Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

School ‘Correct’ to Ban U.S. Flag T-Shirts for Campus Safety

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by lao tzu
    Kids don't have the same rights that adults do. And as much as these kids might think they're capable of taking full responsibility for their actions, they don't have the same responsibilities, either. Kids from different backgrounds will tear each other up if there's no adult in the room. When it comes to a public high school, the adults aren't just morally responsible, they're legally responsible.

    Ya'll did notice this went to court, right?

    And they won?

    Maybe you think there's a principle here that the administrators should have been willing to risk their jobs to defend. I'm in the "not so much" crowd. I don't see an upside in defending kids coming to school looking for a fight, or even in leaving them uncorrected. Yes, there are free speech issues, and yes, I support the rights of kids to express themselves civilly. But there are also safety issues, and I'm not going to take away the authority to address those issues from the adults in the room.
    In the abstract, this is actually almost completely sensible, and it's nice to see that certain truths can be discovered independently.

    However, unless lao tzu can extrapolate from this to the phenomenon of children systematically bullying their elders, than it will remain nothing but an isolated epiphany, to be lost in time.

    The first step is asking: Why should teachers be the only adults with authority over children?

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    There were clearly issues left unaddressed at this high school. Maybe the parents were sue-happy, or the administrators were too rigid to find an accommodation. It's difficult to feel much compassion for the kids, who apparently don't like Mexicans, though I'd imagine they picked up that attitude from their parents.
    Yes, that must be it. "Their parents." Mexican kids wanting to beat them up for wearing their country's flag in their own country presumably has little to do with it.
    Last edited by Darth Executor; 03-02-2014, 09:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Lao, I thought you would be more of an advocate of the right of free speech/expression. May I assume that you would be outraged if a school official ordered a student to turn their shirt inside out if they wore one with the image of, say Che Guevara, on Presidents Day (or Memorial Day, or Veteran's Day or Independence Day)? Or if they wore a shirt with a flag of any different country aside from the U.S. on it on Flag Day or some of the other holidays mentioned above[1]? Force them to turn it inside out? How about someone wearing a rainbow flag on Flag Day? What about a shirt depicting the red Japanese rising sun on Pearl Harbor Day?

    What about someone wearing a shirt from a heavy metal band with Satanic imagery on it coming to school on Good Friday or Ash Wednesday? Should they be forced to turn it inside out to keep from provoking someone (assuming they're permitted to wear those shirts on other days)?

    Should the schools be allowed to ask students to cover decals on their car windows or bumper stickers on certain days because they are afraid they might incite someone to vandalize the vehicles?

    I'm just wondering how consistently you want to apply these rules (and apologize if you have already responded to similar questions since I haven't read the entire thread).
    Dear rogue06,

    Kids don't have the same rights that adults do. And as much as these kids might think they're capable of taking full responsibility for their actions, they don't have the same responsibilities, either. Kids from different backgrounds will tear each other up if there's no adult in the room. When it comes to a public high school, the adults aren't just morally responsible, they're legally responsible.

    Ya'll did notice this went to court, right?

    And they won?

    Maybe you think there's a principle here that the administrators should have been willing to risk their jobs to defend. I'm in the "not so much" crowd. I don't see an upside in defending kids coming to school looking for a fight, or even in leaving them uncorrected. Yes, there are free speech issues, and yes, I support the rights of kids to express themselves civilly. But there are also safety issues, and I'm not going to take away the authority to address those issues from the adults in the room.

    1. Yes I realize that several of those days take place when schools aren't normally in session but let's ignore that for the sake or argument or assume that we're talking about summer school or something.
    Have you ever seen a high school with metal detectors at every entrance?

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Thanks for the clarification. As I said I hadn't read the entire thread. Yes, I'm lazy.
    Cool that noise. Epo will suspect you're a Mexican.



    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    I don't think minors have that right. There's plenty of precedence for that.
    This.

    Originally posted by Outis View Post
    Actually, they do ... but it's limited.

    Come to think of it, there are NO rights that are not limited. Even fundamental Constitutional rights can be abrogated, _if_ the government has sufficient interest, if the restriction is narrowly tailored, and if the method selected is the "least intrusive." In this case, the school had a compelling interest in protecting the safety of the students: this was the method they chose to assert their interest in the safety of the students.

    There is no such thing as an "unlimited right" under our Constitution.
    And this.

    There were clearly issues left unaddressed at this high school. Maybe the parents were sue-happy, or the administrators were too rigid to find an accommodation. It's difficult to feel much compassion for the kids, who apparently don't like Mexicans, though I'd imagine they picked up that attitude from their parents. Asst. Principle Rodriguez has a Mexican-American name, adding its own frisson to the fugue.

    When the kids get to college, they can wear what they like, within bounds of course. But until then, well, we can't let the lunatics run the asylum.

    As ever, Jesse

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Actually, all of it is self-evident. Any large and complex nation cannot possibly be governed by following a few rigid rules with a zero-tolerance mentality. The Constitution shouldn't be expected to anticipate and spell out in detail every sensible action that should be taken in all conceivable sets of circumstances. It's certainly a helpful document (but not essential, and stable nations without written constitutions have existed for centuries), but no nation can survive without relying on the judgment, experience, and wisdom of its best people.
    The amendment process is there for that. Taking matters into your own hands and deciding that a constitutional mandate can be abrogated of your own whim is worse than not having a constitution at all.

    And thankfully, reasonable people see the dangers of following simple rules blindly in all possible circumstances. Genuine, legitimate interests are forever in conflict, and a successful government manages conflict.
    If there is conflict between the constitution and the whims of those in power the constitution is supposed to win. That's the whole point of having a constitution. The only "management" the government has to do in such a conflict is capitulate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    It also seems that the model here was of rival gangs, wearing rival colors in a teenage attempt at goading and mutual antagonism. These shirts weren't being worn by accident, they were being worn to trigger incidents, for which they could blame one another and see each other with even more contempt than they already did.
    Or possibly they were being worn to force the school administrators to take sides.

    I think at the very least, the imaginative and pro-active administrator could have turned this into an inclusive occasion, had the students write essays on the history of Cinco de Mayo, declare it "international heritage day" and encourage everyone to bring their flags, wear their flags, bring other flags, and so on.
    So, let me get this straight:

    You, phank, propose that a school administrator, some bloodless, talentless, and unimaginative bureaucrat, now has the power to declare holidays, rewrite history, force other students to write feel-good essays on history, and start traditions?

    In other words, take control of the problem rather than let the problem control them.
    Yes, to you liberals the actual facts of history, holidays, and traditions have always been problems, haven't they?

    I'm sure a competent administrator familir with the environment could have found even better approaches.
    Thank you, Dr. Breen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Actually, all of it is self-evident. Any large and complex nation cannot possibly be governed by following a few rigid rules with a zero-tolerance mentality. The Constitution shouldn't be expected to anticipate and spell out in detail every sensible action that should be taken in all conceivable sets of circumstances. It's certainly a helpful document (but not essential, and stable nations without written constitutions have existed for centuries), but no nation can survive without relying on the judgment, experience, and wisdom of its best people.
    So, not Mexicans, then.

    And thankfully, reasonable people see the dangers of following simple rules blindly in all possible circumstances. Genuine, legitimate interests are forever in conflict, and a successful government manages conflict.
    No, a successful government resolves conflict. A government that wants to collect paychecks to feel important treats every petty grievance as a Serious Matter and speaks of the need to pay 'their best people' to manage them. I'm going to guess phank favors the latter.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    None of this is true.
    Actually, all of it is self-evident. Any large and complex nation cannot possibly be governed by following a few rigid rules with a zero-tolerance mentality. The Constitution shouldn't be expected to anticipate and spell out in detail every sensible action that should be taken in all conceivable sets of circumstances. It's certainly a helpful document (but not essential, and stable nations without written constitutions have existed for centuries), but no nation can survive without relying on the judgment, experience, and wisdom of its best people.

    And thankfully, reasonable people see the dangers of following simple rules blindly in all possible circumstances. Genuine, legitimate interests are forever in conflict, and a successful government manages conflict.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Outis View Post
    Actually, they do ... but it's limited.

    Come to think of it, there are NO rights that are not limited. Even fundamental Constitutional rights can be abrogated, _if_ the government has sufficient interest, if the restriction is narrowly tailored, and if the method selected is the "least intrusive." In this case, the school had a compelling interest in protecting the safety of the students: this was the method they chose to assert their interest in the safety of the students.
    None of this is true.

    There is no such thing as an "unlimited right" under our Constitution.
    Only because some clauses are vague and others are contradictory. But nowhere does the Constitution permit that its rights can be abrogated if the government has "sufficient interest". That's precisely the type of abuse that makes the constitution a long running joke.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    Originally posted by Outis View Post
    Actually, they do ... but it's limited.

    Come to think of it, there are NO rights that are not limited. Even fundamental Constitutional rights can be abrogated, _if_ the government has sufficient interest, if the restriction is narrowly tailored, and if the method selected is the "least intrusive." In this case, the school had a compelling interest in protecting the safety of the students: this was the method they chose to assert their interest in the safety of the students.

    There is no such thing as an "unlimited right" under our Constitution.
    Right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Outis
    replied
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    I don't think minors have that right. There's plenty of precedence for that.
    Actually, they do ... but it's limited.

    Come to think of it, there are NO rights that are not limited. Even fundamental Constitutional rights can be abrogated, _if_ the government has sufficient interest, if the restriction is narrowly tailored, and if the method selected is the "least intrusive." In this case, the school had a compelling interest in protecting the safety of the students: this was the method they chose to assert their interest in the safety of the students.

    There is no such thing as an "unlimited right" under our Constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Lao, I thought you would be more of an advocate of the right of free speech/expression.
    I don't think minors have that right. There's plenty of precedence for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Sounds to me like the school administrators were unimaginative bureaucrats, who just wanted to go through their daily motions peacefully, draw their paychecks, and not be bothered with problems. So, seeing this coming for months in advance, they apparently paid no attention in the hopes that it would somehow just go away and leave them alone.

    It also seems that the model here was of rival gangs, wearing rival colors in a teenage attempt at goading and mutual antagonism. These shirts weren't being worn by accident, they were being worn to trigger incidents, for which they could blame one another and see each other with even more contempt than they already did.

    I think at the very least, the imaginative and pro-active administrator could have turned this into an inclusive occasion, had the students write essays on the history of Cinco de Mayo, declare it "international heritage day" and encourage everyone to bring their flags, wear their flags, bring other flags, and so on. In other words, take control of the problem rather than let the problem control them. I'm sure a competent administrator familir with the environment could have found even better approaches.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Sounds to me like the school administrators were unimaginative bureaucrats, who just wanted to go through their daily motions peacefully, draw their paychecks, and not be bothered with problems. So, seeing this coming for months in advance, they apparently paid no attention in the hopes that it would somehow just go away and leave them alone.

    It also seems that the model here was of rival gangs, wearing rival colors in a teenage attempt at goading and mutual antagonism. These shirts weren't being worn by accident, they were being worn to trigger incidents, for which they could blame one another and see each other with even more contempt than they already did.

    I think at the very least, the imaginative and pro-active administrator could have turned this into an inclusive occasion, had the students write essays on the history of Cinco de Mayo, declare it "international heritage day" and encourage everyone to bring their flags, wear their flags, bring other flags, and so on. In other words, take control of the problem rather than let the problem control them. I'm sure a competent administrator familir with the environment could have found even better approaches.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    lol @ idioutis awkwardly trying to insert himself into a group he doesn't belong in. "I have as many as one grandfather who were born in another country!"

    Leave a comment:


  • Outis
    replied
    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
    It is true that the American flag is for all Americans.
    As the grandson of an immigrant (all of my other immigrant ancestors go back farther), I see the value in both holding onto my ancestors' identity and in being proud of being an American. Yes, I agree that the American flag is for all Americans. I am also aware of just how much damage can be caused by the "Foreigner, go home" mindset that frequently wraps itself in a flag.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Gondwanaland, Today, 01:18 PM
7 responses
62 views
0 likes
Last Post Starlight  
Started by shunyadragon, Today, 10:20 AM
11 responses
69 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 07:21 PM
67 responses
350 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 01:13 PM
11 responses
110 views
0 likes
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Started by MaxVel, Yesterday, 09:03 AM
31 responses
252 views
2 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Working...
X