Free Speech Yanked From High School Students
Jonathan Turley writes about the ruling out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals over a ban at a California high school of students wearing tee-shirts with American flags during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo:
On Cinco de Mayo in 2010, students who came to Live Oak High School outside San Jose were rounded up by teachers for engaging in offensive speech. The speech? They had American flags on their T-shirts, something the school viewed as insulting to Hispanics. Administrators insisted that only the Mexican flag could be shown on campus that day.Last week, the school's actions were unanimously upheld by the federal appellate court in California -- a ruling that would allow flags and other patriotic symbols to be banned like profanity or hate speech.
In reality, the ruling is not a sign of contempt for the flag but a sign of contempt for the rights of students. The fact that this speech concerns the flag itself (the very symbol of civil liberties) captures how far the courts have gone in abandoning core First Amendment rights for students.
Disturbingly, contrary to Tinker (the finding that students do not "shed their constitutional rights ... at the schoolhouse gate"), federal courts have been stripping students of their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate, but not only there -- inside their bedroom doors, for speech on social media.
It's one more way rights are being eroded in this country as citizens do fuck all about it.
Turley delineates the ultimate problem:
Citizens shaped in such an environment are likely to view speech as a discretionary privilege allowed by our government rather than an individual right guaranteed in our Constitution.Ironically, the flag is the very symbol of a nation of differing faiths, cultures and races bound by liberty. Perhaps the school was right: If you are going to deny free speech, it is the last thing you want to see.
The idea seemed. sort of, a good one - cut back on potential violence. But why the court agreed is is permissible to do it in this way I do not know. Perhaps likened to yelling "fire" when there is no fire (and it is not a legitimate command to shoot). Bot entirely without precedent, as in bans of "gang color" attire.
But disturbing. And probably not even effective, there have been rumors of escalation of threats of violence.
John A at March 3, 2014 10:08 PM
I'm sorry, but this cannot be. Patrick has assured me that children have rights. Even in the absence of a guardian. Even in the absence of any demonstration of competency to exercise this right.
So, I look forward to these minors enforcing the exercise of their rights without outside help.
Radwaste at March 4, 2014 1:24 AM
I think there is a lesson being learned here, and it's not the one the powers that be intended. If you're not one of the favored groups,you have no rights, except those you take, by threat of violence. I was a pretty good student, and I always learned a lot more than what was taught in class.
If Mexico's where you want to be, why stay here?
MarkD at March 4, 2014 4:34 AM
For what I've read on this story, the school banned the American flag t-shirts for threats of violence.
So, why didn't the school "ban" those individuals who were threatening the violence?
Oh, wait, I know, that would have been the common sense thing to do.
Charles at March 4, 2014 5:01 AM
This is blaming the victim. It has nothing to do with liberty.
Jim P. at March 4, 2014 5:39 AM
"So, why didn't the school "ban" those individuals who were threatening the violence?"
Posted by: Charles at March 4, 2014 5:01 AM
Because the school administrators are overwrought, afraid of being over run, and possibly afraid of being out gunned.
Tinker's affirmation of children's constitutional rights notwithstanding, courts have also declared that schools can act in place of parents in an effort to keep children safe and create an environment conducive to learning.
Astute children will understand that this school is at the mercy of hoodlums - administrators have no belief in their own ability to maintain order and a peaceful environment aside from cowtowing to prevent students from getting angry and violent. A few inmates are running the asylum. Who can learn in a place where you have to keep your mouth shut to stay safe and there can be no discussion of ideas that others might find offensive, a place where someone with hurt feelings is free to harm people in retribution?
Michelle at March 4, 2014 6:26 AM
"So, why didn't the school "ban" those individuals who were threatening the violence?"
Two words: "disparate impact". I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
Cousin Dave at March 4, 2014 6:33 AM
They can't ban the individuals who were using the heckler's veto because those individuals are of a minority status, and schools are being targeted for disparate impacts in punishments now, so it's easier to just punish whitey for being white and a jerk (which, let's face it, was probably what these kids were doing), than to punish the minority for threatening the jerks.
spqr2008 at March 4, 2014 6:37 AM
The idea seemed. sort of, a good one - cut back on potential violence.
So, if I say "shut up or I'll give you a thorough beating", you're OK with the courts telling you to shut up?
I R A Darth Aggie at March 4, 2014 6:48 AM
Darth, I don't think that's what Michelle meant. She's just laying out the sitaution as it exists, and going through what the administration is probably thinking. And yes, fear of violence directed at them personally is part of it. And yes, this is yet another example of certain people regarding the values of civilized society as a weakness to be exploited, and getting away with it.
Cousin Dave at March 4, 2014 7:34 AM
Just substitute shirts that say: "Camaron, April 30, 1863."
Bar Sinister at March 4, 2014 7:43 AM
This keeps bugging me. An organization full of adults couldn't get it together to organize a panel discussion, moderate a debate featuring skilled students (debate club? student council? model UN team?), or even facilitate less formal, age appropriate discussions about the complexity and malleability of identity and belonging?
If the teachers fear students and defer to them, what is day to day life like for the students who are forced to be there but who know the adults are not in control, and do not feel safe enough to learn there?
Given what we now know about the long term effects of cortisol on brain development, and ability to concentrate and form memories, my concerns go beyond care for their first amendment rights.
I found a lot of ways to escape the tight spots in my public education (home room, lunch room, study hall, etc) but my classmates who did not had a far more hellish go of it. I feel for these kids.
Michelle at March 4, 2014 9:42 AM
Joseph Sobran on big government: "Freedom has ceased to be a birthright; it has come to mean whatever we are still permitted to do."
Ken R at March 4, 2014 11:02 AM
MarkD: "If Mexico's where you want to be, why stay here?"
Because they know that for people like them, living in Mexico sucks. What won't figure out is that living in Mexico sucks for people like them because of people like them.
Ken R at March 4, 2014 11:10 AM
Charles: "So, why didn't the school 'ban' those individuals who were threatening the violence?"
Because, in the PC progressive mind, whether or not an act, such as threatening violence, is right or wrong, good or evil, depends not on the nature of the act itself, but on who commits it. It all depends on where one stands in the PC victimhood pecking order.
Ken R at March 4, 2014 11:16 AM
"If the teachers fear students and defer to them, what is day to day life like for the students who are forced to be there but who know the adults are not in control, and do not feel safe enough to learn there?"
That's an excellent question. It's logical to assume that if the teachers fear them, then the students who aren't in the controlling gangs fear them even more. Particularly students who think they have a real future in front of them. Due to zero-tolerance policies, they cannot afford to get caught in a situation where they might have to defend themselves -- they would receive the same punishment as their attackers, or worse, in addition to the possibility of bodily harm. The only option open to these students is to keep their heads down to the maximum extent possible and hope that the gangs don't notice them.
Cousin Dave at March 4, 2014 12:21 PM
It's also likely why their government not only doesn't try to stop them from coming here, but actively helps them at times or in ways.
Miguelitosd at March 5, 2014 3:46 PM
It's also likely why their government not only doesn't try to stop them from coming here, but actively helps them at times or in ways.
Posted by: Miguelitosd at March 5, 2014 3:46 PM
It is a safety valve thing. The "thugs in charge" in Mexico want to remain " the thugs in charge"
Isab at March 5, 2014 7:48 PM
Leave a comment