I don’t think our opinions are really very distant from each other. I was perhaps being overly contrarian in order to get my point about the procedural aspect across, but I feel like we pretty much see eye to eye on this issue.
2 Likes
Even under a draconian eye-for-an-eye policy, I’d have a hard time saying that more was warranted. But really, I’ll say from personal experience that we can either pursue the policy of universal education, or we can expel all student who say something racist, but we can’t actually do both. The big problem is that we are dealing with is precisely the problem that never gets addressed in any of these stories: We’re swimming in racism and prejudice. Public ridicule and execution never puts an end to theft. What ultimately leads to a massive reduction in theft is to change the social structure that makes people steal.
Maybe it’s because I have really old journals to look through, but people graduating from high school are pretty dumb. Even the smart ones. Perhaps even especially the smart ones. Whenever these stories hit, I can’t help but feel a little bit bad for the people involved. Not because they didn’t do anything wrong, but because it’s easy to destroy people who have such little power. You think for one second there aren’t old white guys in boardrooms or clubs telling racist jokes with impunity? They’re pretty much untouchable. Look at Daniel Snyder and the Redskins. He’s been pretty unapologetic from the start. But high school students? I mean that’s just such low hanging fruit that it hardly seems sporting to go after it with a chainsaw.
The only thing I can think of that falls into that category is to make them take some bullshit tolerance class. Alternatively, making them participate in something constructive would be interesting. Maybe have them do some research into BLM movements, or police violence.
In general I find the arguments about censorship some people are putting out there tiresome. Not because what rights students have in high school should be taken for granted, but because in this particular case, it’s hard to make an argument that they weren’t somehow representing the school in some capacity. They were wearing those shirts for a school sanctioned event. I do generally consider school discipline to be inherently unfair, but this is a pretty brightline offense in any school.
5 Likes
@anon61221983 was right that one day of suspension was too mild. It’s probably too brief to serve as an effective general deterrent to other students, teachers and parents. They should have investigated and expelled the ringleader(s).
And a primary prevention curriculum for the school district should be adopted. There’s peer reviewed public health research to guide a community decision about which one.
So … no need to send the kids to the gulag.
What they really intended doesn’t matter much. What matters more is protecting a safe emotional space in the school for everyone compelled to attend.
So we obviously don’t know anything about their motives other than what we can infer from the picture and circumstances.
But from the little I’ve heard I suspect their objective was along the lines of “using these ridiculous school spirit shirts lets spell out the most offensive thing we can think of”. If that’s the case there wasn’t an actual intent to offend or intimidate anyone, there may not even be any unusual amount of latent racism in them, it could just be one of the really stupid acts that teenagers sometimes commit in groups.
I personally think the 1 day suspension is pretty mild and probably an appropriate punishment, having their unobscured faces plastered all over the Internet in association with that picture not so much.
5 Likes
The starting point is the First Amendment. It’s the rule of the land. Without a case that carves out some special circumstance, it’s all that is needed. You’ve got nothing.
So, you are ignoring first amendment case law? Being an internet lawyer is a tiresome meme, so I’ll keep it brief. Google supreme Court decisions on speech and schools.
You may not like them, you may want to change them, but they exist. You can’t be a racist bigot at school and not face repercussions, even if you were just joking about being a racist bigot.
10 Likes
I dunno, expulsion seems a bit ridiculous if you put down your pitchfork and think about the situation for a second.
I’ve noticed that the intensity of the intertubes’ reaction to stuff is often determined, not by how people feel about the issue itself, but by how confident they are that they’re on the right side of it. “Whoa, they spelled the N-word! I’m absolutely certain that’s considered a bad thing. I will demonstrate my zeal by calling for… hmmmm… MAXIMUM EXPULSION! [click] racism solved.”
There’s a certain unattractive irony in a bunch of adults high-fiving themselves just for not using racial slurs, while joining a mob to excoriate some kids for doing so.
9 Likes
5 Likes
That’s exactly my point. Any exception to the First Amendment that allows for the punishment of speech by high school students can be used against any speech the school administration doesn’t like. The same case law that would allow a school to punish these students also would allow the principal at Chesnee High School to punish Briana Popour for her “I’m a Lesbian” t-shirt. If you are OK with the school having the power to punish these students, you are implicitly OK with that power being available for use against other students.
1 Like
Yes, I get it. Honestly I do, and I understand the argument you have put forth. Let me frame this differently.
Unpopular speech is protected.
Hateful speech is not protected.
Fish puns can go either way, depending on if the courts have haddock.
10 Likes
And to be a little less silly, no I am not OK with that. Which is why many/most of us call it hate speech, not unpopular.
This conversation would be so much easier in a pub, IRL, over a Guinness 
1 Like
The Supreme Court ruled that the acceptability of fish puns depended on how badly they smelt.
10 Likes
Cod damnit.
11 Likes
But there’s no carve out from the constitution saying that that “hateful speech is not protected.” It’s just not true. Ignoring the fact that “hateful” probably can’t be defined well enough to to be useful, the line between hateful and simply unpopular is not meaningful in the eyes of the law. Some might want it to be true, but it’s not.
1 Like
The case floundered on appeel.
7 Likes
1 Like
Actually, no. Better idea: principal invites a prominent African American civil rights leader, past or present, to come give a talk. Then, ALL STUDENTS have to write a reflection paper on the talk.
9 Likes
To get back on topic. I found this case.
And I’d rather this were seen as a ‘teachable moment’ more than anything. Stupid kids do something they should have known better than to do.
6 Likes
That’s the thing, there’s no legal concept of “hate speech.” The phrase is used freely, but it doesn’t have a legal definition, and it isn’t carved out as something not covered by the First Amendment.
I agree completely. I’m drinking a Bass as I type.
2 Likes
Please tell me you understand there may not be an explicit ‘carve out’ in the Constitution, but 200 years of supreme Court case law has created that. By the mechanisms set by that document. And legislative acts have made these sort of shenanigans punishable. Please tell me you understand that, and we can get down to debating merits, not the over arching concepts.
