Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees
Thu, May 6, 2010
On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.
Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office.
"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."
The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts "incendiary" that would lead to fights on campus.
"They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended," Dominic Maciel, Galli's friend, said.
The boys really had no choice, and went home to avoid suspension. They say they're angry they were not allowed to express their American pride. Their parents are just as upset, calling what happened to their children, "total nonsense."
"I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mom, said. "All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They're expressing their individuality."
But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.
"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."
As for an apology, the boys and their families say, 'fat chance.'
"I'm not going to apologize. I did nothing wrong," Galli said. "I went along with my normal day. I might have worn an American flag, but I'm an American and I'm proud to be an American."
The five boys and their families met with a Morgan Hill Unified School District official Wednesday night. The district and the school do not see eye-to-eye on the incident and released the following statement:
The district does not concur with the Live Oak High School administration's interpretation of either board or district policy related to these actions.
The boys will not be suspended and were allowed to return to school Thursday. We spotted one of them when he got to campus -- and, yes, he was sporting an American flag T-shirt.
This is the first time I think I agreed with a district on anything.
In my high school they wouldn't have been allowed to wear bandannas anyway.
Around their necks, on just on their heads?
it sounds like the kids DID band together in an act to defy and possibly insult fellow students... because why else would five kids all choose the same exact day to wear pretty much the same thing? Either way, I think it's ridiculous they were told to go home, especially since they live in the US. If this was a Mexican Campus, and they were wearing US Flag apparel on Cinco de Mayo, I could understand... but it wasn't. If the Hispanic populace is so upset and outraged to be around the US flag, maybe they should reconsider where they live?
In my high school they wouldn't have been allowed to wear bandannas anyway.
ah, yes. The dangerous bandanna. The nuns at my high school said we wore them to advertise the many drugs we had for sale - a bandanna in the back pocket meant pot, a bandanna tied to a purse handle meant speed and a bandanna around your knee (you heard me) meant sopors. The nuns also subscribed to the belief that girls who wore black eyeliner were "easy."
They were smart, those nuns.
Crazy - but smart.
What if they were wearing American flag burkas?
What if they were wearing American flag burkas?
that would be
totally ok. I'm wearing mine right now!
I used to wear orange on St. Patty's Day.
I used to wear orange on St. Patty's Day.
My mother insisted on it.
It does sound like the boys did it on purpose, which is not cool, imo
Cooler than those wetbacks wearing the Mexican flag on our holidays, which by the way, are real holidays in this country.
the behavior is unacceptable regardless who does it. of course.
These kids were looking for attention and they got it. It was an act of defiance and they are using "American pride" as their defense. Typical.
Puts the school district in a catch 22 as well. Its probably a very touchy issue there and any action, or lack of action, taken by the school would most likely blow back up in their face.
I doubt that, the article didn't mention anything about the Mexicans protesting or even being offended. This is just the school administration flexing their muscles, in the name of politically correct.
they are using "American pride" as their defense.
And yet they are disrespecting the flag by wearing it as clothing.
These kids were looking for attention and they got it. It was an act of defiance and they are using "American pride" as their defense. Typical.
Puts the school district in a catch 22 as well. Its probably a very touchy issue there and any action, or lack of action, taken by the school would most likely blow back up in their face.
So what? The action they did take was inappropriate. I hope the kids sue the school for kicking them off campus.
This is only the latest of political correctness gone wrong in the US...
Especially when the school says it would have been OK on any other day.
And yet they are disrespecting the flag by wearing it as clothing.
The bandanas may have been a violation of the National Flag Act, but I have not seen pictures of them so until we do we can't really say if that was "disrespecting" of the flag in a more legal sense.
How bout this one? Is this a violation or is just his spelling?
You tell me.
"No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations."
36 USC 10 §176(j)
"The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way."
36 USC 10 §176 (e)
"The flag should never be used as wearing apparel..."
36 USC 10 §176 (d)
I'm not a flag waving rah rah kind of guy, but if these people pretend to be, then they should follow the rules.
One could argue that a bandana or t-shirt printed with a flag design is not "The flag".
I don't care either way myself... but I think the school fucked up.
Jinx beat me to it.
They were not wearing the flag - they were wearing T-shirts. Totally different issue.
What if they were using pencils with the flag on them in class? How about wearing a tie, a pin, socks, glasses... the list is virtually endless.
What is "a flag?"
You can get into the whole legal definition, but the bottom line is that the flag is a symbol of our country. These guys wore these shirts for the symbolic reasons. They meant for them to be flags.
Yes I agree with you that they were wearing flag stuff for symbolic purposes, and those purposes are being debated with regards to political correctness/immigration/tolerance/etc.... I don't agree that they were wearing and therefore being disrespectful to
The Flag.
You tell me.
"No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations."
36 USC 10 §176(j)
"The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way."
36 USC 10 §176 (e)
"The flag should never be used as wearing apparel..."
36 USC 10 §176 (d)
I'm not a flag waving rah rah kind of guy, but if these people pretend to be, then they should follow the rules.
"The Flag" means a real flag made and printed to be a flag, not a picture of the flag printed on T-shirts or otherwise.
I don't agree that they were wearing and therefore being disrespectful to The Flag.
We'll have to disagree on that point. Your link doesn't say what a flag
is, or how a flag is constructed, it says what a flag
looks like. You can make a flag intended for flying by printing the design on a sheet of polyester or by sewing strips of cotton fabric together and embroidering the stars. You can print one on paper and glue it to a stick to wave in your hand. You can enamel one onto metal to wear as a pin. You can put it on an iron-on patch to apply to a uniform. How is silk screening one onto a t-shirt in the proper proportions suddenly not a flag?
Damn it. I didn't want to have this conversation. I really don't give a shit.
Damn it. I didn't want to have this conversation. I really don't give a shit.
:lol:
Yeah, we're still disagreeing. I think it's a symbol of a symbol... no one does or is expected to maintain their flag t-shirt or pin to the same standards as an actual flag. It's ok if they get dirty and worn or touch the ground etc.. no one would be bothered by that. And ever since the popularity of Tommy Hilfiger, who doesn't have some form of flag clothing or something. Holding these boys to a different standard is nitpicking imo.
Would it be appropriate to send people away from an event or state building for wearing a tshirt with a mexican or canadian or latvian flag on the 4th of July? I don't think so, so why was this move ok? I think that's what the real debate should be about.
Why would mexicans be offended by american flags or boys showing defiant amercican pride on mexican independence day - the 2 things are just not related unless there is underlying animosity. Why didn't the school address this in some positive way - and try to promote mutual understanding? Why didn't they send the angry mexicans away also, if anyone, instead of just the defiant americans?
i have american flag swim trunks.
HAD> jinx threw them away.
I doubt that, the article didn't mention anything about the Mexicans protesting or even being offended. This is just the school administration flexing their muscles, in the name of politically correct.
Yes it did.
But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.
"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."
So what? The action they did take was inappropriate. I hope the kids sue the school for kicking them off campus.
This is only the latest of political correctness gone wrong in the US..
Depends on the situation. We have no idea who these kids are or how they act. I am probably biased, but I have a feeling these kids are like the kids at my school who drove around with a Confederate flag on their car during Martin Luther King Day.....in Wisconsin.
If these kids just happened to wear a shirt or bandanna with the American flag on it, then the school should have handled it better.
If the kids wore it as a big fuck you to the Mexican American population, which I am assuming it was, then I completely agree with the school's decision. It isn't ideal, but putting myself in their place, I would rather force someone to change their shirt then deal with some race related fights, which I know happen at other places.
I wonder what the reaction would be to flag designed toilet paper. It's not the flag, so nobody would take offense, I'm sure.
I agree with you jinx that the school was foolish here. They shouldn't have done anything and it was almost certainly political correctness run amok. I think that schools have the right to enforce a dress code and even make spur of the moment calls as they see fit in order to keep disruption to a minimum, but I don't think it was warranted here.
Yes it did.
Depends on the situation. We have no idea who these kids are or how they act. I am probably biased, but I have a feeling these kids are like the kids at my school who drove around with a Confederate flag on their car during Martin Luther King Day.....in Wisconsin.
If these kids just happened to wear a shirt or bandanna with the American flag on it, then the school should have handled it better.
If the kids wore it as a big fuck you to the Mexican American population, which I am assuming it was, then I completely agree with the school's decision. It isn't ideal, but putting myself in their place, I would rather force someone to change their shirt then deal with some race related fights, which I know happen at other places.
Even when people are dicks, you can't take action against them unless they actually do something wrong. This is a cornerstone of a free, law-abiding society. Once you open things up to the vagaries of spur-of-the-moment "feelings" and opinions, you accept that next time they could be coming for YOU if they don't like your attitude about something. That's not America.
i have american flag swim trunks.
HAD> jinx threw them away.
You tried to get her to touch the 51st star, didn't you?
Even when people are dicks, you can't take action against them unless they actually do something wrong. This is a cornerstone of a free, law-abiding society. Once you open things up to the vagaries of spur-of-the-moment "feelings" and opinions, you accept that next time they could be coming for YOU if they don't like your attitude about something. That's not America.
This is where we disagree. I am not defending the school just because I disagree with the actions of those students. I am not offended by their actions just as I was not offended when students from my school drove around with a Confederate flag on their car during Martin Luther King Day. It is about preventing something bigger from happening.
I do know places where an act such of this would have resorted in violence and could have brought other students into this as well. There are stupid racist who will do something to "make a statement" and there are stupid people who will use violence to "shut them up". If school's can avoid those situations, within reason, then I agree with the avoidance strategy.
I don't know if this school is such a place. If it is not, then yes, it is a stretch of political correctness. If it is, then I back the school's decision to attempt to avoid violence from breaking out in their school.
...an act such of this...
Quick reality check: an "act such as this" refers to what?
Students showing their Mexican-American pride walked out of class at Live Oak High School on Thursday, and rallied at the Morgan Hill Civic Center, calling the actions of the students who wore the American T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo offensive. They also demanded to speak with the mayor.
"I think they should apologize because it is a Mexican heritage day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, told NBC BayArea. "We don't deserve to be disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."
The ignorance of the student above, Annicia Nunez, is quite apparent since school is not in session on the Fourth of July as it is a national holiday in this country.
A holiday which celebrates the fight for the independence of a country that they now live in, and enjoy the benefits thereof.
* Update from the Morgan Hill Unified School District Superintendent
"The Morgan Hill Unified School District does not prohibit nor do we discourage wearing patriotic clothing," Dr. Wesley Smith said in a written statement. "The incident on May 5 at Live Oak High School is extremely unfortunate. While campus safety is our primary concern and administrators made decisions yesterday in an attempt to ensure campus safety, students should not, and will not, be disciplined for wearing patriotic clothing. This matter is under investigation and appropriate action will be taken."
Oh and then this ...
A day after five Morgan Hill students were sent home for wearing American flag T-shirts, the controversy erupted ten-fold.
Dozens of students at Live Oak High School made a mass and impromptu walk out of class Thursday. They weren't protesting the ejections and instead were showing their Mexican-American pride. Many support the school's decision and say they were offended by their classmates' wardrobe choice.
Many of the students who walked out Thursday held Mexican flags as they left campus. The said they marching for respect and unity.
"My plan is to bring out the message we are also Americans and we need Americans to show our culture respect of our Hispanic background," student Mike Hernandez said.
The group walked to City Hall for a loud but calm noontime rally. They returned to school in about 90 minutes and finished the day in class.
"My plan is to bring out the message we are also Americans
Then don't be offended when someone wears an American flag. :neutral:
Quick reality check: an "act such as this" refers to what?
How is that a reality check? I am fully aware how stupid it is to resort to violence if you are offended that someone wore an American flag during Cinco de Mayo or if someone wore a Mexican flag during the 4th of July. But, unfortunately, it happens.
As Classicman's post states, that decision was about safety, not about political correctness. Obviously it could still be an overreaction from the school district, but my gut feeling says it is not.
Once again, we don't anything about these students besides that they wear American flags on their clothes every once in a while. They could be legitimate patriotic people, or they could full out white supremacist. We don't know. But from my personal experience, the only people that would think about wearing an American flag during Cinco de Mayo, in a school with a large Hispanic population, then get all defensive about it, are more towards the racist side.
Is there an Italian Polish, Russian, German, Irish or Chinese holiday like this?
As Classicman's post states, that decision was about safety, not about political correctness. Obviously it could still be an overreaction from the school district, but my gut feeling says it is not.
I don't believe that at all. This has PC written all over it and its bullshit.
we don't anything about these students besides that they wear American flags on their clothes every once in a while.
And we don't know anything about the other kids, except they are "Mexican Americans." Are they into human trafficing. prostitution, drugs gun running??? We don't know squat about either side.
Oh and why is it these people can no longer just refer to themselves as Americans? Why is it everytime this crap come up they get to use their "label of choice" F-that.
They could be legitimate patriotic people, or they could full out white supremacist. We don't know. But from my personal experience, the only people that would think about wearing an American flag during Cinco de Mayo, in a school with a large Hispanic population, then get all defensive about it, are more towards the racist side.
When I got dressed Wed am, the fact that it was Cinco de Mayo had ZERO to do with my choice of attire. Pretty much like every other day of the year. I understand that my area and this have vastly different cultures and population compositions, but still.
To call these kids out for wearing the US flag on their shirts IN THE US because its another country's holiday is complete and utter BS. That guy should be fired - that is the appropriate action.
Is there an Irish holiday like this?
Of course there is... we drink beer and wear green. I will be offended if anyone else wears any other color that day... Maybe I should complain to the mayor?
Cooler than those wetbacks wearing the Mexican flag on our holidays, which by the way, are real holidays in this country.
Pie is not Mexican so why would she wear a Mexican flag? (And for the record, jinx only looks Mexican)
The school mascot of Live Oak is an Acorn
now that explains everything! :right:
I wonder which Asst Principal it was - Miguel Rodriguez or Kim Lemos
Quick reality check: an "act such as this" refers to what?
You didn't answer the question. Again, you said:
I do know places where an act such of this would have resorted in violence and could have brought other students into this as well.
What is the "act" that you refer to? I think it is important to the realization of a fully formed idea that it's constituent parts can be specified. I propose, unless you have some additional points that you have not brought forward, that you are referring to the act of
thoughtcrime.
We don't know. But from my personal experience, the only people that would think about wearing an American flag during Cinco de Mayo, in a school with a large Hispanic population, then get all defensive about it, are more towards the racist side.
Your position assumes that you can speak to the internal disposition of an individual, to "see" the bad intent "inside" them.
Again, you can't take action simply because you think someone is being a dick. There has to be a tangible offense.
I don't believe that at all. This has PC written all over it and its bullshit.
Do you have anything backing that up or is it just that you want to believe that it is PC bullshit? I personally know of schools where students would have resorted to violence or something else that would have made the situation worse. Does that mean every situation is like that? No. But as we both admit, we have no idea.
I don't really care that much and if you want to agree to disagree thats fine but my point is that there are schools where this would be a legitimate safety issue so its not that outlandish that this is not about political correctness.
And we don't know anything about the other kids, except they are "Mexican Americans." Are they into human trafficing. prostitution, drugs gun running??? We don't know squat about either side.
Of course we don't. Thats why I never made a definite statement. This could be political correct bullshit or it could be a legitimate safety concern.
To call these kids out for wearing the US flag on their shirts IN THE US because its another country's holiday is complete and utter BS. That guy should be fired - that is the appropriate action.
Fire a guy every time an administrator makes controversial decision? That's laughable. C'mon, this guy probably would have taken shit no matter what he did. If he let the guys wear the shirt he would have been called culturally insensitive and is not fit to work at school with a large amount of students of Mexican ethnicity.
What is the "act" that you refer to? I think it is important to the realization of a fully formed idea that it's constituent parts can be specified. I propose, unless you have some additional points that you have not brought forward, that you are referring to the act of thoughtcrime.
I realize this is "thoughtcrime" or whatever and I will say this again. I am not offended by it and disagree with those who will resort to violence because of it. But, it does happen. Thats one reason why I don't disagree with the school's decision s to make the kids take off their shirts. If it was another situation, I would be on your side of the argument.
Again, you can't take action simply because you think someone is being a dick. There has to be a tangible offense.
That is not my position. I purposely mentioned that I am not offended by the action. My position is the there is a possibility that the action of wearing a shirt and bandanna with an American flag on it on Cinco de Mayo (is that the answer you were looking for?) could lead to violence and administrators possibility made the decision to avoid violence in their school, which would negatively affect students.
I will say this once again. I am willing to accept that it is political correct bullshit my stance is that this is not the case. We know nothing about the school so there is no possible way to know which is the case.
Do you have anything backing that up or is it just that you want to believe that it is PC bullshit? I personally know of schools where students would have resorted to violence or something else that would have made the situation worse. Does that mean every situation is like that? No. But as we both admit, we have no idea.
I don't really care that much and if you want to agree to disagree thats fine but my point is that there are schools where this would be a legitimate safety issue so its not that outlandish that this is not about political correctness.
Of course we don't. Thats why I never made a definite statement. This could be political correct bullshit or it could be a legitimate safety concern.
Fire a guy every time an administrator makes controversial decision? That's laughable. C'mon, this guy probably would have taken shit no matter what he did. If he let the guys wear the shirt he would have been called culturally insensitive and is not fit to work at school with a large amount of students of Mexican ethnicity.
I realize this is "thoughtcrime" or whatever and I will say this again. I am not offended by it and disagree with those who will resort to violence because of it. But, it does happen. Thats one reason why I don't disagree with the school's decision s to make the kids take off their shirts. If it was another situation, I would be on your side of the argument.
That is not my position. I purposely mentioned that I am not offended by the action. My position is the there is a possibility that the action of wearing a shirt and bandanna with an American flag on it on Cinco de Mayo (is that the answer you were looking for?) could lead to violence and administrators possibility made the decision to avoid violence in their school, which would negatively affect students.
I will say this once again. I am willing to accept that it is political correct bullshit my stance is that this is not the case. We know nothing about the school so there is no possible way to know which is the case.
I agree with you.
IMO, without knowing all the facts or circumstances, this was 5 kids who acted collectively to make a statement on a day they knew might be provocative.
Did the school admin over-react? Perhaps. Is there over-reaction on the side? Perhaps. (Sue the school? On what grounds?)
If he let the guys wear the shirt he would have been called culturally insensitive and is not fit to work at school with a large amount of students of Mexican ethnicity.
Well it's high time these fuckers decide whether they are mexicans or Americans.
Oh, and no hyphenated bullshit, get off the fucking fence.
Yes it did.
Depends on the situation. We have no idea who these kids are or how they act. I am probably biased, but I have a feeling these kids are like the kids at my school who drove around with a Confederate flag on their car during Martin Luther King Day.....in Wisconsin.
If these kids just happened to wear a shirt or bandanna with the American flag on it, then the school should have handled it better.
If the kids wore it as a big fuck you to the Mexican American population, which I am assuming it was, then I completely agree with the school's decision. It isn't ideal, but putting myself in their place, I would rather force someone to change their shirt then deal with some race related fights, which I know happen at other places.
None of that matters and none of that should have played into a decision by the powers that be to ban students of their First Amendment Rights. Fuck who ever disagrees with them. Isn't that the new norm?
None of that matters and none of that should have played into a decision by the powers that be to ban students of their First Amendment Rights. Fuck who ever disagrees with them. Isn't that the new norm?
First Amendment rights?
Another over reaction, IMO.
Minors have never had absolute First Amendment rights, particularly in a school environment.
First Amendment rights?
Another over reaction, IMO.
Minors have never had absolute First Amendment rights, particularly in a school environment.
Why would you prevent minors from having the same rights as illegal aliens?
Why would you prevent minors from having the same rights as illegal aliens?
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.......
Since thats the new rule, I pronounce on the 4th of July all "hyphenated-Americans" cannot wear, nor show the pride of the country from which they came... All flags must be taken down and all apparel, toilet paper, buttons bumper stickers ect. must be removed or covered for the entire day. But remember thats racist.
Yes I am taking this point to an extreme, but is there really a difference?
Well it's high time these fuckers decide whether they are mexicans or Americans.
Oh, and no hyphenated bullshit, get off the fucking fence.
Bravo!
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 smoke, drive, etc.......
Oh God that is just rich.
BS.
It depends on the state law.
You have been exposed.
You are willing to support Illegal Aliens over legal US Citizens.
Keep digging.
Oh God that is just rich.
BS.
It depends on the state law.
You have been exposed.
You are willing to support Illegal Aliens over legal US Citizens.
Keep digging.
This from the guy who insisted that the Constitution was only for citizens. ;)
When you have a cite that shows that minors, particularly in school settings, have absolute First Amendment rights......please post it.
This might, or might not, have been a bad policy decision by the school. That is a matter of opinion.
It is not a First Amendment issue.
This from the guy who insisted that the Constitution was only for citizens. ;)
When you have a cite that shows that minors have absolute First Amendment rights......please post it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
So a 17 yo can't refuse a consent to a search or questioning without a Lawyer present?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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. :)
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!
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.
:corn: Another epic Fail...
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.
: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. :)
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'
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.
Here is a great example.
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/commentary.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.
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.
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/templates/document.asp?documentID=13373You 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'
My point was that students first amendment rights are not absolute.
Probably the most recent case regarding student first amendment rights.....Morse v Frederick.
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.
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_minor's_rights_under_the_US_ConstitutionMy 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What was the relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population before May 5th?
Irrelevent.
Did these students purposely wear the American flag to make a statement against Cinco de Mayo?
Irrelevent.
How would the Mexican American students react against these students wearing the American Flag on May 5th?
Irrelevent.
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)
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.
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.
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/articles/2010/05/06/there_will_be_no_apology_105472.htmlAre 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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
These are your words and I was responding to them as I read them.
Okay.
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.
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.
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. :)
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 your friends the ACLU. :)
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:?
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.
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.
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.
[YOUTUBE]_Ib5FlgdwKs[/YOUTUBE]
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.
this is America
Cinco de Mayo is Mexican Holiday
have a Corona and STFU
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.
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.
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.
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.
But, the fact is, neither of us know if the policy prohibits wearing bandannas.
see below
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.
at least two of the boys wearing the American flag T-shirts have Mexican ancestry.
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.
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 -
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.
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.
...There was no justification for telling the students to invert their shirts according to the dress code.
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.
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...
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.
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.
And...so the kids "said" they acted out of patriotism and not to be confrontational. Kids never lie when they are confronted?
Irrelevant
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.
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!
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.
I get it....just ignore the dress code...
I quoted the dress code
ignore the fact that you know nothing about the kids in question..
Irrelevent
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?
And...you can defend your words anyway you want.
Yes I can and I have. thank you.
Pre-judging is prejudice.
Yes it is and yours has been exposed.
...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.
.....Yes it is and yours has been exposed.
Merc speak :eek:
Yes it is and yours has been exposed.
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....
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.
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.
God forbid you 3 ever shut the fuck up with your bickering bullshit thread ruining crap. Fucking assholes.
God forbid you 3 ever shut the fuck up with your bickering bullshit thread ruining crap. Fucking assholes.
You can always ignore us....or just me. :D
IMO, the fucking assholes are those who will deny the facts or who will claim they can make informed decisions based on limited or selected facts...and I will continue to point that out.
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.
So you have enough facts to make an informed decision.
Well, I dont have enough facts to make an informed (or emotional?) decision...so you put words in my mouth again that the Asst Principals actions are "ok with me".
When did I say it was ok? I said ...we dont all the facts and it may have been poor judgment or not. We havent heard from the Asst Principal....we dont know anything about the students or the school. We do know that at least three of the kids (w/ the bandannas probably violated the school dress code).
But I do think it is great that you keep highlighting his name...making a point of what, I still dont know...other than you have pre-judged his actions based on limited information.
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:
Sensitivity training? Hell no. The proper response is to quit worrying about everyone's fucking feelings and start working in the world of actions.
White kid attacks a mexican kid for wearing a mexican flag shirt? Press charges on the white kid.
Mexican kid attacks a white kid for wearing an american flag shirt?
Press charges against the mexican kid.
A purple kid attacks a polk a dot kid for having the wrong color dots?
Press charges against the aggressor.
If the school administration has such a weak grasp on keeping the school safe for people to learn then the entire fucking administration should be shown the door so someone competent can be brought in to deal with assholes who break the law regardless of their heritage.
Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, said the students are protected under California Education Code 48950, which prohibits schools from enforcing a rule subjecting a high school student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that, when engaged outside of campus, is protected by the First Amendment.
If the school could point to previous incidents sparked by students who wore garments with American flags, they could argue that the flag is likely to lead to "substantial disruption," Volokh said.
"If, for example, there had been fights over similar things at past events, if there had been specific threats made. But if [school officials] just say, 'Well, we think it might be offensive to people,' that's generally speaking not enough."
Volokh said the students and their parents likely have a winning case on their hands if they decide to take the matter to court.
"Oh yes, it's almost open and shut," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/tensions-high-california-high-school-following-flag-flap/#God forbid you 3 ever shut the fuck up with your bickering bullshit thread ruining crap. Fucking assholes.
word. to your mamma
don't you guys ever get sick of it?
I mean, seriously. I'm considering running for moderator this January with my platform being only that I will bring the three of you to heel or ban you.
Every mildly interesting topic that comes up becomes a pissing match between redux, merc, and classic....with the occasional spex, lookout, shaw, tw, UG mixed in. But it's the same goddamned unreadable argument carried from one topic to the next.
RUINS my cellar experience. I know I'm not alone in this. can I get an AMEN?
FUCK
AMEN Brother Jim!
[YOUTUBE]whTb96zr9_w&start=34[/YOUTUBE]
:corn:
I think where Redux gets a slanging in things like this is we don't hear him bitching hard enough at offenses of this kind. And he doesn't seem all that ready to pick up the clue.
The incident does forcibly recall Twain's aphorism about idiots, and then school boards. Not what you'd call the newest of problems.
Jim, Jim: can't you understand that "reasonable" is when hard leftism dies altogether and soft leftism moves rightward to a more sensible habit? We libertarians get this. Now what -- is the rest of the world dead? Or just slave-minded? Should they be?? This is not more than they need, you know. Just more than they thought to get.
We have values. Some people think we oughtn't, and that is visible here as they flail at us. It is grotesque to see men of forty or fifty whose moral thinking has not advanced beyond about age fifteen -- particularly with regard to property rights. (To be a socialist -- there are no right-wing socialists, nor conservative ones; that leaves the Left -- you have to in essence abandon the idea of property, and insist upon some "right" to take, either in your name or with your own hands.)
UT can ban me anytime he wants.
Merc can go back to his Nazi characterizations and the whores and cunts in Congress
UG can rant about the Obama socialists and gun control leading to genocide and the sub-adult Democrats
Classic can bitch about govt data being biased and declaring people guilty until proven innocent....who needs all the facts.
God forbid any of the above should be challenged.
And all will be right with the Cellar!
ps....but until he does ban me....I'm gonna have my fun exposing the ignorance where and when I see it. :)
why don't you ban your face?
why don't you ban your face?
I like my face.
Sorry if you and your queen been dont.
we don't know you
and we don't owe you.
but if you see us around, I got something else to show you
[youtube]gLESpHrtvxs&start=74[/youtube]
we don't know you
and we don't owe you.
but if you see us around, I got something else to show you
[youtube]gLESpHrtvxs&start=74[/youtube]
I'm more of a golden oldies kind of guy, but i guess thats better than Merc wanting to challenge me to a duel rather than engage in a moderated discussion.
the point I was making was that the dynamic that goes on between the Politicos (political posters)... (not just you..I don't know you... I don't read your posts....) is such that one knows that it is the same scenario replayed over and over again.
Here's what happens:
Someone posts a topic...any topic.
There are maybe 1-2 pages of casual discussion about it, and possibly some divergence of opinion that people discuss and toss different view points around.
Then a 'Politco' posts an opinion which will invariably include some non funny attempt at an acerbic comment about the opposing 'team' .... and then the thread will jump 3 pages in 11 minutes and consist of nothing but the unattractive side of a bitter argument between what surely must be estranged lovers.
SO, it's not all about you, Redux. as I said....it's the part you play over and over again. you all dance for each other. I, for one am not amused or entertained by it. And really, I like to be amused and entertained.
Thanks for the clarification.
I dont deny my role in what many see as disruptive discussions...but I will continue to respond aggressively to name calling and personal attacks (socialist scumbag) and misrepresentations of my posts (somehow I favor rights for terrorists over citizens or I support the actions of the school principal) or I "failed" because my opinion counters another posters.
Thats my position and I stand by it.
But I would have no problem at all with the moderators taking a more active role to minimize those distractions and disruptions...to warn folks against name calling.... or to tell posters to stick to the facts and one's own opinion and not disparage another posters opinion...or to remind posters that when asked for a cite, they should provide a cite and not respond by saying "prove me wrong"
Do it on a level playing field and I'm good.
And I am still ready to engage in a moderated discussion with Merc, Classic or even UG....anytime.
You might be surprised. It might not only be entertaining and amusing..but informative as well.
Like I said in the drug war thread. If you guys could start your own constitutional rights thread then other people could participate.
It is intolerably annoying to see the same single issue over and over again ( unresolved )
word. to your mamma
don't you guys ever get sick of it?
I mean, seriously. I'm considering running for moderator this January with my platform being only that I will bring the three of you to heel or ban you.
Every mildly interesting topic that comes up becomes a pissing match between redux, merc, and classic....with the occasional spex, lookout, shaw, tw, UG mixed in. But it's the same goddamned unreadable argument carried from one topic to the next.
RUINS my cellar experience. I know I'm not alone in this. can I get an AMEN?
FUCK
Fuckin amen
Are we saying these "Ay-men" like Southerners, or "Ahh-men" like Yankees? I just wanted to make sure I did it the right way so my vote would be counted.
LOL I know I'm new- and feel free to say STFU, but Clod, that was really funny.
Can I just say ƒuckin'-A? Does that count?
...
What are we voting on?
I think it is Aye-Maaaayen!
Yeah, like, four syllables. Ah Ee Mee En
Are we saying these "Ay-men" like Southerners, or "Ahh-men" like Yankees? I just wanted to make sure I did it the right way so my vote would be counted.
I think it's emphasis is on the A Man like the burly dudes say it. :blunt:
UG can rant about the Obama socialists and gun control leading to genocide and the sub-adult Democrats
. . .
but until he does ban me....I'm gonna have my fun exposing the ignorance where and when I see it. :)
Have fun exposing yourself, then. (Brother, when you give me a straight line...:p:)
I do not rant. I speak truth, and I have confidence in it which you have never been able to shake. You never shall; I know better. When you'd like me to rant, I disoblige you, and show you up as a specimen of a fan of the Almighty and Excessive State, or if you prefer a Putter of Trust in Princes.
One cannot trust princes; too much of their job description is figuring out whom they can afford to disappoint. But Redux, you'd like us to trust this prince you voted in.
I used the upstate NY flat a, but I'd say they all appear to count the same...
...White kid attacks a mexican kid for wearing a mexican flag shirt? Press charges on the white kid.
Mexican kid attacks a white kid for wearing an american flag shirt?
Press charges against the mexican kid.
A purple kid attacks a polk a dot kid for having the wrong color dots?
Press charges against the aggressor.
...
But whatever you do, DON'T try to prevent the attack!
...Every mildly interesting topic that comes up becomes a pissing match between redux, merc, and classic....with the occasional spex, lookout, shaw, tw, UG mixed in. But it's the same goddamned unreadable argument carried from one topic to the next.
RUINS my cellar experience. I know I'm not alone in this. can I get an AMEN?
FUCK
Amen. The only thing worse is when someone gets singled out for a gang stomping.
Can we get an AMEN for for stopping those assholes?
the point I was making was that the dynamic that goes on between the Politicos (political posters)... (not just you..I don't know you... I don't read your posts....) is such that one knows that it is the same scenario replayed over and over again.
Here's what happens:
Someone posts a topic...any topic.
There are maybe 1-2 pages of casual discussion about it, and possibly some divergence of opinion that people discuss and toss different view points around.
Then a 'Politco' posts an opinion which will invariably include some non funny attempt at an acerbic comment about the opposing 'team' .... and then the thread will jump 3 pages in 11 minutes and consist of nothing but the unattractive side of a bitter argument between what surely must be estranged lovers.
SO, it's not all about you, Redux. as I said....it's the part you play over and over again. you all dance for each other. I, for one am not amused or entertained by it. And really, I like to be amused and entertained.
Redux debates the issue. He does not get nasty until someone else acts nasty.
Shawnee and Spex:
Lord Jim and Lady Jinx have spoken and their minions have affirmed their fealty.
We have displeased the Cellar and we must atone or be stricken from the fiefdom.
“Nay” I say… “Revolt!”
“Let not the voices of the oppressed be silenced….Fear naught bringing controversy to the kingdom, Fellow Cellarites.”
For if not, I fear thy kingdom is doomed to perpetual boredom and stagnation in the guise of entertaining and amusing the Royals.
you melodramatic asshole.
you melodramatic asshole.
Lighten up, my lord.
Ye are a frequent joker, yet can not take one in return?
oh, so you were joking. of course you were.
I've made my point clearly. If you choose to ignore it, what can I do? If you perceive many people's opinions converging as persecution or bullying instead of simple agreement with a valid point.... well, what can be done? Ironic that you directed your barb as an aside to your pals spex and shawnee. They were, no doubt amused by your remarks....and since they agreed with something you said, must surely agree with everything you ever say.
You state that you only respond to fallacies and aspersions cast.... Spex says you only get nasty when someone else does first..... I don't know if that is strictly true... i don't really care... Thing is...is that it doesn't matter if you're instigated. 'he started it' didn't work when you were 11 yrs old....why would you try to use that argument now? If you refuse to be baited by those that are single faceted haters, they can't effect you. They can't have an argument where only one side is participating.
I say these things to you because you're here and talking..... I extend the same message to merc and classic, and whoever else habitually argues with their political nemesii.....(nemesises?) out of main habit.
But that is my (meaning me, jim....not me and the cool kids....or even jinx and I) opinion. It carries as much weight as does yours. I can't tell you what to do and expect you to obey. I'm just trying to point out some frustrating behavior in the hopes that the situation will improve.
apart from that, you can eat a dick.
Ironic that you directed your barb as an aside to your pals spex and shawnee. They were, no doubt amused by your remarks....and since they agreed with something you said, must surely agree with everything you ever say.
Dude, I'm just minding my own fucking business. Leave me out of your directives, ok?
I haven't even responded in this thread!
'No doubt' and 'surely' imply you know what I'm thinking. I assure you, you don't. I wasn't going to reply to this stuff, was going to try a different tack, but you are dragging me in, through no fault of my own. How is this not instigating as well?
:jagoff:
this was someone else logged in as you?
as for the rest, I was being sarcastic. I
don't know that you are aligned with redux anymore than he/she knows that jinx and i are 'Royals' and everyone who has agreed with me are 'minions'
that was my point.
What, now I can't even make fun of UG's self-flagellatory posts? :lol:
Exactly what ARE the new rules? I won't follow them, but I'd like to know. Tony?
The new rule is don't act like a dick. It was codified a few years ago. The penalty is that, when you act like a dick, people think you're a dick. Most dwellars purposefully violate the rule.
ah, well fwiw, it looked more like you were replying to griff and that line of the discussion with the proper pronunciation of Amen. ( Ay Men, btw in my mind)
The new rule is don't act like a dick. It was codified a few years ago. The penalty is that, when you act like a dick, people think you're a dick. Most dwellars purposefully violate the rule.
Then someone eats them. Everybody wins!
Nah, I don't care how anyone says Amen...Awomen, on the other hand, better say it right! ;)
lol at me being Jim's minion, pretty sure Jim doesn't even like me. Shut the fuck up you blabbering idiot.
oh I like you fine. I just don't remember knighting you.
Oooh, can I be a minion, too?
NO! You have to be an onion!
I will be a pinion.
Who wants to be a Funyun?
We're TRYING. We SEEN IT! :p:
The view is quite scenic!
No more rhymes, I really mean it!
But whatever you do, DON'T try to prevent the attack!
back on topic:
IMO, quickly and harshly dealing with aggressors does prevent those who may be tempted to behave in a similar manner in the future. It is just my opinion but I believe it is more effective than telling someone not to wear a t shirt because it might get someone else all worked up.
back on topic:
Are you frickin nuts? :nuts:
Is America Conquered When the American Flag Is 'Offensive'?
By John Griffing
Californians were recently confronted with a sobering reality. Students at a large high school in the Morgan Hill district were told by school administrators that American flag tee shirts and other patriotic paraphernalia were not allowed, citing Cinco de Mayo as justification.
Few students at the school probably realize that America provided help to Mexico in expelling the French, whose defeat at the Battle of Puebla is commemorated on May 5. How can American flags be "offensive" on a day that is almost as much American as it is Mexican? Cinco de Mayo is not even celebrated as a national holiday in Mexico. This incident follows Columbus Day's downgrade to "Indigenous People's Day" in some cities in the dying state. While certainly no one is against the idea of cultural celebrations, guests do not get to tell the host to sit down and shut up. This is merely the tip of a very large iceberg stretching deep into the heart of the American Southwest.
Due to immigration policies that cater to U.S. corporations and politicians -- witness the furor over Arizona's new law -- a substantial fifth column has been admitted into the halls of freedom, and they are starting to demand changes. Following the "reconquista" approach favored by many activists, Mexican immigrants have sought to return the American Southwest to Mexico through means of slow and patient occupation.
While not every Mexican immigrant desires the overthrow of the United States government, seventy percent of them say that Mexico comes first in questions of loyalty. Is this the kind of immigration America wants or needs? How can America be a nation if its inhabitants pledge allegiance to another flag? What about when those of Latino birth occupy a majority share of the U.S. population, as is predicted to occur by 2050? This is a problem that needs to be addressed now.
How did America get here?
The Mexico-first attitude dominating political discourse has taken years to cultivate, aided primarily by the deliberate misinformation of groups like Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). MEChA has three hundred chapters on college campuses all over the country and demands "restitution for past economic slavery, political exploitation, ethnic and cultural psychological destruction[.]" Here is the short version of the MEChA screed:
Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we ... should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot ... Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.
This is pure, fabricated nonsense. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any such land called "Aztlan." The American Southwest was never ruled by the Aztecs. And Mexico's jurisdiction over these territories lasted a mere ten years, owing in part to the historic Spanish presence.
But MEChA doesn't stop at propaganda.
Miguel Perez, President of Cal-State Northridge's MEChA chapter, said, "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."
Compounding this problem is the fact that Mexican schoolchildren are taught from birth that the gringo stole Mexican land. Mexico has even secured the right to propagate these racial myths in American classrooms. The Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles sent nearly 100,000 textbooks to 1,500 schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District in 2006[1].
Far from stealing Mexican land, the United States paid handsomely for the land it acquired, and Mexican President Santa Anna was only too happy to oblige [2]. The consequences of this historical revisionism are alarming: In a June 2002 Zogby International Poll, 58 percent of Mexicans polled agreed that the "territory of the United States Southwest belongs to Mexico."
An invasion is underway, aided by opportunists on both sides of America's political spectrum. In the nineties, President Clinton used immigration as a voter-recruitment tool, naturalizing large numbers of Latinos in order to secure his hold on the White House. The project was spearheaded by now-chief Obama advisor Rahm Emmanuel. Judging from President Obama's response to Arizona's action, we shouldn't expect a change of strategy any time soon.
Both California and Texas hold decisive electoral votes, so now many political leaders must ritualistically seek the blessing of groups like the National Council de La Raza to obtain the Mexican-American vote. When Mexican President Ernst Zedillo spoke to La Raza in 1997 and uttered the words, "I have proudly proclaimed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders," members of La Raza jumped to their feet in thunderous applause.
No longer a fringe concept, there is now substantial political leverage behind those demanding that the American Southwest become Mexican. Not too long ago, politicians in New Mexico debated changing the state's name to "Nuevo Mexico." California Prop 187, a measure denying further state benefits to illegal immigrants, was struck down after a lawsuit initiated by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) challenged the constitutionality of the proposition.
Constitutionality? For illegal immigrants?
California legislator Art Torres called Prop 187 "the last gasp of white America." The President of LULAC was very direct, saying, "California is going to be a Mexican state. We are going to control all of the institutions. If people don't like it, they should leave." The Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, who once chaired the UCLA chapter of MEChA, ran on a slogan of "Los Angeles Today, Alta California Tomorrow."
The Mexican government is encouraging this process of conquest, with former Mexican Consul General José Pescador Osuna remarking, "Even though I am saying this part serious, part joking, I think we are practicing La Reconquista in California." Some U.S. towns have already partially seceded to Mexico. El Cenizo, Texas has declared the town language Spanish, ordered that all business be conducted in Spanish, and has made talking with immigration authorities a firing offense. Mexico's outright invasion of America has taken on some not-so-subtle tones. Mexican military incursions into the U.S. to protect Mexico's drug trade are now frequent. The Department of Homeland Security records 231 since 1996.
Jorge Castaneda, when he was still Mexico's Foreign Minister, remarked before Mexican reporters, "I like very much the metaphor of Gulliver, of ensnarling the giant ... Tying it down with nails, with thread, with 20,000 nets that bog it down: these nets being norms, principles, resolutions, agreements and bilateral, regional, and international covenants." This is official Mexican policy, yet we respond with Free Trade Agreements and open arms of friendship.
In order to demonstrate our lack of prejudice, we have welcomed enemies into our midst.
America is a generous nation. We're a society of many cultures. We embrace all people, of all races, and offer freedom to all who come with honest intentions. But Americans cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the intentions of our "peaceful" invaders.
Today, there are large numbers of individuals residing in the U.S. who neither consider themselves Americans nor want to become Americans. Some have organized into militant groups whose stated purpose is to overpopulate the southwestern United States and reclaim it for Mexico without firing a shot.
Will we continue to let Mexico dictate to the U.S.? Enough is enough. The time has come to defend ourselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Heather MacDonald, "Mexico's Undiplomatic Diplomats," City Journal, Autumn 2005, 36-7.
[2] Rupert Norval Richardson, et al, Texas: The Lone Star State, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981), 168.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/is_america_conquered_when_the.html Merc can go back to his Nazi characterizations and the whores and cunts in Congress
Thank you, hopefully most of the cunts and whores will be tossed out of Congress in the next election from both sides of the Demoncractic and Republickin camps. Fuck all of them.
Sensitivity training? Hell no. The proper response is to quit worrying about everyone's fucking feelings and start working in the world of actions.
White kid attacks a mexican kid for wearing a mexican flag shirt? Press charges on the white kid.
Mexican kid attacks a white kid for wearing an american flag shirt?
Press charges against the mexican kid.
A purple kid attacks a polk a dot kid for having the wrong color dots?
Press charges against the aggressor.
If the school administration has such a weak grasp on keeping the school safe for people to learn then the entire fucking administration should be shown the door so someone competent can be brought in to deal with assholes who break the law regardless of their heritage.
I agree...return to the world of actions.
Lets start by banning salsa from all school cafeterias and returning to the Reagan days when ketchup counted as a vegetable on school menus.
Hell...not just the schools. Multi-culturalism has invaded kitchens across American. It must be stopped!
Boycott salsa! Restore ketchup to its patriotic place as America's number one condiment.
yeah, that's consistent with what I was saying.
A model of rational discussion, isn't he? We should all aspire to be so great.
A model of rational discussion, isn't he? We should all aspire to be so great.
Its not hard, Clod.
Or of course, you can be rational and talk about whore and cunts in Congress.
But then you would have to be consistent in your critiques...something a little more difficult. ;)
that didn't make any sense either
Or of course, you can be rational and talk about whore and cunts in Congress.
But then you would have to be consistent in your critiques...something a little more difficult.
I'd rather you both shut your faces, absolutely. But you're on equal footing in that regard. When it comes down to it, he's contributed other content, and you haven't. The choice is easy for me.
I'd rather you both shut your faces, absolutely. But you're on equal footing in that regard. When it comes down to it, he's contributed other content, and you haven't. The choice is easy for me.
Spare me the condescending lecture. I suffered through one of those from you in the past and politely declined your sage advice.
So just put me on ignore....or simply cover one of your two faces.
Yes, and I've politely declined your sage advice on many occasions as well. (You know, the kind where you tell us all we have to be fair...) Please don't interrupt me when I'm talking to lookout about you.
I was actually just trying to discuss the issue, but I'll walk away right now. Some people are just wound a little too tight.
Yes, and I've politely declined your sage advice on many occasions as well. (You know, the kind where you tell us all we have to be fair...) Please don't interrupt me when I'm talking to lookout about you.
No problem....carry on gossiping like two old hens. My mistake for injecting a humorous attempt to address the issue of multi-culturalism that was raised earlier in the discussion.
But perhaps after you have finished, you can point out Merc's content that HAS contributed to the discussion and we can expound upon it.
I was actually just trying to discuss the issue, but I'll walk away right now. Some people are just wound a little too tight.
The school principal has apologized for what he characterized as an over-reaction...the school district is conducting an internal investigation.
What more do you think should be done? Do you think a law suit is in order as many outsiders are demanding?
If the principal apologized and acknowledged he handled it incorrectly then that should be the end of it for that school district and the kids involved. There is no reason to sue over an issue that is already resolved.
As with most things in the cellar the mistake at the school was just a source of topic for discussion. The discussion is both more(because it is about ideas and beliefs) and less (because nothing we spew onto the internet effects anything) important than the event. I personally find it bizarre that anyone actually thinks the principal's actions were justified and that is what I entered this thread to discuss.
Lookout, do you ever feel that threads on the cellar resemble life several yards to the side of the soccer field?
First:
On June 7, 2005, the U.S. Congress issued a Concurrent Resolution calling on the President of the United States to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe Cinco de Mayo with appropriate ceremonies and activities
Library of Congress (U.S.A.) Declaration Retrieved February 6, 2009.
Secondly :
§ Clothing, headgear, or symbols related to gang activities or clothing determined to be gang related by administration or resource officer
~
schools dress code
So if the school can though the students were acting as a gang the school was well with in its right to make them change their shirts.
Furthermore, intent is very important to the American Justice system legally known as
Mens Rea, and to incite imminent lawless action is the a satute for curbing free speech in greater world (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444
(1969)).
But this is a school.
I remember high school; you were guilty till proven innocent, speech and expression where curb, you had no expected right to privacy .
We have uniform codes in every school I know about over here. These sorts of things just aren't issues due to this, which I think is a good thing.
With regard to flags on clothing, there's heaps of items you can get with aussie flags or portions of it printed on them. In fact, I just bought a pair of board shorts for Aden which look like they've been made out of a flag - although of course it's just material printed to look like one. I don't have a problem with it and in fact think it's a nice show of patriotism.
First:
Library of Congress (U.S.A.) Declaration Retrieved February 6, 2009.
Secondly :
~schools dress code
So if the school can though the students were acting as a gang the school was well with in its right to make them change their shirts.
Furthermore, intent is very important to the American Justice system legally known as Mens Rea, and to incite imminent lawless action is the a satute for curbing free speech in greater world (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444
(1969)).
But this is a school.
I remember high school; you were guilty till proven innocent, speech and expression where curb, you had no expected right to privacy .
The school administrator didn't think the kids wearing flags were a gang. He thought there were kids who would be 'offended' by was reason to ask them to take it off saying it was 'their' holiday. Just by saying some kids are offended and its their holiday, he is creating division himself. Anyone should be able to wear anything they want within school dress codes.
If wearing a flag is ok any other day then it should be ok on that day as well. I mean we are trying to teach cultural tolerance but .....
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=654873&postcount=124
We have uniform codes in every school I know about over here. These sorts of things just aren't issues due to this, which I think is a good thing.
They do here too, as a matter of fact what they were wearing was perfectly fine with the school the day before... and any other day.
When I said uniform codes, I meant that all the kids wear exactly the same thing (except for underwear of course).
Yeah yeah...socialist nanny state I know, but it does help in some ways.
Oh, uniforms. Nope, the redheads don't want to wear red. Green makes my ass look fat. Black is depressing. etc, etc, etc...
It's true, some uniforms are horrible, but when there's no other choice, kids just stop arguing. It helps that it's across the board nationwide, so it doesn't matter what school you go to, there's going to be a uniform. Public or private.
There are a couple of exceptions, but they're usually vocational schools and are mostly for senior kids.
Lil Lookout's school has uniforms as do a lot of the schools in AZ. Nothing wrong with that, but the principal's issue wasn't with dress code it was with the american flag being displayed on 5 May 10.
When I said uniform codes, I meant that all the kids wear exactly the same thing (except for underwear of course).
Yeah yeah...socialist nanny state I know, but it does help in some ways.
Here in the US there are both kinds of dress codes for schools just as there is anywhere. Uniform or casual.
One school in my city has a strict uniform code because of gangs. It isn't so much of a problem at the school anymore but the code still stands. The code is you can only wear plain green or blue polo shirts and khaki pants. That's it. I don't even think they can wear make up or jewelry if I remember right.
All the other public schools here have a lenient code like no showing mid-drifts,or whatever the issue of the school is and what they do not want to see.
Lil Lookout's school has uniforms as do a lot of the schools in AZ. Nothing wrong with that, but the principal's issue wasn't with dress code it was with the american flag being displayed on 5 May 10.
What I was trying to point out was that when everyone has to wear exactly the same thing, this situation would never even have occured. :)
Yes, that was clear, but they would have found some other way to piss off Asst Principal Miguel Rodriguez . :lol:
Oh undoubtedly. :) That's what teenage boys do.
Bwahahahaha @xob - you really are an s.o.b.
I'm impressed that so many of you in this thread know exactly what all of the participants were thinking and what they would do in the future. Congratulations to you all for you astounding perception qualities. People who were involved in the situation obviously lack your mad skillz.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the fuck they were thinking, it's what they did. That's all, just what happened, not why.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the fuck they were thinking, it's what they did. That's all, just what happened, not why.
Bullshit. The reason and intent of all those involved matter.
I ran over your cat, but it's OK because I was bringing you a cookie.
Yeah sure, tell me about the good intentions on the way to hell. :rolleyes:
I ran over your cat, but it's ok because I was avoiding running over your daughter. Fuck you.
Since I have neither, then you are the fuckee.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face. Why wasn't he charged with anything? Not sure what that has to do with the dudes wearing the flag shirts, but intent matters sometimes.
That's completely different, accident vs intentional. What Asst Principal Miguel Rodriguez did, was unquestionably intentional.
Intent certainly matters sometimes when it comes to freedom of speech/expression.
It falls under the
"fighting words" doctrine or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Would it apply here...who knows?
All hell breaks loose if one questions the intent of wording in a written law, such as the recent AZ law, of what is considered "reason to suspect" someone is an illegal. The "intention" of the person singling out the suspected illegal becomes all-important. Yet we should not consider intent (of any party) in a subjective decision at an individual school?
Leave off school, just individual.
Questioning is one thing Shaw, handing out armbands and assuming people are xenophobes and racists is another.
:rolleyes:
And the question I asked was: how do we know? Do we make them wear armbands? I don't remember using the word racist but I don't remember what I had for lunch yesterday.
Anyway, it was an aside point, and only slightly relevant.
You asked a question, I gave you an answer based on your own posts, what's the eyerolling for?
*shrugs*
It's a smilie...half smile/half laughing at our same old argument. I'll find a better one.
:p:
;)
Since someone brought it up somewhere in here...
The ACLU speaks
Students' American Flag T-Shirts Are Protected Speech
Last week, five students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., were sent home on Cinco de Mayo for wearing T-shirts bearing the American flag. The students were reportedly sent home after Vice Principal Miguel Rodriguez told them the shirts posed a "safety issue" on a day celebrating Mexican heritage.
Punishing students for wearing T-shirts with the American flag is a clear violation of their free speech rights. The ACLU of Northern California responded to the incident by sending a letter to Morgan Hill Schools Superintendent Dr. Wesley Smith, reminding him of the speech rights students are entitled to under the U.S. Constitution and California law.
The letter points out that students' wearing of the American flag wouldn't have been controversial but for the interest of other students in celebrating their Mexican heritage on Cinco de Mayo. The students' patriotic display was particularly meaningful because of the context, and their right to express their patriotism in light of that context must be honored. The right to wear an American flag every day but Cinco de Mayo would do little to advance the important work of the First Amendment, whose protections must be enforced every day.
There is another important lesson for the school here. For displays of the American flag to create such a strong concern about disruption, it's likely the school has underlying racial and cultural tensions that need attention. Using censorship to suppress student speech is exactly the wrong thing to do in this kind of situation. While the school superintendent did make a statement reaffirming the school district's support for students' speech rights, it's also important that the Live Oak teachers and administrators use this incident as an opportunity to teach students tolerance, diversity and mutual respect.
LinkA pretty good commentary on how the whole thing could have been handled differently.
The Soft Bigotry of Insulting Chicanos’ Intelligence
Yesterday was May 5th, which in Spanish is Cinco de Mayo… which Mexicans do not celebrate as their Independence Day (that would be September 16th, 1810), but which Mexican Americans (Chicanos) celebrate all across the American Southwest and probably elsewhere as well.
On May 5th, 1862, the nationalist militia of Mexico, under the command of Gen. Ignacio Zaragoza, defeated the imperial French forces at the Battala de Puebla. While this didn’t end the war with France — the French fought on for another five years, abandoning their Mexican “colony” only after the United States joined the war on Mexico’s side — Cinco de Mayo is a major Chicano holiday, celebrated primarily by gorging on Mexican food, swigging tequilla, and shooting pistols into the air (kind of like an NBA Finals victory celebration). One hopes the rituals are different in high school.
Yesterday at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, in the Santa Clara Valley of California (“Silicon Valley”), school officials celebrated Cinco de Mayo by sending five students home… for wearing American-flag t-shirts.
Principal Nick Boden called the t-shirts “incendiary,” according to one of the students. His rationale for threatening the flag-wearers with suspension and then sending them home was that wearing red, white, and blue on Cinco de Mayo was somehow insulting and disrespectful to Hispanic students, which constitute a very large portion of the school’s population; however, the school district is unhappy with Boden’s action:
Continues:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/05/06/the-soft-bigotry-of-insulting-chicanos-intelligence/[QUOTE]Over at Gilroy High School, Mexican and American patriotic colors commingled peacefully Wednesday, Principal Marco Sanchez said.
“Kids were in good spirits,” he said. “I was out on campus most of the day and didn’t see anything that was abnormal.”
He reported no disciplinary issues as a result of Mexican or American patriotism. Plenty of students donned both both countries’ national colors but none were [sic] sent home for wearing green, red, white, blue or any combination thereof, he said. Doing so would be “outrageous,” he said.
“We’re not going to be sending kids home for wearing American flags or wearing patriotic colors,” Sanchez said. “That’s discriminatory.”
Muchas gracias, Principal Sanchez, for the breath of fresh sanity.[/QUOTE]
Outstanding. A far cry from that idiot
Asst Principal Miguel Rodriguez did.
* Think what a revelation it would have been had he explained to them that, while their heritage may be Mexican, they themselves are American citizens… so the American flag is not insulting or disrespectful to them. (I doubt a single one of the protesting students is actually a Mexican citizen.)
* Imagine if Rodriguez had told them that celebrating a victory by Mexico over France does not require them to attack the United States… which allied with Mexico in that very war.
* Imagine if he had lectured them about showing civility themselves: 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?
But he didn’t.
Instead, the Hispanic assistant principal (Miguel Rodriguez) told all the Hispanic students at Live Oak High School that the American flag is insulting, offensive, and disrespectful… and that they have every right to demand it be excluded from an American school.
Those are some good comments.
I was talking to someone at lunch about it. She really hadn't been following it, but is pretty good with history. First thing out of her mouth was "What a great teachable moment." :facepalm:
You tried to get her to touch the 51st star, didn't you?
I don't think so. I think she was just disgusted by the 14th stripe.
I love that BigV just casually pops into this thread, and THIS is what he has gotten out of it. lol