Fun and games with the Supremes

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

What political stand did the school take?

It allowed a great deal of political speech to occur.

Here are some snippets from the opinion http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement:

"In 2003, the School permitted a student group called the Gay-Straight Alliance to hold a “Day of Silence” at the School which, in the words of an Assistant Principal, is intended to “teach tolerance of others, particularly those of a different sexual orientation.”2

fn3 "On the “Day of Silence,” participating students wore duct tape over their mouths to symbolize the silencing effect of intolerance upon gays and lesbians; these students would not speak in class except through a designated representative. Some students wore black T-shirts that said “National Day of Silence” and contained a purple square with a yellow equal sign in the middle. The Gay-Straight Alliance, with the permission of the School, also put up several posters promoting awareness of harassment on the basis of sexual orientation."

"Because of these conflicts in 2003, when the Gay-Straight Alliance sought to hold another “Day of Silence” in 2004, the School required the organization to consult with the Principal to “problem solve” and find ways to reduce tensions and potential altercations."

Thus, what we find is that there was a day of Silence the year before, which in fact resulted in disruptions resulting in the suspensions of several students. The next year, the administration allowed it to proceed. Apparently, there were no incidents.

The next day, the kid wore the shirt that was found to be disruptive.

See, here's what I find to be the reasons why the school allowed one side but not another: as the record reflects, the "Day of Silence" consists of students wearing duct tape over their mouths and speaking only through rpresentatives. That's not disruptive.

Amazingly, however, when a kid sends an opposite message by wearing a shirt with the message written on it, it is likely to be disruptive and should be squelched.

Quote

Tolerance?

Yes, for one side. Not for the kid's side. That should NOT be tolerated. So many fail to see the irony of "He's so intolerant."

I don't know that we should be sending students the message that bigotry should be tolerated. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Quote

Quote

Would you feel the same way if the t-shirt had said "God hates blacks"?

Yep. I'd feel the same way if it said, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." I'd feel the same way if it said, "I understand O.J."

Outside of the classroom, I would agree. However, First Amendment rights are not top priority inside the classroom.

Quote

Quote

As such, the Court, consistent with the Tinker decision, found that the school indeed had the right to take action.

Yep. A decision that was vacated by the US Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision.

Can I ask why you linked to the Appeals Court decision if it was vacated by the Supreme Court? The case you linked to shows that the anti-gay "protesters" were [I]actually[/I] and not just potentially disruptive.

I still don't see how one can consider this scenario similar to Tinker. Tinker involved non-disruptive speech. This case dealt with disruptive speech. The Supreme Court has previously found that disruptive behavior is not protected by the First Amendment in the classroom.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,132]

>I don't know that we should be sending students the message that bigotry should be tolerated.

I don't think we should be sending kids ANY political messages in school.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>I don't know that we should be sending students the message that bigotry should be tolerated.

I don't think we should be sending kids ANY political messages in school.

I believe tolerance to be a basic value, and not a political message.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,132]

>I believe tolerance to be a basic value, and not a political message.

Tolerance is a basic value, and students should be taught that at an early age as a general good thing (like sharing, or helping old ladies cross the street.) Tolerance of specific groups - whether they are black, gay, female, democrats, mormons, terrorists, coke users, recovering alcoholics etc - isn't something the school should be organizing events around.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>I believe tolerance to be a basic value, and not a political message.

Tolerance is a basic value, and students should be taught that at an early age as a general good thing (like sharing, or helping old ladies cross the street.) Tolerance of specific groups - whether they are black, gay, female, democrats, mormons, terrorists, coke users, recovering alcoholics etc - isn't something the school should be organizing events around.

IMO that depends entirely on whether the school has a problem with intolerance towards specific groups, which was indeed the case in this instance.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,132]

>IMO that depends entirely on whether the school has a problem with intolerance towards specific groups . . .

OK, and now they've proven they have a problem with tolerance toward homophobes. Would you therefore support a "homophobes are people too" day, complete with X-ed out rainbows? Or is it OK to hate certain groups at this school?

It gets silly very fast.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>IMO that depends entirely on whether the school has a problem with intolerance towards specific groups . . .

OK, and now they've proven they have a problem with tolerance toward homophobes. Would you therefore support a "homophobes are people too" day, complete with X-ed out rainbows? Or is it OK to hate certain groups at this school?

It gets silly very fast.

It does get silly very fast. A lot of factors have to be weighed when multiple rights seem at odds. That is precisely why we have a judicial system.

The Supreme Court has been pretty consistent on their decisions regarding First Amendment rights in the classroom. This particular case was also ultimately decided in a manner consistent with previous precedents.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I don't know that we should be sending students the message that bigotry should be tolerated.

Again - the irony of intolerance of intolerance. Indeed, it seems that this kid was on the losing end of intolerance. I don't like bigots. But I also don't like unfair treatment by a governmental entity.

Quote

First Amendment rights are not top priority inside the classroom.

Agreed! Which is why disruptive bullshit like a "Day of Silence" and a "Straight Pride Day" shouldn't be there. But if it allows one, it better allow them all. If it allows a point to me made, it should allow a responsive position to be made.

Quote

Can I ask why you linked to the Appeals Court decision if it was vacated by the Supreme Court?

Sure. It provided a statement of facts, which is why I didn't quote the legal analysis. Note that even the court said the record was limited. The decision was vacated by the SCOTUS only a couple of weeks ago, but I was careful not to cite the reasoning since that happened.

Quote

The case you linked to shows that the anti-gay "protesters" were actually and not just potentially disruptive.

Yes. The appeals court stated that the altercations were the result of anti-homosexual comments that were made by the students. (Which is weird because there was no determination of fact, but I let that slide). I find this to be a reflection of the normative values of whomever you ask is to blame. Here's why:

One side will say that the homophobes started it with their anti-homosexual comments. The opposite ideology would blame the pro-homosexuals for starting it with their protest. Which one started it?

I don't know. But if I were to make a guess, both sides were equally responsible. Both sides were equally intolerant of each other. Both sides were equally adept at posturing to the point of fisticuffs. Both sides were probably equally adept at gettign suspended.

Who started it? It's like asking who started the War in Iraq - you'll get different answers from different people. I, myself, would suggest that the first event in this case timeline was the "Day of Silence" in 2004. Others would suggest that it was anti-gay sentiments that occurred there for years!

Quote

This case dealt with disruptive speech.

And the standards for what is disruptive were applied unequally based upon the content of the speech. One side was politically correct. The other side was not.

Quote

The Supreme Court has previously found that disruptive behavior is not protected by the First Amendment in the classroom.

I understand that. But once "disruptive behavior" advocating one viewpoint is sanctioned by the school, to prevent a response would constitute censorship. A point made without allowing a challenge is proselytizing at the least and indoctrination at the worst - it isn't _education_.

On the other hand, if neither side is allowed to make their point because school ain't the place for it, then that is a "content-neutral" time, place and manner restriction. That's not what happened - one side got to say what they wanted, the other side was prevented.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I believe tolerance to be a basic value, and not a political message.

Here's a question - If tolerance was taught and being practiced, would the kid's shirt be disruptive?

If your answer is yes, then that's not tolerance. It it tolerance of one side, but not another, which is indoctrination. If your answer is no, then the kid should have been allowed to keep his shirt, in which case he was censored.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The decision was vacated by the SCOTUS only a couple of weeks ago, but I was careful not to cite the reasoning since that happened.

I'm interested in reading their logic behind the decision.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

OK, and now they've proven they have a problem with tolerance toward homophobes. Would you therefore support a "homophobes are people too" day, complete with X-ed out rainbows? Or is it OK to hate certain groups at this school?

You've hit the nail on the head. From a pragmatic standpoint, it IS okay to hate homophobes.

In fact, in the now vacated opinion, the majority held that it is only impermissible to make derogatory comments and remarks towards students with a minority status. From Page 31 of the opinion:

Quote

Limitations on student speech must be narrow, and applied with sensitivity and for reasons that are consistent with the fundamental First Amendment mandate. Accordingly, we limit our holding to instances of derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students’ minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation.28***

And then the court explained it in Footnote 28:

Our dissenting colleague worries that offensive words directed at majority groups such as Christians or whites will not be covered by our holding. See dis. op. at 21. There is, of course, a difference between a historically oppressed minority group that has been the victim of serious prejudice and discrimination and a group that has always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status. Growing up as a member of a minority group often carries with it psychological and emotional burdens not incurred by members of the majority. In any event, any verbal assault targeting majorities that might justify some form of action by school officials is more likely to fall under the “substantial disruption” prong of Tinker or under the Fraser rule permitting schools to prohibit “plainly offensive” speech.***

To put succinctly, the Judge said that whites, males and heterosexuals gotta suck it up if there is derogatory or demeaning speech directed at them. The Judge AGREED that it creates unequal standards. White heterosexual males just need to act better than non-white, non-heterosexual women.

There is no other way to read this than, "Some people deserve more rights than others. And this kid is one of the others." So much for equal protection under the law.

And the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, vacated this order 8-1 - though not for the reasons you may expect.

Edited to add: an easier way of saying it was that the majority held that the kid's speech was not entitled to first amendment protection because of who he was and what he said. Had he been a minority or if his shirt attacked a majority, it would have been okay so long as it didn't cause actual disruption.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

The decision was vacated by the SCOTUS only a couple of weeks ago, but I was careful not to cite the reasoning since that happened.

I'm interested in reading their logic behind the decision.

It looks like this is what happened - and I am operating on assumptions because of the basis of the SCOTUS ordr and the tone:

Kid asked for an appeal with the SCOTUS. The Poway School District then went to court and filed a motion to dismiss the injunctive counts on the basis that the case was moot. The kid graduated, and therefore any prayer for injunction or other actions was moot, and any opinion would be advisory.

Harper's attorneys amended their petition with the SCOTUS to ask that the prior judgment be vacated because dismissal means there is no appealable order (a wily strategy by Poway, if this is what happened).

The court agreed and vacated the order. So, when the motion to dismiss was filed by Poway, they ended up with the entire holding being vacated, which is bad for them.

So it is null and void.

See the order, second case from the top here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/030507pzor.pdf

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

>I believe tolerance to be a basic value, and not a political message.

Tolerance is a basic value, and students should be taught that at an early age as a general good thing (like sharing, or helping old ladies cross the street.)

What about old MEN?

No wonder women have a longer life expenctancy!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.