American School Makes Boy Remove American Flag From His Bicycle

[CRGreathouse]

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.

 

[BobG]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I think a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgie#Variations" would probably be more dangerous than a wedgie, depending on angle.

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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]

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.