View Full Version : American School Makes Boy Remove American Flag From His Bicycle
mugaliens
Nov14-10, 01:26 AM
Article (http://www.fox40.com/ktxl-americanflagbike11122010,0,5978528.htmlstory).
Sure, they later "capitulated," but only after being contacted by a major news agency.
I have two grave concerns over this issue:
1. Just how out of touch with reality are educators these days, anyway?
2. Since when did the complaints of some students supercede a school administration's requiremen to follow Constitutional law, then State, county, and municipal law.
No principal has the right to deny a child's properly-exercised Constitutional rights, and displaying our American flag is utterly proper. Having seen hundreds of schools and never having seen one lacking an American flag, I can't help but wonder if this school has struck our nation's flag from it's grounds!
Ivan Seeking
Nov14-10, 02:55 AM
By Constitutional law, I assume you mean First Amendment protections. There is no specific right granted to display the flag, in the Constitution.
As I understand it, schools have grown found of banning anything that causes complaints or that might offend someone else, such as one's choice in clothing or jewelry. This in turn opens the door to things like banning the flag.
To be fair, I think this started as result of gang colors. If you wear blue in a red area [gang colors] you could end up dead or be the cause of a drive-by shooting. If one follows the dots, one finds that this is just another manifestation of the war on drugs, as this is ultimately what funds and motivates gang warfare.
I'm of mixed minds about this, but remember that I have no right to an opinion of a Yank situation since I don't belong to that society. My first thought is that no one has the right to deprive someone of displaying his national emblem. The first respondent to that article, however, stated that all flags had been banned from the school to alleviate racial tensions arisen from celebrations of Cinco de Mayo. That is understandable.
A minor mishap at our cenotaph ceremony on Thursday caused me to think of something, though. North Americans (Yank and Canuk; I don't know about Mexico) seem to hold our respective flags in the highest regard. Yanks more than us, I think, particularly of the southern variety.
This is one of those situations such as you might encounter in a bar, where your first statement will piss someone off so much that you don't have a chance to explain it. I'm about to make that statement, but I believe that PF members are cool enough to read through my reasoning rather than pounce upon me after the first sentence.
I neither love nor respect my Canadian flag. I appreciate the talent of the graphic designer, since it is very simple and yet uniquely Canadian. We're not the only place on Earth with maple trees, but probably the most prolific growers thereof. (Oregon produces some damned fine syrup, but I'll stick with the Ottawa Valley stuff.) The maple leaf, therefore, is appropriate. Until I was half-way through public school, however, our flag was the Union Jack, and I still have one somewhere in one of my various storage units.
I do love and respect what both of those flags represent. Also, I respect what the flags of other nations represent, whether or not I agree with the politics involved. I don't care whether it's the Stars and Stripes, or Saudi, or the Italian stripes or the Japanese meatball, or whatever. They all represent an ideology that deserves respect. Some are worthy of hatred, such as the hammer and sickle of the former Soviet Union, the Rebel flag glorifying slavery and racial intolerance, the Swastika (which, in reverse, was originally a North American native good luck symbol). Again, though, it's not the piece of cloth in question; it's what it stands for.
Back to the original item, though. What the kid did might or might not have conflicted with local ordinances (which was a bit unclear in the text), but I believe that his intent was pure.
Pengwuino
Nov14-10, 04:32 AM
To be fair, I think this started as result of gang colors. If you wear blue in a red area [gang colors] you could end up dead or be the cause of a drive-by shooting. If one follows the dots, one finds that this is just another manifestation of the war on drugs, as this is ultimately what funds and motivates gang warfare.
Source? This is probably the same ol mexicans feeling threatened by people with american flags thing. Why don't they just have all kids come to school wearing gray, with the same backpacks, and walk in step. And they can all speak French so we don't have to deal with this nonsense.
nismaratwork
Nov14-10, 06:47 AM
From what I understand this became an issue when mexican-american students wore or displayed the mexican flag and met a similar rebuke. The idea espoused by the school is that this is meant to avoid racial issues, which is absurd. I don't know that I've ever flown any flag in a non-formal occasion, but it seems to be common sense that the flag of the country in which you reside can be freely displayed... period. That said, I wouldn't have made the mexican students remove their flag either... have you seen how young these kids are? Who cares?!
If you offered every kid involved one of each gaming console for free if they dropped this issue, the only people talking would be the parents and community... and they never stop talking and arguing. These kids aren't uber-patriots... they're kids!
russ_watters
Nov14-10, 08:30 AM
By Constitutional law, I assume you mean First Amendment protections. There is no specific right granted to display the flag, in the Constitution. That's just silly, Ivan. The 1st Amendment doesn't specifically list any speech that is protected - besides being a cumbersome exercise, it would go against the point of the 1st amendment!
As I understand it, schools have grown found of banning anything that causes complaints or that might offend someone else, such as one's choice in clothing or jewelry. This in turn opens the door to things like banning the flag. Offensive or distracting, yes. I think there is an important difference, though, between what you wear in class and what you park outside on a bike rack!
cobalt124
Nov14-10, 09:35 AM
Similar situations occur in the U.K. where we get too busy worrying about minorities' feelings rather than expressing our identity. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm
in this case the "oppressed minority" which indirectly caused the issue were Muslim women who were wearing headscarves. I am glad we don't have a written constitution to refer to but I do wish we wouldn't let common sense go out of the window. Whatever the reason for the flag banning, a stars and stripes on the back of a bike surely cannot make it any worse.
To be fair, I think this started as result of gang colors. If you wear blue in a red area [gang colors] you could end up dead or be the cause of a drive-by shooting. If one follows the dots, one finds that this is just another manifestation of the war on drugs, as this is ultimately what funds and motivates gang warfare.
How is that fair or to be understood? The "Colors" of the USA are red, white, and blue. It sounds to me as though the problem is with the gangs - why not take their colors away?
Jimmy Snyder
Nov14-10, 11:38 AM
In the interview the Superintendent said it was the campus supervisor who asked the boy to remove his flag. He said she did so "based on some information that she heard about the students complaining." In other words we got fourth hand information about unspecified complaints, if I count correctly. Will we ever hear her side of the story? The campus supervisor, at best, had second hand information. Does anyone here know what complaints, or rather information about complaints, caused the campus supervisor to act so stupidly? Did she contact the boy's family about her concern for his safety?
Sure, they later "capitulated," but only after being contacted by a major news agency.
I have two grave concerns over this issue:
1. Just how out of touch with reality are educators these days, anyway?
2. Since when did the complaints of some students supercede a school administration's requiremen to follow Constitutional law, then State, county, and municipal law.
No principal has the right to deny a child's properly-exercised Constitutional rights, and displaying our American flag is utterly proper. Having seen hundreds of schools and never having seen one lacking an American flag, I can't help but wonder if this school has struck our nation's flag from it's grounds!
Who needs to have silly things like the facts of the situation before passing absolute judgment?
The paucity of information we're given does make the administration seem very silly, but not enough to warrant being closed-minded about it.
talk2glenn
Nov14-10, 11:57 AM
By Constitutional law, I assume you mean First Amendment protections. There is no specific right granted to display the flag, in the Constitution.
This is ridiculous; of course there is. Things are more muddled on public school grounds - the school has a right to censor expression which it "reasonably foresees" causing a "substantial disruption" to the ability of the school to teach. A handful of anonymous complaints to an administrator would not pass muster. This case wouldn't a last a day in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_ Dist.#The_court.27s_decision
The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."
To be fair, I think this started as result of gang colors. If you wear blue in a red area [gang colors] you could end up dead or be the cause of a drive-by shooting. If one follows the dots, one finds that this is just another manifestation of the war on drugs, as this is ultimately what funds and motivates gang warfare.
To be fair, no it didn't. Your idle speculation is unnecessary when we have the source.
http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-school-officials-respond-to-fl-111210,0,2143331.story
"The last thing we wanted was to deny Cody his rights," said Parraz speaking about the boy's wish to fly the American flag.
Parraz said national flags were banned from campus after a Cinco De Mayo incident when tensions escalated between students displaying the Mexican flag and those waving the Stars and Stripes. Recently, several students complained and there was even one threat.
Similar situations occur in the U.K. where we get too busy worrying about minorities' feelings rather than expressing our identity. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm
I semi-agree. A lot of my friends, and my ex-wife, wear crosses. Since I am one of the world's most militant Atheists, that is in my mind equivalent to branding a large red "L" on one's forehead. At the same time, their wearing thereof does not offend me in the least, and I would never ask an employee to hide it (unless it was some kind of 10kg bling like rappers like to wear; that's just rude no matter what symbol is portrayed).
If ALL flags were banned, why didn't the PARENTS and MEDIA complain earlier about it, as the American flag has been banned since what, May now? Why wait until some kid breaks the rules to complain about the rule, especially since it's been in effect for a few months, and was a hot topic back then.
I see it as more of a "We want to ban [u]their[\u] flags, so we can proudly display ours in their faces." Even though they're all American...
Jimmy Snyder
Nov14-10, 12:40 PM
If ALL flags were banned, why didn't the PARENTS and MEDIA complain earlier about it, as the American flag has been banned since what, May now? Why wait until some kid breaks the rules to complain about the rule, especially since it's been in effect for a few months, and was a hot topic back then.
I see it as more of a "We want to ban [u]their[\u] flags, so we can proudly display ours in their faces." Even though they're all American...
Are you implying that there is some kind of statue of limitations on protecting your constitutional rights? Or are you saying that displaying the flag is not protected speech?
Edit: I'm not sure you're right about flags being banned since May. The Superintendant said that the boy could display the flag. That wouldn't make sense if they were banned.
To be fair, no it didn't. Your idle speculation is unnecessary when we have the source.
http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-school-officials-respond-to-fl-111210,0,2143331.story
This is true. The Veteran's Day controversy was a follow-up to the South Bay Cinco de Mayo controversy (http://www.ktvu.com/news/23470391/detail.html) that occurred last Spring. The controversy made national news and its repercussions spread beyond just the California high school directly involved. In fact, a similar incident occurred in Texas - (Student Suspended For Taking Down Mexican Flag (http://www.39online.com/news/local/kiah-mexican-flag-story,0,6151390.story))
I don't know that school officials handled the controversies correctly last Spring. But it was clear that the T-shirt students intentionally disrupted Cinco de Mayo celebrations last Spring by their own comments and it's reasonably clear that the timing of complaints about the US flag were more than coincidental.
I think it's clear that school officials handled the Veteran's Day controversy poorly, but it's not so clear how they can resolve tensions smoothly. Obviously a no-flags policy isn't going to work, though.
Are we actually discussing whether or not the US flag should be banned? This is one of those - step back and look at the big picture - moments.
Are we actually discussing whether or not the US flag should be banned? This is one of those - step back and look at the big picture - moments.
Or is it more of a "How BIG of a disruption must something threaten before the school officials are allowed to implement rules prohibiting free speech." In this case I'm not sure it was warranted.
I'm more worried about the state of the schools if there exists an environment where the US flag(or ANY flag) should be prohibited, rather than the free speech rights of the youths. Its more important to ask why they're in this predicament in the first place, and how can we fix it?
Let me pose a side question, are Post Office employees REQUIRED to wear their uniform? If so, isn't that prohibiting free speech?
I'm more worried about the state of the schools if there exists an environment where the US flag(or ANY flag) should be prohibited, rather than the free speech rights of the youths. Its more important to ask why they're in this predicament in the first place, and how can we fix it? Free Speech is subject to restrictions.After careful review of the briefs, record, and relevant case law, we affirm the decision of the district court, holding that Principal Simmons' unwritten ban of Confederate flags on school grounds was not an unconstitutional restriction of the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/324/324.F3d.1246.-.02-14931.html
CRGreathouse
Nov14-10, 02:03 PM
That's just the Eleventh Circuit, though. I don't know of any similar restrictions upheld at the national level. (Restrictions, yes; similar restrictions, no.)
CRGreathouse
Nov14-10, 02:15 PM
And why does Cody Alicea site:ACLU.org (http://www.google.com/search?q=Cody+Alicea+site:ACLU.org) not have any hits?
That's just the Eleventh Circuit, though. I don't know of any similar restrictions upheld at the national level. (Restrictions, yes; similar restrictions, no.)That was just the first one that came up. Do you know any overturned at the national level?
Astronuc
Nov14-10, 02:35 PM
And why does Cody Alicea site:ACLU.org (http://www.google.com/search?q=Cody+Alicea+site:ACLU.org) not have any hits? Perhaps because the family didn't contact them yet?
The news article was published on Nov 12. It's all over the internet by Nov 13, certainly with the help of Fox and various groups.
Maybe on Monday, the ACLU can offer assistance, but to do what if the school authorities have decided to allow Codie to fly his flag?
CRGreathouse
Nov14-10, 02:50 PM
Astronuc -- I expected only comment, not legal aid. Beside being (it seems) unnecessary, that would take time, while giving a supporting comment would take seconds.
I used to think the ACLU was a good group, but I've come to think that they support only speech which furthers their underlying political preferences. I looked this one up in hopes that they would falsify my belief, but no such luck (nor the last several times I've tried).
CRGreathouse
Nov14-10, 02:52 PM
That was just the first one that came up. Do you know any overturned at the national level?
Tinker v. Des Moines CSD would be the classic example.
Astronuc
Nov14-10, 03:02 PM
Astronuc -- I expected only comment, not legal aid. Beside being (it seems) unnecessary, that would take time, while giving a supporting comment would take seconds.
I used to think the ACLU was a good group, but I've come to think that they support only speech which furthers their underlying political preferences. I looked this one up in hopes that they would falsify my belief, but no such luck (nor the last several times I've tried). Presumably they will issue a statement tomorrow? It certainly appears that many folks aren't waiting for a statement based on comments I've read on various internet sites.
I think it is rather ridiculous for a school to ban the display of an American flag, but then I witnessed a lot of restrictions on students when I went to school, especially if it expressed political dissent - and the ACLU wasn't around to make a statement.
Jimmy Snyder
Nov14-10, 03:05 PM
I'm not sure what you guys mean. The eleventh circuit court is a federal court.
Tinker v. Des Moines CSD would be the classic example.That case was cited by the plaintifs and they lost. It's in paragraph 2.
I'm not sure what you guys mean. The eleventh circuit court is a federal court.I took him to mean that they cover a region of the US, that it's not the US Supreme Court. That's all I could think of that he meant. I could be wrong though.
mugaliens
Nov14-10, 07:44 PM
By Constitutional law, I assume you mean First Amendment protections. There is no specific right granted to display the flag, in the Constitution.
It's a common misperception that the amendments are not part of the Constitution. They are, and carry the full weight and authority of the Constitution itself.
If one follows the dots...
I understand their justification. I simply don't buy it. Stripping students of their fundamental rights in deference to gang pressures isn't the right solution. Denying gang pressures and educating all kids that no gang "owns" the red-white-blue color scheme is the better solution.
mugaliens
Nov14-10, 07:46 PM
I used to think the ACLU was a good group, but I've come to think that they support only speech which furthers their underlying political preferences.
Not at all. They've acted in response to violations of all rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including, and in support of 2A rights.
CRGreathouse
Nov14-10, 07:47 PM
I took him to mean that they cover a region of the US, that it's not the US Supreme Court. That's all I could think of that he meant.
Precisely.
CRGreathouse
Nov14-10, 07:51 PM
That case was cited by the plaintifs and they lost. It's in paragraph 2.
I don't see how that is germane. You asked for cases overturned at the national level (in this context, as discussed above, this means the SCOTUS) and I gave one. That the 11th Circuit ruled in an apparently contrary fashion doesn't surprise me in the least. That it was citied is obvious -- it's cited in every such case....
Galteeth
Nov14-10, 08:03 PM
Um, wasn't this already settled by the supreme court along time ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_ District
Anyone who wants to ban the flag ANYWHERE in the US needs to do some reading.
http://www.usflag.org/index.html
http://www.usflag.org/toc.html
Anyone who wants to ban the flag ANYWHERE in the US needs to do some reading.
http://www.usflag.org/index.html
http://www.usflag.org/toc.html
What, specifically, is relevant? :confused:
Um, wasn't this already settled by the supreme court along time ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_ DistrictTinker remains a viable and frequently-cited Court precedent, though subsequent Court decisions have determined limitations on the scope of student free speech rightsAs I pointed out in post 18, Free Speech has limitations.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2984930&postcount=18
Anyone who wants to ban the flag ANYWHERE in the US needs to do some reading.
http://www.usflag.org/index.html
http://www.usflag.org/toc.htmlWhat the heck are these links? And what do they have to do with the OP?
Let me pose a side question, are Post Office employees REQUIRED to wear their uniform? If so, isn't that prohibiting free speech?No, of course not: They are paid to wear it. The U.S.P.S. is composed entirely of volunteers.
Jimmy Snyder
Nov15-10, 08:31 AM
Precisely.
There is no district jurisdiction. Cases decided in Circuit courts apply the entire country.
Gokul43201
Nov15-10, 01:57 PM
I used to think the ACLU was a good group, but I've come to think that they support only speech which furthers their underlying political preferences. Which are what?
I looked this one up in hopes that they would falsify my belief, but no such luck (nor the last several times I've tried).Several times? Here, try these:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/students-american-flag-t-shirts-are-protected-speech
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/homeowner-has-right-fly-historic-military-flag-aclu-arizona-says
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596540478031242.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/after-aclu-intervention-behalf-christian-valedictorian-michigan-high-school-agrees-stop-
There is no district jurisdiction. Cases decided in Circuit courts apply the entire country.
Technically, that's not entirely true.
If a district federal appeals court renders a decision, it's binding on every lower federal court in that district. It's not binding on the state courts that may be located in the same region, nor on any military courts that may be located in the same region.
It's technically not binding on other federal appeals courts, but, in practice, precedents from other districts are commonly referred to if they cover the same, or very similar, circumstances. It's very common to see court decisions of other district appeals courts cited in federal apeals court decision. It's not very common for federal appeals courts to disagree with each other (i.e. - what you say is more or less true in practice). When they do disagree, it's almost a certainty the issue will be resolved by the US Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court is the only court binding on all lower federal courts, state courts, military courts, etc.
Galteeth
Nov15-10, 04:11 PM
Which are what?
Several times? Here, try these:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/students-american-flag-t-shirts-are-protected-speech
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/homeowner-has-right-fly-historic-military-flag-aclu-arizona-says
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596540478031242.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/after-aclu-intervention-behalf-christian-valedictorian-michigan-high-school-agrees-stop-
I know a far left group who in fact, thinks the ACLU is a crypto-fascist organization since they regularly defend the free speech rights of bigots and ultra right wingers.
Point is, they have a pretty good track record of defending all speech, regardless of political content.
CRGreathouse
Nov15-10, 10:55 PM
Point is, they have a pretty good track record of defending all speech, regardless of political content.
That's actually the point with which I was disagreeing.
I would love to test this (over future events, of course, to avoid selection bias) if you can come up with a good way to code events in terms of importance of position on the spectrum. PM me or start a new thread if you're interested.
CRGreathouse
Nov15-10, 10:56 PM
There is no district jurisdiction. Cases decided in Circuit courts apply the entire country.
False.
NobodySpecial
Nov15-10, 11:06 PM
No principal has the right to deny a child's properly-exercised Constitutional rights, and displaying our American flag is utterly proper.
Displaying it on the back of his bike is utterly improper
US flag code TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7 (b)
CRGreathouse
Nov16-10, 12:11 AM
Several times? Here, try these:
Not useful; sampling bias. (I haven't looked at the articles.)
If you are interested in exploring this further (I am!) see post #42, where I extend my offer to include you as well. If we go forward with this it would be ideal if we could find someone with a stronger stats background on these boards; mine are passable only.
Gokul43201
Nov16-10, 08:48 AM
I wasn't looking for an unbiased sample. All I needed was one counter-example to falsify your belief, namely (emphasis mine):
"I've come to think that they support only speech which furthers their underlying political preferences."
Moreover, any test you design needs a well defined null hypothesis, which means you'd likely have to specify what underlying political preferences you are testing for. I asked before, and you didn't say what they were.
Nevertheless, in the context of this particular thread, the obvious and oft repeated precedent is the Cinco-de-Mayo case, which was the one I first looked for as I suspected it might be one of those things that you believed fell outside of the ACLU's preferences. The first link in my previous post describes the ACLU's arguments defending the display of the US flag in that particular case - a much more "risky" environment than that being discussed in this thread, IMO.
zomgwtf
Nov16-10, 10:58 AM
To be fair, I think this started as result of gang colors. If you wear blue in a red area [gang colors] you could end up dead or be the cause of a drive-by shooting. If one follows the dots, one finds that this is just another manifestation of the war on drugs, as this is ultimately what funds and motivates gang warfare.
Nah you're much more likely to be killed by people of the 'same gang'. It's much more complicated than a blue vs. red analogy that the media loves. Gangs that associate with the 'bloods'(red) kill each other far more often than fighting anyone else.
The lesson to be learned from this?
Terrorism works!
Parraz says the supervisor had information that Cody Alicea's safety was at risk because of the flag. Some students had complained about it and had apparently made threats.
"The last thing we wanted was to deny Cody his rights," said Parraz speaking about the boy's wish to fly the American flag.
Parraz said national flags were banned from campus after a Cinco De Mayo incident when tensions escalated between students displaying the Mexican flag and those waving the Stars and Stripes. Recently, several students complained and there was even one threat.
"I think it would be irresponsible of us if we kind of shined it on and let him have the flag and he got jumped or something like that and got hurt," said Parraz.
To be fair, the school's response wasn't radically different than the response of the US government to 9/11. Protect people's safety, even if it denies them their rights.
At least initially, anyway. Given time to figure out which reactions make sense and which are simply irrational knee jerk reactions, one would hope that most would do the same as the school and come to the realization that at least some of their initial reactions were wrong.
Protect people's safety, even if it denies them their rights.No doubt that reminds many of the famous Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 01:11 PM
If people don't like seeing the US flag, why would they live in the US?
This is nonsense. If you want to live and benefit from the US then get used to seeing these things.
It wasn't so long ago that a council in the UK requested someone take down their Christmas decorations from the outside of their home so it wouldn't offend neighbouring immigrants.
The reaction was simple, people said tuff. You want to live in a country, get used to their traditions and such. If you don't want to integrate that's up to you, but it isn't down to those already there to alter their lives to accomodate you.
If people are going to threaten someone, especially for something as ridiculous as simply displaying the flag, they don't deserve to be in that country.
Sorry for the rant, but it's things like this that really infuriate me.
No doubt that reminds many of the famous Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.
We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 01:38 PM
You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.
We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.
I have to say, there should never be a question of safety when it comes to something like this.
Any child who threatens another should be removed from the school. Once again they are making allowances for bad behaviour and showing that it does pay off.
We won't remove the person(s) threatening to use violence, we'll punish those who have done no wrong. I personally won't stand for this kind of attitude.
I have to say, there should never be a question of safety when it comes to something like this.
Any child who threatens another should be removed from the school. Once again they are making allowances for bad behaviour and showing that it does pay off.
We won't remove the person(s) threatening to use violence, we'll punish those who have done no wrong. I personally won't stand for this kind of attitude.Did you read Bob's post about the sequence of events? It's unlikely they even knew who might be a threat.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2988697&postcount=48
Seriously, if my kid was harmed or killed because the school failed to take immediate action to protect my child, there would be hell to pay. Nothing comes before my child's welfare and while at school, the school is responsible for my child's welfare.
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 01:48 PM
Did you read Bob's post about the sequence of events? It's unlikely they even knew who might be a threat.
"Some students had complained about it and had apparently made threats."
If they've complained, someone must know who they are. Especially if it's gone this far.
Seriously, if my kid was harmed or killed because the school failed to take immediate action to protect my child, there would be hell to pay. Nothing comes before my child's welfare and while at school, the school is responsible for my child's welfare.
Certainly, but would you want the school to remove the child being threatening or penalise your child for doing nothing wrong?
By penalising the child for not doing any wrong all you do is show these children that violent and threatening behaviour gets your own way.
I speak as a person who has never been on the "violent and threatening" end of things. I'm part of the group that behaviour is aimed towards.
"Some students had complained about it and had apparently made threats."
If they've complained, someone must know who they are. Especially if it's gone this far.
Certainly, but would you want the school to remove the child being threatening or penalise your child for doing nothing wrong?
By penalising the child for not doing any wrong all you do is show these children that violent and threatening behaviour gets your own way.You bet they'd better remove my child from harm. If it's something he/she is wearing or has on a bicycle, get rid of it. Nothing is worth harming my child. Safety first. Details can be figured out later.
When Evo Child was in middle school she wore a girls shirt with a pink teddy bear on it. When the school couldn't reach me to come get her, they made her wear it inside out. They had just placed a ban on clothes with symbols or logos on them. While this really didn't fit the ban, the teacher decided it would be nothing for anyone just so there wouldn't be any arguments. They are in school to learn, not to compare fashion. So while we laughed about how stupid it was, it made sense for having thirty 12 year old children in a room with a teacher. The school did let up on the decorations as long as they weren't obscene or inflammatory, since it was virtually impossible to buy girl's clothes for that age group that was void of designs.
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 02:04 PM
I went to a school with a uniform for exactly that reason. Makes sense to me why all children should be viewed equally within a school environment.
My problem is with the fact it was on his bike. He wasn't flaunting it around the school or at least it doesn't appear to be the case.
Again, removing your child from harm is best served by removing the person creating the problem, not the innocent victim.
Yes, initial action should be prevent the problem but it should be followed by immediate action regarding the offender.
This school is simply punishing this child for no good reason and then (from what it appears) allowing the people doing the threatening to go free.
You can't just airbrush the problem away. These people will see that threatening others works and they can get away with it and will use it again when they need to achieve their goals.
I went to a school with a uniform for exactly that reason. Makes sense to me why all children should be viewed equally within a school environment.
My problem is with the fact it was on his bike. He wasn't flaunting it around the school or at least it doesn't appear to be the case.
Again, removing your child from harm is best served by removing the person creating the problem, not the innocent victim.
Yes, initial action should be prevent the problem but it should be followed by immediate action regarding the offender.
This school is simply punishing this child for no good reason and then (from what it appears) allowing the people doing the threatening to go free.
You can't just airbrush the problem away. These people will see that threatening others works and they can get away with it and will use it again when they need to achieve their goals.You do know about the history behind this, the flag problem at the school on Cinco de Mayo that caused the ban? There was a large group involved, that there was no single "identified" threat to remove?
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 02:24 PM
You do know about the history behind this, the flag problem at the school on Cinco de Mayo that caused the ban? There was a large group involved, that there was no single "identified" threat to remove?
Not a clue. Just read about it, that is despicable. Pure vandalism there.
So they've all out banned flags there now or in all schools?
The fact this flag was on the kids bike for two months says it all for me. There shouldn't be an issue. If it's taken 2 months to react then it's clearly not been a problem until someone suddenly decided it was.
Regardless, I stand by my point. If you want to live in the US, don't expect the people in the US to accomodate you by changing their lifestyles.
I don't care who lives next door to me, but don't expect me to change anything about my life to accomodate you.
Unless this kid was specifically responding to something then I don't see any argument against him carrying a flag. The Cinco de Mayo thing is nothing more than an idiot acting up. I see no similar action here.
If there are people making threats, get rid of them. They are no different to the idiot above.
drankin
Nov16-10, 04:38 PM
I'm in complete agreement with jarednjames on this issue. Usually I don't share the same feeling about things with the folks in the UK. I would have no problem sending my child to school with the flag on their bike despite this madeup security concern.
Maybe kids should be wearing helmets and bullet proof clothing at all times in this case. I mean come on, it's the schools responsibility to keep our kids safe, right?
So and so is offended and may become voilent by a childs hairdo, ban the hairdo?
Gokul43201
Nov16-10, 05:05 PM
Wouldn't it have been a lot less intrusive if the school simply informed the kids parents of the threat, so they could take whatever action they deemed appropriate (i.e., have kid remove flag if they thought safety was more important, or have kid not remove flag if they considered the freedom of expression more important)?
You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.
We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.
You should reread your response.
You're suggesting that if kid A threatened kid B with physical violence the response of the schoolmaster would be to beat kid B so kid A wouldn't have to? (Actually, I could imagine a scenario where the schoolmaster would tell kid A to quit complaining and to stick up for himself, but that probably wouldn't be a politically correct response today, either. Irrelevant, but did they even have bicycles in Ben Franklin's time?)
Would punishing the victim be acceptable if the victim were a woman lodging a sexual harrassment complaint? In other words, would simply transferring the woman to a new workplace so she wouldn't have contact with the sexual harrasser be a sufficient solution?
You do know about the history behind this, the flag problem at the school on Cinco de Mayo that caused the ban? There was a large group involved, that there was no single "identified" threat to remove?
Actually, the large group didn't threaten the Cinco de Mayo celebrators. They wore American flag T-shirts as a counter-statement. Regardless of the lameness of protesting a Cinco de Mayo celebration, it wasn't a particularly disruptive protest.
(Protesting a Cinco de Mayo celebration is more or less the equivalent of protesting a St Patrick's Day celebration. Why would a person take offense at either celebration (unless they were members of MADD, perhaps) - especially to the point of protesting it?)
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 05:30 PM
I agree with dranking and bobg on what they have said.
The school is avoiding the real issue here. Which is bullying and threatening behaviour.
I agree, make it safe for the kid, but punishing the victim isn't the way to go about it.
Nowhere else in life would we accept this. As bobg said, shifting the woman who makes a sexual harrassment complaint to another department and ignoring the person who caused the problem is wrong.
So and so is offended and may become voilent by a childs hairdo, ban the hairdo?
Exactly, it's showing people that this behaviour is an acceptable way to get their own way. Completely wrong on so many levels.
Mech_Engineer
Nov16-10, 05:54 PM
A complaint is made about an american flag on a bicycle and it is immediately slated for removal... a kid wears a shirt with the mexican flag on it and if anyone dares say anything about it we have an international incident on our hands and are trying to deny a child's cultural heritage.
W T F :cry:
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 06:00 PM
A complaint is made about an american flag on a bicycle and it is immediately slated for removal... a kid wears a shirt with the mexican flag on it and if anyone dares say anything about it we have an international incident on our hands and are trying to deny a child's cultural heritage.
W T F :cry:
Precisely.
As with most laws supposedly there to protect groups of people, whether they are for race, religion, sex etc. They are all bias in some way.
Mech_Engineer
Nov16-10, 06:09 PM
Precisely.
As with most laws supposedly there to protect groups of people, whether they are for race, religion, sex etc. They are all bias in some way.
It seems to me the civil liberties of immigrants (and even citizens of other countries) are being "protected" at the price of our own... I can't believe some of the ridiculous stuff that is done today in the name of political correctness.
You should reread your response.
You're suggesting that if kid A threatened kid B with physical violence the response of the schoolmaster would be to beat kid B so kid A wouldn't have to? (Actually, I could imagine a scenario where the schoolmaster would tell kid A to quit complaining and to stick up for himself, but that probably wouldn't be a politically correct response today, either. Irrelevant, but did they even have bicycles in Ben Franklin's time?)
Would punishing the victim be acceptable if the victim were a woman lodging a sexual harrassment complaint? In other words, would simply transferring the woman to a new workplace so she wouldn't have contact with the sexual harrasser be a sufficient solution?We're talking about kid B breaking a school rule back then. Kid B would be the one getting the punishment. Just showing him that bringing Benjamin Franklin into this thread doesn't back up what he's trying to say.
You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.
We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.The post I responded to referred also to governments reaction to 911.
As far as this kid's safety goes, prohibiting his display of the flag for that reason is despicable, and a victory to bullies everywhere, even if it doesn't directly violate anyone's rights.
Schools might as well force kids to wedgie themselves to save the bullies the trouble, and for their own safety.Irrelevant, but did they even have bicycles in Ben Franklin's time?)No, but equally irrelevantly, they did have tricycles.
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 06:25 PM
Pupil: "Sir, Joe's bullying me. He steals my lunch money everyday and threatens to beat me up if I don't give it to him."
Teacher: "Well, I think it's best if I take your lunch money and let your parents know of the problem and see if they want you to change schools. Problem solved."
A complaint is made about an american flag on a bicycle and it is immediately slated for removal... a kid wears a shirt with the mexican flag on it and if anyone dares say anything about it we have an international incident on our hands and are trying to deny a child's cultural heritage.
W T F :cry:
Did the latter actually occur? And do you have a reference to that incident?
Or are you actually referring to last Spring's Cinco de Mayo controversy (http://www.ktvu.com/news/23491978/detail.html), but didn't remember what actually happened?
There is one very significant detail that is common to both controversies: both schools felt their reaction (ordering the removal of the flag) was a mistake. In fact, it's surprising the school in the Veteran's Day controversy remembered the controversy part of the Cinco de Mayo incident while overlooking the school's regretting it's actions.
As far as this kid's safety goes, prohibiting his display of the flag for that reason is despicable, and a victory to bullies everywhere, even if it doesn't directly violate anyone's rights. We'll agree to disagree then, because nothing is more important than my child's safety, nothing.
Mech_Engineer
Nov16-10, 06:42 PM
We'll agree to disagree then, because nothing is more important than my child's safety, nothing.
The problem isn't just the child's safety, I want to know what scum is complaining about a display of the American flag, and why civil liberties groups aren't up in arms about it? What has become of our country when immigrants can threaten harm to anyone that displays patriotism, and we cave in to it?!
The problem isn't just the child's safety, I want to know what scum is complaining about a display of the American flag, and why civil liberties groups aren't up in arms about it? What has become of our country when immigrants can threaten harm to anyone that displays patriotism, and we cave in to it?!Immigrant scum? Is this the reason Fox news made such a big deal of it? Is this why people are outraged? Just curious.
Mech_Engineer
Nov16-10, 06:47 PM
Immigrant scum?
Well those two terms were in different sentences but I may be getting a bit wound up. Let me put it this way- who it teaching kids they should be offended and threaten violence when they see an act of American patriotism?
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 06:48 PM
We'll agree to disagree then, because nothing is more important than my child's safety, nothing.
I agree with you, but you have to realise what angle people are talking about here.
Removing the flag doesn't remove the problem. They are leaving the bullies in place who used violence to get their own way.
This is not a good example to set.
The first action should be the protection of your child, if it is an immediate threat get them out of the situation. They should then remove the problem child and allow your child to go back to their normal routine.
Are you honestly saying the school should punish your child and not the bullies? That your child should sacrifice something because someone is threatening violence if they don't get their own way?
That sort of behaviour isn't acceptable and shouldn't be tolerated.
What I'm seeing from you is a person who would rather see their child stripped of any freedoms they have, within their own country, to ensure they don't offend anyone else. This is something I cannot support nor agree with.
The problem isn't just the child's safety, I want to know what scum is complaining about a display of the American flag, and why civil liberties groups aren't up in arms about it? What has become of our country when immigrants can threaten harm to anyone that displays patriotism, and we cave in to it?!
How do you know it was an immigrant? My ex and her family are pretty passionate about St Patrick's Day and I think their great grandfather was the immigrant. In fact, they go so far as to yell supportive cheers and sing songs for terrorist organizations and root them on in recovering Ireland's "Fourth Green Field". (Personally, I think they really do all that just as a celebration of getting drunk, but who am I to comment about their true passions.)
(And, for the record, I'm not actually anti-Irish. In fact, I guess I'm not really anti-ex's family, even though there are some things about them that are really, really annoying.)
We'll agree to disagree then, because nothing is more important than my child's safety, nothing.Was that an implied ad hominem attack, Evo? It must be because you used the word "because", indicating that you are claiming that is the reason we disagree.
Are implied personal insults OK per forum rules?
Dembadon
Nov16-10, 06:52 PM
Pupil: "Sir, Joe's bullying me. He steals my lunch money everyday and threatens to beat me up if I don't give it to him."
Teacher: "Well, I think it's best if I take your lunch money and let your parents know of the problem and see if they want you to change schools. Problem solved."
...
As far as this kid's safety goes, prohibiting his display of the flag for that reason is despicable, and a victory to bullies everywhere, even if it doesn't directly violate anyone's rights.
Schools might as well force kids to wedgie themselves to save the bullies the trouble.
Not all issues that arise from racial tension are analogous to wedgies and/or stolen lunch money. Some can result in severe injuries or death, even at the middle school level. Thirteen-year-olds are capable of extremely dangerous behavior.
We can't assume anything about the seriousness of the racial tension issues because the article doesn't give enough information.
Losing one's lunch money or receiving a wedgie isn't the worst thing that could happen in a situation like this, and it would be foolish to assume so.
Well those two terms were in different sentences but I may be getting a bit wound up. Let me put it this way- who it teaching kids they should be offended and threaten violence when they see an act of American patriotism?I thought you might be a bit worked up. :smile:
I think the original Cinco de Mayo incident was handled wrong. But I understand the overreaction for this kid's safety and the school reconsidered and retracted. No different than what happened with my daughter's shirt. It was stupid, and the rules were changed.
JaredJames
Nov16-10, 06:55 PM
Not all issues that arise from racial tension are analogous to wedgies and/or stolen lunch money. Some can result in severe injuries or death, even at the middle school level. Thirteen-year-olds are capable of extremely dangerous behavior.
We can't assume anything about the seriousness of the racial tension issues because the article doesn't give enough information.
Losing one's lunch money or receiving a wedgie isn't the worst thing that could happen in a situation like this, and it would be foolish to assume so.
With all due respect I was using a touch of sarcasm there. Outlining how ridiculous the proposal of punishing the innocent is.
Any person threatening violent behaviour towards another should be removed. Problem solved. Removing the flag and leaving the violent person in place simply shifts the problem to another day when the person becomes 'offended' by someone else's actions.
You are inhabiting the US, you abide by their laws and benefit from their countries assets and facilities. You do not move there to gain all of this and then demand people already there change their ways to accommodate you. You can be as patriotic to your own country as you like, but don't you dare be offended when someone shows support for their country and you definitely have no grounds to complain of someone wearing the flag of the country you are inhabiting. If you don't like it, leave. If you are going to use violence to try and get your own way you should be thrown out.
I know it sounds exceptionally brutal but frankly I'm sick of this "we should accommodate everyone" approach being taken recently, especially in the UK. It is the current residents who are suffering because the government is ignoring what they want and going straight to the needs of immigrants.
Was that an implied ad hominem attack, Evo? It must be because you used the word "because", indicating that you are claiming that is the reason we disagree.
Are implied personal insults OK per forum rules?Nope. I was sincerely saying that we disagree and that's fine, my child is of utmost importance to me and there is no point in arguing. Don't try to make things up that don't exist, and don't try to put words in my mouth that aren't there. Doing what you just did, twisting something around and making false accusations is not okay per forum rules though.
Mech_Engineer
Nov16-10, 06:57 PM
How do you know it was an immigrant?
You're right, I shouldn't have assumed the complaint was made by a child immigrant. Still I ask again- who is teaching kids they should be offended and threaten violence when they see an act of American patriotism? Are there really American kids offended and disgusted by the sight of their own flag?!
My ex and her family are pretty passionate about St Patrick's Day and I think their great grandfather was the immigrant. In fact, they go so far as to yell supportive cheers and sing songs for terrorist organizations and root them on in recovering Ireland's "Fourth Green Field". (Personally, I think they really do all that just as a celebration of getting drunk, but who am I to comment about their true passions.)
(And, for the record, I'm not actually anti-Irish. In fact, I guess I'm not really anti-ex's family, even though there are some things about them that are really, really annoying.)
And your family is what makes America great. BUT, I'll bet they don't complain (and/or threaten violence) when an American flag is displayed on a bicycle or a shirt... By the same token I'm not making threats when I see a four-leaf clover on St. Patrick's day!
Something is festering at the heart of our society, and I want to know what it is!
Not all issues that arise from racial tension are analogous to wedgies and/or stolen lunch money. Some can result in severe injuries or death, even at the middle school level. Thirteen-year-olds are capable of extremely dangerous behavior.
We can't assume anything about the seriousness of the racial tension issues because the article doesn't give enough information.
Losing one's lunch money or receiving a wedgie isn't the worst thing that could happen in a situation like this, and it would be foolish to assume so.I meant the wedgie as a metaphor for the school telling the kid he can't display the flag, not as an example of a threat to the kid's safety. Although a wedgie can be pretty dangerous.:eek:
Rather than take the flag away from a single student - perhaps they should hand out flags to all of the students and teach them about it's history and symbolism. A great many Americans have given their lives to defend the Red, White, and Blue.
Nope. I was sincerely saying that we disagree and that's fine, my child is of utmost importance to me and there is no point in arguing. Don't try to make things up that don't exist, and don't try to put words in my mouth that aren't there.OK, I must have completely misconstrued your post. You used the word "because" to indicate that the fact that your child's safety is important to you is completely unrelated to the reason we disagree.
Sorry for "making up something that doesn't exist". My bad.Doing what you just did, twisting something around and making false accusations is not okay per forum rules though.Sorry I violated forum rules by construing the word "because" to mean something other than a completely unrelated remark.
Rather than take the flag away from a single student - perhaps they should hand out flags to all of the students and teach them about it's history and symbolism. A great many Americans have given their lives to defend the Red, White, and Blue.Yeah. Or maybe have a big flag in front of the school, in the hallways, and in each classroom. What a novel idea.
OK, I must have completely misconstrued your post. You used the word "because" to indicate that the fact that your child's safety is important to you is completely unrelated to the reason we disagree.
Sorry for "making up something that doesn't exist". My bad.Sorry I violated forum rules by construing the word "because" to mean something other than a completely unrelated remark.:smile: Finally, someone understands how my mind works!
Yeah. Or maybe have a big flag in front of the school, in the hallways, and in each classroom. What a novel idea.
By giving each child their own personal flag, they can take ownership and have an opportunity to participate in an American tradition. Hopefully, when/if they take it home, their parents will respond in a positive manner.
You're right, I shouldn't have assumed the complaint was made by a child immigrant. Still I ask again- who is teaching kids they should be offended and threaten violence when they see an act of American patriotism? Are there really American kids offended and disgusted by the sight of their own flag?!
And your family is what makes America great. BUT, I'll bet they don't complain (and/or threaten violence) when an American flag is displayed on a bicycle or a shirt... By the same token I'm not making threats when I see a four-leaf clover on St. Patrick's day!
Something is festering at the heart of our society, and I want to know what it is!
Personally, I think I might be twice as excited by Cinco de Mayo celebrations as I am about St Patrick's Day celebration, but I'd need a calculator to be sure. The grandchild is about 25% (or less) Mexican descent and, 12.5% (or less) Irish descent. Or does the fact that I have four kids that are 25% (or less) Irish descent mean I should be more excited by St Patrick's Day? But then how do I figure in the fact that the ex is 50% Irish and, well, she's an ex for a reason?
And when it comes to my personal ancestory, I need a calculator and perhaps a rule book (do I count my Guernsey ancestors as being their own nationality, or do I count them as French since all of them came to Guernsey Island from Normandy; and what do I do about the whole Shclesswig-Holstein thing since sometimes it belonged to Denmark and sometimes it belonged to Germany?)
Everything has context. In the Cinco de Mayo controversy, the students, themselves, told people they were wearing the American flag T-shirts as a protest against the Cinco de Mayo celebration. The flags on the T-shirt weren't the problem per se, although a purist might mention that the student's motivation for wearing the flag wasn't in line with the traditional reasons people display the flag. Likewise, removing the T-shirts wasn't really the appropriate solution.
The original root issue was protesting a Cinco de Mayo celebration. Protesting the Cinco de Mayo celebrations were a matter of free speech, but free speech doesn't mean the people you insulted don't have the their own right to voice their opinion about your protest. Unless tempers flared to the point of violence erupting, then the school really didn't need to discipline anyone.
Mech_Engineer
Nov16-10, 08:00 PM
The original root issue was protesting a Cinco de Mayo celebration. Protesting the Cinco de Mayo celebrations were a matter of free speech, but free speech doesn't mean the people you insulted don't have the their own right to voice their opinion about your protest. Unless tempers flared to the point of violence erupting, then the school really didn't need to discipline anyone.
The most confusing part of it all- the kids were "insulted" at other kids wearing american flags during cinco de mayo while they were wearing mexican flag memorabilia, a practice which is frowned upon IN MEXICO!
CRGreathouse
Nov16-10, 08:32 PM
The most confusing part of it all- the kids were "insulted" at other kids wearing american flags during cinco de mayo while they were wearing mexican flag memorabilia, a practice which is frowned upon IN MEXICO!
Well, the gesture was apparently intended as an insult, so I'm not surprised it was taken as such. But I generally feel that the best answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.
The most confusing part of it all- the kids were "insulted" at other kids wearing american flags during cinco de mayo while they were wearing mexican flag memorabilia, a practice which is frowned upon IN MEXICO!
Which part - the Cinco de Mayo celebration which might also be celebrated at a Mexican tourist resort frequented by Americans but nowhere else in Mexico or wearing the national flag as apparel, which is frowned upon by most countries, including the US.
In either case, why would the students care what Mexico thinks about it? They live in the US.
Cinco de Mayo isn't a celebration of nationality - it's a celebration of ancestry and culture.
Char. Limit
Nov17-10, 04:32 AM
Personally, I place the school administrators in the wrong. A few anonymous complaints does not excuse the administrators telling the kid that he couldn't put a flag on his bicycle. ESPECIALLY not when there's already other flags flying EVERYWHERE in the school. If the complainers are offended by that kid, they should be offended by every classroom, office, and the big flagpole outside!
Also, did they really forbid him from flying a flag on his bicycle when what he does on his bicycle has no connection to the school whatsoever!? Unless he rides it around in the halls, what he does on the bicycle is his business. He could fly a Nazi flag on the bicycle and they can't make him take it down.
nismaratwork
Nov17-10, 04:59 AM
Nah you're much more likely to be killed by people of the 'same gang'. It's much more complicated than a blue vs. red analogy that the media loves. Gangs that associate with the 'bloods'(red) kill each other far more often than fighting anyone else.
This of course, makes perfect sense, once a gang stabilizes (relatively speaking), most of the action is going to be internal moves for power, territory, or the settling of dispute. Ask any homicide detective and they'll tell you the truism: "Nearest and Dearest" are most likely to have committed the crime... why wouldn't that apply to a gang? The only time inter-gang violence would spike is during a "gang war" or some other dispute, but they tend to be brief if bloody.
Anyway, this whole issue should have been ignored if these things didn't end in people getting hurt. That said, there hast to be something better than just saying, "No Flags Allowed", which doesn't address the actual tensions. You can reduce risk of fire by removing tinder, but if you're dealing with saaaay, a national park's worth of brush, you have to deal with the cause (drought, weather, etc) and not count on getting ever single dry pine needle and dead tree.
Dembadon
Nov17-10, 12:00 PM
With all due respect I was using a touch of sarcasm there. Outlining how ridiculous the proposal of punishing the innocent is.
Any person threatening violent behaviour towards another should be removed. Problem solved. Removing the flag and leaving the violent person in place simply shifts the problem to another day when the person becomes 'offended' by someone else's actions.
You are inhabiting the US, you abide by their laws and benefit from their countries assets and facilities. You do not move there to gain all of this and then demand people already there change their ways to accommodate you. You can be as patriotic to your own country as you like, but don't you dare be offended when someone shows support for their country and you definitely have no grounds to complain of someone wearing the flag of the country you are inhabiting. If you don't like it, leave. If you are going to use violence to try and get your own way you should be thrown out.
I know it sounds exceptionally brutal but frankly I'm sick of this "we should accommodate everyone" approach being taken recently, especially in the UK. It is the current residents who are suffering because the government is ignoring what they want and going straight to the needs of immigrants.
I share your concern about attempting to accommodate everyone, but we don't know the specifics about the racial issues in this particular school. Sometimes the best solutions are preventative in nature, although it seems a bit silly that the school felt they could regulate Cody's actions while he wasn't even at school. In this case, their regulation probably should have been a suggestion. Also, the school isn't ignoring the troublemakers.
From the article (emphasis mine):
After being contacted by FOX40 Friday morning, Denair's Superintendent says Cody will be allowed to keep the flag on his bike. He told FOX40 he and the school are patriotic, but their main priority is keeping students safe; the school will focus on the students who are causing uprisings.
Dembadon
Nov17-10, 12:04 PM
I meant the wedgie as a metaphor for the school telling the kid he can't display the flag, not as an example of a threat to the kid's safety. Although a wedgie can be pretty dangerous.:eek:
I think a melvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgie#Variations) would probably be more dangerous than a wedgie, depending on angle.
JaredJames
Nov17-10, 12:05 PM
From the article (emphasis mine):
Of course, but my problem is with the fact their main attempt to control the issue was via the guy with the flag.
I agree, a suggestion to him / his family regarding wearing it should have been made, but they shouldn't impose a sanction on him immediately.
Dembadon
Nov17-10, 12:15 PM
Of course, but my problem is with the fact their main attempt to control the issue was via the guy with the flag.
...
Preventative measures, in and of themselves, aren't always bad, especially when the risks are high and information is scarce. For instance, if it were likely that Cody's life was in danger, and the school didn't have enough information to take immediate action, a quick way to calm the situation would be to ask him to put the flag away until they have more information, rather than risk finding him curb-stomped one day because his rights were more important than his safety. This is an extreme case, I know, but not one that can be ignored without more information.
JaredJames
Nov17-10, 12:26 PM
Oh of course dembadon, get rid of the danger as soon as possible.
But they didn't just ask him not to display it, they banned him from doing so. It's one thing to tell someone you believe them to be in danger and that they shouldn't display it until they know what's going on to ensure they remain safe, but it's something else when you simply ban it.
Again, if you don't like the US flag, don't live in the US. If you want to live in a country don't get mad when you see symbols that represent that country.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.