An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Why Don’t You Go Smoke Pot and Become a Lawyer?
After Morse v. Fredrick, we have no right to complain about educational performance in our country again. Treat students like idiots, and idiots you will receive.
Oh, and ask me about the intellectual abilities of the Supreme Court Justices who have turned the war on drugs into a constitutional super-amendment while we weren’t looking.
24 Responses to “Why Don’t You Go Smoke Pot and Become a Lawyer?”
That’s because you routinely substitute radical politics and utter delusions and falsehoods — “systems of oppression” and other total nonsense — for facts and for law. I’m sure you’ll be outraged if you don’t get another leftist activist creation of “law” out of thin air that meets your radical and often ridiculous demands.
You realize that just asserting, robot-like, the same “substitute radical politics for law” argument over and over again without anything remotely resembling a warrant makes you sound like you’ve been lobotomized, right?
So, David, I am supposed to be impressed by law students who don’t agree with SCOTUS, and can’t understand their reasoning? A wee bit arrogant on your part, isn’t it, to believe that your students are the equal or superior of sitting Justices?
BTW – before you flame, I actually disagree with this ruling. I just don’t see the end of the First Amendment in it.
I see it affecting K – 12 students, who as a class (no pun intended) do not have the same fully vested rights as adults, particularly when there is any association to a school event involved.
I will bet you any amount of money I could show up at that same event (as it was not on school grounds) with a ‘Bong Hits For Jesus’ banner, and if it had to go so far, would find SCOTUS ruling in my favor.
I’ll respect David’s right to hold the view that this case was taken as a set-up to launching a war on drugs from SCOTUS.
However, what guiles ME about this is we’ve got the highest court in the land spending time on a prank by Eddie Haskell. Who bankrolled the legal fees of this clown? What happened to just a wrap on the back of the head and two week’s worth of study JUG?
This world is getting to be just too much.
“Oh, this is the big one! You hear that, Elizabeth?! I’m coming to join you, honey!”
Mischaracterize and lie all you want. The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
That’s nice DLS… Real nice.
I have no idea if it’s the truth or not, because you have yet to make an actual argument. Arguments, as any sophomore debater could tell you, have three parts–a claim, a warrant, and an impact. You’re missing part #2. You never say why what I’m saying constitutes a substitution of politics for law. You just assert it. I, on the other hand, write nice long posts about why I think there is no “compelling interest” in preventing students from saying “BONG HiTS FOR JESUS”, but there is a “compelling interest” in preventing schools from resegregating (and how in this case, finding one in the former but not the latter would be to zig-zag precedent on nakedly political lines). There might be flaws in my analysis–I’m not yet a law student, so my arrogance is not yet fully formed so as to believe my own omnipotence (H/T: Austin). But you’ve not even made so much as a nod towards pointing out the chinks in the armor. You just babble about politics and law as if they’re magic words. I’m hurting alright, but then idiocy mixed with self-righteousness does tend to burn my tender skin.
That’s nice DLS… Real nice.
That’s truthful. On the other hand, the United States is not composed of “systems of oppression” or “systematic hierarchical-patriarchal dominance” or anything else like that, and is not full of “grevious sins,” etc.
That’s nice DLS… Real nice.
That’s truthful. On the other hand, the United States is not based upon or composed of “systems of oppression” or “systematic hierarchical-patriarchal dominance” or anything else like that, and is not routinely committing “grievous sins,” etc., and no “legal theory” can legitimately claim these or their “relief” in the form of desired radical goals.
Mirror talk! Show us those burns you’ve given yourself routinely.
I’m sorry–did I seriously see an ostensible adult make a comment the substance of which was “I know you are, but what am I?”
David,
My post (#6) was meant to call attention to DLS’s way with words NOT as disagreement to your post.
He seems to have a habit of calling those who disagree with his opinion delusional liars making ridiculous demands while they Mischaracterize [sic] his wit and wisdom as ad hominem.
I got that Steve. Thanks though.
Both of you are wrong here and probably will never admit it — and make worse fools of yourselves in your “defense” [sic]. Fine; any reader familiar with English can check your statements (on this thread an d on others) and David’s blog and see for themselves.
David,
Millions of folks living in this country have gone to parochial grade and Catholic high schools (or other private religious and non-religious institutions) where the principals would have done exactly the same thing. (And probably a lot of other things you wouldn’t agree with.)
Are they all idiots?
I think any principal who has that reaction to what amounts to a really silly and meaningless sign is acting in a far more juvenile manner than the student s/he is disciplining. People might be able to overcome such patronizing treatment and still live productive lives–but it doesn’t help.
I think this just shows how absurd the drug policy is in this country. About the only thing marijuana kills are brain cells, other than that its harmless. Both alcohol and cigarettes are more harmful (and anyone who claims otherwise about cigarettes hasn’t seen someones decline from a lifetime of use).
As for this particular instance … it was not on school property, the most power the principal should have had was to ask the student to remove the banner. Suspension was way over the line.
DLS,
You should be careful who you call ‘radical’ since 1) there is nothing radical about what David has said and 2) radicalism is not limited to the left.
I am correct and not in need of correction here.
Read his blog and you will see numerous radical statements, many of them disconnected from reality, including, for example, the notions that the USA is systematically oppressive and even evil, and is “sinful.” As to more lightweight statements he has made, such that a two-state eventuality with Israel and the Palestinian Arabs is the only possible solution to “the problem” (in earlier days it was called “the Palestinian Question”), it and other such statements not only are incorrect but are related to his leftism. He substitutes his desires for facts.
The word “radical” is normally used to refer to the extreme Left in the USA and the rest of the West, even though “radical Right” is perfectly correct (if you apply it to the correct elements within the Right).
I think this just shows how absurd the drug policy is in this country.
Plenty of us are in favor of reform and revision of the Drug War. Incarceration for (truly) non-violent crimes is wasteful of expensive, dangerous prison space as well as excessively harsh to the affected individuals; civil asset forfeiture is an outrage.
However, do not be naive and fall for the belief that full legalization is an instant panacea, or for the related view that people should personally be able to do anything and everything they want (complete destruction of societal norms and standards of conduct and decency). Note that much drug use in fact does affect others; users and abusers are not only harming themselves. (The same, incidentally, is true of at least one other thing, pornography, notably child pornography.) Friends and family members are routinely affected by substance abuse; in addition, often drug “busts” are simply the grounds among many under which a criminal was caught (many users may not otherwise be criminals, but many criminals are also users). Think of Al Capone and income taxes (which are also hated).
You mean like by enacting speech codes against anything that an administrator arbitrarily deems to be offensive or harassing, like at Carleton College?
Sorry, David, but your love for freedom of expression seems highly selective.
I agree with you on the outcome of this particular case, but my dislike for censorship and regulation of students’ speech has consistently been across the board. From the limited indications I have in your posts, comments and emails, I do not perceive you as holding a strong free speech position as much as a position that favors free speech for expressions that you agree with while seeking its suppression whenever you perceive something offensive, even when that something offensive that is only inferred or supposedly “in code”.
I would welcome a consistent position of support in favor of freedom of expression even for “offensive” expression because this is an area in which left, right, and center can all come together in a principled way if only each would recognize and recapture their own best traditions. It is a source of great disappointment that the political left in this country that generated the “free speech movement” at Berkeley is pretty much the same people that are writing speech codes on college campuses now. The fact that some right wingers are enacting speech codes of there own in high schools (as the one in this USSC case) doesn’t justify it.
With the exception of the language on “sexually inappropriate” conduct, which seems infuriatingly vague (but which I have also never seen enforced), I see very little in FIRE’s excerpts that is objectionable. Indeed, my observations on campus have seen very little instincts towards suppressing on-campus speech (but a pretty strong administrative culture in favor of suppressing claims of sexual assault–separate issue). I’d agree we shouldn’t let lack of enforcement cover bad policywriting–but I don’t think most of what we have is bad, and I’m curious as to the specific clauses you think are awry.
As for your absolutist free speech instincts, they might be admirable but the fact that you don’t believe them either. And if you do believe them, I rescind the “admirable”, because it would actually be terrifying. To quote Stanley Fish, “there’s no such thing as free speech, and it’s a good thing too.” Do you support unlimited protection for a government employee releasing classified information? Or shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater? So called “fighting words”? Those are all speech, albeit forms which threaten public safety. Insulting a judge, though, doesn’t really immediately threaten public safety (contempt of court). Neither does misrepresenting product information (fraud)–at least not always. Slander, libel, same. Do you advocate absolute protection for all of these? We suppress speech for a variety of reasons. Not light ones, by any stretch, but we do it, and we do it all the time. So the question is not absolutism-or-die. It’s whether or not securing the equal standing of oppressed groups in American society is as important as preventing bar fights or judges having their feelings hurt.
And my position on “hate speech”? Well, let’s go back to Carleton:
That seems to hit the note about right. If I were to support policies barring hate speech in school (a position I am still undecided on), I think it would be quite proper to limit it only to “gratuitous denigrating claim[s] about, or addressed to, an individual or group” (I would argue that such language would be analogous to, if not indistinguishable from, the “fighting words” exception we already have in American law). However, I would note that within that paradigm I am still quite able to utilize my free speech rights to label speech I don’t wish to suppress as “racist.” You’ve always been the one to argue that even making the claim that something is “racist” is speech suppression ipso facto. I don’t adhere to that position, and I don’t think that all, or even most, speech I find racist would conceivably be worthy of an outright bar. I simply think I have an obligation to call it as I see it.
Come to think of it, that’s a fair compromise. I do hereby solemnly swear that I will not support bans on speech the racism (that I see) of which is indirect and not overt (i.e., cases where it is not just “gratuitous denigration”). In exchange, you agree to support my right to call such speech racist if I choose to and believe it is, and conduct my side of the debate accordingly, without inaccurately claiming that I want to “suppress” the speech by any means other than better speech of my own.
The clauses I found objectionable were the same ones that you quoted.
Define “gratuitous” in a way that does not allow for arbitrary or ideologically biased interpretation and application and I might agree. Until then, however, it is clauses like that that make me believe all the abstract statements in the world about honoring academic freedom and even “uncomfortable” personal expression can and eventually will be tossed out whenever an overzealous administrator or ideologically extremist prof sees fit.
I have a hard time taking seriously claims by institutions or individuals to honor personal expression and/or academic freedom when those statements are riven by trap-door words like “gratuitous denigrating claims” that can be interpreted entirely according to the arbitrary whims of whatever zealot might worm their way into the position of authority empowered (almost always without due process or rights of appeal) to undertake their application. The history of campus speech codes in the United States in the last two decades gives ample support for the notion that any code that allows arbitrary application will usually be applied in an ideologically biased way eventually, usually sooner rather than later.
Only once such clauses are removed from campus regulations governing academic and personal expression will it be possible to have a fair and open debate about the issues you care about David. As long as the “sword of damocles” hangs over the head of those who express opinions that dissent from the campus ideological orthodoxy, however, you shouldn’t delude yourself into believing that a few empty, vague statements claiming to honor academic and personal freedom will assuage people’s concerns.
While an absolutist view of free speech makes for good theoretical discussions, I’m not sure how that helps a school official deal with issues like harassmant, which is often verbal, or maintaining order in the face of provocative sppech that can so easily inflame and result in physical confrontations.
I’m sure teachers have to deal with the finer points of distinguishing between speech that might merely offend sensibilities and insulting sppech that hurts individuals.
While theorists debate in the abstract, teachers have to deal with real life dilemmas that arise in the course of guiding adolescnts through the school experience while maintaing order.
‘Prder’ implies a standard for whatt is considered proper. This gets into a a very shadowy areas, where school officials could use more practical advice than abstract exercises in theoretical possibilities.
I can’t define “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “compelling state interest” in a way that would guarantee against “arbitrary or ideologically biased interpretation and application.” They’re not any less subjective than “gratuitous denigration”. Life has subjectivity. Life is subjectivity. The sooner we all learn to deal with it, the happier we’ll be. Like with free speech, you’re not going to be able to come up with a free speech code that has zero subjectivity and is not really, really scary.
I’ve gone to Carleton for three years. We’re a pretty mellow campus, but we’ve had our share of explosions. In not a single case have I seen the administration or the student body even hint at attempting to censor speech. So even though we live in our post-modern hellhole of uncertainty and vertigo, amazingly, we manage to do rather well for ourselves. I’ll take concrete experience over idle speculation any day of the week.
Oh, and lest we pine for the good old days of campus speech, the history of colleges without any such codes is one replete with undeniable racial, sexual and religious harassment (among others). We can trade horror stories all day, but its an exercise in philosophical masturbation that doesn’t come close to answering what is actually a really difficult question. And you know it.