Posted on 05/29/2009 6:35:48 AM PDT by meandog
President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “douche bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates.
In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.
Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "douche bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcconnecticut.com ...
But should the “state” be the one that determines the consequence for otherwise “free” speech? That is a slippery slope to tread, and I would rather err on the side of caution— once the state determines who can and can’t say and what they can and can’t say, it is a short hop to us having devotionals to “dear leader” daily and clutching the red book to our chests. “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it”—Voltaire
> But should the “state” be the one that determines the consequence for otherwise “free” speech?
Probably not. But who’s to say it wasn’t just the Principal saying “I can’t work with her, and I won’t sanction an extra-mural after-school activity if it requires me, in my spare personal time, to work with her.”?
Principals are individuals, too, and if it isn’t a part of the core curriculum they aren’t legally required to deliver it.
When they take that approach, are they a part of the State? Or are they merely exercising their individual right to free association?
So how long before our esteemed Obama decides he can’t work with Republicans and won’t sanction anything involving them? I work with people who don’t like me and that I don’t like every day, as I’m sure most of us do. To refuse to do so because of something one of them said smacks of a playground, kindergarten attitude. The principal should have just ignored it, like most reasonable people would have, and gone on. Creating all this drama about it gave her remarks strength, or at least an audience, whereas had he ignored it no one would either know about them or cared.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!
You have, perhaps inadvertantly, expressed correctly the key fact about the American public school system.
Don't ever wonder why there is so very little actual useful education going on in public schools when the clear priority is respect for authority.
It does not seem to occur to you that these two activities are naturally in contradiction!
The public schools were expressly created to induce conformity and submission to non-parental authority. The Germans wrote about this extensively almost two centuries ago, and these marvellous progressive views were translated into English well before you were born, and put into practice in the U.S. school system over the last century.
Socializing children in schools is inhumane, but unfortunately also a keystone of American-style socialism.
“Besides, most teachers and school administrators are douche bags in my experience.”
George, George, George.....
This is why you received so many detentions as a lad! The teachers and school administrators know well how to speak power to truth - it’s their business!
btw, your retirement plan is beginning to appeal to me!
Yes, authoritarianism is clearly what the framers were going for.
The school’s power (and by extension, the governments) has to end over people somewhere. A blog posting made on a private computer away from school seems like a good place for it to stop.
And even if other students did know she called them douche bags that doesn’t mean it would cause a substantial disruption.
> The principal should have just ignored it, like most reasonable people would have, and gone on. Creating all this drama about it gave her remarks strength, or at least an audience, whereas had he ignored it no one would either know about them or cared.
I agree with you there. Moreover, this should never have gotten to any court. Adults should have intervened in the process at some point.
> A blog posting made on a private computer away from school seems like a good place for it to stop.
But blogs are about as public a forum as it is possible to get: the Internet goes everywhere! It’s not like she made a private memorandum in her Dear Diary that she keeps locked up in her dressing table and nobody sees it ever: she posted it on the Internet. And if someone were to Google the Superintendent’s name, chances are good that Google would find it and display the fact that she thinks he is a “Douche-bag”.
That’s hardly private, ay.
> And even if other students did know she called them douche bags that doesn’t mean it would cause a substantial disruption.
Except that they would know that she was Disrespectful and got away with it. This would further undermine his authority and status in the school, which is rightfully his by dint of his position.
Not all Authority is bad authority: a certain amount of it is necessary in order for things to function properly. Legitimate authority must be able to exercise itself without fear of being undermined for petty reasons, and it must be able to enforce itself legitimately when it is undermined for petty reasons.
I think what the Supervisor did was perfectly acceptable. The punishment fit the crime beautifully. Nobody’s rights were infringed at all.
The nature of free speech is for a person to be heard. By private, I mean it wasn’t on loan from the school.
This is illegitimate authority. Had she done it at school, then he would most likely be within his rights. It wasn’t. When she is away from school he could still reprimand her if she were representing the school in some way, say at an athletic event. She wasn’t.
She has the right to speak out about what she sees as unfair practices on the part of the school. Just because she did so inarticulately doesn’t mean her right is diminished.
What qualifies as petty reasons? Was Tinker wearing a black armband to protest Vietnam a petty reason?
This very clearly serves as a chilling effect on free speech even when they speech is done away from the school. The message is loud and clear - do not criticize the administration or they will seek retribution against you. If this isn’t exactly what the first amendment was supposed to protect against I don’t know what is.
> This very clearly serves as a chilling effect on free speech even when they speech is done away from the school. The message is loud and clear - do not criticize the administration or they will seek retribution against you. If this isn’t exactly what the first amendment was supposed to protect against I don’t know what is.
Could a case be made that the Superintendent was merely exercising his right to Freedom of Association by declining to spend his after-school hours with somebody who thinks he’s a Douche-bag, and was rude enough to say it on the Internet?
It’s one thing to decline to, say, teach her Math — that would be clearly wrong — and another thing to decline to spend his own unpaid free time working with her arranging sock-hops and the School Prom.
Nobody has a “right” to sit on the Student Government. No school is required to have Student Governments. That’s all extra-curricular, after-school optional stuff that happens because Staff organize it out of the goodness of their own hearts, in their unpaid personal time.
So the lesson to you is what? Don’t criticize the school, even if you think they are wrong, if you want to participate in extra-curricular activities. That doesn’t seem like it creates a very healthy environment. Especially if you can’t even criticize them away from school.
This should have opened a dialogue on why the even the student had planned was canceled. Instead, punitive action was taken to serve notice to all students that at no time and under no circumstances can the authority of the school be questioned. They are always right, the student is always wrong and that is the way it will always be. That teaches a very dangerous lesson.
> They are always right, the student is always wrong and that is the way it will always be. That teaches a very dangerous lesson.
Such as what? It’s bad to be Disrespectful to those who are in Authority?
Not all Authority is “bad” authority. Often in life we are required to comply with Authority, and often if we don’t “bad” things happen to us. The workplace is a classic example.
What do you think would happen to you if you met your boss, say, in the supermarket and called him a “Douche-bag”? Do you think you’d still get your promotion, or your raise, or do you think it might affect your working relationship at all?
Unless your boss is a real saint, I’d be willing to guess that your working relationship might take a hit. Even though you have Freedom of Speech. Even though it happened outside the workplace. Even though he probably ought to be bigger than that.
So she learned one of life’s lessons. The Superintendent probably wasn’t really a Douche-bag, and probably didn’t deserve to be called one, and because she did call him one she suffered a consequence.
Authority sometimes does get to dish out to us consequences. That is why they are “Authority”. That’s a good lesson.
Does this mean you support punishment for offenses not before the court? That would be extraordinarily dangerous, IMO.
I am of mixed mind on this subject. True, the girl should have been more respectful, but I have also seen far too many petty tyrants who were principals and superintendents. Petty tyrants do not deserve respect.
No that authority is always above reproach. Or that at the very least even if they are in the wrong you better not accuse them of being in the wrong.
She didn’t call him to his face. She vented on a blog. Which of course brings to mind another reason for freedom of speech. Allowing someone to vent serves as a release valve instead of having the anger build up. If enough people get fed up with the heavy hand of the administration and are not allowed to speak out about it on their own time, they could actually have a substantial disruption of class.
I have whatever right to speech my private enterprise company allows. She was in her own home, she had whatever freedom of speech her parents allowed. Even if it happened at school, the school can only infringe on her freedom of speech if they show that not doing so would cause a substantial disruption to teaching. I have seen no evidence that this did/would. If calling a member of the administration a douche bag causes a substantial disruption it is safe to say that every high school class in the country is likely substantially disrupted. But it doesn’t. Most likely any disruption was caused by canceling the event. That is on the administration and not the girl who worked hard to bring it together.
> Does this mean you support punishment for offenses not before the court? That would be extraordinarily dangerous, IMO.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your question. Punishment for offenses not before the Court happens all the time. Every time somebody gets fired from their job, for example. Every time a parent spanks their kid. Or in this case, where the brat wasn’t allowed to run for Student Government
I certainly support that, and I can’t see how it sets a dangerous precedent.
Am I misunderstanding it?
I profoundly disagree. Respect is quite costly. To pay respect is to efface oneself, even if only in a marginal manner. Exercising respect is a discipline. No discipline is ever truly cost-free, IMO.
How are you this fine day, FRiend?
The issue in this case was whether the school's punishment was correct. The student did not say or display the offensive words in the court room. But your post indicated that the judge should have used the sanction of a contempt citation to force the student to apologize for behavior that occurred far away from the class room.
Contempt of court is supposed to be reserved for acts that take place in the courtroom, or pursuant to the case (like ignoring a subpoena).
I read your paragraph as supporting the use of contempt to punish the act that began the court case, despite the fact that punishment had already been imposed, and that the subject act was not before the court - only the previous punishment arising from the act.
Does that halp explain my question?
> I profoundly disagree. Respect is quite costly. To pay respect is to efface oneself, even if only in a marginal manner.
Interesting. I wouldn’t have thought being Respectful cost anything. In my paradigm everybody is entitled to Respect at some level and in some way. Everybody without exception. So by being Respectful I’m merely giving something that is due anyway.
Respect is only a choice: I get to choose how I interact with anybody at any given time. Each choice is merely an adjustment in attitude. And as I have limitless and infinite self-respect, showing somebody else Respect doesn’t come at a cost of personal effacement.
Respect isn’t the same thing as deference or capitulation or effacement. It’s merely an acknowledgment of the other person’s worth and/or worthiness. As such, it costs me nothing.
> Exercising respect is a discipline.
Yes, it certainly is, and it isn’t a particularly easy one to learn for some people. Once you’ve got the hang of it, though, it comes as a second nature.
> No discipline is ever truly cost-free, IMO.
True. Yet being undisciplined is almost always costlier, IMO. For example, somebody who is undisciplined with money will probably never amass a personal fortune: he’ll waste it all instead.
> How are you this fine day, FRiend?
(Grin!) I am very well thankyou! And how are you?
> Allow me to rephrase. Does this mean you support judicial punishment for offenses not before the court?
Ahhh. I had misunderstood. No, I don’t support that. I’ll freely admit that my illustration was glib. I don’t countenance that any Judge would have ordered her to apologize, far less hold her in contempt for refusing to do so.
And if I were the judge in that case, tho’ I’d be sorely tempted to do so, I don’t suppose I really would have either.
Psychologically, being respectful requires that the person acknowledge that they are not the center of the universe. Freud had a lot to say about egocentrism, as did many of the other psych types who came along to refute Sigmund later.
I’m well, and enjoying this debate with a southern hemisphere friend (Is it Australia or NZ? - I forget, sometimes. They say the memory is the first thing to go... And I forget the second! ;-P)
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.