The Beginning of the End of the 1st Amendment?

I have to hope that as people get older and wiser that they'll recognize the importance of the First Amendment:

Why are liberals fixated on criminalizing speech?  Whether it’s progressive politicians or hyper-sensitive college students, they all seem to be regurgitating the dogma of the day: speech that hurts or offends should be a crime.

Their goal is simple, if they can control how people speak, they can eventually control what they think.  Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals, knew this well when he observed “Control the language and you control the masses.” 

Examples of the Left’s efforts to bastardized and control language are all around us.  The demand that we recognize and use a near infinite number of personal pronouns, the invention of the euphemism “gender-affirming care” as a cover for permanent, body mutilating surgery, or the replacement of “pregnant women” with the absurd term “pregnant people,” just to name a few.

Refuse to participate in the Left’s grammatical delusion and you may face consequences. 

Unfortunately, the Left’s efforts to control language is gaining traction, particularly among college students.   

In a recent survey conducted for Newsweek, 33% of Generation Z Americans believe using the wrong gender pronoun should be illegal...

The Left’s efforts to compel “acceptable” speech, while criminalizing “unacceptable” speech reflects an alarming level of constitutional illiteracy, which poses an unprecedented threat to our rights of free speech and expression, which cannot go unchallenged.

Why stop at pronouns?  My adjectives are hot/sexy/brilliant, and using any other adjectives to describe me is offensive and should be penalized greatly.

The ACLU Has Lost Its Way

In reading a post about California's losing another legal case, there was this dig about the ACLU:

Though the first amendment of the Bill of Rights is quite clear, that government cannot restrict the religious rights of citizens or churches, DMHC, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU teamed up to write regulations to do exactly that, and they did it outside the legislative process. Brianna Pittman, Planned Parenthood’s legislative advocate, repeatedly suggested DMHC come up with “an administrative solution, in lieu of legislation,” and DMHC officials immediately agreed, arranging a meeting with both Planned Parenthood and the ACLU in order to create the mandate.

That the ACLU was part of this process only illustrates once again how corrupted with politics that so-called free speech non-profit legal firm has become. Once, it stood firmly defending the first amendment in all cases. Now it conspires with others to nullify that first amendment, if it disagrees with the politics of those targeted.

Maybe they agreed with those Nazis in Skokie.

Any Bets On Who's Going To Win This Case?

My dime is on FIRE:

Today, two students represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued their Michigan school district for viewpoint discrimination after they were forbidden from wearing apparel critical of President Joe Biden. 

“Criticism of the president is core political speech protected by the First Amendment,” said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. “Whether it’s a Biden sticker, ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ sweatshirt, or gay pride T-shirt, schools can’t pick and choose which political beliefs students can express.” 

In Feb. 2022, two Tri County Middle School students wore sweatshirts to school with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon,” a political slogan critical of President Biden with origins in a more profane chant. Even though the political slogan is widely used — multiple members of Congress used it during floor speeches — an assistant principal and a teacher ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts. However, administrators allowed students to wear apparel with other political messages, including gay-pride-themed hoodies. 

The incident is part of a pattern of political favoritism by the school district. When the school district relaxed the dress code for field day, a school administrator ordered a student to stop wearing a Trump flag as a cape, but permitted other students to wear gay pride flags in the same manner. 

The school district is wrongly relying on a policy that prohibits “profane” clothing to censor this particular message, but FIRE’s lawsuit argues that ordering the students to remove the “Let's Go Brandon” sweatshirts violates the First Amendment.

My prediction:  the leftie school administrators will lose, but they won't learn their lesson.

Lefties Gotta Leftie

And that means violence, graffiti, destruction, and lies:

About 100 protesters at the University of California, Davis, surrounded a venue attempting to disrupt an event Tuesday evening headlined by conservative personality and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. The event was organized by the school’s Turning Point chapter.

The protesters, who were mostly wearing black, clashed with law enforcement officers and other students, including attendees of the event, as they smashed windows, hurled eggs, used pepper spray and blocked people from entering the University Credit Union Center, where the event was held.

There were at least two arrests.

"Not a peaceful protest at all," Twitter CEO Elon Musk tweeted after photos and videos of the protest surfaced on social media.

The major Sacramento rag repeated some blood libel that they eventually had to retract:

An op-ed with the Sacramento Bee posted ahead of the event called for its cancelation (sic), alleging Kirk to have called for the "lynching" of trans people.

"Charlie Kirk has called for the lynching of trans people, a comment that should warrant the cancelation of his speaking engagement at UC Davis," the outlet said in a since-deleted tweet.

The op-ed also called Kirk a "fascist speaker."

Kirk denied ever calling for such action and threatened to sue the outlet, which deleted the op-ed. 

UC Davis, which I've long referred to as Berkeley-lite, clearly sided with the rioters while pretending to support the First Amendment:

As a public university, we must uphold the right to free speech, as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even when that speech may be hateful, offensive or abusive," the school said.

How do you descend into totalitarianism and tyranny?  Slowly at first, and then suddenly.

Update, 3/16/23:  This doesn't surprise me at all:

Hours before a Turning Point USA event that turned violent thanks to Antifa agitators who smashed windows and tried to storm into the event, the chancellor of University of California Davis condemned Charlie Kirk as a purveyor of “hate” and “misinformation.”

While he accused Kirk of spreading “misinformation,” the chancellor himself made false claims about the conservative group leader....

Lefties couldn't tell the truth if they tried.

Push Back

Generally speaking I don't believe people, especially adults, should wear clothing with political statements on them at school, but if you're forced to undergo political indoctrination, I'm willing to relax that rule a bit in the interests of "equal time" and respectful dissent:

A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of a Washington state teacher who wore a MAGA hat to his district’s pre-school year “racial bias and cultural sensitivity” trainings.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel said former Wy’east Middle School Principal Caroline Garrett had violated science teacher Eric Dodge’s constitutional rights in 2019 when she told him “Next time I see you with that hat, you need to have your union rep,” Education Week reports...

The genesis of the imbroglio was Dodge “displaying” the hat “on top of his backpack” at the trainings. He never actually wore the hat during the sessions. The leader of one workshop, a professor from Washington State University, told Principal Garrett she felt “intimidated and traumatized” by the hat...

Garrett and other school district officials prevailed in district court after Dodge sued, but a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel “revived” the teacher’s case against the principal. It ruled that Dodge’s hat did not disrupt the educational process and that “political speech is the quintessential example of protected speech, and it is inherently controversial.”

The Ninth Circuit has been getting some cases right lately, and this is certainly one of them.  While this was not en banc, but merely a 3-judge panel, I'm pleased that the court ruled correctly.  "The most overruled circuit court in the country" will not have to face down the Supremes on this ruling.

We're Losing Our Enlightenment Values

What's worse, I never thought we'd lose them so quickly:

[W]hich came first, the corruption of science or the censoring of speech? 

It appears they’ve walked hand-in-hand for quite some time, becoming all the more apparent with the consolidation of social media power and the collective efforts of federal bureaucrats who wish to control not only what you think but especially what you say. During no time in human history was this more obvious than during the COVID-19 crisis where social engineering tactics were used against the American public, not to limit your exposure to a virus, but to limit your exposure to information that did not fit within a government sanctioned narrative. 

Throughout the pandemic, doctors, scientists, patients, and families were censored, shadow-banned, blocked, and punished for having views, opinions, and research findings disfavored by the government and their chosen gatekeepers. Hard fast truths that have become indisputable over time, ranging from the effectiveness of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine to the potential dangers of Remdesivir and the failures of the vaccine were labeled as "disinformation" and "misinformation."

I remember when believing that the coronavirus had nothing to do with a wet market, that it was a human-manufactured virus that escaped from the lab in Wuhan, got you laughed at and called a conspiracy theorist.  Today that same belief gets you a "well, duh, of course".

Some People Still Belive In Freedom of Speech

It's an English Enlightenment value, so perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised that this is coming from an English university:

Cambridge University students are to get free speech training, as part of a new project aimed at countering “cancel culture” on campus.

The sessions – which are aimed at educating undergraduates about the importance of tolerating views they disagree with – will be rolled out at universities across the country if successful.

It comes amid warnings from the university watchdog that free speech is at risk of being stifled on campuses after a record number of speakers and events were rejected last year.

And there have been a string of high-profile incidents where university chiefs have censured or no-platformed speakers following intense pressure from students who deemed their views “offensive”.

I'm disappointed that it isn't coming from an American university.

College Free Speech Rankings

You can quarrel with their methodology if you want, but FIRE ranks the University of Chicago as #1 and Columbia in last place at #203.  

Is your school on the list?  Mine isn't, but as a military academy it wouldn't be expected to have strong free speech protections for cadets.  Local university Sac State isn't on the list, but UC Davis (aka Berkeley-lite) is.

Press and Tech People Are Flipping Out

Lefties.  I hope Elon Musk buys Twitter just so their heads will explode:

“Democracy Dies in Darkness” is the motto of the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post. It may sound like a warning, but more and more it seems like a summary of the left’s aspirations to control debate and shut down any opposition.

A recent example of those aspirations appeared in a column by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s big buy of Twitter stock. The original headline — changed after widespread mockery — was this: “Elon Musk’s vision for the Internet is dangerous nonsense: Musk has long advocated a libertarian vision of an ‘uncontrolled’ internet. That’s also the dream of every dictator, strongman and demagogue.”

Yeah.  Stalin, Mao, Xi, Castro, Kim--they all have supported the free exchange of ideas, right.  Reich is an idiot. 

In George Orwell’s “1984,” war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. To these Orwellian inversions, Reich would add another: Censorship is free speech. But it’s not, and claiming otherwise won’t make it so.

Sadly, though, Reich isn’t just one lone wacko writing in The Guardian. He is instead, as usual, parroting the establishment’s line.

The establishment doesn’t want free speech because if Americans can talk honestly about what elites are doing, people will understand just how rotten the establishment has become and will want to do something about it.

What he said.

Update, 4/16/22:

Ben Shapiro Talks To Bill Maher

I've mentioned before how much I used to enjoy Phil Donahue, a rabid leftie talk-show host who had a great show because he and his guests, rather than yelling at each other, would discuss their differences rationally.  I really enjoyed Phil Donahue and Milton Friedman:

In the following video, Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher have a similar type of mature conversation:

Remember the "Nazi" Post From A Few Weeks Ago?

Students in a small town not too far away were punished by their school for (entirely inappropriate) pictures they posted on social media off campus and not during school hours.  Here's my post from a few weeks ago on the subject.

Today's major Sacramento newspaper carried a stream-of-consciousness piece on the topic, and included comments by a local law professor.  Let's see what was said:

Had the students posed with Nazi symbols on campus, their subsequent punishment probably would have been justified under Supreme Court precedents. But because the photo was taken and posted off campus, the school’s power to discipline the students is debatable.

“Assuming there’s not an argument the school can make that this off-campus activity somehow had a disruptive effect on school operations, I think ordinary First Amendment rules would apply,” said David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. “Nazi iconography — as abhorrent as it is — is generally protected under the First Amendment.” UC Davis Law Professor Aaron Tang disagreed, however, saying Wheatland Union acted correctly. “The school has an obligation to protect every student’s ability to safely come to school and learn, and it can punish students who support legacies of white supremacy and the slaughtering of millions of people,” Tang said…

But the court also ruled that schools can discipline off-campus student speech if it involves threats, bullying or harassment. From Tang’s perspective, this is the caveat that gives Wheatland Union the right to discipline its students. “Schools can punish off-campus speech when that speech makes (other) students feel uncomfortable coming to school,” Tang said. “Nazi symbols aren’t targeted at individual students, but they do target students.

Tang's so-called argument comes off as weak sauce to me.  It boils down to "speech I don't like is bad", and that's no way to run a First Amendment.  We all encounter symbols, speech, and actions that we don't like, and we encounter them every single day.  "I don't feel safe!" (said in whiny voice) has already worn out its welcome.  Put on your big boy or big girl undies and act like a human with some agency, not like some mousy little wuss.  

And can schools really "punish students who support legacies of white supremacy and the slaughtering of millions of people"?  We can really punish people merely for having abhorrent thoughts and beliefs?  If that's true, let's start punishing the communists, the socialists, and the various other lefties.  But I'm sure that's not what Comrade Tang meant, is it?

Judging only by what was quoted in this article, Tang is clearly an idiot.

I have yet to hear what the punishment for the students was.  Was it light enough that the school could say they did "something", but not so much that parents decided it wasn't worth challenging in court?  Or is something else going on?  I'd really like to know.

Fascism and Free Speech

This is a satisfactory definition of fascism:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime...that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

The "economic and social regimentation" requires that business and industry, while still nominally in private hands, serve the interests of the state (or Party). 

Having established that, I present to you the following:

(Not exactly sure who created this, but a friend saw it online and forwarded it to me.  I hope the creator doesn't mind that I've reposted it here.)

Should He Be Fired For Shooting His Mouth Off?

You don't have to have been a reader of this blog for very long to know my longstanding views on a topic like this--the fact that the idiot involved is a teacher does not mean he should necessarily be fired for his foul posting:

In case you missed it, the funeral for slain NYPD Detective Jason Rivera was held on Friday. The procession route for the funeral was lined with thousands upon thousands of police officers and other first responders...

Unfortunately, not everyone was feeling the spirit of paying tribute to the life of the officer who was murdered during a cowardly ambush. One New York City public school teacher took to Instagram and posted a suggestion that someone might want to take a vehicle and plow into the sea of police officers.

He didn't incite anyone, he merely let his own idiocy overwhelm his humanity and common sense:

The post was captioned, “5/30/20: NYPD SUV drives into a crowd of protestors. Ideal conditions for reciprocity.”

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  we teachers are not required to be saints.  We're allowed to have our own opinions, and even to express those opinions outside of school--both of which seem to be the case here.  That the guy is a worthless turd seems, at least to me, to be obvious, but if being a worthless turd were a disqualification for a government job, then government (including government education centers) would be much smaller indeed!

The loser is free to express his worthless opinion, and the rest of us are free to criticize him for having such a worthless opinion.  That's how free speech is supposed to work.  It might feel good to play the lefties' game and try to get this guy fired, but doing so would be at the expense of one of the most precious parts of conservatism--venerating the Constitution, especially the First Amendment.  No, we must attack what he posted, and perhaps even the man himself for being so stupid as to entertain the thought of what he posted, but trying to get him fired is a bridge too far.  If he's to be fired it should be for something related to his teaching, not merely for expressing a gross opinion.

When we talk about firing teachers, there are all sorts of "what ifs".  I used to be against those rare firings of a (usually woman) teacher who was subsequently found to have had nude pictures published to make a little money back in the college days; I've since come to the realization that such firings are reasonable, because we can't have students checking out their naked teacher.  It's just not good for classroom management or decorum.  So there's one example of where a teacher's out-of-classroom actions can be cause for firing, but that cause is because it directly relates to the ability to maintain order in a classroom.  Other outside causes--untreated drug or alcohol abuse, for example--are probably statutory.

My point is that, with the fewest of exceptions, we should be firing teachers for what goes on at work and not what goes on their Instagram pages.  In fact, here is a post from last September summarizing four stories about teachers, and you can see that such a view is consistent in each of them.  So let the teacher above spout off--and face the social opprobrium that comes with his views.  And make no mistake, social opprobrium is as far as I'm willing to go in such circumstances.  Anything above that is harassment and worse.

Update, 1/31/22:  That didn't take long:

“We do not condone or promote violence of any sort. As of this afternoon, Mr. Flanigan is no longer employed at Coney Island Prep,” Coney Island Prep CEO Leslie-Bernard Joseph said in a statement.

“The teachers and staff of Coney Island Prep are public servants; and like all public servants we hold ourselves to a much higher standard,” Joseph said. “We work hard to serve the young people in our community, and we know our police officers do as well, taking innumerable risks, to keep our city safe.”

The teacher also tried to "explain" his comment: 

He claimed his message was “misconstrued” and that he was merely commenting on the “vulnerability” of the crowd of cops.

“I respect the NYPD. I do not condone violence,” he insisted on Sunday. “A 22-year-old police officer murdered in the line of duty is reprehensible. I’m devastated by that.”

Apparently the school didn't buy that explanation. 

While I expected this outcome, I don't support it.

Can One Of These Be The Right Thing, and The Other Wrong?

First, Virginia:

A tip line set up by new Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin for parents to report the teaching of "inherently divisive concepts" in the commonwealth’s public schools is triggering teachers and Democrats, according to a report...

The victory by Youngkin was fueled in part by his pledge to prevent critical race theory (CRT) from being taught in the schools. He appeared to make good on that pledge by including a CRT ban among a series of executive orders he issued soon after taking office.

Now, Colorado: 

Are they both wrong?  If one of them is right, which one, and why?  I'd really like to solicit comments on this one.

We Can't Have An Exchange Of Ideas Here, This Is A University!

This sounds nice, but I won't hold my breath:

Students’ tendency to overvalue perspectives based on experience over knowledge, facts and logic can harm classroom discourse and university culture, according to a new report penned by a group of bipartisan scholars and administrators.

To resolve this, professors should teach students to rely on discipline-based norms of evidence, “so that students are neither unfairly burdened with expectations to speak nor excluded because of their experience and identity.”

The advice was among several suggestions in the report, titled “Campus Free Expression: A New Roadmap,” a guide for college leaders to foster academic freedom and open debate.

F*** Joe Biden Flag at School

I agree with the sentiment.  I have nothing but contempt for Biden and his Administration. 

Having said that, foul language in public is not something I can support.  Neither is foul language by students.  As I wrote regarding the "Bong Hits For Jesus" case, such language and behavior is not appropriate at school:

In a demonstration meant to honor U.S. military veterans, students in Paso Robles High School’s Conservative Club waved flags on campus for several hours — including one that said “F--- Biden.”

Although most of the flags displayed by students on Nov. 10, the day before Veterans Day, were traditional star-spangled American flags, others included the one with the profanity-laced slogan, at least one “Trump 2020” flag and a Gadsden flag featuring a snake and the words “Don’t Tread on Me” on a bright yellow background.

Trump 2020 and Gadsden are ok.  Foul language is not.

Despite My Misgivings About the Individual In Question, The Supreme Court Ruled Correctly

I've written previously about the bratty, foul-mouthed cheerleader who took to Snapchat to show that her maturity and vocabulary were as developed as her ability to make the varsity cheerleading squad--that is, not highly developed.  Read the first link to get caught up.

However, even though I don't have anything kind to say about the girl herself, she was right in that the school had no legitimate authority to penalize her for her Snapchat post--and the Supreme Court has thusly ruled 8-1:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former high school cheerleader who argued that she could not be punished by her public school for posting a profanity-laced caption on Snapchat when she was off school grounds.

The case involving a Pennsylvania teenager was closely watched to see how the court would handle the free speech rights of some 50 million public school children and the concerns of schools over off-campus and online speech that could amount to a disruption of the school's mission or rise to the level of bullying or threats.

The 8-1 majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

"It might be tempting to dismiss (the student's) words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary," Breyer wrote. 

I have a long history on this blog of saying that, in most circumstances, schools have no business trying to regulate the conduct or speech of students off-campus and away from school functions.  The "creating a disruption at school" argument needs to be applied very narrowly, not loosely:

Student speech advocates will likely claim the ruling as a victory, although it was very narrow. The court ruled that while schools do maintain some interest in regulating students' off-campus speech, the factors in the case of the cheerleader, Brandi Levy, weighed against the school's actions. 

"[T]he school argues that it was trying to prevent disruption, if not within the classroom, then within the bounds of a school-sponsored extracurricular activity," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in an opinion that was joined by all of his colleagues but Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented. 

"But we can find no evidence in the record of the sort of ‘substantial disruption’ of a school activity or a threatened harm to the rights of others that might justify the school’s action," Breyer continued...

"The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances," it continued. "These include serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers."

But nevertheless, the school could not discipline Levy, the court said, because her speech in this instance was not disruptive. 

Chalk up another point for the First Amendment and for restraining petty school administrators.

I wonder if young Brandi ever made the varsity cheerleading team....

Update, 6/27/21:  A reasonable view:

While all the justices but Thomas joined Breyer’s opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion that Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.

Alito’s opinion repeatedly inveighed against granting schools permission to impose a “heckler’s veto,” by invoking the hurt feelings of other students to justify punishing speech on or off campus.

“Speech cannot be suppressed just because it expresses thoughts or sentiments that others find upsetting,” Alito wrote.

Student Speech Off-Campus

I have long been a believer in the concept that what students say and do, away from school and not at school activities, is not a legitimate concern for school officials.  Sure, students may say things that might become issues at school, but I'm not convinced that that's sufficient reason to violate a student's First Amendment rights.  (My school administration and I have disagreed on this.)  I have no doubt you could create a scenario wherein I might have to backtrack on this view, but for the vast majority of cases, schools should focus on what students do at school (and at school activities).

How about this case?

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments later this term in a case that pits free speech advocates against public school officials who seek to punish students for certain off-campus social media posts. Last week, the Biden Justice Department entered the fray with an amicus brief that opposes the free speech side.

The case is Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. In 2017, a high school freshman and junior varsity cheerleading team member took to the social media site Snapchat in order to complain about her failure to make the varsity cheerleading squad. The student—known by the initials B.L. in court filings because she is a minor—posted a picture of herself and one of her friends with their middle fingers raised accompanied by the text "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything." She was suspended from the team as a result of that post.

B.L. and her parents, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, are now battling the school in court. They argue that the First Amendment flatly prevents school officials from punishing students for such entirely off-campus speech. "In a weekend comment in an evanescent Snapchat message," B.L.'s legal team argued in a court filing, "B.L. swore in expressing her disappointment at not making the varsity team to her friends. The notion that a school can discipline a student for that kind of spontaneous, non-threatening, non-harassing expression is contrary to our First Amendment tradition, and finds no support in [the Supreme Court's] student speech cases."

The 3rd Circuit ruled in BL's favor.  Enter the current administration:

According to the Biden Justice Department, while some off-campus speech deserves constitutional protection, the 3rd Circuit went too far, unfairly hamstringing school officials, who, the government maintained, require significant leeway when it comes to regulating and punishing student speech. "When the student's off-campus speech targets an extracurricular athletic program in which the student participates," the brief argued, "such speech might properly be regarded as school speech that is potentially subject to discipline by school officials if, for instance, it intentionally targets a feature that is essential to or inherent in the athletic program itself."

It doesn't surprise me that my views are at odds with those of the current administration.

That her parents opted to sue instead of having her write an apology letter to whomever for her public foul behavior and language tells me all I need to know about that family.  I wouldn't want a little whiner like her on my team.  However, she wasn't in her school uniform, she wasn't at a school function, she wasn't at school.  She was whining that she didn't (do well enough to) make the varsity team.  I don't see legitimate grounds for the school to penalize her.  

I also wonder if she'll get past cheer tryouts next year--might not be good enough to make the team.

Update, 3/14/21:  What is it about cheerleaders and their moms?  You'd think cheerleading is the most important thing on the planet:

A Pennsylvania woman is facing misdeameanor charges after allegedly sending "deep fake" naked photos and videos of her teenage daughter's cheerleader rivals in an effort to get them kicked off the team or convince them to kill themselves.

They Just Don't See The Irony

From the major Sacramento newspaper:

An incident involving the Confederate flag resulted in disciplinary action at a Rocklin area high school.

A Whitney High School student had the flag displayed on their vehicle, Whitney High School Principal Justin Cutts told families Wednesday. He said any clothing or vehicles depicting the controversial flag on campus is a violation of the Rocklin Unified School District’s freedom of speech and expression board policy.

Controversial?  I know some of you readers weren't born yet in 1992, but I had voted in a couple presidential elections by then, and I recall when a couple of Southern boys had pins and signs like this.  Those Democrats must have been true racists, no?  Couldn't have had anything to do with being from the South or just being a generic rebel, could it?

OK, the last sentence quoted above does make the school principal sound kinda stupid--and rightly so.  But I'll admit, there's "clarification" in the article:

“At Whitney High School, we strive to develop learning communities respectful of each and every member of this campus and to many, the Confederate flag undermines the values of inclusiveness and equity,” Cutts said. “We respect the rights of individuals to express their views however, those views and expressions may directly conflict with our legal obligation to ensure a non-discriminatory and non-harassing environment for our students and staff.”

I'll bet they wouldn't ban a "Free Tibet" sign/shirt/flag.  Or, more likely, "Free Palestine", either.  

No one thought the Clinton-Gore team was racist for using that flag, and no black Americans spoke out in protest over it.  In fact, President Clinton was proclaimed our "first black president".

So what's the explanation?  Politics.  That's all this is. 

Unicorn Sighting: A University President With A Spine

Every once in awhile you find a university president who shows some fortitude, who speaks about the values that our universities used to promote.  He doesn't pussy-foot around:

Northwestern firmly supports vigorous debate and the free expression of ideas — abiding principles that are fundamental for our University. We encourage members of our community to find meaningful ways to get involved and advocate for causes they believe in — and to do so safely and peacefully. The University protects the right to protest, but we do not condone breaking the law.

What started as peaceful protests have recently grown into expressions that have been anything but peaceful or productive. Crowds blocked the streets of downtown Evanston and nearby residential areas, disrupting businesses and local families, defacing property and violating laws and University standards. Some of the instigators appear not to be Northwestern students at all, but rather outside activists.

While the protesters claim that they are just trying to get our attention, that is simply not true. Several administrators — including our Provost, Deans, Interim Chief Diversity Officer and Vice Presidents for Research and Student Affairs — have held numerous discussions with concerned students, faculty and staff, and I am participating in a community dialogue tomorrow evening that was scheduled weeks ago.

Events in recent days seem to indicate an intent by organizers to escalate matters, and to provoke NUPD into retaliation.

I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the overstepping of the protesters. They have no right to menace members of our academic and surrounding communities. When students and other participants are vandalizing property, lighting fires and spray-painting phrases such as “kill the pigs,” we have moved well past legitimate forms of free speech.

I've long disagreed with the "emanations and penumbras" that equate actions to "symbolic" speech. Vandalism isn't speech, and good on Morton Shapiro for saying as much.