Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(118,295 posts)
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 11:35 AM Sep 2015

Christiansburg school bans Confederate symbols from parking lot (VA)

Posted: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:00 am
By Travis Williams

CHRISTIANSBURG ...Less than an hour into the first day of school last month at Christiansburg High, Cox said, she was called to the main office and soon found herself in Principal Kevin Siers’ office for the first time.

The principal referred to the six-inch Confederate battle flag sticker on the back window of her truck. If the sticker was not removed, Cox said the principal told her, she faced being kicked out of school for three days and the loss of parking privileges for the year ...

County schools spokeswoman Brenda Drake said no student was threatened with suspension, but three were called to the office at Christiansburg High the first day of school following a parking lot sweep. All were told to remove Confederate symbols from their vehicles and all complied ...


http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/montgomery_county/christiansburg-school-bans-confederate-symbols-from-parking-lot/article_691fc510-47f9-5883-91be-d9a129fec562.html

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Christiansburg school bans Confederate symbols from parking lot (VA) (Original Post) struggle4progress Sep 2015 OP
Is Tinker Meaningless Now? mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2015 #1
There really are conflicting principles here. I regard compulsory education as a good thing, struggle4progress Sep 2015 #2

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,489 posts)
1. Is Tinker Meaningless Now?
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 12:08 PM
Sep 2015
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's disciplinary actions violate students' First Amendment rights.

Background of the case

In 1965, Des Moines, Iowa residents John F. Tinker (15 years old), his siblings Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old), Hope Tinker (11 years old), and Paul Tinker (8 years old), along with their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth, elementary school for Hope and Paul) in protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that school children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. The participants decided to violate this policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended from school for wearing armbands on December 16 and John Tinker was suspended for doing the same on the following day. (The two youngest participants were not punished.) Mary Beth, Christopher, and John were suspended from school until after January 1, 1966, when their protest had been scheduled to end.
....

Subsequent jurisprudence

Tinker remains a viable and frequently-cited Court precedent, though subsequent Court decisions have determined limitations on the scope of student free speech rights. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, a 1986 case, the Supreme Court held that a high school student's sexual innuendo–laden speech during a student assembly was not constitutionally protected. Though Fraser applies the Tinker test of disruption to school decorum, if not undermining of educational mission, the effect is to make an exception to Tinker for "indecent" speech. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, where the court ruled that schools have the right to regulate, for legitimate educational reasons, the content of non-forum, school-sponsored newspapers, also limits Tinker's application. The Court in Hazelwood clarified that both Fraser and Hazelwood were decided under the doctrine of Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association. Such a distinction keeps undisturbed the Material Disruption doctrine of Tinker, while deciding certain student free speech cases under the Nonpublic Forum doctrine of Perry. In Morse v. Frederick, the so-called "Bong Hits For Jesus" case of 2007, the Court held that schools may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school-sponsored event, even those events occurring off school grounds, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In 2013, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit re-heard a case that had been argued before a panel of its judges, considering whether a charitable effort - a breast cancer awareness drive - impermissibly disrupts a middle school by distributing bracelets imprinted "I ♥ Boobies."

struggle4progress

(118,295 posts)
2. There really are conflicting principles here. I regard compulsory education as a good thing,
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 12:56 PM
Sep 2015

on balance, but its compulsory nature has raised definite issues, including first amendment questions, such as compulsory recitation of the pledge or compulsory school prayer, which the Supreme Court has often resolved correctly IMO. As a general rule, I support free speech for students; and similarly I do not think anyone has a right to be shielded from views they do not support. I agree with the Tinker decision:

... undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk ...


I have no general problem with students expressing political views that I would not find in any manner agreeable to me: for example, I think students ought to be allowed Impeach Obama! bumperstickers or tee-shirts, despite the fact that the message offends me.

But there may be legitimate reasons to shield minors from the corrosive effects of hate-speech -- and even from the effects of speech that is likely to be construed as hate-speech. So it seems to me that school administrators may not only forbid bumperstickers that say N*****s go back to Africa! or Hitler was right! even when circumstances do not suggest an obvious disturbance will result, but may also forbid (say) bracelets bearing swastikas even when the wearer claims to harmlessly intend only to display an affection for Hinduism or for some Amerindian tradition, since the symbol is also closely linked to the mass murder of minorities in Europe and therefore seems likely to cause psychological harm to others. The confederate flag is in such a category, I think: during my lifetime, it has been widely used as a symbol of opposition to equal rights and as a veiled threat of racist violence; if my skin were darker, I might flinch when I saw the thing, and I would certainly teach my children to stay away from folk who displayed it
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Christiansburg school ban...