A Culture of Intolerance

[TemplarKormac]

It has become quite obvious to me that in the years after I left school, that there is little tolerance of certain political views that students hold in school. Especially on hot button issues like abortion. As this 17 year old high school student found out, it's not okay to freely express your worldviews in school. If you don't believe government and politics have any influence in the classroom, you're in for a rude awakening. There is a culture of intolerance that is nurtured in the minds of our children that cannot be allowed to continue. The school should be a place where ideas and views are accepted no matter what they are. The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just to those who hold like views.

BRANFORD, Conn. (WTNH)– Life-sized replicas of fetuses are too much for lunchtime at Branford High School. A student leader of the school’s pro-life club says the principal banned her from using the models and she is fighting that.

Seventeen-year-old Samantha is a senior at Branford High School and she is learning a harsh lesson in education policy after trying to set up a pro-life table during lunch at Branford High.

“When we asked our principal at our school if we can have this set up during lunch and have an opportunity for kids to come over and take a look at our display, he said no,” said Samantha Bailey-Loomis.

Samantha is the founder of the students for life club. Their table is complete with blown-up images of fetuses and real- life sized fetus models that look just like the real thing and she says that doesn’t sit well with her principal.

“He tells us that this topic in particular is too controversial to be talked about in public school,” said Bailey-Loomis.

Life-sized fetus causes cafeteria controversy at Connecticut school | WWLP

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It has become quite obvious to me that in the years after I left school, that there is little tolerance of certain political views that students hold in school. Especially on hot button issues like abortion. As this 17 year old high school student found out, it's not okay to freely express your worldviews in school. If you don't believe government and politics have any influence in the classroom, you're in for a rude awakening. There is a culture of intolerance that is nurtured in the minds of our children that cannot be allowed to continue. The school should be a place where ideas and views are accepted no matter what they are. The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just to those who hold like views.

BRANFORD, Conn. (WTNH)– Life-sized replicas of fetuses are too much for lunchtime at Branford High School. A student leader of the school’s pro-life club says the principal banned her from using the models and she is fighting that.

Seventeen-year-old Samantha is a senior at Branford High School and she is learning a harsh lesson in education policy after trying to set up a pro-life table during lunch at Branford High.

“When we asked our principal at our school if we can have this set up during lunch and have an opportunity for kids to come over and take a look at our display, he said no,” said Samantha Bailey-Loomis.

Samantha is the founder of the students for life club. Their table is complete with blown-up images of fetuses and real- life sized fetus models that look just like the real thing and she says that doesn’t sit well with her principal.

“He tells us that this topic in particular is too controversial to be talked about in public school,” said Bailey-Loomis.

Life-sized fetus causes cafeteria controversy at Connecticut school | WWLP

In Loco Parentis. They are in charge of keeping order. In school, it's their call. On the sidewalk outside, knock yourself out.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It has become quite obvious to me that in the years after I left school, that there is little tolerance of certain political views that students hold in school. Especially on hot button issues like abortion. As this 17 year old high school student found out, it's not okay to freely express your worldviews in school. If you don't believe government and politics have any influence in the classroom, you're in for a rude awakening. There is a culture of intolerance that is nurtured in the minds of our children that cannot be allowed to continue. The school should be a place where ideas and views are accepted no matter what they are. The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just to those who hold like views.

BRANFORD, Conn. (WTNH)– Life-sized replicas of fetuses are too much for lunchtime at Branford High School. A student leader of the school’s pro-life club says the principal banned her from using the models and she is fighting that.

Seventeen-year-old Samantha is a senior at Branford High School and she is learning a harsh lesson in education policy after trying to set up a pro-life table during lunch at Branford High.

“When we asked our principal at our school if we can have this set up during lunch and have an opportunity for kids to come over and take a look at our display, he said no,” said Samantha Bailey-Loomis.

Samantha is the founder of the students for life club. Their table is complete with blown-up images of fetuses and real- life sized fetus models that look just like the real thing and she says that doesn’t sit well with her principal.

“He tells us that this topic in particular is too controversial to be talked about in public school,” said Bailey-Loomis.

Life-sized fetus causes cafeteria controversy at Connecticut school | WWLP

In Loco Parentis. They are in charge of keeping order. In school, it's their call. On the sidewalk outside, knock yourself out.

Non Sequitur.

In Loco Parentis does not apply here. Even if the school has a legal responsibility to act in the place of a parent while the child is on the premises, that doesn't give them the right to hinder the constitutional rights of that student. Your argument is thus flawed and baseless.

In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that students do NOT shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse. "Students in the public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." They cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises -- whether "in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours," -- unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." This ruling was in favor of students who wore black armbands protesting the Vietnam War. The only way you can restrict a student's speech is if such speech presents a significant disruption to the school's educational mission.

The only time school administrators can restrict a student's speech is if it presents a genuinely controversial messages, such as was the case in 1982, when a student gave a campaign speech at a school assembly which was laced with sexual innuendo. In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, that administrators did have a right to discipline students for speech that violates school rules, or incites behavior which interferes with the stated disciplinary objectives of the school.

Nonetheless, the Constitution still applies in the school as well as outside.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It has become quite obvious to me that in the years after I left school, that there is little tolerance of certain political views that students hold in school. Especially on hot button issues like abortion. As this 17 year old high school student found out, it's not okay to freely express your worldviews in school. If you don't believe government and politics have any influence in the classroom, you're in for a rude awakening. There is a culture of intolerance that is nurtured in the minds of our children that cannot be allowed to continue. The school should be a place where ideas and views are accepted no matter what they are. The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just to those who hold like views.



Life-sized fetus causes cafeteria controversy at Connecticut school | WWLP

In Loco Parentis. They are in charge of keeping order. In school, it's their call. On the sidewalk outside, knock yourself out.

Non Sequitur.

In Loco Parentis does not apply here. Even if the school has a legal responsibility to act in the place of a parent while the child is on the premises, that doesn't give them the right to hinder the constitutional rights of that student. Your argument is thus flawed and baseless.

In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that students do NOT shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse. "Students in the public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." They cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises -- whether "in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours," -- unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." This ruling was in favor of students who wore black armbands protesting the Vietnam War. The only way you can restrict a student's speech is if such speech presents a significant disruption to the school's educational mission.

The only time school administrators can restrict a student's speech is if it presents a genuinely controversial messages, such as was the case in 1982, when a student gave a campaign speech at a school assembly which was laced with sexual innuendo. In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, that administrators did have a right to discipline students for speech that violates school rules, or incites behavior which interferes with the stated disciplinary objectives of the school.

Nonetheless, the Constitution still applies in the school as well as outside.

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In Loco Parentis. They are in charge of keeping order. In school, it's their call. On the sidewalk outside, knock yourself out.

Non Sequitur.

In Loco Parentis does not apply here. Even if the school has a legal responsibility to act in the place of a parent while the child is on the premises, that doesn't give them the right to hinder the constitutional rights of that student. Your argument is thus flawed and baseless.

In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that students do NOT shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse. "Students in the public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." They cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises -- whether "in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours," -- unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." This ruling was in favor of students who wore black armbands protesting the Vietnam War. The only way you can restrict a student's speech is if such speech presents a significant disruption to the school's educational mission.

The only time school administrators can restrict a student's speech is if it presents a genuinely controversial messages, such as was the case in 1982, when a student gave a campaign speech at a school assembly which was laced with sexual innuendo. In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, that administrators did have a right to discipline students for speech that violates school rules, or incites behavior which interferes with the stated disciplinary objectives of the school.

Nonetheless, the Constitution still applies in the school as well as outside.

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

You're twisting it, and no you don't. You were no more aware of the rulings before I presented them than you are now.

Tinker vs. Des Moines says administrators in schools cannot punish students free speech if it doesn't disrupt the educational environment. So, what about that pro-life display disrupted that school's educational environment? Care to elaborate?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Fine, let me put it more succinctly. If that student had a display promoting abortion, and I told that student she couldn't show it in my school--would you not be howling at the top of your lungs that I violated her constitutional rights?

Or does this simply apply to views you find undesirable?

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Schools especially public ones are nothing more than liberal multicult propaganda factories. That's what they are used for to spit out little democrat and republican drones to do as they are told and spew the shit they are taught from the beginning to end. Thank goodness I have kids smart enough to question EVERYTHING they are told or hear.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why call it a "public" school if you aren't allowed to publicly express your views there? Hmm?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that a certain A Culture of Intolerance exists in most human settings, public and private. Attend the private day school in Houston run, very successfully, by the SBC female fanatic, and you will witness it.

The more all parents are involved in their children's lives in public school, the more tolerant the environment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Freely" does not mean "whenever I feel like it."

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Freely" does not mean "whenever I feel like it."

The principal "felt like" the display would be controversial, despite not proving that assertion to be true. If that school receives government funds, they are obligated by the same constitutional constraints. Government shall not make laws (or rules in this case) that infringe on free speech.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

So, children are compelled to attend an institution which curtails their rights? Is there an opt-out?


Screen shot this folks, because this is the largest admission you will ever see that Public Schools are intended to be Training Facilities, instead of Educational Facilities. The reason we spend the most money per pupil, and have the worst educational results, is not because the Government is doing something wrong, it's actually doing exactly what it intends to do, produce constitutionally ignorant serfs, and it costs a lot of money to do that.

SCREENSHOT

TIME TO CALL IN THE CALVARY; OPPORTUNITY OF A LIFETIME; SAVE THIS PHOTO​

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] [MENTION=30190]M.D. Rawlings[/MENTION] [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=19484]The T[/MENTION] [MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION] [MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION] [MENTION=31092]Kooshdakhaa[/MENTION] [MENTION=33063]paulitician[/MENTION] [MENTION=46110]pvsi[/MENTION] [MENTION=36739]Duped[/MENTION] [MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=31723]9thIDdoc[/MENTION] [MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION] [MENTION=32813]JimBowie1958[/MENTION] [MENTION=40539]skye[/MENTION] [MENTION=46151]HelenaHandbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION] [MENTION=7538]LordBrownTrout[/MENTION] [MENTION=19543]Geaux4it[/MENTION] [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION] [MENTION=23837]bigrebnc1775[/MENTION] [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] [MENTION=44192]Vox[/MENTION]

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

So, children are compelled to attend an institution which curtails their rights? Is there an opt-out?

I'm afraid not. This is why I'm libertarian. People should be able to express themselves freely anywhere without any constraints but one, that such expression doesn't endanger the safety and welfare of others. Speech is nothing but words, words do no harm, actions do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Non Sequitur.

In Loco Parentis does not apply here. Even if the school has a legal responsibility to act in the place of a parent while the child is on the premises, that doesn't give them the right to hinder the constitutional rights of that student. Your argument is thus flawed and baseless.

In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that students do NOT shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse. "Students in the public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." They cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises -- whether "in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours," -- unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." This ruling was in favor of students who wore black armbands protesting the Vietnam War. The only way you can restrict a student's speech is if such speech presents a significant disruption to the school's educational mission.

The only time school administrators can restrict a student's speech is if it presents a genuinely controversial messages, such as was the case in 1982, when a student gave a campaign speech at a school assembly which was laced with sexual innuendo. In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, that administrators did have a right to discipline students for speech that violates school rules, or incites behavior which interferes with the stated disciplinary objectives of the school.

Nonetheless, the Constitution still applies in the school as well as outside.

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

You're twisting it, and no you don't. You were no more aware of the rulings before I presented them than you are now.

Tinker vs. Des Moines says administrators in schools cannot punish students free speech if it doesn't disrupt the educational environment. So, what about that pro-life display disrupted that school's educational environment? Care to elaborate?

Tinker said that the arm bands were expressing a Political View and not disruptive to educational environment, which the authorities are charged with maintaining. Had it been a Nazi armband they would have lost, as that would have been considered to be disruptive by a reasonable person.

The Pro-life display, with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses in the lunchroom, would be an obvious one to crack down on. They did not stop an abortion debate in a debate class, although they certainly could have, they stopped what they felt was disruptive to, in this case, kids eating lunch. They could just have easily stopped other forms or protected speech outside the environment as well such as Preaching, Stripping, and Singing God Bless America. They are charged with keeping the order and the courts usually give them the benefit of the doubt even when they error.

A time and a place my young friends, a time and a place.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

So, children are compelled to attend an institution which curtails their rights? Is there an opt-out?

I'm afraid not. This is why I'm libertarian. People should be able to express themselves freely anywhere without any constraints but one, that such expression doesn't endanger the safety and welfare of others. Speech is nothing but words, words do no harm, actions do.

I even made a facebook post on that is was so outrageous, and yet such a gift:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/249486679301/?ref=br_tf

Here's the screen shot:

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Fine, let me put it more succinctly. If that student had a display promoting abortion, and I told that student she couldn't show it in my school--would you not be howling at the top of your lungs that I violated her constitutional rights?

Nope, because you wouldn't be. Her rights in school are limited.

 

[healthmyths]

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

So, children are compelled to attend an institution which curtails their rights? Is there an opt-out?

I'm afraid not. This is why I'm libertarian. People should be able to express themselves freely anywhere without any constraints but one, that such expression doesn't endanger the safety and welfare of others. Speech is nothing but words, words do no harm, actions do.

I agree with you regarding people expressing themselves why even yelling fire in a theatre are ONLY words right?

Because as you said speech is nothing. Words do no harm... people taking action to the words do.

I mean these words could NOT possibly harm anyone right??
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

And of course this Harvard study got it ALL wrong!
This Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

But again... just words...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why call it a "public" school if you aren't allowed to publicly express your views there? Hmm?

Withing certain limits you are. The schools sets the limits however, and not always correctly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Freely" does not mean "whenever I feel like it."

The principal "felt like" the display would be controversial, despite not proving that assertion to be true. If that school receives government funds, they are obligated by the same constitutional constraints. Government shall not make laws (or rules in this case) that infringe on free speech.

"Free Speech" is not unlimited. If I were teaching a class in biology on a particular core module, I would not permit you to talk about abortion unless it were (1) relevant to what we were doing and (2) if I, as instructor, wanted it incorporated at that point in the class.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

You're twisting it, and no you don't. You were no more aware of the rulings before I presented them than you are now.

Tinker vs. Des Moines says administrators in schools cannot punish students free speech if it doesn't disrupt the educational environment. So, what about that pro-life display disrupted that school's educational environment? Care to elaborate?

Tinker said that the arm bands were expressing a Political View and not disruptive to educational environment, which the authorities are charged with maintaining. Had it been a Nazi armband they would have lost, as that would have been considered to be disruptive by a reasonable person.

The Pro-life display, with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses in the lunchroom, would be an obvious one to crack down on. They did not stop an abortion debate in a debate class, although they certainly could have, they stopped what they felt was disruptive to, in this case, kids eating lunch. They could just have easily stopped other forms or protected speech outside the environment as well such as Preaching, Stripping, and Singing God Bless America. They are charged with keeping the order and the courts usually give them the benefit of the doubt even when they error.

A time and a place my young friends, a time and a place.

You don't know that, PMH!

Being Pro-Life is also a sociopolitical viewpoint, so why doesn't that fall under the same reasoning you've used? Also, there were no displays of "aborted fetuses", just a display of the human gestation cycle. If that had been the case, I would have agreed with the principal. Lovely how you spun that into something it wasn't.

Now prove to me how this would have actually be a disruption to the stated educational goals of that school? Is Human Biology not taught in school? That's all such a display represents.