Colo. School Bans Flags Amid Protests - Principal Says Students Used Flags To Taunt Others

WCBSTV ^

[Sub-Driver]

Colo. School Bans Flags Amid Protests Principal Says Students Used Flags To Taunt Others

(CBS) LONGMONT, Colo. Dozens of high school students protested a temporary school policy forbidding students from displaying the U.S. flag, as well as flags from other countries, amid racial tensions following immigration rallies.

Skyline High School Principal Tom Stumpf said American flags were brazenly waved in the faces of Hispanic students and in one case a Mexican flag was thrown into the face of another student.

"When it involves the American flag and its abuse in vilifying other people, we simply will not tolerate it," Stumpf said. "They were using the symbol derisively as misguided patriotism."

Students were warned about the policy Friday and several were suspended, although Stumpf would not provide details. Then, about 100 students protested during lunch time.

Student Dustin Carlson told the KCNC-TV, the CBS station in Denver, that he was suspended for two days.

"I'm getting suspended for it and personally I think that's uncalled for," he said. "If this country means freedom, then why can't we fly our own flag? It's ridiculous."

[Texas Eagle]

That's about the most effed up thing I've ever heard of.

[TChris]

Wow, once again proving that liberals are simply incapable of blaming an individual for their own actions.

"If students are taunting each other with flags, well obviously it's the flag's fault. It must go."

This is just insane!

[LibertarianInExile]

Here are problems with analogizing this situation to Tinker:

First, in Tinker, the armband-wearing petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive. Here, the illegal students are noisy, trying to get others to leave school, or worse, to fight.

Second, Tinker determined that First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. That does not mean that ANY expression is permissible. For example, a high school class could not yell "Nancy Pelosi blows!" all through third period.

Third, Tinker established that a prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Here there is PLENTY of evidence that school discipline broke down, and fighting started, as a result of this sort of expression.

That said, I have posted elsewhere that I don't believe they SHOULD lose their rights to free speech, where appropriate. But this is not appropriate free speech on school grounds. Lunchtime protests, or class break protests, or silently carrying the flag during class, is not the same as mid-class urging students to leave campus and march for illegals' rights to break American laws. Nor is it appropriate for a student to shove an American flag into the face of a protester. That isn't respectful to the flag or the protester.

Students are not in school to protest, and the primary job taxpayers expect educators to fulfill is educating, not protest chaperoning.

[AmeriBrit]

Freedom of Speech is not restricted on a school campus unless it's lewd, vulgar or would cause a substantial disruption.

http:/www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=speakingout

[wintertime]

Please post a link to support your analysis, otherwise, I contend my opinion is just as valid as yours.

By the way,,, your screen name "LibertarianInExile" befuddles me. Why are you defending government schools?

[oh8eleven]

I wish people could remember how [w]e were in High school. We were short sighted, and at times very cruel.
Speak for yourself, and from your post I can tell high school wasn't that long ago for you. Welcome to FR...
catholicfreeper
Since Mar 16, 2006

[wintertime]

I care that there are students here screwing around, out of school during school hours, in broad daylight and the principal and truant officers do nothing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are focusing in on the disorderly event itself. In that regard, I agree with you. The police should be enforcing the law. The kids are by law to be in the school and not marching.

My point addresses a larger issue: Government schools can not respect First Amendment Rights and at the same time maintain a safe, education focused, and orderly environment for the children.

It is for this reason that we must work to begin the privatization of universal K-12 education.

[azhenfud]

"Skyline High School Principal Tom Stumpf said American flags were brazenly waved in the faces of Hispanic students.."

Everyone makes stupid decisions at some point - this was Stumph's. He needs to be stiffly reminded what zip code he's in. If those students are offended by our nation's banner, I say let the offense run rampant until they are forced to leave our precious land. Our men and women died under that flag and for guests of our graciousness to feel offended calls for their jig to be up. They need to be kicked out of these United States.

[azhenfud]

"Government schools can not respect First Amendment Rights and at the same time maintain a safe, education focused, and orderly environment for the children."

That's a problem of the school's own making. The reason they can't is because they insist on "diversity". The Mexican or any other national flag has no place in our schools but for educational purposes only.

[wintertime]

No, I agree totally with my statement. Free Speech rights on a high school campus are restricted. There are various reasons for this. One legitimate reason is to maintain public order. Also, to say the least lets remember unless you can afford a private education you are forced to go there. A Public School is not free speech alley. The principals first concern is the education and safety of his students.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I haven't seen or heard of any riots in private high schools recently....hm?...not even in my entire lifetime.

Private schools are freely chosen, and part of choosing a private school is to agree to the free speech, free press, free assembly, and free expression of religion. It also means that the parent agrees to the worldview ( with religious consequences) of the private school.

In the government school there is continuous tension between First Amendment Rights and the need to suppress these rights just to maintain safety and order. Every time the courts rule in favor of a student's First Amendment rights the government school become more ineffective.

Those forced to attend government schools are compelled by the government to restrict speech, press, assembly, expression of religion, and are subjected to a government sponsored worldview that is not religiously neutral.

Government schools are NOT voluntary for most. Why?

Government schools are NOT voluntary because they are running a price-fixed monopoly that creates a hostile business climate for private schools. When private schools are scarce the government then uses the threat of police action to force attendance at its government school.

Government schools are also NOT voluntary in that they are enormously expensive. The cost is more than $10,883 per year, per government K-12 child. These property, sales, and income taxes for both government schools and other government expenditures drive both parents into the workforce. Taxes alone make homeschooling impossible for many.

[LibertarianInExile]

We're done. First, simply telling me your opinion is just as valid as mine is bushwah. I just demonstrated to you the difference between simply quoting the case law and applying it situationally. What good is an opinion you can't substantiate with reason? You have no fact to back up your opinion, and I debunked the applicability of your proffered case law. Might as well say that Billybob Thornton's opinion is as good as Charles Krauthammer's.

Second, I'm not DEFENDING government schools. I'm saying that if we pay for the damn things we ought to demand that we get what we pay for. That doesn't predispose me to them at all--they should uniformly be privatized at least, and be cut entirely at best, because we're very unlikely to get what we pay for, ever.

You equate our opinions when you can't back yours up. You attempt to malign my philosophical commitment on the basis of an opinion irrelevant to that philosophy. I'd like to tell you it's been fun trading posts with you. But based upon your last post, it hasn't.

[jeremiah]

Yep, I have felt worse, but not while watching life go on.