Posted on 09/19/2015 9:40:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I remember the good old days when liberals who wanted to tear down the symbols of the Confederacy were assuring us that it was only an issue when it flew on taxpayer owned, public property over the seat of government. Other than that it was a question of free speech. (Or racism or oppression or whatever you like.) Remember that line? Ah, good times, my friends. But that’s long since ceased to be the case. As many of us predicted, this trend was going to spread like pubic lice at an Occupy Wall Street camp, and it has been doing so right on schedule. This week the battle turns to a school in Virginia where students were suspended over their refusal to remove clothing carrying the hated symbol or take if off of vehicles in the school parking lot. (Yahoo News)
About 20 western Virginia high school students were suspended Thursday after holding a rally to protest a new policy banning vehicles with Confederate flag symbols from the school parking lot and refusing to take off clothing displaying the symbol.
Christiansburg High School Senior Houston Miller, who organized the rally, said he doesn’t believe the administration should be able to tell students what they can wear or put on their vehicle. He said he doesn’t intend to back down and is encouraging more students to show their support for the flag Friday.
“I feel like I should have the right to wear whatever I want, and I’m standing up for this,” Miller said.
The dress code at the school in Christiansburg — south of Blacksburg along Interstate 81 — prohibits students from wearing articles that reflect adversely on people because of race, gender, or other factors. A new policy this fall bans students from having Confederate symbols on their vehicles in the parking lot.
Leaving aside for a moment the political correctness gone wild here, this is a complicated issue when it comes to free speech because we’re dealing with underage students and school property. As far as the clothing goes, every time one of these arguments pops up we seem to be forced to go back to the Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). This has been a rather unsatisfying case because of the vague nature of the court’s finding. That dispute centered on students wearing black armbands to protest the war in Vietnam and the court held that the school could not force the students to take them off. Unfortunately, they gave an extensively qualified reason for it which allows a lot of wiggle room in terms of what schools can suppress.
In this famous decision, the Court ruled 7-2 that public school officials could not censor student expression — the wearing of black armbands, in that case — unless they could reasonably forecast that the student expression would cause substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or would invade the rights of others.
Those are some gaping caveats that you could drive a truck through and lower courts have cited the decision to both support bans on clothing and to deny them. What qualifies as a disruption? What sort of clothing or symbols cross the line of “invading the rights of others” in this case? In this politically correct climate, modern college campus theory seems to hold that anything which offends you or makes you want to scurry off to a safe room or demand a trigger warning would be an invasion of your rights. As to clothing that could “cause a disruption” on campus, that’s seems an empty standard. If someone is offended by the Confederate Battle Flag or by a Black Lives Matter t-shirt, all they need to do is start one fight in the hallway and you’ve established a disruption.
The cars in the parking lot are another question. Most of the cases that crop up regarding vehicles in parking lots seem to center on whether or not you can leave your gun there. For the most part it seems to be found that you can, but again we’re talking about a public school, not a private employer, and we’re talking about children rather than adults. At a quick glance I didn’t find a case which covers this specifically, but the parking lot is still school “property” just as much as the playground, the football field or the sidewalk where the buses drop the kids off. There are also likely to be students hanging out there at various times, so I’m guessing that a court might treat the cars the same as they would the clothing issue. (There’s probably a case out there which will cover this and it will turn up as soon this article is published, I’m sure.)
In the end, even if these kids and their parents go to court, it’s probably going to come down to yet another question as to whether or not the flag constitutes a “symbol of hatred and racism” or a part of the region’s history and a symbol of southern pride. Which way would it go? Your guess is as good as mine. It all comes down to what sort of a judge they get I suppose. But good for the kids for taking a stand on what should obviously be a free speech issue.
Has that terrorist kid who made a timer for a bomb been suspended yet?
And those of us with more than two functioning IQ points knew that to concede to fags, commies, liberals, ragheads, et al knew eventually it would reach epic proportions not unlike Orwell's 1984.
Good. It’s public school which means if some parents don’t like the idea of flag representing treason being displayed they have a right to protest. Fly it off your front porch if you want but not on a taxpayer funded piece of US property.
“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” Ingsoc (Newspeak for English Socialism or the English Socialist Party) is the political ideology of the totalitarian government. from the book “1984”
The Nazis are going after the kids again. That pesky Americana.
School property is public property. This is same as prohibiting wearing the symbol in a public library or police station.
Which taxpayers get to decide?
File this under “I didn’t go to law school, but that won’t stop me from commenting on arcane legal matters”
It seems to me that a vehicle that is legal to drive on public roads, can’t be excluded from a school. If they want this to be a policy, how can they let, for instance, a parent with a Confederate Flag bumper sticker drop off their child, or park on school property for a conference?
As to clothing - if they want to enforce this ban, but refuse to enforce other bans then they seem to be on thin ice - “someone is offended” seems like a pretty low bar for reaching the “lets ban it” threshold.
So, you're saying that in you're in favor of banning the wearing - by private persons (library patrons, etc.) - of politically controversial symbols while on public property (e.g., while visiting a library or police station)?
Regards,
What can they do .... cite you for truancy when the school is the one that kicked you out ?
disobeying a direct order ?
YOU ARE THE GRASSROOTS !!!
Exactly how does an image cause a disruption? I would think people cause disruptions; for instance, people who behave rudely when they encounter free speech they don’t agree with.
Otherwise, by the logic, you’d have to ban pretty girls in tight little skirts.
Bs. Those people are paying taxes too.
I would bet money that the pan-African flag has been worn on clothing at that school, at least once, and no one blinked an eye.
Yep. Just like the sodomites and that bs “we just want government out of our bedrooms”. Now they want the whole world to be forced to applaud their bedrooms acts as they publicly perform them.
Free speech: leave it home! That's the ticket, no more free speech in public, it's indecent exposure.
By all means explain how the right to session is treason?
how many schools will now ban the book 1984
And I’d like to spit in the face of every leftist who ever mocked conservatives for bringing up the slippery slope. It wasn’t just slippery, it was greased.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.