That’s just not true. See updated post above.
Isn’t this precisely what happened in this case - the supression of constitutionally protected speech? The school wanted to enforce their dress code, in their capacity as a public authority. And they called in a cop to eject the kid from his own graduation. Someone could have allowed it, because it was not offensive in anyway nor was it distracting. But instead, they called the cops. The likelihood of this happening to others not conforming to the dress is likely rather low, I’d guess.
I do object to the notion that this young man’s kente cloth and the swastika are on the same level (when not in the context that @the_borderer indicated), which some have compared. [quote=“oranpkelley, post:93, topic:78756”]
You don’t just get to pick what expression you like and allow it while shutting up those you dislike.
Maybe they shouldn’t have excluded any of these cultural expressions. But we don’t have a comparision from this particular school regarding other cultural forms, so we don’t know if they would have disallowed a hijab or a yarmulke or a cross. We just know they called the cops on a kid who refused to remove a symbol of his black heritage.
Has anyone ever answered you? WILL anyone ever answer you?
A far as I know, and I could be wrong, the Jain/buddhist/hindus as well as the navijo people kinda removed themselves from the swastika because of the nazi connotations it now has to everyone. IE they saw a thing so horrible they realized them trying to go ‘but we had it first and it meant something different’ wouldn’t exactly do much more than sound lame, so… away it goes now. You win hitler, keep it and go fuck off in a ditch somewhere.
I happen to work at a school that has been sued (successfully & unsuccessfully) on precisely this basis and helped rewrite policy as a result.
On the face of it, the school has to be evenhanded in how it censors student expression. I can’t decide that African heritage statements are OK while, say, Southern heritage expressions aren’t.
The first amendment operates differently in schools than elsewhere, but that doesn’t give school administrators arbitrary power to suppress whatever they feel like suppressing.
You could, of course, make an argument that swastikas, say, are uniquely disruptive and are can be prohibited on that basis. That’s probably already been done. But there are probably loads of other offensive symbols and statements that haven’t been adjudicated and that you’d be on pretty shaky legal ground barring. As a school or district, you are generally far better off with a uniform policy that requires no distinction as to message.
Right? Isn’t that the real question here, why were the cops called in the first place and is that connected to the race of the young man in question?
I did. I said I don’t know. I’ll also say you don’t know either. Though it apparently pleases you to think otherwise.
Could you point me to something I’ve said that brings you to that “fact”?
The “fact” that all you’ve done is glory in your own opinion of the matter (“They’re dumb racists, unlike me”) rather than bringing anything new to light. Which leads me to assume that you don’t have anything to offer in that direction. Which then leads me to the conclusion that your magic 8-ball tends to give you the kinds of answers you like hearing rather than the kinds of answers that we’d have any basis to believe. A bit of a leap on my part, yes. I’d happily be proven wrong with a shower of additional facts and background on how and why this all went down.
See this, for instance: http://www.acluct.org/updates/school-censorship-of-t-shirt-violated-free-speech-rights/
Could you point me to something I’ve said that brings you to those “facts”?
I think you’re injecting your hatred of “the State” into this.
More from Sacremento Bee:
Novella Coleman, attorney for the ACLU of Northern California, said
it could be problematic for a school district to allow students to wear
any accoutrements not associated with the school, but then disallow
another form of personal expression, such as a kente cloth.Pinkerton said that each school establishes its own rules about graduation attire.San
Juan and Folsom Cordova unified school districts spokesmen said their
schools also issue guidelines for what students may wear on their caps
and gowns for graduation.Trent Allen at San Juan said the
district has no written policy. But he said, “Our practice is that
students are not allowed to wear anything on the outside of their gowns
and caps that is not issued as part of the school’s graduation program.”
Twin Rivers Unified’s executive director of student engagement, Craig
Murray, said graduation ceremonies are an opportunity for students to be
recognized for their academic achievements with sashes and cords. “We
don’t allow students to decorate their gowns and caps,” he said.Holmes
said he doesn’t regret wearing the kente cloth. “I was able to
acknowledge my culture, my ancestry,” he said. “I want people to know
that it’s not OK to not have a discussion about culture and religion in
America. We are a very diverse country and we need to stop accommodating
just one people.”
Holmes is going to Cal State Fullerton. Best of luck to him. He seems to be a strong willed young man. . . .and I guess we’ll see what happens with the district’s graduation policy, which, students confirmed elsewhere in the story, is pretty strictly enforced. Whether or not being escorted out by (apparently) school security (not deputies as reported elsewhere) was just because he was black? I don’t even see Holmes himself saying that–he’s more about changing the graduation rules.
And this is what we fundamentally disagree on. If litigation is seriously so much of an issue that it can be used to squash expression in a fairly racist way, then the district should mandate (holds mouth while I puke a little) binding arbitration from the students parents.
I can’t see any reasonable person agreeing that this student was a distraction, other than arbitrary guidelines.
(I also think this conversation would be better in person, over a beer :D)
I’ll give you a hint: other than asking you to point out what I’d said that made you come up with your version of reality, I had posted only twice in this thread.
Specific info on how to fix something in a post, and
After @milliefink had asked the same question repeatedly and gotten no substantive response.
Kind of like how I asked you a specific question twice and still have gotten no response. I know you think that means we’re all in awe of your power and control, but no.
Not sure I’m following you. I don’t hate the State. I am deeply suspicious of it and, moreso, of anyone who wishes to mantle themselves with its authority.
shhh… you’re disrupting the outrage. everything is racist, didn’t you know?
And you’re still babbling about the State when this article has nothing to do with the US government.
Principles should have principles.
I think many people have forgotten that.