Feds investigate Redneck Day at Arizona high school, have nothing better to do

[Dr. Chuckles]

People are allowed to desecrate the flag without restriction (outside of school) yes.

Yes, outside of school. The event we are discussing did not happen "outside of school".

There is nothing wrong with guns on a shirt, it doesn't infringe on ANYONE, it isn't even offensive.

I likely agree with you. But schools are allowed to restrict such material

The restrictions are ridiculous and I don't care what the legal precedence is, that isn't what the constitution says.

Like I said, you are free to disagree, but how the law is applied is decided through things like supreme court rulings

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Yes, outside of school. The event we are discussing did not happen "outside of school".



I likely agree with you. But schools are allowed to restrict such material



Like I said, you are free to disagree, but how the law is applied is decided through things like supreme court rulings

The point is, there is nothing in the Constitution barring kids from doing those things, what barred them is an activist panel of judges. It needs to be revisited.

 

[Aderleth]

People are allowed to desecrate the flag without restriction (outside of school) yes. There is nothing wrong with guns on a shirt, it doesn't infringe on ANYONE, it isn't even offensive. The restrictions are ridiculous and I don't care what the legal precedence is, that isn't what the constitution says.

It always cracks me up when laypeople claim to understand the constitution better than Supreme Court justices and appellate court judges. Restrictions on dress in school are generally viable because the things being restricted are considered disruptive (not "offensive"). Generally speaking, the state may infringe on our first amendment rights (and other rights) when it has a sufficiently compelling interest. In this case, maintaining order in schools is such a reason. That's completely in line with constitutional thinking across the board. There were all sorts of laws on the books basically from day one that restricted (e.g.) solicitation, bribery and incitement.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

It always cracks me up when laypeople claim to understand the constitution better than Supreme Court justices and appellate court judges. Restrictions on dress in school are generally viable because the things being restricted are considered disruptive (not "offensive"). Generally speaking, the state may infringe on our first amendment rights (and other rights) when it has a sufficiently compelling interest. In this case, maintaining order in schools is such a reason. That's completely in line with constitutional thinking across the board. There were all sorts of laws on the books basically from day one that restricted (e.g.) solicitation, bribery and incitement.

It's not disruptive. It's a kneejerk reaction (in the case of guns) to school shootings, nothing more. How often is it the students that are complaining? Usually parents.....

 

[Aderleth]

It's not disruptive. It's a kneejerk reaction (in the case of guns) to school shootings, nothing more. How often is it the students that are complaining? Usually parents.....

Yes, adults make decisions as to what schools can and cannot do. There are quite a lot of things parents complain about that students wouldn't. That's not a useful argument for your position.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Yes, adults make decisions as to what schools can and cannot do. There are quite a lot of things parents complain about that students wouldn't. That's not a useful argument for your position.

In this instance it seems the complaint was filed by some local rev/politician, who has a questionable past

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Yes, adults make decisions as to what schools can and cannot do. There are quite a lot of things parents complain about that students wouldn't. That's not a useful argument for your position.

I'm saying that because of that they are getting denied their constitutional rights, that is my point.

 

[Aderleth]

In this instance it seems the complaint was filed by some local rev/politician, who has a questionable past

I actually wasn't commenting on this specific situation so much as the constitutional underpinnings of first amendment restrictions on student dress more generally.

With respect to this situation, I think the whole thing is ridiculous on several levels. The school was retarded for creating "redneck day" (which is one of those ideas that's so obviously likely to blow up in one's face it's kind of amazing that anyone let it happen); the kid who wore the cape was stupid for not anticipating that that would be a problem (for the same reason that I never wore goth/industrial shirts with anti-religious iconography or reappropriated nazi iconography when I was in high school), and the local reverend pretty obviously has an agenda of some kind for taking what should have been (and was) a minor local disciplinary matter and literally making a federal case out of it.

The bottom line is that this whole situation should never have happened.

 

[Aderleth]

I'm saying that because of that they are getting denied their constitutional rights, that is my point.

And my point is that you don't understand how the constitution works in this context.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

And my point is that you don't understand how the constitution works in this context.

Because the courts have never been wrong? Hmmm....

 

[Aderleth]

Because the courts have never been wrong? Hmmm....

Because, among other things, it's pretty obvious to me that you lack sufficient knowledge of what the courts have ruled and why. Consequently your opinion is simply conjecture.

 

[soot]

The point is, there is nothing in the Constitution barring kids from doing those things, what barred them is an activist panel of judges.

Ummmm, you're kinda putting the cart before the horse here.

There's actually nothing in the Constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights, preventing a school from making rules that proscribe certain kinds of behavior (to include speech).

The Constitution says that " "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

That "activist panel of judges" you're talking about?

They came along later, in 1947, when the Vinson SCOTUS in Everson v. Board of Education applied the Establishment Clause to the 1st Amendment.

Prior to that decision the BoR was only taken to restrict the federal government.

After that, and subsequent rulings by equally activist courts, it became, "what's good for the goose (Fed Gov) also applied to the gander("lesser" governing entities; states, municipalities, etc...).

If you wanna play the role of strict constructionist at least learn enough about the Constitution and the history of federal judicial activisim to do it accurately and fairly.

Thanks.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I actually wasn't commenting on this specific situation so much as the constitutional underpinnings of first amendment restrictions on student dress more generally.

With respect to this situation, I think the whole thing is ridiculous on several levels. The school was retarded for creating "redneck day" (which is one of those ideas that's so obviously likely to blow up in one's face it's kind of amazing that anyone let it happen); the kid who wore the cape was stupid for not anticipating that that would be a problem (for the same reason that I never wore goth/industrial shirts with anti-religious iconography or reappropriated nazi iconography when I was in high school), and the local reverend pretty obviously has an agenda of some kind for taking what should have been (and was) a minor local disciplinary matter and literally making a federal case out of it.

The bottom line is that this whole situation should never have happened.

I was just clarifying the guy isn't even likely a parent of a student. But the above seems like a good assessment of the situation

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

and in honor of those neglected shirts

 

[Aderleth]

and in honor of those neglected shirts

Oh man. That brings back memories.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Apparently, the guy filing the complaint was too much even for Sharpton

Al Sharpton's Former Phoenix Protege, Jarrett Maupin II, Doesn't Agree Sheriff Arpaio's Office Racially Profiles - Phoenix - News - Valley Fever


He's yet another attention whore. hohum.

Here's a quote from the article in the OP

“We have determined that we have the authority to investigate this allegation,” the DOE letter also states. “We note, however, that the display of the confederate flag concerns rights protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, the scope of OCR’s investigation will be limited to whether a racially hostile environment was created due to language and actions that were not protected by the First Amendment.”

Read more: Feds investigate Redneck Day at Arizona high school | The Daily Caller

 

[Caine]

I'm more upset that schools are wasting precious time and money on this

Anyway the Department of Education has a role in enforcing federal guidelines regarding education, you could say it's its primary purpose so this investigation is not outside the realm of their role. Also I don't think we should demand our government start ignoring civil rights complaints, that wouldn't be better than an investigator taking a look at this situation and if its as simple as its described, which I bet it is, it should only be a small matter.

Nothing to get too upset about.

What time or money was wasted on this?

 

[Caine]

Again, do we want our government ignoring civil rights complaints?

All complaints that are petty and a waste of time should not be investigated[/quote]

You still don't have a ****ing clue about anything with this story but you're still making opinions! A private citizen went to the DoE, not the school or anyone at the school, how is that a sign of a dysfunctional system? That's like saying because someone makes a prank 911 call, the police are dysfunctional.

No. Its nothing like saying if someone makes a prank emergency call the police are dysfunctional.

Maybe people who take **** like this offensively are dysfunctional.

 

[Caine]

It boils down to this.

There was no civil rights violation.
It is not a civil right to not be exposed or have to see stuff you don't like.

Cry... Me.... A.... ****ing.... River.

It is like saying it is a civil rights violation for me to have to listen to ****ty gangsta rap music.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The DOE said that they would investigate. What is the minimum it takes to constitute an investigation?

 

[radcen]

It always cracks me up when laypeople claim to understand the constitution better than Supreme Court justices and appellate court judges. Restrictions on dress in school are generally viable because the things being restricted are considered disruptive (not "offensive"). Generally speaking, the state may infringe on our first amendment rights (and other rights) when it has a sufficiently compelling interest. In this case, maintaining order in schools is such a reason. That's completely in line with constitutional thinking across the board. There were all sorts of laws on the books basically from day one that restricted (e.g.) solicitation, bribery and incitement.

Considering that even said justices and judges cannot agree on pretty much anything regarding the Constitution I'm not sure that's a fair standard. Plus, lay people can be thoughtful and intelligent in their own right.

 

[radcen]

It is interesting to me that nobody else has questioned the double standard that "redneck day" is allowed while other more sensitive stereotypes are not.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Apparently, the guy filing the complaint was too much even for Sharpton

Al Sharpton's Former Phoenix Protege, Jarrett Maupin II, Doesn't Agree Sheriff Arpaio's Office Racially Profiles - Phoenix - News - Valley Fever


He's yet another attention whore. hohum.

Here's a quote from the article in the OP

“We have determined that we have the authority to investigate this allegation,” the DOE letter also states. “We note, however, that the display of the confederate flag concerns rights protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, the scope of OCR’s investigation will be limited to whether a racially hostile environment was created due to language and actions that were not protected by the First Amendment.”

Read more: Feds investigate Redneck Day at Arizona high school | The Daily Caller

that's because he was stealing the good rev's shine

 

[Caine]

It is interesting to me that nobody else has questioned the double standard that "redneck day" is allowed while other more sensitive stereotypes are not.

Because I have given up on the thought that people would agree it is offensive to make fun of poor white people from the south.

I, too, know that a "Ghetto Day" would be a total "Civil Rights" catastrophe.

 

[Captain America]

It's not disruptive. It's a kneejerk reaction (in the case of guns) to school shootings, nothing more. How often is it the students that are complaining? Usually parents.....

When we were kids we would whine about the school dress code not allowing dudes hair below the ears and collar, girls not allowed to wear pants, (except pantsuits,) and the list goes on.

I wonder how a tee shirt, with a suicide belt printed on it, would go over?

Fight the good fight bro. Had we not fought the good fight, girls would still be wearing pantsuits or skirts.