Cultural exhaustion

[Againsheila]

I'm not sure.

If Jews "flying the Star of David on Sinko Day Mayo," did not cause a disruptive environment in the school, I wouldn't care.

But if it did, I'd warn them, then if they refused, I'd discipline them on the basis of their defiance of School Administration.

The safety of students is the priority of school administration, and student's individual rights of expression come in at a distant (second? third? forth?).

Because damn it, where the hell do they get the idea that they have a right to freedom of expression when they've been CLEARLY threatened with violence if they don't cower in fear?

To paraphrase, those who trade liberty for safety deserve - and have - neither.

Um, yeah.

Look, we don't want to fight about this in High Schools, m'k?

Get your fuckin' Senators and Representatives to pass a fuckin' law that says minors have the same rights as adults, and Principals will be happy to let their asses get cut up by hundreds of sinko day mayo celebrants.

How about we just send home the one's in the wrong <ie the Mexicans threatening to riot> instead of the one's in the right? What kind of lesson do you think that sent everyone of those students?

 

[Samson]

That's what's so sad about this. Mexico doesn't even really celebrate cinco de mayo. Their independence day is in Sept. We celebrate it because it's another excuse to go partying. The student's complaining about the American flag at an American school on Cinco de mayo are dumb. Something is wrong with their education.

Yes, many High School Student complaints are dumb.

Generally speaking, the age group between 14-18 isn't terribly rational, and this is why we don't allow them to wander about in the general public except during the summer.

Frankly, I think even this is being too lienient.

But apparently, you think we should let THEM decide how the school is administered and whether or not other people have their freedoms suppressed and when.

Clearly you're incoherent.

When you sober up, you'll realize what I mean.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A. Increase your budget because 51% the parents will claim they cannot afford the uniform.

Really? A pair of khaki dockers and a white oxford is no more expensive than a pair of jeans and a flannel shirt. No excuse there.



It's called send them home.



Again, khaki pants and a white button down shirt. No exceptions



Everyone will be treated exactly the same. Isn't that the definition of equal treatment?



There is no excuse for failing a class. Ever. If a student fails, he or she can study all summer and test out before the fall semester starts. If they fail, they repeat the grade. I am willing to bet that the failure rate won't be as high as you think it will.

F. Make sure you spend 12 hours a day enforcing the code, and meeting with parents, and their lawyers that claim you are being racist for expelling poor Juan Martin Luther Washington for stealing a book, but not similarly punishing Shaquanna Garza for stealing his pencil.

Again what do you not understand about equal treatment. The honor code is absolute and no distinction is made between offenses. If parents and students do not agree to abide by the code, they are free to attend another school.

What's the matter am I being to harsh on the poor pampered entitled children for you?

Sorry, SP, but some of what you're saying is so naive that I cannot believe you're serious.

For example your solution to send home kids out of dress code!
Are you gonna have a Jeni give them a ride on a magic carpet?

They used to do it when I was in school. I love how you've got all these objections for why things "can't be done", and they're all things that were routine twenty years ago. I think you just don't want to go to the effort of having and maintaining standards. It's easier to just let the lunatics and savages run the asylum and cower in fear of them, isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And something is wrong with school officials who punish American kids for supporting the American Flag.

Something's wrong with school officials that ignore potentials to disrupt the school.

And you are wrong. The school district admits the principal/administration were wrong to prohibit apparel bearing the American flag on Weds, May 5.

See below their communication that was sent to parents via e-mail and voice mail message.

School District: Flag Clothing Incident "Extremely Unfortunate" | NBC Bay Area

Good evening. This is Dr. Wesley Smith, Superintendent of the Morgan Hill Unified School District. The Morgan Hill Unified School District does not prohibit nor do we discourage wearing patriotic clothing. 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 situation and our response are under review.

We know that this is an emotionally charged topic. We would ask you to encourage your students to be safe and focus on their academics while in school. If conversations and/or activities are necessary to express their feelings on this issue, we will find appropriate venues that do not disturb student learning or jeopardize the safety of our students.

Furthermore, we encourage everyone to demonstrate respect for each other, open communication, and responsibility.

Thank you for your support and understanding.

Dr. Wesley Smith
Superintendent

In other words, the school district is not happy about being brought to national attention this way, and the principal now has an anus you could park a Volkswagen in from the ass-reaming he received.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I were one of the parents of those horrible American flag wearing kids I would buy them a dozen identical shirts with Old Glory plastered across the front and have them wear it every single fucking day of the school year.

I might even rethink my opposition to tattoos and get them a nice, visible one of our flag. Let's see the school order them to take THAT off.

I'd have it covered, or have you keep the kid at home until it was removed. Tattoos and body piercing are considered to be an expression of thought and are protected by the first amendment right to free speech (United States Constitution).

However, people under 18, because of their age and status as minors, are subject to rules which adults are not. This true of school rules and attendance. At school, rules can be made that tattoos, piercing, clothes or hair-color must be covered or changed, and these rules are not unconstitutional.

Parents also have a right to control the behavior of children, and so can order their children to not display tattoos, piercing, or other things such as hair color

That's why I said "visible", sweetie. And I would totally be controlling his behavior when I got him the flag tattoo and told him to display it proudly.

I don't teach my children to back down from bullies, no matter who the bullies are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not sure.

If Jews "flying the Star of David on Sinko Day Mayo," did not cause a disruptive environment in the school, I wouldn't care.

But if it did, I'd warn them, then if they refused, I'd discipline them on the basis of their defiance of School Administration.

The safety of students is the priority of school administration, and student's individual rights of expression come in at a distant (second? third? forth?).

Because damn it, where the hell do they get the idea that they have a right to freedom of expression when they've been CLEARLY threatened with violence if they don't cower in fear?

To paraphrase, those who trade liberty for safety deserve - and have - neither.

Um, yeah.

Look, we don't want to fight about this in High Schools, m'k?

Get your fuckin' Senators and Representatives to pass a fuckin' law that says minors have the same rights as adults, and Principals will be happy to let their asses get cut up by hundreds of sinko day mayo celebrants.

So where do you expect to draw the line and say, "Okay, THIS is too far to allow you to push us"? Better yet, how do you expect our children to become adults who can draw that line when you've spent their entire childhood teaching them to back down and appease bullies? Exactly when and where DO you teach your children right from wrong, instead of expedient cowardice?

Why do we need a new law giving freedom of speech rights to children just to keep people like you from suppressing them in the name of being a dickless wonder? Where does the First Amendment say, ". . . abridging freedom of speech EXCEPT FOR MINORS"?

 

[Samson]

Because damn it, where the hell do they get the idea that they have a right to freedom of expression when they've been CLEARLY threatened with violence if they don't cower in fear?

To paraphrase, those who trade liberty for safety deserve - and have - neither.

Um, yeah.

Look, we don't want to fight about this in High Schools, m'k?

Get your fuckin' Senators and Representatives to pass a fuckin' law that says minors have the same rights as adults, and Principals will be happy to let their asses get cut up by hundreds of sinko day mayo celebrants.

How about we just send home the one's in the wrong <ie the Mexicans threatening to riot> instead of the one's in the right? What kind of lesson do you think that sent everyone of those students?

OK let's have a little Legal Lesson:

In loco parentis is a legal doctrine describing a relationship similar to that of a parent to a child. It refers to an individual who assumes parental status and responsibilities for another individual, usually a young person, without formally adopting that person. ......

By far the most common usage of in loco parentis relates to teachers and students. For hundreds of years, the English common-law concept shaped the rights and responsibilities of public school teachers: until the late nineteenth century, their legal authority over students was as broad as that of parents. Changes in U.S. education, concurrent with a broader reading by courts of the rights of students, began bringing the concept into disrepute by the 1960s. Cultural changes, however, brought a resurgence of the doctrine in the twenty-first century.

m'k?

If you and your kid go into the Barrio, on Sinko Day Mayo, and the kid wants to wear something that will incite a riot in the neighborhood, I expect you to say, "Ok Johnny, you go right ahead!!!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

The sad part is, the disruption would not be made by the Jewish students... only those that hated them for daring to show pride in their culture. So the discipline would best fall on those 'tolerant' souls who refused others to be proud in their culture I guess.

Well that's how it'd go down on my bus with plenty of write ups to go around. But I'm with ya Sampson.

The sad part is that Samson wants the school administered to cater to the worst, most violent, antisocial elements. Remember the good old days, when kids who behaved violently were expelled so that everyone else could go on with their lives without fear?

The sad part is, that no one has Superpowers that allow them to identify who will commit the worst, most violent, antisocial acts.

It sounds like you want administrators to wait until a fight breaks out, someone gets hurt, or killed, then react. OK, fine plan. Brilliant, then we can, and will expel the perp.

Just how much of your life do you spend running and hiding in terror of anyone who might look at you cross-eyed? You don't have to have superpowers to identify violent people in a school or to prevent them from commiting violent acts. They work with these kids every day. You don't think they already KNOW who the troublemakers are? Moreover, if you wait until you get to the point of a fight breaking out before you start imposing and enforcing a "no tolerance for violence" policy, then you're an even bigger dumbass than you were when you decided you were going to teach the peaceful, well-behaved students that they should appease bullies.

 

[Samson]

Something's wrong with school officials that ignore potentials to disrupt the school.

And you are wrong. The school district admits the principal/administration were wrong to prohibit apparel bearing the American flag on Weds, May 5.

See below their communication that was sent to parents via e-mail and voice mail message.

School District: Flag Clothing Incident "Extremely Unfortunate" | NBC Bay Area

Good evening. This is Dr. Wesley Smith, Superintendent of the Morgan Hill Unified School District. The Morgan Hill Unified School District does not prohibit nor do we discourage wearing patriotic clothing. 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 situation and our response are under review.

We know that this is an emotionally charged topic. We would ask you to encourage your students to be safe and focus on their academics while in school. If conversations and/or activities are necessary to express their feelings on this issue, we will find appropriate venues that do not disturb student learning or jeopardize the safety of our students.

Furthermore, we encourage everyone to demonstrate respect for each other, open communication, and responsibility.

Thank you for your support and understanding.

Dr. Wesley Smith
Superintendent

In other words, the school district is not happy about being brought to national attention this way, and the principal now has an anus you could park a Volkswagen in from the ass-reaming he received.

In other words, you can spin the letter like a Texas Tornado.

Outside your little anal fantacy, the letter's actual words are: "administrators made decisions yesterday in an attempt to ensure campus safety."

This is their job: "campus safety is our primary concern"

 

[boedicca]

In a nutshell: If the vice principal had not made a big deal about the boys wearing their American Flag wear, everyone would have just gone about their business and nothing would have happened.

The AVP instigated the mess and should be fired.

 

[JenyEliza]

Something's wrong with school officials that ignore potentials to disrupt the school.

And you are wrong. The school district admits the principal/administration were wrong to prohibit apparel bearing the American flag on Weds, May 5.

See below their communication that was sent to parents via e-mail and voice mail message.

School District: Flag Clothing Incident "Extremely Unfortunate" | NBC Bay Area

Good evening. This is Dr. Wesley Smith, Superintendent of the Morgan Hill Unified School District. The Morgan Hill Unified School District does not prohibit nor do we discourage wearing patriotic clothing. 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 situation and our response are under review.

We know that this is an emotionally charged topic. We would ask you to encourage your students to be safe and focus on their academics while in school. If conversations and/or activities are necessary to express their feelings on this issue, we will find appropriate venues that do not disturb student learning or jeopardize the safety of our students.

Furthermore, we encourage everyone to demonstrate respect for each other, open communication, and responsibility.

Thank you for your support and understanding.

Dr. Wesley Smith
Superintendent

In other words, the school district is not happy about being brought to national attention this way, and the principal now has an anus you could park a Volkswagen in from the ass-reaming he received.

Precisely!

 

[Samson]

In a nutshell: If the vice principal had not made a big deal about the boys wearing their American Flag wear, everyone would have just gone about their business and nothing would have happened.

The AVP instigated the mess and should be fired.

Speakin of nutshells: you're clarvoyant now?

How do you know what might have happened?

 

[boedicca]

The AVP dragged the boys into his office because others "might be offended" but their American flag wear. 'Nuff said.

 

[Samson]

The AVP dragged the boys into his office because others "might be offended" but their American flag wear. 'Nuff said.

"'Nuff said?"

That's how you're able to Divine the Future?

My dear woman, isn't there a sammich somewhere which you can predict yourself making?

 

[Againsheila]

Cinco de Mayo American flag shirt flap: Cops step up patrols at California school (video)

KGO radio is reporting that on Friday, May 7, some of the students were wearing white to encourage peace on campus.

One of the students who wore the American flag on Wednesday is Matthew Dariano, 16. He told the Mercury News that he was not in school on Friday because he feared violence. He and is mother, instead, were at a hotel during satellite interviews with Fox News.

<<

Okay guys, this is absolutely wrong. We have Americans wearing white < a sign of surrender> to promote peace with the violent Mexican students. Meanwhile, we have at least one of those boys that wore our colors to school on May 5th afraid to go back to school for fear of violence. Heck, they won't even go home. Where is the protection for these students?

It's way past time to send those Mexicans home. If they hate us so much, they don't deserve to be here and we sure as heck don't need them. Why is our government refusing to protect our borders? Why are our schools refusing to protect our students?

Looks like the civil war will be here before the revolution....you can only push us so far before we start pushing back. You don't think we've already been pushed too far, just look at my signature.

 

[boedicca]

It's basic common sense, Sammy.

The boys were wearing clothes they often wore, eating lunch and minding their own business. The AVP's actions were those of an agent provocateur. If the clothes were offensive to the Mexican-American kids, one would have spoken up long before lunch time.

And there is the additional consideration of BLAMING THE (POTENTIAL) VICTIMS. The AVP didn't accuse the boys of violent acts, only that others might commit violence on viewing the American Flag (which the school also displayed). Why is the AVP punishing those who would be whom he assumed would be the targets of the violence?

 

[Samson]

It's basic common sense, Sammy.

The boys were wearing clothes they often wore, eating lunch and minding their own business. The AVP's actions were those of an agent provocateur. If the clothes were offensive to the Mexican-American kids, one would have spoken up long before lunch time.

And there is the additional consideration of BLAMING THE (POTENTIAL) VICTIMS. The AVP didn't accuse the boys of violent acts, only that others might commit violence on viewing the American Flag (which the school also displayed). Why is the AVP punishing those who would be whom he assumed would be the targets of the violence?

"One would have spoken up long before lunch time?"

How do you know this.....oh yes, "basic common sense."

Is anyone "punished?"

It seemed to me from the Superintendent's letter it was very clear "students should not, and will not, be disciplined for wearing patriotic clothing."

Rather than trying to guess what may have happened, why don't you look up "In Loco Parentis?"

Oh my, I anticipated your need!!!

In loco parentis is a legal doctrine describing a relationship similar to that of a parent to a child. It refers to an individual who assumes parental status and responsibilities for another individual, usually a young person, without formally adopting that person. ......

By far the most common usage of in loco parentis relates to teachers and students. For hundreds of years, the English common-law concept shaped the rights and responsibilities of public school teachers: until the late nineteenth century, their legal authority over students was as broad as that of parents. Changes in U.S. education, concurrent with a broader reading by courts of the rights of students, began bringing the concept into disrepute by the 1960s. Cultural changes, however, brought a resurgence of the doctrine in the twenty-first century.

This gives the AVP the right to tell students to change their clothes if he feels the clothes are disruptive.

 

[Samson]

.... Why is our government refusing to protect our borders? Why are our schools refusing to protect our students?.....

I agrre with your question regarding border protection.

There wasn't anyone hurt in the topic of this thread, and there is nothing to substantiate questioning schools', "refusal to protect our students."

 

[boedicca]

One of the boys who were singled out by the AVP are now staying home because he is now afraid of being the target of a violent attack. He didn't feel this way before the AVP instigated the incident.

I'm done with this thread. You are just trolling.

This is America. What the AVP did was UnAmerican.

 

[Samson]

I'm done with this thread. You are just trolling.

Yes, go stomp your little feet.


If I had anyone as nutty as JenyEliza thanking my every post, I'd leave too.