond. I was just trying to impress upon you the danger of ignoring seemingly isolated incidents like this. You and the law are still influenced by things the SCOTUS decided 100 years ago. I was not trying to belittle you.

@Sarge: I had completely forgotten about the heckler's veto. Not wanting to upset the Mexican students would be a perfect example. Maybe they will read the Tinker case since you posted it again for me.

i was being facetious, but don't take it personally, sarcasm is my character flaw, nothing against you. i did feel patronized by being given the definition of precedent and the workings of case law.

my point being, why do any of you care about this story when you know there is strong precedent on your side. this is just a principal's poor judgment and mistake, and it will end up being meaningless. everyone gets on their soapboxes when it is a non-issue.

really, it is my fault, i knew i just have entered this conversation.

also, i know you are going to respond to what i said, but i don't plan on responding anymore to this thread, especially after the article i posted pretty much put an end to this discussion.

I'm not taking it personally. I corrected an erroneous statement of yours, and some people get a little "sharp" after that. While I'm not proud of the fact that I can actually comment on the legality of the issue with fact, I feel no shame in doing so. It's an internet message board. What you write is meant to be responded to. I am glad I could be part of this teaching moment with you. Now that was me belittling you, since you misread it the first time.

EDIT: I'm also glad that you predicted I would continue to respond here. You were right. Obviously, not everyone here feels the same way about the issue, so I don't know why you think of a discussion as a soap box.

ok, i was also being sarcastic when i said 'i didn't know this was a case before the supreme court', i knew it wasn't and that was my point, everyone here was acting like the justices were about to decide on it tomorrow. this story is no big deal and there are no constitutional implications to what happened to those 5 kids, there is, at most, a civil case for nominal damages.

i called this thread a soap box because everyone is inflating this incident to project there broad political beliefs, and they are totaling missing the story and how irrelevant it is.

i don't think we disagree on the issue (the kids should not have been kicked out of school), what we do disagree on is how irrelevant this story is.

 

[adc7236]

And lastly, I would like to try and shed a little historic perspective on the situation if I can. Over a hundred and thirty years or so ago my great, great grandfather came to the U.S. in search of a better life, and can you guess what he had to endure? That's right, gangs of 'patriotic' thugs spiting and cursing at him for being a lazy, dirty alien that had no business coming to their country and taking their jobs. Oh how much difference a century makes! <_<

My great grandparents were German speaking northern Prussians and Frisians. They moved here for a better life for themselves and their decedents. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with traditions either. I love ethnic bierocks just as much as I love barbacoa, tortillas, and horchada.

I celebrate St Pattys day when I'm not Irish, and I celebrated Cinco De May last weekend and will celebrate at another party this weekend when I'm not Spanish.

What I have a problem with here is not the people. It is the attitude towards lack of assimilation. America assimilates cultures and makes them its own. We integrate and it has worked for a long long time. But when a culture steadfastly and stubbornly refuses to assimilate, I have a problem with that. When I hear about any group that wants special attention in schools, who draws attention to itself for the sake of attention, who makes demands that include the group and not the whole, I get upset.

I'm going to guess that my great grandfather who was trying to assimilate, did not grab his nearest German flag, have his kids (my grandparents) skip school, and then march down the street denouncing the locals for displaying their pride in America. No, because he was an American at that point. He decided that when he moved here. And here a group of people who, if anything, are expressly avoiding assimilation. Not only that, but I detect a sense of loathing towards America from these people. And that can go towards not only the latino community, but towards a lot of people in the US these days. Be thankful for a chance at a better life and if you don't like it, get out. Don't decry when we display our pride towards our country and that country's symbol, our flag.

Especially when that flag represents the very sacrifices that have created this great country and the liberties that hsve been earned - a country that these people (rightfully so) wish to be a part of. That is BS of the most epic degree.

That is when and why I say either with us or go home.

:rant

:yeah

Nicely stated!