Idaho Student Says Teacher Tossed His Mexican Flag in Trash

[Ravi]

Like you people know what the Constitution says or means.

With your attitude and apparent hatred of 50% of the country I'm seriously surprised you ever wanted to or were allowed to belong to the military.

 

[Ravi]

RGS in thread A:

"You guys don't understand freedom. For you anti-Americans, it is perfectly okay to step on the 4th Amendment in order to 'protect the children' just because someone says the children are at risk. Don't you understand the meaning of RIGHTS? This kind of end justify the means thinking is unpatriotic. You just don't understand the Constitution"

RGS in thread B:

"The most important thing is to protect the children. It doesn't matter what the 1st Amendment says when children are at risk. RIGHTS... SCHMIGHTS. You guys don't understand REALITY, and you don't understand the Constitution."

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Hypocrite.

rotflmao!

 

[BrianH]

Ok, I feel that this is a retarded situation. First off, the kid, (if he's an illegal immigrant) can't sue anyone. Which leads me to believe that he's an American citizen, which also leads me to wonder why in the hell do American citizens celebrate Cinco de Mayo, considering it has nothing to do with anything in the U.S. (I'm sure it affected this nation, but I'm not quite sure the defeat of the French at Pueblo has anything to do with us).

IMO, if a school is not allowed to advocate or allow other students to advocate any certain religion, is it not also relevant that they should not allow advocation of different nations? I wonder what would have happened if someone had brought an Iraqi flag, or Hamas flag to school. I wouldn't doubt that the teacher may have hostile feelings towards Mexican immigrants, but he made a judgment call that probably saved that kid a beating. It's the same concept that schools, all over the U.S., follow. They confinscate anything that can be used to divide the students. If the kids is wearing blue (to symbolize the Crips), they'll forbid him to where blue. At schools around here, we have the problem of kids wearing blue bandanas to symbolize it. If they're seen, their confinscated. If you start letting one student carry a Mexican flag around school to celebrate Mexico, then you'd have to start letting kids bring the Confederate flag, a KKK banner, hamas flag, etc... (All of things are likely to bring division and hostilities between the students.)

This is why it was confinscated. I think this teacher acted appropriately by taking the flag away, where I might not have thrown it in the trash, he was reasonable to take the flag away. I would have folded it up and taken it to my office and told the kid to come pick it up after school.
It seems to me like students/parents are so quick to sue school districts now because they're money hungry. They know the school's have money and want a piece of it.

Students do not have the full extent of the Freedom of Speech when it comes to being in a school, nor the freedom of expression. If this was the case, schools would be entirely more chaotic than they already are. Students could cuss out their teachers at the drop of the hat, disrupt class, destroy school property....all in the name of expression and free speech--and never be punished for anything. Can you imagine a school without discipline???---believe it or not, we're getting close to that.

You all remember the thread about the parents protesting a elementary school's decision to have a veteran apprecation day because some parents didn't agree with the Iraq war. The school cancelled it because it was becoming too political. This is the same concept. If a school teacher cannot hang a picture of George Bush on his wall, a student should not be able to wave around another nation's flag at school. The problem we're having these days is that the teacher's, who have had 4 years of college and been certified by the state to educate other human beings, have less rights than students, who are still in the process. There is something wrong with this picture.

 

[jillian]

Ok, I feel that this is a retarded situation. First off, the kid, (if he's an illegal immigrant) can't sue anyone.

Why do you think that? In some places they can even sue for unpaid wages.

Which leads me to believe that he's an American citizen, which also leads me to wonder why in the hell do American citizens celebrate Cinco de Mayo, considering it has nothing to do with anything in the U.S. (I'm sure it affected this nation, but I'm not quite sure the defeat of the French at Pueblo has anything to do with us).

They celebrate cinqo de mayo for the same reasons Irish people celebrate St. Paddy's Day; Jews celebrate Israeli independence day; Italians love Columbus Day; Germans enjoying Oktoberfest; etc... it's just a way of celebrating one's heritage and having a good time. Nothing nefarious about it.

IMO, if a school is not allowed to advocate or allow other students to advocate any certain religion, is it not also relevant that they should not allow advocation of different nations?

Nope... the first amendment prohibits the state fostering religion; nothing about celebrating ethnicity... unless of course you think municipalities should stop paying for st paddy's day parades.

I wonder what would have happened if someone had brought an Iraqi flag, or Hamas flag to school. I wouldn't doubt that the teacher may have hostile feelings towards Mexican immigrants, but he made a judgment call that probably saved that kid a beating.

And of course he did nothing to reinforce the hostility, right? perhaps he'd have done better to "save the kid a beating" by talking about his culture and reinforcing tolerance. Gee...what a concept.

You don't punish children when they're ATTACKED by bullies. You punish the BULLIES.

*skip*

There is something wrong with this picture.

Yes, there is...the fact that anyone thinks it was okay.

 

[Ravi]

I read some more of this story on the internet. Other kids also brought flags to school, the school doesn't have a history of racial problems, and it seems to have a large group of latinos attending.

I think this teacher was being an idiot.

Nice point, Jillian, about punishing the bullies.

 

[ReillyT]

IMO, if a school is not allowed to advocate or allow other students to advocate any certain religion, is it not also relevant that they should not allow advocation of different nations?

School students are allowed to advocate religion so long as it is not in a disruptive manner. A kid can wear a tee-shirt to school with a cross on it, or carry a bible or Koran around with him/her. The problem occurs when the school tries to prevent kids from advocating their religion, or advocates it itself.

Students do not have the full extent of the Freedom of Speech when it comes to being in a school, nor the freedom of expression. If this was the case, schools would be entirely more chaotic than they already are. Students could cuss out their teachers at the drop of the hat, disrupt class, destroy school property....all in the name of expression and free speech--and never be punished for anything. Can you imagine a school without discipline???---believe it or not, we're getting close to that.

A child's freedom of speech in school depends on the level of disruption the speech causes. Carrying a flag around is probably okay, but cursing at teachers is obviously not. The former is protected while the latter is not. The problem isn't the 1st Amendment, it is inadequate supervision in the schools.

 

[midcan5]

They wear green on St Patty's day... this is a case of two wrongs. Schools have rules abide by them, people value their culture respect that. But instead we go round and round. Since I am married to a teacher who would have handled this properly; I'm sure there was an easy way. Instead the trivial becomes big news for the partisan nuts to salivate over.

 

[Annie]

Tinker itself provided exceptions, other SCOTUS cases have since expanded upon those exceptions:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=61

Student speech may be suppressed only if the speech: (1) materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the schools; (2) invades or collides with the rights of others; (3) is vulgar, lewd, obscene, or plainly offensive; or (4) is school-sponsored. Additionally, as with free speech rights in any context, school officials may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on student speech.

 

[midcan5]

A child's freedom of speech in school depends on the level of disruption the speech causes. Carrying a flag around is probably okay, but cursing at teachers is obviously not. The former is protected while the latter is not. The problem isn't the 1st Amendment, it is inadequate supervision in the schools.

Funny, but I have heard this often from my wife who would have tolerated none of it. The flag would have been removed, the student told to shut up, end of story. And guess what, she is loved by her students, anticipated in mild fear by those coming up to her grade, loved by parents, and has had more awards than anyone I know. Schools aren't for show and tell unless it is show and tell day.

 

[ReillyT]

Tinker itself provided exceptions, other SCOTUS cases have since expanded upon those exceptions:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=61

True, there are restrictions to students' 1st Amendment rights, but none of those restrictions apply here, where the speech was of a very similar nature to that in Tinker.

 

[ReillyT]

Funny, but I have heard this often from my wife who would have tolerated none of it. The flag would have been removed, the student told to shut up, end of story. And guess what, she is loved by her students, anticipated in mild fear by those coming up to her grade, loved by parents, and has had more awards than anyone I know. Schools aren't for show and tell unless it is show and tell day.

Lovely to hear about your wife, but the fact that legal rules are sometimes violated without complaint doesn't mean that there are not legal rules. One can disagree with the rule, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Annie]

True, there are restrictions to students' 1st Amendment rights, but none of those restrictions apply here, where the speech was of a very similar nature to that in Tinker.

I think the trash can thing probably makes you correct. However, the reason for confiscating and not allowing the flag may well be justified in preventing serious disciplinary problem.

 

[ReillyT]

I think the trash can thing probably makes you correct. However, the reason for confiscating and not allowing the flag may well be justified in preventing serious disciplinary problem.

That would depend on the extent of the foreseeable disciplinary problem, and the manner in which the expression takes. In Tinker, it was important that the expression involved was silent and passive (wearing black armbands), and although other students had made some hostile remarks to the students, there were no actual threats or acts of violence. Absent some real indication that violence was likely in the school, or some active disruption by the student expressing themself, the expression was protected. Of course, these are always questions of fact, but the court felt that an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

Actually, I don't even think threats of violence within the school should be adequate. Schools should have sufficient supervision to protect kids who are unpopular for any reason. I don't think limiting the potential victim is the solution. Targeting the potential bullies should be. That however, is just my opinion.

 

[Annie]

That would depend on the extent of the foreseeable disciplinary problem, and the manner in which the expression takes. In Tinker, it was important that the expression involved was silent and passive (wearing black armbands), and although other students had made some hostile remarks to the students, there were no actual threats or acts of violence. Absent some real indication that violence was likely in the school, or some active disruption by the student expressing themself, the expression was protected. Of course, these are always questions of fact, but the court felt that an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

Actually, I don't even think threats of violence within the school should be adequate. Schools should have sufficient supervision to protect kids who are unpopular for any reason. I don't think limiting the potential victim is the solution. Targeting the potential bullies should be. That however, is just my opinion.

You're not a teacher, right?

 

[ReillyT]

You're not a teacher, right?

Not now, but I taught a law class daily in an Oakland inner city school for a year. It was hellish. I also once ran a criminal diversion program in Oakland. All of the clients and half of the participants in the program were high school kids who had previously been arrested.

 

[midcan5]

In school there should be zero tolerance, in some schools that already exists, in the inner city it is student against the teachers. I know a few who have been attacked. Any remarks about violence are unacceptable unless you want to live in a jungle. It isn't a teacher's nor a school's responsibility to put up with or to tolerate such an atmosphere.

 

[Alpha1]

Funny, but I have heard this often from my wife who would have tolerated none of it. The flag would have been removed, the student told to shut up, end of story. And guess what, she is loved by her students, anticipated in mild fear by those coming up to her grade, loved by parents, and has had more awards than anyone I know. Schools aren't for show and tell unless it is show and tell day.

I am very happy to see your wife has more common sense than you do....
If not for your wife being a teacher, I'm positive you would have defended the Mexican .......

 

[Annie]

Not now, but I taught a law class daily in an Oakland inner city school for a year. It was hellish. I also once ran a criminal diversion program in Oakland. All of the clients and half of the participants in the program were high school kids who had previously been arrested.

Then you should recognize that there is no way to ensure, "Schools should have sufficient supervision to protect kids who are unpopular for any reason."

Such would vary day-by-day, even minute-by-minute. What would suddenly cause 'an incident?' Would have been easier to foresee the assassination of Ferdinand and Sophie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then you should recognize that there is no way to ensure, "Schools should have sufficient supervision to protect kids who are unpopular for any reason."

Such would vary day-by-day, even minute-by-minute. What would suddenly cause 'an incident?' Would have been easier to foresee the assassination of Ferdinand and Sophie.

Reality does not intrude into a liberals thinking process.

 

[ReillyT]

Then you should recognize that there is no way to ensure, "Schools should have sufficient supervision to protect kids who are unpopular for any reason."

Such would vary day-by-day, even minute-by-minute. What would suddenly cause 'an incident?' Would have been easier to foresee the assassination of Ferdinand and Sophie.

Perhaps you misunderstood the intent of my statement (or maybe you didn't). What I meant is that it should be irrelevant why the kid is unpopular, not that adequate supervision entails complete safety.

While it may not be possible to safeguard the welfare of every child at every moment, there remain adequate levels of supervision and inadequate levels of supervision. With adequate levels of supervision and intervention, kids can remain generally safe at school. This is true whether a kid gets bullied for wearing a SF 49s jersey, being a minority, answering too many questions in math class, or carrying a Mexican flag. I don't think the answer is to prohibit anything that could set another 15 year old off.