Idaho Student Says Teacher Tossed His Mexican Flag in Trash

[Annie]

I don't think this aspect of the 1st Amendment has made schools less safe. However, I think it is possible that the threat of lawsuits generally (from parents unhappy with their child's grade, over every disciplinary action, etc.) has had an effect on the ability of schools to provide discipline. There I would probably agree with you.

While I don't think the intent of Tinker and some other cases were to undermine school authority, they did, at the same time that parenting was becoming less strong, (many causes for sure, some: divorce rates; more permissive sexual mores; more single, unmarried parents; baby boomers that had not been disciplined themselves.) Then add on the mandates for schools from NCLB to teaching sex ed, diversity, abuse classes-of which there are many, etc.

Less time to teach, more disruptions to the normal day, more challenges by students and parents to authority.

People wonder why so many teachers leave. It's easy to figure out and it's not all about the money, they want to teach but can't.

 

[jillian]

While I don't think the intent of Tinker and some other cases were to undermine school authority, they did, at the same time that parenting was becoming less strong, (many causes for sure, some: divorce rates; more permissive sexual mores; more single, unmarried parents; baby boomers that had not been disciplined themselves.) Then add on the mandates for schools from NCLB to teaching sex ed, diversity, abuse classes-of which there are many, etc.

Less time to teach, more disruptions to the normal day, more challenges by students and parents to authority.

People wonder why so many teachers leave. It's easy to figure out and it's not all about the money, they want to teach but can't.

How did this undermine school authority?

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

Seems pretty pragmatic to me... no suppression of expression without a reason.

Not letting a kid wear a black armband to protest a war or throwing out some kid's mexican flag has nothing to do with teaching. If the teachers were teaching, they wouldn't worry about the expression.

 

[Annie]

How did this undermine school authority?



http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

Seems pretty pragmatic to me... no suppression of expression without a reason.

Not letting a kid wear a black armband to protest a war or throwing out some kid's mexican flag has nothing to do with teaching. If the teachers were teaching, they wouldn't worry about the expression.

Jillian, you will find I am not arguing either the applicability or correctness of Tinker. As an instructor I encourage my students to logically argue their opinions on many issues-I think it leads to clarity of thought and helps them address more current issues while we do these exercises throughout our history studies.

Rather I'm speaking to the effect the laws, including Tinker have had. Schools for the most part have decided to leave students alone, with the exception of drug and alcohol promoting t-shirts regarding free speech. Since Columbine they've gotten very strict on weapons-suspending those that even use fingers to 'pretend they are shooting.' For the most part schools don't discipline, they hope for the best that learning is taking place.

The one exception I've seen has been inner city schools, adopting uniforms in an effort to curtail gang colors, needless to say that's not been a panacea, but it's probably an improvement over what would be happening without the uniforms.

When disciplinary action is taken, it's for things like the aforementioned finger gun, drawings, and 'sexual harassment' marriages between kindergarten/first graders.

Research overwhelming shows that the most effective instruction occurs from direct instruction, in a structured environment. Instead what we have is what is called 'cooperative learning', with student directed activities, with very flexible standards. In large measure this in reaction to keeping the students happy and the parents at bay. Thus where the US stands regarding education.

This year I've had twins from Belgium in my 8th grade class. They wrote that they enjoyed this year, as it was a break from the work they were used to. They noted that they haven't been with 'slow' kids since the 3rd year, and that it was nice to have classes slowed down. The boy is in my drama club, I asked him what he meant, he said, "We don't have students who don't do homework, they'd be in another school. The pace of our classes is fast and there is a lot of homework. We can't misbehave or we'd be in another school."

Ours was the most 'challenging' school the parents were able to find, within a half hour drive of their rental home. Seems the dad told the kids that he at least heard that I could speak of the differences of perspective between Europe and US, respectfully. (I know, hard to believe but that's in real life.)

These two have made my year, they know more about Obama and Clinton than most online. They sorely want Obama to win.

 

[Ravi]

Do you think so? I would guess that discipline was harsher in schools in the fifties (just my guess), but I don't think high school kids acted out more. Based on the stories I remember from Mr. Huxtable in the Cosby show, they acted out less.

LOL!

Anyway, I brought this up with my kids at dinner. At their public school, kids use all kinds of things to decorate their back packs, etc...con flags, che faces, cuban flags, mexican flags, any and all religious symbols...no one ever says a word. I asked if there were any fights between groups and the answer was no, the groups just avoid each other.

And Bush's picture is acceptable hanging in the classroom as long as the teacher isn't making a political statement, i.e., Bush sucks or Bush rocks.

After a bit of discussion, the only unacceptable images they could think of were drug symbols or swastikas.

 

[Annie]

LOL!

Anyway, I brought this up with my kids at dinner. At their public school, kids use all kinds of things to decorate their back packs, etc...con flags, che faces, cuban flags, mexican flags, any and all religious symbols...no one ever says a word. I asked if there were any fights between groups and the answer was no, the groups just avoid each other.

And Bush's picture is acceptable hanging in the classroom as long as the teacher isn't making a political statement, i.e., Bush sucks or Bush rocks.

After a bit of discussion, the only unacceptable images they could think of were drug symbols or swastikas.

Swastikas would probably pass. Thanks for saying what I was commenting on.

 

[Ravi]

Swastikas would probably pass. Thanks for saying what I was commenting on.

Not according to my kids. I could send them to school with one and see what happens if you'd like.

 

[Annie]

Not according to my kids. I could send them to school with one and see what happens if you'd like.

I would assume it depends on the school administration. In many cases it would fall within free speech, though the teachers might think differently of your child, I wouldn't recommend that experiment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Brian, can you link to the story about the Bush picture being banned from a classroom?

I really can't for the life of me see why this flag thing is being taken as anything other than some kid celebrating his heritage. What if the flag was part of his t-shirt, would he have to remove it? This is really silly and makes people look like frightened little children.

It is because of where it happened. Idaho is full of white supremacists. Not the best place to be of color. White Supremacists actually move there from other places in the Country.. Now the lower portion of the State is not so bad but the panhandle is a dangerous place sometimes.

 

[Angel Heart]

If what the student says is true, the teacher was out of line and a bit of an idiot about it. Cinco De Mayo is celebrated because it's the day the Mexicans stopped the French from becoming a major problem for us. It is NOT the Mexican Independence Day, that's on Sept 15th, 1810. It should be a holiday we remember. I'm thankful that Mexico held their ground. Or we would of been fighting the French at the same time we where dealing with our Civil War.

More of the history:

http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm

 

[Annie]

If what the student says is true, the teacher was out of line and a bit of an idiot about it. Cinco De Mayo is celebrated because it's the day the Mexicans stopped the French from becoming a major problem for us. It is NOT the Mexican Independence Day, that's on Sept 15th, 1810. It should be a holiday we remember. I'm thankful that Mexico held their ground. Or we would of been fighting the French at the same time we where dealing with our Civil War.

More of the history:

http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm

Not being snide, but I'd bet most on this thread already knew that, but thanks for the link.

 

[Swamp Fox]

The "school" did not stop him. The Teacher made a judgement call based on HIS knowledge of the class and the results of this kid displaying that flag. It is in fact the responsibility of teachers to avoid beat downs in their classes. They are expected to prevent such events as disruptive to the class and dangerous for the student subjected to it.

Teacher should have just let him get his ass kicked. Lessons seem to last longer that way.

 

[Ravi]

Teacher should have just let him get his ass kicked. Lessons seem to last longer that way.

I kind of agree with this. But RGS likes the nanny state better.

In this school there seems to be no racial tensions so it's doubtful anyone but the teacher had a problem with the flag.

K - I think the cut off of acceptability would be decided on intent. A swastika or a noose would be a statement of support for some pretty dreadful things. The con flag and the che face could go both ways. A flag celebrating a holiday or someone's love for their harmless heritage is fine.

 

[Ravi]

If what the student says is true, the teacher was out of line and a bit of an idiot about it. Cinco De Mayo is celebrated because it's the day the Mexicans stopped the French from becoming a major problem for us. It is NOT the Mexican Independence Day, that's on Sept 15th, 1810. It should be a holiday we remember. I'm thankful that Mexico held their ground. Or we would of been fighting the French at the same time we where dealing with our Civil War.

More of the history:

http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm

Thanks, I had forgotten about that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I kind of agree with this. But RGS likes the nanny state better.

In this school there seems to be no racial tensions so it's doubtful anyone but the teacher had a problem with the flag.

K - I think the cut off of acceptability would be decided on intent. A swastika or a noose would be a statement of support for some pretty dreadful things. The con flag and the che face could go both ways. A flag celebrating a holiday or someone's love for their harmless heritage is fine.

Attributing to me things I do not support is hilarious. Do keep it up. I like a good belly roll in the morning.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I bet Ravir is one of those people that thinks she can reason with a 5 year old. Treats children like little adults.

Isn't it amazing that when a teenager kills someone, they are just kids and should be given ever benefit of being a "child" but when they do stuff like this they are "adults" with all the rights and responsibilities of that position.

 

[Gunny]

I kind of agree with this. But RGS likes the nanny state better.

In this school there seems to be no racial tensions so it's doubtful anyone but the teacher had a problem with the flag.

K - I think the cut off of acceptability would be decided on intent. A swastika or a noose would be a statement of support for some pretty dreadful things. The con flag and the che face could go both ways. A flag celebrating a holiday or someone's love for their harmless heritage is fine.

I completely disagree and this was goes to one of my original points. Freedom of expression is freedom of expression.

If Jose can bring his Mexican flag, then Jimmybob not being allowed to bring his Rebel flag, shirt with a noose on it, or KKK shirt is discrimination and censorship. Period.

To those of us that happen to care about our Nation's so-called leaders turning a blind eye and or offering amnesty to illegal aliens from Mexico, waving a Mexican flag in our faces is as affront, and a symbol of disrespect for this Nation.

What is and is not acceptable and/or what symbols represent are a matter of perspective.

Better no political expression than some. Isn't that the EXACT same argument to liberal-types make concerning religious symbols in any city, state of Federal government building?

The usual double standard rears its ugly head.

 

[ReillyT]

I completely disagree and this was goes to one of my original points. Freedom of expression is freedom of expression.

If Jose can bring his Mexican flag, then Jimmybob not being allowed to bring his Rebel flag, shirt with a noose on it, or KKK shirt is discrimination and censorship. Period.

The law is pragmatic. It takes into account the level of disruption that is likely to entail and the nature of the expression. You may be right depending on the circumstances that prohibiting Jimmybob from wearing a KKK shirt might be censorship. There is a factual element to the test.

Better no political expression than some. Isn't that the EXACT same argument to liberal-types make concerning religious symbols in any city, state of Federal government building?

The usual double standard rears its ugly head.

It isn't a double standard. The Consitution says that the state cannot impose (defined broadly) any religion on the people. The corollary of this is that we the people can express ourselves any way that we like, within reason (time/place restrictions, smaller level of expression allowed in schools, etc.), and the state cannot prohibit this.

 

[Dogger]

If Jose can bring his Mexican flag, then Jimmybob not being allowed to bring his Rebel flag, shirt with a noose on it, or KKK shirt is discrimination and censorship. Period.

That's certainly true from an absolutist perspective on the First Amendment. But that perspective also allows banning the US flag, McCain 2008 buttons, and WWJD t-shirts.

Rational people can understand the distinction between the flag of a friendly neighbor and the flag of armed rebellion against the Union or symbols of bigotry and hatred. The latter promote messages of hatred. The former only offends those who feel hatred for Mexicans.

 

[Annie]

I kind of agree with this. But RGS likes the nanny state better.

In this school there seems to be no racial tensions so it's doubtful anyone but the teacher had a problem with the flag.

K - I think the cut off of acceptability would be decided on intent. A swastika or a noose would be a statement of support for some pretty dreadful things. The con flag and the che face could go both ways. A flag celebrating a holiday or someone's love for their harmless heritage is fine.

I suppose the intent is in the eye of the beholder. I think it pretty dreadful that some people living in this country would like to grab some for another country. I think it quite dreadful that the presumptive presidential nominee, McCain, intends to address one of these groups, La Raza, as a keynote speaker.

Oh and before anyone go all ballistic and shouting racist regarding the KKK or Nazis, what have you, I find all such groups abhorrences, I just don't pick and choose my hate group.

 

[Gunny]

The law is pragmatic. It takes into account the level of disruption that is likely to entail and the nature of the expression. You may be right depending on the circumstances that prohibiting Jimmybob from wearing a KKK shirt might be censorship. There is a factual element to the test.



It isn't a double standard. The Consitution says that the state cannot impose (defined broadly) any religion on the people. The corollary of this is that we the people can express ourselves any way that we like, within reason (time/place restrictions, smaller level of expression allowed in schools, etc.), and the state cannot prohibit this.

Religious symbols are not imposing religion on anyone. The law also states that Congress can endorse no religion .... it doesn't say local governments cannot be representative of its consituents.

You can also say what you wish as far as freedom of expression is concerned but the fact remains, allowing one and not the other is discrimination. And contrary to your opinion, it appears the law is far more concerned with political correctness than it gives regard to impact.