An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
I Promise, I Deliver
My analysis of the 9th circuit’s Harper v. Poway School District ruling is finally up at The Debate Link.
Prepare yourselves, it’s a doozy!
8 Responses to “I Promise, I Deliver”
For most people this will be an issue of Gay rights and harassment, but I see a larger issue here. Under normal circumstances the school had the right and duty to remove the student for the shirt, it does constitute hate speech as defined by the court. But the circumstances were not normal, the school engaged in a political activity by endorsing the “Day of Silence“. If the school is going to sponsor a political event then dissenters should be allowed to freely express their views as well. If the school decided to have a day of silence for aborted fetuses or a day of silence to commemorate those persecuted for denying the Holocaust happened that is a political act, and I have no sympathy for the situation they will get into. The children are minors and don’t have adult constitutional protections on speech while at school, but that does not mean that they need to be dragged into the culture wars by adults. With the left and right going at each other throats the schools should be as apolitical as possible, they should not be seen as political indoctrination centers for either side.
So, if a school celebrates Black History Month, they’ve opened themselves up to students wearing Back to Africa t-shirts because civil rights is political? Interesting perspective, grognard.
Civil rights, as a legal issue for blacks, is decided. Implemtation problems remain, but there is no political question of their constitutionality.
The same is not true for gay rights, so there is a difference.
Their rights to marry and raise children haven’t been decided. But legally, they have just as much right to go to a public school without being harassed for existing as the black students.
The school has an anti-discrimination policy, and if it is like nearly all of these policies, it applies to clothing. The kid broke the rules and got punished. The only thing making this a political issue instead of a disciplinary issue is that the kid’s also a bigot playing the Oppressed Christian card.
Even McDonalds has a dress code and anti-discrimination/anti-harassment policies. Unless this kid gets over his entitlement complex, his future prospects look slim. Hopefully his church employs a lot of people.
“But legally, they have just as much right to go to a public school without being harassed for existing as the black students.
Actually, the don’t. Race is a federally protected class, sexual orientation is not. That is why it is still a political issue. I can refusre to sell my house to gay people, for instance. Not that that is right, or shouldn’t be addressed, but it is so. There is a lot that needs to be doen to overcome these biases, and I support those efforts.
But not at the expense of the First Ammendment.
But sexual orientation is protected class in California. Are we saying states are precluded from giving heightened protection to minority groups that still face discrimination nationally?
Or more importantly, COULD a student sue if the school made him take off a t-shirt saying “Negroes: Back To Africa” in 1958 (before the Civil Right Act)? Or 1952 (before Brown?)
I think all those kids I went to school with who were made to remove their “Button Your Fly” t-shirts by Eeevil totalitarian teachers should organize a class action suit. “American Family Values” are political, and no definitive ruling has ever been made about the appropriateness of the double-entendre in the 8th grade environment. Apparently, their constitutional right to do whatever the hell they want despite school policy was trampled. They deserve compensation.
nyrev, Black history month is a recognized holiday, not the same thing a day of protest by a political group. If the Black Panthers wanted a day to commemorate civil rights then yes, the back to Africa shirt “response� would apply. If the school wants to get involved with a advocacy groups controversial political activities they should not censor the dissenters.
The other problem is that once they start down this road they now have to justify why they participated in a Gay Rights cause or Black Panther cause but did not participate in the Holocaust deniers cause. The political group they will not deal with sues and the school board is dealing with one lawsuit after another rather than dealing with school educational issues. If the student wants to protest and exercise free speech all they have to do is get permission from their parents to leave school and attend any protest they want, the school should not be involved. In a place of employment you usually must leave your politics at the door, you are there to work, the same thing applies to politics in school. It would be OK to discuss civil rights or Gay rights in a classroom moderated by a teacher, but a school sponsored program that supports a political activity is a different story.