The Cellar - Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

Page 2 of 4

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=22691)

Redux

05-07-2010 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 654626)

Yea, minors are citizens...

Fuck off.

Anyone who is willing to support the rights of Illegals over US Citizens loses in my book.

Have a great day socialist scumbag.

Name calling doesnt change the facts.

When you have a cite that shows that minors have absolute First Amendment rights, particularly in a school setting......please post it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 654628)

SO a minor gets arrested. Does he have a right to not answer questions and incriminate himself?

SO a thug 16 yr old has no right to Lawyer up?

Neither one are first amendment issues....nor do they apply to rights of expression in a school setting.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 05:43 PM

So a 17 yo can't refuse a consent to a search or questioning without a Lawyer present?

lookout123

05-07-2010 05:44 PM

If a kid can wear a shirt with a mexican flag to school then a kid can also wear a shirt with an american flag on it. It doesn't matter why they wore it because then you are talking about thoughts, not actions.

jinx	05-07-2010 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierce

there are schools where this would be a legitimate safety issue

Let's say they were sent home for their own safety, and the safety of others who might be caught up in the fray, when they were attacked in a public school for wearing their country's flag. You're good with this solution?

Quote:

A day after five Morgan Hill students were sent home for wearing American flag T-shirts, the controversy erupted ten-fold.

Ya. Huge surprise there.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 05:47 PM

I still say they should sue the fuck out of that school, just to make a point.

My money is that they would eventually settle out of court because they know they screwed up.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654629)

When you have a cite that shows that minors have absolute First Amendment rights, particularly in a school setting......please post it.
Neither one are first amendment issues....nor do they apply to rights of expression in a school setting.

The point is that you hold the "rights" of non-US citzens higher than those of people who are legal citizens.

Redux

05-07-2010 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 654637)

The point is that you hold the "rights" of non-US citzens higher than those of people who are legal citizens.

Of course, you cant find a cite that shows that minors have absolute First Amendment rights..so its now a different argument.

I favor illegals over citizens. :eek:

Nice try, but ignorant of the facts.

The point is that I understand the Constitution and you dont...as has been made evident now in several discussions.

The Constitution is NOT just for citizens as you insisted....and, minors do NOT have absolute First Amendment rights.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654639)

You are the same guy who wants to support Constitutional Rights to suspected Terrorists and Enemy Combatants. You fail big time.....

To date the Courts have only allowed LIMITED rights to illegals, Terrorists and Enemy Combatants, the same people you support.

Minors have Rights.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 06:21 PM

No really. I want to hear why you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

Your chance to shine. GO!

Redux

05-07-2010 06:23 PM

Sorry, folks, for the distraction.

But I dont intend to let personal attacks and false allegations go unanswered.

Merc...anytime you want to have a moderated discussion on the Constitution, just let me know.....no name calling, no "fails"...

Just you and me...and a moderator (UT) to keep it civil and focused. :)

Redux

05-07-2010 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 654642)

I agree with the Supreme Court decisions affirming limited rights for illegals (and detainees)....I have never suggested they should have absolute and unlimited rights

Please link any post of mine where I said anything other than the above about "rights" for illegals or detainees.

You were the one who said they had NO rights....that the Constitution was ONLY for citizens.

I also agree with court decisions affirming that the Constitutional rights of minors are not absolute and can be restricted or limited in a manner that would not apply to adult citizens.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 06:34 PM

:corn: Another epic Fail...

SamIam

05-07-2010 06:36 PM

Gosh, am I the only one who remembers those wild days when students (white) would wear flags embroidered on their ass and various other anatomical parts. Where I went to school, a girl had the bright idea to make a bikini out of the flag. They arrested the flag burners, but I don't know what they did to the wearers. I also rented an apartment for a while where the previous residents painted a large flag on the kitchen wall and stenciled a marijuana leaf over the top of the flag. For anyone who remembers history, the current hoopla is really nothing much.

Redux

05-07-2010 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 654647)

:corn: Another epic Fail...

The facts and the posts ( link and link) are there for all to see.

I said illegals should not have the same rights as citizens...you said the Constitution is only for citizens.

Who failed?

Let the people...or just the citizens decide. :)

squirell nutkin

05-07-2010 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654618)

This is not a First Amendment issue. You can find school policies and practices in any school in the country that limit the "rights" of students.

Minors do not have an absolute right to freedom of expression. They cant legally express themselves by smoking, driving, etc.......

You should actually read up on what your first amendment rights are.

First, Minors do have 1st amendment rights. Second, if the school is a public school or receives funding from the government then your speech is protected. Where speech is protected is defined as a "public forum" How that forum is defined is complex. In certain circumstances a public school may not be a public forum, but I couldn't say what those might be.
Illegal speech or expression is not protected speech.
There are a number of exclusions to one's freedom of expression and hate speech or inciting to riot or exhorting someone to break the law are all unprotected speech.
Here is a pretty good summary of the First Amendment.

It's been about 15 years since I studied the topic in school, so I am a little foggy on details. Maybe I'll read the link myself.

You might make the argument that wearing the flag tshirts was inflammatory speech (therefore not protected) It is a bit ironic that wearing clothing made from or depicting the US flag, during the Viet Nam war would be grounds for a summary ass whipping while the cops made sure no one broke up the fight.

Times, they are a changin'

Quote:

Expressive Conduct

In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943), Justice robert h. jackson wrote that symbols are "a short cut from mind to mind." Expressive conduct or Symbolic Speech involves communicative conduct that is the behavioral equivalent of speech. The conduct itself is the idea or message. Some expressive conduct is the equivalent of speech and is protected by the First Amendment.

In tinker v. des moines independent community school district, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to suspend high-school students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, because their conduct was "akin to pure speech" and did not interfere with the work of the school or the rights of other students.

In Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 2093, 150 L. Ed.2d 151 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a private Christian organization could not be denied use of the public school space for after-school activities. The Court emphasized that the Establishment Clause could not serve as a barrier to the organization's exercise of its free speech rights. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his majority opinion, addressed the freedom-of-speech argument. He noted that the school was a limited public forum and that the state therefore was not required to permit persons "to engage in every type of speech." However, the state's ability to restrict speech was not unlimited. In addition, the state could not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint. Justice Thomas wrote that the school district decision had unlawfully imposed this requirement. He pointed to recent Court decisions that had forbidden states to prevent religious groups from using public facilities or to receive funding for an undergraduate organization.

Statutes that prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag have been found to restrict free expression unconstitutionally. In texas v. johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989), the Court overturned Gregory L. Johnson's conviction for burning a U.S. flag during a demonstration. Johnson's actions were communicative conduct that warranted First Amendment protection, even though they were repugnant to many people. Similarly, in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 110 S. Ct. 2404, 110 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1990), the Court struck down the federal Flag Protection Act of 1989, 103 Stat. 777, 18 U.S.C.A. § 700, stating that the government's interest in passing the act had been a desire to suppress free expression and the content of the message that the act of flag burning conveys.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 06:49 PM

Here is a great example.

Quote:

Here’s the answer no administrator likes to hear: It depends.

If school officials can reasonably forecast that wearing the Confederate flag will lead to a substantial disruption of the school environment, then they can probably ban it.

For example, a 2000 decision out of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suspension of a middle school student for drawing a picture of a Confederate flag. Why? Because the school district could point to past incidents of racial tension and violence as evidence that the flag would likely cause substantial disruption. The school’s policy didn’t target the Confederate symbol, but banned all “racially divisive” materials.

But a 2001 decision out of the 6th Circuit went the other way, finding that the school district banning the flag had failed to show that the flag would cause significant problems for the school. Moreover, the school policy appeared not to apply evenhandedly to other racially divisive symbols.

The “substantial disruption” test used in these cases comes from a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. In Tinker, students were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Ruling in favor of the students, the Court declared that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....aspx?id=13464

Sorry it does not support your giving rights to to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654650)

I said illegals should not have the same rights as citizens...you said the Constitution is only for citizens.

Who failed?

You did. Illegals only have limited Rights.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 06:54 PM

Quote:

The principal of Madison County High School suspended Timothy Castorina and Tiffany Dargavell in September 1997 for refusing to comply with the school's dress code.

Castorina and Dargavell wore Hank Williams Jr. concert T-shirts to school on two occasions. The shirts bore two Confederate flags on the back with the phrase "Southern Thunder."

The principal said the shirts violated the school's dress code policy, which prohibited clothing with "any illegal, immoral or racist implication." The principal ordered the students to either go home and change shirts or wear them inside out. When the students refused, he gave them three-day suspensions.

After the suspensions, the students wore the shirts again and received another three-day suspension. The students later withdrew from the school and were home-schooled by their parents.

After their suspensions, the two students sued in federal court, contending a violation of their First Amendment rights. They argued that by wearing the T-shirts, they communicated their support for Hank Williams and southern heritage.

They also alleged that the school principal discriminated on the basis of viewpoint by allowing other students to wear Malcolm X clothing.

In 1998, a federal district court judge dismissed their lawsuit, finding that their wearing of the shirts did not constitute expressive conduct under the First Amendment.

Castorina appealed the decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 8, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit reversed in Castorina v. Madison County School Board.

The appeals court panel first determined that the students did engage in speech by wearing the shirts.

Next, the panel reinstated the suit, finding that the case was similar to the classic U.S. Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the high court ruled that Iowa school officials violated the First Amendment rights of several students by suspending them for wearing black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

In Tinker, the high court noted that the school officials singled out black armbands and allowed students to wear other symbols. The court determined that school officials could not censor student-initiated speech unless they could reasonably forecast that the speech would cause a substantial disruption of the school environment.

The 6th Circuit panel ruled that the actions of Madison County High School officials gave "the appearance of a targeted ban" because other students were allowed to wear clothing with the "X" symbol.

The judges said that the case would have to be sent back to the lower court for further fact finding, including:

How the school enforced its dress code; and
"Whether Madison County High School had actually experienced any racially based violence prior to the suspensions."
"The defendants do claim that prior to the plaintiffs' suspension, there was a racially based altercation on school grounds, but plaintiffs contend that race was not the cause of the disturbance," the court wrote. "This disagreement simply highlights the need for a trial to determine the precise facts of this situation."

Kirk Lyons, chief trial counsel for the Southern Legal Resource Center and one of Castorina's attorneys, praised the ruling.

"We were very pleased to see the 6th Circuit thunderously affirm Tinker," Lyons said. "Our concern was that various school boards were acting as if Tinker did not exist. To our knowledge this stands as the first pro-speech decision by a federal appeals court that involves a student wearing Confederate flag clothing. "

http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=13373

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:04 PM

Quote:

Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/com...ch/tinker.html

Redux

05-07-2010 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squirell nutkin (Post 654651)

My point was that students first amendment rights are not absolute.

Probably the most recent case regarding student first amendment rights.....Morse v Frederick.

Quote:

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) was a school speech case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, at a school-supervised event, that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.[1]

IMO, this is not a first amendment issue....and, none of us know the intent of the students.

Was it to express patriotism and freedom or was to be provocative (to the point that the administrator thought it might pose a danger) given the recent focus on illegal immigration.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:05 PM

Quote:

The constitution does not explicitly state or even mention minors' rights, which makes the topic debatable.

However, minors are presumed to have the fundamental natural rights (rights to life, liberty, and property), as well as 1st amendment rights (freedom of/to religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition).

But these rights come with strings attatched. For example, the manner, location, and time of speech factor into the lawfulness of violating that right. As an example, a person who yells "Fire!" in a theatre is bound to start some sort of chaotic state in the crowd. It is a compelling state interest to prevent riots, etc. from occuring, so violation of this kind of speech is constitutional.

Minors, depending on age, still do not have the legal rights to smoke, drink (as in alcohol), vote, and/or drive. On the other hand, minors cannot be sued due to parental custody.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_a...S_Constitution

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654659)

My point was that students first amendment rights are not absolute.

No, the point is you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654624)

When you have a cite that shows that minors, particularly in school settings, have absolute First Amendment rights......please post it.

It is not a First Amendment issue.

Redux

05-07-2010 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 654661)

No, the point is you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

Putting words in my mouth again?

I never said that illegals or detainees should have the same rights as citizens.

And you did say that Constitution only applies rights to citizens.

You cant delete the facts as posted.

And you can run away from your own posts as much as you want....no sweat off my ass.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:15 PM

:corn:

piercehawkeye45

05-07-2010 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 654633)

Why should I answer that question if you are going to word it that way. Here is a breakdown of your argument.

You say, "Let's say they were sent home for their own safety, and the safety of others who might be caught up in the fray". I don't know where this comes from. The issue was not that people have to be sent home for protection. The issue is that, for safety reasons, certain clothing should not be worn in schools. And if someone decides to wear that particular clothing, they either have to change or be sent home.

You say, "when they were attacked in a public school for wearing their country's flag." You make this seem innocent. There is reason to believe this is not true. If it was just someone innocently wearing an American flag, then I would agree with your point.

There are a few questions that we do not know that could drastically change the situation.

What was the relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population before May 5th?
Did these students purposely wear the American flag to make a statement against Cinco de Mayo?
How would the Mexican American students react against these students wearing the American Flag on May 5th?

If there was a good relationship or non-existent relationship between these student and the Mexican American student population, the students innocently wore the American flag, and the Mexican American students would not react badly (besides getting offended), then I think the decision was wrong by the school district.

If there was a bad relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population, the students purposely wore the American flag as a fuck you to Cinco de Mayo, and the Mexican American students would react violently to the shirts, then I agree with the school districts decision. Then the fault lies on both the students who wore the clothes and the people who will react violently. They both created this possible violent situation and the school district is attempting to defuse the situation in the easiest way possible.

For me, there is a lot of gray depending on the answers but I do agree that the fault does not solely with the students wearing the clothing no matter the situation. There is a lot of fault if people react violently to something like this. But I do not find fault in a school district that tries to defuse a situation like that. Because if they do not, they will be attacked for not defusing the situation after something possibly happens.

But, there is a clear difference between showing American pride by wearing an American T-shirt and saying fuck you to another culture by wearing an American T-shirt. I agree that it is sad that I have to say that last sentence but that, unfortunately, is how our world works.

lookout123

05-07-2010 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654659)

Was it to express patriotism and freedom or was to be provocative (to the point that the administrator thought it might pose a danger) given the recent focus on illegal immigration.

The intent is irrelevent. This is America. They are Americans. They chose to wear pictures of the American flag to school. If the administration believes demonstrating a visible symbol for your nation can pose a threat then they need to get a fucking grip on their school.

Would it also be reasonable for this inept school administrator to tell a female student, "Young lady, you are wearing a skirt so I assume you have a vagina. You need to go home and lock your doors because your ownership of a vagina might cause someone else to behave in a dangerous manner. Now get along home little lady"?

You don't have the right to curb my rights because someone else might choose to be an asshole. If some mexican kid starts a fight, then you deal with the kid who can't deal with the idea of supporting his country. Last I checked Cinco de Mayo isn't an official US holiday anyway.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:27 PM

The only question is do the students have a right to wear an American flag on their shirts to school any day of the week. All other questions are really not significant.

What if they were to wear a FUBU shirt or a Confederate Flag shirt? Does it matter? IF it does, than no one should be allowed to wear any shirt that promoted one culture or country over another.

lookout123

05-07-2010 07:33 PM

Quote:

What was the relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population before May 5th?

Irrelevent.

Quote:

Did these students purposely wear the American flag to make a statement against Cinco de Mayo?

Irrelevent.

Quote:

How would the Mexican American students react against these students wearing the American Flag on May 5th?

Irrelevent.

Quote:

If there was a bad relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population, the students purposely wore the American flag as a fuck you to Cinco de Mayo, and the Mexican American students would react violently to the shirts,

Then those who reacted violently should be dealt with as violent offenders in accordance with their actions.

Are you seriously obtuse enough to think it would be acceptable for a white administrator to send a mexican kid home if he wore a shirt with a mexican flag on it on the 4th of July? (yeah, I know there's no school in July, but you get the point)

jinx	05-07-2010 07:33 PM

Quote:

You say, "Let's say they were sent home for their own safety, and the safety of others who might be caught up in the fray". I don't know where this comes from.

It came from reading your post where you explain that you know of schools where wearing an american flag would incite violence.

Quote:

I personally know of schools where students would have resorted to violence or something else that would have made the situation worse.

there are schools where this would be a legitimate safety issue

These are your words and I was responding to them as I read them.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:37 PM

Quote:

The fact is, Americans are increasingly fed up with the racially divisive, politically correct insanity pulsating through the country today. After years of being pressured and browbeaten by the left-wing PC police about what they can say, do, think, and wear, many Americans have had enough. And they're especially furious with being asked to apologize for things that aren't or shouldn't be in the least bit offensive.

The idea that high school kids anywhere in America would be called the principal's office - let alone that they would be asked whether they should apologize - for wearing clothes bearing the image of the United States flag, is a perfect case in point.

It's the kind of insanity that rankles the sensibilities of millions upon millions of Americans, and has them cheering when someone - whether a Cambridge cop or a Bay Area mother - stands up, refuses to back down, and says, "there will be no apology."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...gy_105472.html

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 654674)

Are you seriously obtuse enough to think it would be acceptable for a white administrator to send a mexican kid home if he wore a shirt with a mexican flag on it on the 4th of July? (yeah, I know there's no school in July, but you get the point)

:thumb: :lol: Who'd a thunk it. Great Idea. Then we can hear about the liberal outcry of oppression.

Redux

05-07-2010 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 654671)

The courts have ruled that schools can impose dress codes that may limit the students' right of expression to wear whatever the hell they want.

Not that the young lady is wearing a skirt and has a vagina....but perhaps because the skirt is too short.

And the intent does matter because the courts use intent as one measure to determine the right to wear particular clothes.

If the intent is to promote a potentially adverse response (which is purely subjective), a particular style of dress may be prohibited.

piercehawkeye45

05-07-2010 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 654674)

You are missing my entire point. It is not about being respectful to other cultures. It is about a school district attempting to prevent violence breaking out in their school.

If there is solid evidence that a symbol will cause a violent reaction in a school, I believe there are grounds to ban that symbol. I back that no matter which ethnicity, religion, or whatever stupid divider is on each side.

You are just basing your views on strong ideals. If you ran that school, what would you do to stop the violence? Telling them to get a grip on their school doesn't say much. I just assume you mean cultural sensitivity training. :p:

Ideally I don't agree with it either, but that is how the world works.

You missed the point too Merc, or are you just looking for a reaction?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinx

These are your words and I was responding to them as I read them.

Okay.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654680)

And the intent does matter because the courts use intent as one measure to determine the right to wear particular clothes.

Intent is to difficult to prove as a yardstick. In this specific case the students who wore American Flags should sue the hell out of the school district. The burden of proof is on them.

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 654681)

or are you just looking for a reaction?

Absolutely not. My point has been made. The students had a right to wear the shirts. The schools failed and should be punished.

Redux

05-07-2010 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 654683)

Intent is to difficult to prove as a yardstick. In this specific case the students who wore American Flags should sue the hell out of the school district. The burden of proof is on them.

In a civil case, the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff.

That is, the kids (through their parents) would have to prove the school violated their rights.. not the other way around.

If they want to pursue it, I would suggest calling the ACLU...you know, the guys you criticize for standing up for constitutional rights. :)

TheMercenary

05-07-2010 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654686)

An easy win. Fuck the ACLU. I would just hire a good lawyer.

I bet they are already pissing in their pants for the national attention they are getting.

My friends :lol:?

Flint

05-07-2010 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 654670)

If it was just someone innocently wearing an American flag, then I would agree with your point.

Can you describe the difference between "innocent wearing" and "malicious wearing" and how you can scientifically tell the difference? And...does the subject matter, or WHAT you are wearing have no bearing? I find the fundamental substance of your argument to be patently ridiculous.

xoxoxoBruce

05-07-2010 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654680)

The courts have ruled that schools can impose dress codes that may limit the students' right of expression to wear whatever the hell they want.

Yes they can, but it has to be uniform, and can't be imposed in the middle of the damn day.

classicman

05-07-2010 10:45 PM

Quote:

Five kids attending Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., decided to wear patriotic clothing (T-shirts and bandannas with the American flag on them) on Cinco de Mayo. Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez told them that the clothing was inappropriate for the holiday and to ditch the bandannas and turn their shirts inside out or go home.

classicman

05-07-2010 10:53 PM

classicman

05-07-2010 10:58 PM

Oh, and here is another tidbit thats not been addressed - at least two of the four boys wearing the American flag T-shirts had Mexican ancestry.

lumberjim

05-07-2010 11:00 PM

this is America

Cinco de Mayo is Mexican Holiday

have a Corona and STFU

Redux

05-08-2010 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 654736)

Yes they can, but it has to be uniform, and can't be imposed in the middle of the damn day.

In regards to a dress code, I was responding to lookout's post about a young lady and her skirt and vagina.

But, the fact is, neither of us know if the policy prohibits wearing bandannas.

Quote:

You are making assumptions here.

That the five kids acted out of patriotism, rather than to be provocative. You dont know that.

In fact, we dont anything about these five kids, other then that they acted collectively. Are they model students? Have they had or provoked confrontations with Hispanic students in the past? Are there tensions in the school between Anglo students and Hispanic students? We dont know any of the answers. Presumably, the Asst. Principal does.

And, with the bolding, it appears that you are assuming or inferring that the Asst Principal acted based on his own ethnicity rather than out of concern for safety.

The Asst. Principal made a judgment call....perhaps, bad judgment...but none of us know all the facts.

One fact we do know, the school had a recent history of problems with intolerance and attacks (physical and verbal) against minorities...at the time, it was against gays/lesbian students.

xoxoxoBruce

05-08-2010 12:25 AM

Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, would be a pretty good reason why he thought it was a holiday.

Their reasons for wearing those clothes doesn't matter, they were within their rights to do so.

Spexxvet

05-08-2010 08:32 AM

What a bunch of assholes

Spexxvet

05-08-2010 08:40 AM

Live Oak dress code

classicman

05-08-2010 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654753)

But, the fact is, neither of us know if the policy prohibits wearing bandannas.

see below

Quote:

That the five kids acted out of patriotism, rather than to be provocative. You dont know that.
Are they model students?
Have they had or provoked confrontations with Hispanic students in the past?
We dont know any of the answers. Presumably, the Asst. Principal does.

Quote:

at least two of the boys wearing the American flag T-shirts have Mexican ancestry.

Quote:

And, with the bolding, it appears that you are assuming or inferring that the Asst Principal acted based on his own ethnicity rather than out of concern for safety.

You are the one making assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 654759)

Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, would be a pretty good reason why he thought it was a holiday.
Their reasons for wearing those clothes doesn't matter, they were within their rights to do so.

from the dress code -

Quote:

Specific Inappropriate Dress Includes: Doo rags or bandanas of any color

There was no justification for telling the students to invert their shirts according to the dress code.

Redux

05-08-2010 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 654802)

see below

You are the one making assumptions.

from the dress code -
There was no justification for telling the students to invert their shirts according to the dress code.

What was your point in bolding the Asst. Principal's name? Other than to point out that he is Hispanic. Why is that relevant unless you are pre-judging? Pre-judging = prejudice.

And...so the kids "said" they acted out of patriotism and not to be confrontational. Kids never lie when they are confronted? One news report said the kids taunted Hispanic students before being called to the principals office....of course, the kids denied it.

You dont know what happened any more than me.

Spexxvet

05-08-2010 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 654802)

...There was no justification for telling the students to invert their shirts according to the dress code.

Quote:

However, any clothing or decoration which detracts from the learning environment is prohibited. The school has the right to request that any student dressing inappropriately for school will change into other clothes, be sent home to change, and/or be subject to disciplinary action.

There's enough wiggle room there satisfy the lawyers, IMHO.

jinx	05-08-2010 10:58 AM

Quote:

And...so the kids "said" they acted out of patriotism. Kids never lie when they are confronted?

So assume they are lying - what's the real reason they wore flag tshirts then? to cause trouble? What is the climate of this school then, if these kids knew that simply wearing an american flag would be considered offensive, to the point that they'd need to be sent home so they didn't get beaten up by a mexican mob?

If it's so bad there, I'm glad they called attention to it. The administration needs to explain why a public school in america is so hostile towards the american flag and what they plan to do about it. They also need to learn some conflict resolution skills...

classicman

05-08-2010 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654803)

What was your point in bolding the Asst. Principal's name?

I want everyone everywhere to know that this asshole thinks its inappropriate to wear the colors of THIS country. I don't give a crap what day it is. There is NEVER a reason for this. I hope he gets fired.

Quote:

Other than to point out that he is Hispanic. Why is that relevant unless you are pre-judging? Pre-judging = prejudice.

Is he? One could assume that - you certainly are. It would appear to me that you are the one who's prejudice is showing.

Quote:

And...so the kids "said" they acted out of patriotism and not to be confrontational. Kids never lie when they are confronted?

Irrelevant

Quote:

One news report said the kids taunted Hispanic students before being called to the principals office....of course, the kids denied it.

at least two of the boys wearing the American flag T-shirts have Mexican ancestry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 654804)

There's enough wiggle room there satisfy the lawyers, IMHO.

Yeh - I wish them luck with that.
Lawyer: the kids were wearing American flag T-shirts.
Judge: Yeh, so?
Lawyer: It was Cinco de Mayo.
Judge: Yeh, so?
Lawyer: So the Asst Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked them to turn them inside out. Hew felt it may be offensive to the Hispanic students.
Judge: So you think it is inappropriate for students to wear the colors and/or flag of America on their T-shirts IN AMERICA?
Lawyer: Uh, Yes sir it was potentially offensive.
Judge: Tough shit, This IS America , not Mexico. NEXT!

Redux

05-08-2010 11:06 AM

I get it....just ignore the dress code....ignore the fact that you know nothing about the kids in question.....ignore the fact that the Asst Principal presumably had a much better understanding of the school environment than any outsider....including the parents, the media and you or me.

And...you can defend your words anyway you want.

If you look at my posts, I havent defended him. I said it may or may not have been poor judgment, but in either case, IMO, it certainly wasnt a violation of the students rights. We dont have all the facts!

And pre-judging is prejudice.

classicman

05-08-2010 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654810)

I get it....just ignore the dress code...

I quoted the dress code

Quote:

ignore the fact that you know nothing about the kids in question..

Irrelevent

Quote:

ignore the fact that the Asst Principal presumably had a much better understanding of the school environment than any outsider including the parents, the media and you or me.

Who? Asst Principal Miguel Rodriguez the one that determined wearing a T-shirt with the flag of America on it was inappropriate?

Quote:

And...you can defend your words anyway you want.

Yes I can and I have. thank you.

Quote:

Pre-judging is prejudice.

Yes it is and yours has been exposed.

Redux

05-08-2010 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 654813)

...Who? Asst Principal Miguel Rodriguez the one that determined wearing a T-shirt with the flag of America on it was inappropriate?

You are making assumptions w/o knowing all the facts...w/o hearing anything from the Asst Principal, other than what was reported.

That...in any language is pre-judging or prejudice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 654813)

.....Yes it is and yours has been exposed.

Merc speak :eek:

classicman

05-08-2010 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 654813)

Yes it is and yours has been exposed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654815)

Merc speak :eek:

lol - Wait what? Your reverting to that already? Is that all you got?
Isn't it you who claimed that when one cannot defend their position they....

Redux

05-08-2010 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 654817)

lol - Wait what? Your reverting to that already? Is that all you got?
Isn't it you who claimed that when one cannot defend their position they....

And you are still ignoring that you dont have all the facts.

I stated my position. I dont know enough about the the school, the students and the situation to make an informed decision. I said it may have been poor judgment or not and I said, IMO, it was not a violation of their rights - dress codes are not generally not an infrigement of a student's right of expression.

What part of my position dont you understand?

But you presumably know more about it than me.

classicman

05-08-2010 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 654815)

You are making assumptions w/o knowing all the facts...w/o hearing anything from the Asst Principal, other than what was reported.
That...in any language is pre-judging or prejudice.

I am stating my opinion based upon the facts as we have them.
Asst Principal Miguel Rodriguez determined wearing a T-shirt with the flag of America on it is in America is inappropriate.

That will never ever be ok with me - Ever. What bothers me is that it is ok with you and apparently some others.

jinx	05-08-2010 11:21 AM

God forbid you 3 ever shut the fuck up with your bickering bullshit thread ruining crap. Fucking assholes.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:23 PM.

Page 2 of 4

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page