Why son refused to stand

I am the father of the young man who did not stand for the singing of the Mexican national anthem during a cultural awareness program at Larkin High School.

I have been constantly asked to explain the details of the event, and it is in response to these individuals that I offer the following facts.

Some of the students, my son included, were compelled to attend this assembly. The Mexican national anthem was printed on fliers and handed out to the attending students. The Mexican flag was marched in and placed on a podium by itself. The attendees were then asked to stand and sing the Mexican national anthem.

My son was not alone in his refusal to stand. Statements given to me by other youths and parents put the number of refusals at close to 20.

Larkin staff members immediately confronted the seated youth. Some of the students were threatened with in-school suspension; most of the seated students were intimidated into standing.

My son explained to the angry teacher who confronted him that he did not see a U.S. flag on the podium and he did not believe they were going to sing our national anthem. This teacher stated, "They have to stand for our national anthem, so you have to stand for theirs."

The teacher called my son a punk and sent him to the office. The administrator in the office supported the teacher's demand and told my son that he could have made a more intelligent decision. My son was not formally disciplined. The teacher who confronted my son defended her actions to her students during class the following week.

I called Larkin principal Richard Webb to express my disappointment and concern. I described the manner in which my son had been treated. I was told that my son should have stood and that the school stood by its right to have this assembly in its chosen form.

The press was present at the board meeting and media awareness snowballed from that point forward. Some of my statements to the board included, "I am disappointed that those responsible for creating an assembly intended to educate and sensitize Americans also felt free to act insensitively with regard to our culture. It is permissible to present another country's anthem alongside ours and receive standing respect. It is not reasonable to expect or demand that Americans stand and display respect for another flag and country in absence of the American anthem or flag."

I also asked the board to consider two positive actions. "First, encourage Larkin High School administrators to not underscore one culture to the exclusion of others. This ill-conceived mandatory assembly did nothing but widen the current schism. Second, I would ask the board to lay down some principles for future assemblies. While it is good educational practice to teach about other cultures, it is not an acceptable practice to require mandatory response to the patriotic elements of those cultures."

I was appalled by Webb's printed statement. Apologizing only for the "unfortunate spotlight" placed on the school does not acknowledge the process that brought the spotlight. Lack of proper oversight created an assembly that offended a large number of people. Teachers behaving badly guaranteed parental follow-through. Administrative silence and denial has perpetuated their arrogant image.

Trivializing the incident and belittling those it concerned has only confirmed Webb's lack of grounding with the community.

Since Dec. 8, 2004, educational institutions receiving federal funding are required to hold an educational program pertaining to the United States Constitution on Sept. 17 of each year. This year, Sept. 17 fell on a Saturday.

Our high school apparently chose on Sept. 16 not to hold an assembly on the Constitution of the United States, but to educate our youth on the patriotic elements of another country.

This is the future you are cheering for, the burning of cars, synagogs and churches in Paris, the honor killings and rapes in the Netherlands ...... your think you are above it all, but it will come as our culture is not defended.

key meme...the nation's traditions are increasingly regarded as reactionary and prejudiced.

The limits of multiculturalism

The ideology of multiculturalism combines nicely with mass immigration to provide the perfect recipe for national dissolution. In the new issue of the Weekly Standard, Leo McKinstry focuses on the effects of the recipe in Great Britain: "Dis-United Kingdom." McKinstry contrasts Great Britain unfavorably with France to make his point:

For the last three decades, in response to waves of mass immigration, the civic institutions of Britain have eagerly implemented the ideology of multiculturalism. Instead of promoting a cohesive British identity, they have encouraged immigrant communities to cling to the customs, traditions, and language of their countries of origin. The emphasis is on upholding ethnic and cultural differences rather than achieving assimilation. This is in stark contrast to France, which has taken a color-blind approach to immigration, with newcomers expected to adapt to the culture of the host nation. The recently imposed ban on Muslim girls' wearing the hijab or headscarf in schools is a classic example of the French model.

Britain has moved in exactly the opposite direction. Soon after the French hijab ban was implemented, a British Muslim teenager brought a successful legal action to win the right to wear in school full Islamic dress from head to toe. She was represented in her court case by Cherie Blair, the barrister wife of the prime minister. And Mrs. Blair's action was typical of the spirit of the Labour-led British ruling class, which has elevated dogmatic multiculturalism into a principle of governance.

McKinstry makes the key point about the limits of multiculturalism -- a point that exposes the doctrine as an ideology, and a fraudulent one at that:
Yet the diversity enthusiasts want to celebrate every culture but their own. In the self-flagellating climate of modern Britain, the nation's traditions are increasingly regarded as reactionary and prejudiced. Britishness has "systematic, largely unspoken racial connotations," declared the government's Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. The commission's report, published in 2000, described the United Kingdom as "a community of communities" and called for British history to be "revised, rethought or jettisoned." The official mood of self-loathing, epitomized by the terror of giving offense to any ethnic group, has become even more pervasive in the last five years. In one typical instance, the English inspector of prisons stated that wardens should not wear badges or tie pins with the red cross of St. George, England's national flag, because this could be "misinterpreted as a racist symbol."
As an ideology, multiculturalism is a corrupted form of Marxism in which race and nationality replace class. Like Marxism itself, it is an ideology that must be opposed if we are to preserve a country founded on the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights.

I don't know enough to judge whether France is in better shape than Great Britain with respect to the corruptions of multiculturalism. Moreover, it seems to me that elites in the United States -- the "leaders" whom John wrote about yesterday -- have similarly elevated multiculturalism into an operative principle, if not a principle of governance. We have our own multicultural problems with with which to contend. McKinstry's article outlines the looming perils that confront us as well as the Brits and the French.

UPDATE: As for France, see Diana West's Washington Times column: "C'est la vie in France."

"They have to stand for our national anthem, so you have to stand for theirs."

I think this statement bothers me most of all. I'm not sure if it's the "they" and "our," or the implied sympathy for the poor Mexican kids who "have to" stand for "our" National Anthem. Would the school like to fix things so that only the Mexican National Anthem is played from now on, and then the poor Mexican students won't have to be insulted or inconvenienced by standing for "our" anthem? That's probably next!

And what are the Mexican kids doing there if they don't consider themselves Americans and feel put out just for having to stand for our National Anthem on our soil?

Seems like all of the sympathy is going to the Mexican kids, while the American kids are expected to provide all of the respect and sensitivity. But then, what else is new?

This is a matter of total disrespect to out flag. There are precedent and protocols that determine how to display and how to respect our flags and forign nations flags both in our country and abroad. These things are defined EXACTLY. The folks at this school quite obviously do not even know that these rules exist.
What the people at this school did was to totally ignore the rules for displaying another countries flag within our country. By the way the set this up with the Mexican flag not flying lower than our flag the demonstrated absolute and total disrespect to our national symbol.
I learned these things in different military leadership schools and academy's. I'm not guessing at this information and neither should this school be putting this kind of crap out without doing the necessary research to insure that they do things right.

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.