Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Shirts

[Trimdingman]

Why the lack of appreciation for American history? Why the lack of acknowledgement that native Spanish speakers make up more than 10% of the US population (going by the US census from the year 2000)? Yes, it's true that the proportion of English to Spanish in America is different than the proportion of English to French in Canada (82% to 11% vs 67% to 22%), but it's still significant enough at more than 10% of the population that it makes sense for businesses and governments (especially in areas with larger Spanish speaking populations) to provide services in both English and Spanish, at least on demand.

 

Now, none of this is saying that Spanish speakers should not learn English and vice versa to an extent. This is a simple recognition of reality, something that many apparently have a problem with.

 

If businesses are going to suffer because they do not offer service in the language of their customers, they will either change or go under. Let local governments wrestle with this problem. The penalty for acting wrongly will be getting the boot at election time. They want to pass the buck to a higher level of government. Language is something that should be dealt with at the neighbourhood level. The higher you go with it, the more unfairness will be built in. The document should come from the federal government in one language, and local governments can translate it into the local languages. Probably every language in the world is spoken in Canada and the United states. To be fair to every citizen would be an impossible task.

 

The problem with the Francophone population is based on past wrongs that have never been properly righted. Canada became officially bi-lingual to try and heal old wounds. It is just a Band-Aid. English tradition will never wash for people of French background. What we need is a Canadian culture. Canada, in Its present form, has been around a lot longer than most countries. Many see it as a knock-off English culture. We are much more than that.

[DUCKRACER]

Of course they were stirring the pot, but answer this: Do you think they would have disciplined any Mexican-American students for wearing a shirt with a Mexican flag on it on the 4th of July?

 

Besides, if anyone takes offense to it, tough. What part of Mexican-AMERICAN are they missing?

 

 

It seems that liberal speech is free but conservative speech is racist.

[Roadtrip]

Why the lack of appreciation for American history?

 

What in any of my posts constitutes a "lack of appreciation for American history?" To the contrary, I have a deep appreciation for American history, more than you could possibly know.

 

Why the lack of acknowledgement that native Spanish speakers make up more than 10% of the US population (going by the US census from the year 2000)?

 

At what point did I demonstrate a "lack of acknowledgement" of the abundance of those who speak Spanish in this country?

 

You'll have to trust me when I say this, but from someone who lives in a border state whose population is 45 percent Hispanic, one would have to be both blind and deaf not to acknowledge that there are a lot of people who speak Spanish in these parts. Scan the AM radio dial and there are as many Spanish-language stations as there are English. Go to my hometown of El Paso, Texas (on the border with Mexico), and you'll find that if you don't speak (or at least understand) Spanish, you would be very lonely indeed.

 

I'm not sure why you would set up straw-man arguments like these, but that's your problem.

 

Yes, it's true that the proportion of English to Spanish in America is different than the proportion of English to French in Canada (82% to 11% vs 67% to 22%), but it's still significant enough at more than 10% of the population that it makes sense for businesses and governments (especially in areas with larger Spanish speaking populations) to provide services in both English and Spanish, at least on demand.

 

Businesses market themselves toward the Spanish-speaking population because they can, and no one forces them to do so. It's a marketing device called segmentation. Governments at all levels in the U.S. spend billions to accommodate Spanish-speaking people -- at taxpayer expense. You say it makes sense, but then why doesn't it make sense for the government to accommodate all non-English-speaking people who might need government services? (Oh, wait: The government does do that, in the form of translator services.) But the government goes the extra mile for Spanish-only speakers, providing them with everything they need in the Spanish language. Explain to me how this is fair compared to other non-English-speaking immigrants who have had to learn the English language in order to assimilate to this country. You can't. The only reason is because Spanish-speaking immigrants are the largest among the population of non-English-speaking immigrants. Therefore, because of the size of their population, they deserve preferential treatment.

 

Aside from the "tyranny of the majority over the minority" argument, accommodating Spanish-speaking-only people by our government does them -- and our country -- a grave disservice. When they fail to assimilate into our society, we all suffer the consequences.

 

Now, none of this is saying that Spanish speakers should not learn English and vice versa to an extent. This is a simple recognition of reality, something that many apparently have a problem with.

 

You, sitting in front of your computer screen somewhere in Canada, have no idea of the reality of what conditions are like in the border states with Mexico. You are not here, and you are not faced with dealing with, or are subject to, the problems we have concerning illegal immigrants or Spanish-speaking people. Please don't presume to know. Really, because you don't.

[goinbroke2]

Road trip, you said "You, sitting in front of your computer screen somewhere in Canada, have no idea of the reality of what conditions are like in the border states with Mexico. You are not here, and you are not faced with dealing with, or are subject to, the problems we have concerning illegal immigrants or Spanish-speaking people. Please don't presume to know. Really, because you don't"

 

Don't feel bad, he has a myopic left leaning view of Canada too even though he's here. As of 1 April everything I send to Public works over $25,000 has to be translated at a cost of 50 cents A WORD! So I do up a contract to have a 150ton crane refit (what I'm working on right now) that will cost $160,000. But due to the translation of the Statement of work, before it goes to PWGSC I have to go back to the unit and ask for additional funding. How much? Well so far the SOW has just over 3600 words and it's not done. But that's only $1800-2000 extra right? Well it was the same for the cutting edges I ordered last week that were $26,000. Adding $2000 on top of 25,000 just because it's going on "MERKS" which is the national list for people to bid on when the ONLY people who need translation are....oh wait, even Quebec company's who deal with outside quebec have english/french workers.....umm...

 

Special rights for ANYONE over ANYONE ELSE for ANY REASON causes problems. Let quebec be french only if they ant, and let the rest of Canada be english if they want. Just stop all the bullshit appeasing because it won't help anything or anybody.

 

 

(unless your myopic view of a utopian society can only be formed through the hand-holding and socialistic promise of the left)

[suv_guy_19]

Don't feel bad, he has a myopic left leaning view of Canada too even though he's here.

 

Unfortunately for you, you have a view of Canada that doesn't and won't exist. We don't have to let Quebec or Canada be anything. Quebec can use whatever language they like, and official bilingualism at the federal is enshrined into the Constitution. It isn't going anywhere.

[suv_guy_19]

Please don't presume to know. Really, because you don't.

 

I'll presume whatever I like. I think it makes sense. You don't. Yay for you. I won't tell you what to think, and I would expect the same courtesy.

[grbeck]

Again we agree grbeck. I hate political correctness on both sides of the spectrum. You do not have a right to go through your life unoffended. There is a difference between provocative and threatening. Where there is a legitimate threat, action should be taken. If wearing the Mexican flag is OK, so is wearing the American Flag.

 

There was a story on FARK.com regarding a woman in Florida who was offended by the Gossip Girls books her daughter had checked out at the public library . She refused to return the books because she was offended. While every parent has the right to make rules for their children, they do not have the right to make rules for the children of others. The public library is not there to enforce your rules. You should enforce your rules with your children.

 

That's a new one. Her daughter, incidentally, probably checked out the Gossip Girl books because she had already seen the television show. That horse has left the barn...at least, in that household, it already has.

[grbeck]

In a similar school setting - yes, absolutely. Again I point to L.A. and gang colors. There was no racism or nationalism or any other type of political correctness involved there. The school decided it was disruptive and dangerous for kids to wear gang colors so they outlawed them.

 

You have to look at it from the standpoint of the school administrators who are trying to keep the kids safe in a closed environment.

 

If they are concerned about keeping kids safe, then the most productive route is to punish those who threaten violence. With the route taken by administrators in this case, the students quickly learn that the best way to stifle the views of those who disagree with them is to threaten to beat them up.

 

And please note that we are talking about the American flag (and Mexican national colors), not gang-related signs or colors. Big difference. I don't care what they have done regarding gang colors. Please stop putting gang colors on the same level with the American (or, for that matter, Mexican) flag.

 

Huge difference.

 

The prom was outside of school and school administrators were not concerned with violence. They just thought some people would be uncomfortable or offended by it.

 

This was in school and the administrator THOUGHT there was a chance for violence, even if it turned out he was wrong.

 

Whether the event was outside the school is irrelevant. What matters is whether it was sponsored by the school.

 

My senior high school prom was held at a banquet facility about 25 miles away from the actual high school. We were still expected to follow all normal school rules, and students could still be banned from attending for breaking regular school rules. Any fights or disturbances at the prom would have resulted in discipline handed out by the regular school administrators. It was, for all intents and purposes, a regular school event, even though it was held away from the campus and outside of normal school hours (on a Saturday night).

[akirby]

I'm sure the aggressors are being punished also.

 

I think the administrators have the right to enforce dress code restrictions to avoid a reasonable threat of violence. Prevention is always better especially when kids are involved.

 

You and others don't agree. Fine. Let's move on.

[NickF1011]

I think the administrators have the right to enforce dress code restrictions

 

There is nothing in the dress code that prohibits the wearing of the American flag. There was something in the dress code about wearing bandanas. The students voluntarily removed those.

 

It was only their skewed interpretation of the dress code that could possibly consider the American flag, being worn in America, by Americans to be "provocative".

Edited May 10, 2010 by NickF1011

[akirby]

There is nothing in the dress code that prohibits the wearing of the American flag. There was something in the dress code about wearing bandanas. The students voluntarily removed those.

 

It was only their skewed interpretation of the dress code that could possibly consider the American flag, being worn in America, by Americans to be "provocative".

 

There was no "skewed interpretation of the dress code" and this didn't have anything to do with being "provocative" or "offending" anyone.

 

In THIS PARTICULAR CASE the school administrator was NOT JUSTIFIED in his actions. That's already been decided.

 

All I'm saying is that a school administrator should have the right - on a case by case basis - to do whatever is necessary to diffuse a potentially hostile situation IN SCHOOL if there is a REASONABLE and IMMEDIATE threat including asking students to remove or modify their clothing even if it meets the dress code.

 

In this case it appears there was no justification for it and that's fine. I'm just saying it could be justified under certain very specific situations where there was a reasonable and immediate threat.

[NickF1011]

REASONABLE

 

No REASONABLE person residing in the United States should take offense to the American flag. Therefore, it is UNREASONABLE to take action against anyone displaying it.

[akirby]

No REASONABLE person residing in the United States should take offense to the American flag.

 

I agree. Now if you could just guarantee that every person acts reasonably we'd be all set.

[NickF1011]

I agree. Now if you could just guarantee that every person acts reasonably we'd be all set.

 

Punishment exists to control those who act unreasonably. Punishment shouldn't be doled out to those who are doing the thing that someone reacts to unreasonably.

[akirby]

Punishment exists to control those who act unreasonably.

 

You're right. We should just wait until a student gets seriously injured and then prosecute the perpetrator.

[Roadtrip]

Road trip, you said "You, sitting in front of your computer screen somewhere in Canada, have no idea of the reality of what conditions are like in the border states with Mexico. You are not here, and you are not faced with dealing with, or are subject to, the problems we have concerning illegal immigrants or Spanish-speaking people. Please don't presume to know. Really, because you don't"

 

Don't feel bad, he has a myopic left leaning view of Canada too even though he's here. As of 1 April everything I send to Public works over $25,000 has to be translated at a cost of 50 cents A WORD! So I do up a contract to have a 150ton crane refit (what I'm working on right now) that will cost $160,000. But due to the translation of the Statement of work, before it goes to PWGSC I have to go back to the unit and ask for additional funding. How much? Well so far the SOW has just over 3600 words and it's not done. But that's only $1800-2000 extra right? Well it was the same for the cutting edges I ordered last week that were $26,000. Adding $2000 on top of 25,000 just because it's going on "MERKS" which is the national list for people to bid on when the ONLY people who need translation are....oh wait, even Quebec company's who deal with outside quebec have english/french workers.....umm...

 

Special rights for ANYONE over ANYONE ELSE for ANY REASON causes problems. Let quebec be french only if they ant, and let the rest of Canada be english if they want. Just stop all the bullshit appeasing because it won't help anything or anybody.

 

 

(unless your myopic view of a utopian society can only be formed through the hand-holding and socialistic promise of the left)

 

Hey Goinbroke,

 

Wow! Are you a project manager? The reason I ask is I recognized the phrase "statement of work" from my undergraduate and graduate courses in Project Management (not to mention the red tape in dealing with your government that you described). Those were brutal courses, and project management sounds even more brutal as a profession. (Very fascinating, though.) I don't envy you because you are at the mercy of your government when it comes to cost estimates -- and judging from what you wrote, those costs can be difficult to ascertain. And if you underestimate the costs, you end up looking like a chump. It's a tough gig!

 

I like to take sort of an "arm-chair observer" approach to project management. There was a really interesting documentary on NOVA on PBS years ago about the building of the Panama Canal (one of the largest projects in history -- first started by France in the late 19th century) and how it was financed, and the problems the French didn't foresee, which eventually caused them to give up, and how later in the early 20th century, the Americans, under Teddy Roosevelt, went in and finished the job. That was the first, and perhaps most devastating, event over the last 120 years that caused lasting damage to the French national psyche. On the other hand, it was a pleasure to read all the lengthy documents describing Project Mercury (downloadable on the NASA Web site), and how it was such a successful team effort by thousands of people across many organizations over many years. (Tom Wolfe's book and succeeding movie The Right Stuff also covers this well, although it mostly focuses on the astronauts.)

 

One of my weaknesses as a manager is my reluctance to delegate tasks (especially critical tasks) to subordinates, so I would not make a good project manager. I admire people who are effective at that (meaning they delegate and get the desired results). I know, I know . . . I've taken all the management seminars: "trust," "mentor," "empower," "coach for success," etc. I guess I'm a victim of taking to heart my father's admonition that "If you want the job done right, do it yourself."

 

Speaking of victims, your assertion re: "Special rights for ANYONE over ANYONE ELSE for ANY REASON causes problems" is at the heart of my complaint with our government making special accommodations for Spanish-speaking-only people to the exclusion of people who speak other languages. It's hard to know why rank-and-file liberals would favor one group over another (I guess it's hard wired into their brains), but it's easy to understand why liberal politicians would do so: Spanish-speaking people represent the largest voting bloc among all non-English-speaking voters. Just the same way, as Jonah Goldberg of National Review recently pointed out, Blacks and Hispanics are given preferences in racial quotas in hiring and college admissions because of a history of discrimination, at the expense of Asians and Jews. So therefore, when two equally qualified individuals, one Hispanic and one Japanese, are competing for admission to a major University, the Hispanic person gets the nod, simply because his race has a larger history of "victimhood."

 

That's what it boils down to for liberals: who's been victimized by the evil corporations or the evil white people or the evil Republicans -- and how to protect the victims from those evil people. Even if it means favoring one "victim group" over another, liberal politicians are very good at counting the votes. But liberals are notoriously guilty of classifying people into groups, rather than thinking of them as individuals -- and that is a major weakness of their philosophy.

 

And providing special rights for Hispanics is definitely causing problems in our country. There is a movement called "reconquista" organized to re-conquer the land settled by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, basically intended to give the entire Southwestern U.S. (including California) back to Mexico. This movement is backed by La Raza ("The Race" -- a pro-Mexican, anti-American, anti-gringo, pro-labor movement, of which Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a member, or at least was a member before she was sworn in).

 

Something that SUV and his un-informed ilk don't seem to understand is that Mexicans hate Americans for their prosperity. In fact, Mexicans hate Mexican-Americans even more. They have a pejorative word for them: Pocho -- sort of an "Uncle Tom" designation, meant to suggest that successful Mexican-Americans are successful only because they "sold out" to the white man. Mexicans tend to despise and distrust all Mexican-Americans when they come here, easily as much as they distrust gringos. So when we accommodate them -- when we give them drivers licenses, provide government services, provide Spanish translations whenever they interact with our society or government -- they have no motivation or need to assimilate. The ones who don't assimilate retain their distrust and envy. The stronger ones do assimilate. I have several friends/business associates who are from Mexico -- who have become American citizens -- whose personal stories are truly inspirational. In each case, these people came here for the opportunity, not for accommodation.

 

It's a mixed bag, as is all of humanity. But I think we do a disservice to Mexican immigrants by accommodating them too much. We underestimate their potential -- and therefore enable their mediocrity -- which is another fallacy of liberal governance.

[RangerM]

You're right. We should just wait until a student gets seriously injured and then prosecute the perpetrator.

It seems in this case, the school authorities believe the students should show deference to the mob (to reduce the likelihood of violence).

 

Yes or no, are the students (told to remove their American Flags) being intimidated by the mob (with the school's blessing) under threat of violence?

 

Does intimidation have a "perpetrator"?

[akirby]

It seems in this case, the school authorities believe the students should show deference to the mob (to reduce the likelihood of violence).

 

Yes or no, are the students (told to remove their American Flags) being intimidated by the mob (with the school's blessing) under threat of violence?

 

Does intimidation have a "perpetrator"?

 

We've already established that in this particular case there was no immediate threat and the administrator was wrong.

 

Nobody is suggesting that students threatening violence or intimidating others be ignored.

[NickF1011]

You're right. We should just wait until a student gets seriously injured and then prosecute the perpetrator.

 

If that's going to be your defense of this, we should just have every student go through life in a little bubble so they can't possibly ever offend anyone else and risk being harmed. :rolleyes:

 

If Americans are going to be offended by the American flag, I'd hate to see how offended they get over some of the other things I see kids wearing these days. Maybe there should be a national dress code, you know, to avoid making anyone angry anywhere.

Edited May 11, 2010 by NickF1011

[RangerM]

There was no "skewed interpretation of the dress code" and this didn't have anything to do with being "provocative" or "offending" anyone.

 

In THIS PARTICULAR CASE the school administrator was NOT JUSTIFIED in his actions. That's already been decided.

 

All I'm saying is that a school administrator should have the right - on a case by case basis - to do whatever is necessary to diffuse a potentially hostile situation IN SCHOOL if there is a REASONABLE and IMMEDIATE threat including asking students to remove or modify their clothing even if it meets the dress code.

 

In this case it appears there was no justification for it and that's fine. I'm just saying it could be justified under certain very specific situations where there was a reasonable and immediate threat.

You're right. We should just wait until a student gets seriously injured and then prosecute the perpetrator.

We've already established that in this particular case there was no immediate threat and the administrator was wrong.

 

Nobody is suggesting that students threatening violence or intimidating others be ignored.

I'm reading you in context.

 

You say the administrator was wrong, yet you advocate doing "whatever is necessary to diffuse a potentially hostile situation IN SCHOOL if there is a REASONABLE and IMMEDIATE threat including asking students to remove or modify their clothing even if it meets the dress code".

 

Does "whatever is necessary" include allowing intimidation? If not, what are you saying?

 

Either you're playing devil's adocate, you're not sure what you believe, OR in the face of "REASONABLE and IMMEDIATE threat", you won't defend yourself or the rights of others.

 

I don't like fighting or violence, but sometimes conflict can only be delayed, not avoided. Often the conflict is worse as a result of that delay.

[akirby]

If that's going to be your defense of this, we should just have every student go through life in a little bubble so they can't possibly ever offend anyone else and risk being harmed. :rolleyes:

 

If Americans are going to be offended by the American flag, I'd hate to see how offended they get over some of the other things I see kids wearing these days. Maybe there should be a national dress code, you know, to avoid making anyone angry anywhere.

 

Good grief - I'm not talking about people being offended or insulted or someone not liking something or trying to be politically correct. I'm talking about a potential RIOT situation IN SCHOOL - something serious and dangerous where students could be seriously hurt.

 

I say the administration has absolute authority in those EXTREMELY RARE but dangerous situations. I don't see how anybody could disagree with that. But apparently you do so let's just move on.

[akirby]

You say the administrator was wrong, yet you advocate doing "whatever is necessary to diffuse a potentially hostile situation IN SCHOOL if there is a REASONABLE and IMMEDIATE threat including asking students to remove or modify their clothing even if it meets the dress code".

 

Does "whatever is necessary" include allowing intimidation? If not, what are you saying?

 

Why is this so hard to understand? In the case cited here, there was no reasonable or immediate threat and that's why the administrator was wrong.

 

Nobody is advocating allowing bullying, intimidation or threats. I don't understand why you keep bringing that up. It's not an issue. It's wrong and should never be tolerated. This isn't about being politically correct or not offending anyone.

 

Here is a great example. At a local high school vandals destroyed property and wrote graffiti indicating that the school would be attacked at 10:45 am. The school went into lockdown mode locking the kids in the classrooms as a safety precaution. The same thing happened a few years ago at my daughter's elementary school when convicted killer Terry Nichols escaped from custody and was seen heading towards our area. The school went into a prolonged lockdown mode for several hours until they were sure there was no threat to the school.

 

I suppose you guys would argue that the students' rights were violated and they were held in the classroom against their will and they should have been allowed to leave at any time.

[NickF1011]

Good grief - I'm not talking about people being offended or insulted or someone not liking something or trying to be politically correct. I'm talking about a potential RIOT situation IN SCHOOL - something serious and dangerous where students could be seriously hurt.

 

I say the administration has absolute authority in those EXTREMELY RARE but dangerous situations. I don't see how anybody could disagree with that. But apparently you do so let's just move on.

 

I don't believe there were any indications that a riot was imminent in this situation. And even if there was, you take action against those who are starting to riot, not those who unknowingly incited it by doing something that should be completely innocuous.

[akirby]

I don't believe there were any indications that a riot was imminent in this situation. you take action against those who are starting to riot, not those who unknowingly incited it by doing something that should be completely innocuous.

 

I've already acknowledged that at least 3 times.

 

It's already been acknowledged that there were no such concerns or history of previous problems so the administrator overstepped on this one and I'm ok with that now that we know the background.

 

In THIS PARTICULAR CASE the school administrator was NOT JUSTIFIED in his actions.

 

We've already established that in this particular case there was no immediate threat and the administrator was wrong.

 

 

you take action against those who are starting to riot, not those who unknowingly incited it by doing something that should be completely innocuous.

 

Of course you do - where did I say or imply differently?

[NickF1011]

I've already acknowledged that at least 3 times.

 

Of course you do - where did I say or imply differently?

 

Well you certainly began responding on this thread as if you agreed with the administration and that the students wearing the flag shirts were the ones to blame.