Two high school students at St. Anthony’s High School in Long Island have been suspended indefinitely after they walked into an after-hours sporting event wearing a Confederate flag draped over their shoulders. We recently discussed another suspension of a student involving a Confederate flag. I have the same free speech concerns in this case. The question is whether other flags would also be confiscated and the student suspended in my view. While I can certainly understand how this flag represents racism for many, others view the flag as a symbol of Southern heritage and heroism. I often see them in Virginia and recoil a bit due to the association with slavery. However, my concern is where the school is drawing the line on speech.
Brother Gary Cregan, principal of St. Anthony’s High School in South Huntington, stated that “[t]he African-American students who immediately saw it really exercised heroic restraint and fortunately a teacher immediately confiscated the flag and took the students out of the gym.” They were initially suspended for 10 days and will now be barred from returning. Cregan explained to the parents that the flag is a symbol “designed to revive past injustices or to inflame discrimination or racial intolerance, [and] is completely unacceptable and profoundly offensive.” Cregan rejected any claims that the flag represents Southern history or heritage: “I find it just very hard to even imagine why any student in 2014 would even consider or think that a Confederate flag would be anything other than a symbol of hate.” Other students supported the school and said that what matters is that some people are offended by the flag.
I find Cregan’s motives laudable and I also believe that the other students should be commended for showing restraint. However, I am unclear as to the rule applied in this case? Would the school have reacted the same way with a Soviet flag or a Chinese flag or other flags that are viewed any many to represent oppressive histories? How about a rainbow flag viewed immoral by some or an Israeli or Palestinian flag that would inflame contemporary passions? I can understand a ban on any flags or posters at sporting events, but the selection of some symbols raises question of content-based censorship. The flag clearly (and understandably) represents slavery and racism to many. However, it also represents different things to different people. Respected scholars like Civil War historian Shelby Foote have noted that the flag traditionally represented the South’s resistance to Northern political dominance. As discussing in PBS interview, he was sensitive to how many of his friends viewed it as a symbol of racism but he did not share that view. Others view it as a symbol of state’s rights or Southern culture or opposition to speech codes or politically correct sentiments. The point is that, if some flags are allowed, there are a variety of symbols that are viewed as offensive by different groups.
The school is not a state school and thus not subject to the limitation of the First Amendment. Yet, that does not mean that it should engage in arbitrary limitations on speech. I went to the website and I could not find any published rules of conduct. The question is whether there is a rule addressing after-hours events. If the rule is not clear, the question is whether it should be made more explicit as to any and all such symbols — and whether it is fair to suspend the students indefinitely. Teenagers do stupid things and I would not be surprised if this was an effort to get a rise out of everyone. However, in the official statement below, the school does not quote or cite the rule used against the students.
What also concerns me is the reference to punish two students who “blatantly disregarded the principal’s request to discontinue the use of social media to inflame discrimination in the school community by displaying an inappropriate picture and comment.” The school simply states that “These students have been appropriately acted upon.” I fail to see why a school should attempt to censor or block students in discussing this controversy — and disagreeing with the school’s actions. Even if you are comfortable with suspending the boys with the flag, these students appear to be engaging in pure debate over the merits of the rule and the response of the school. The school states “As a Catholic and Franciscan school, Saint Anthony’s will always demand acceptance and respect for all races, religions and cultures.” However, the school should also demand tolerance for different views and the protection of free speech for both its students and faculty. Ordering students not to discuss a controversy (and perhaps not challenging the school’s actions) will do little to quell the controversy. What it will do is to force the debate into the shadows will it will fester and deepen. Declaring “thou shalt not disagree” will not produce agreement — only forced silence. [There are reports that two students may have worn black face in messages on the social media. While there remains the issue of the regulation of after-hours, out-of-school communications, that is obviously a very disturbing matter. However, the general order not to discuss the controversy on social media on the issue remains highly problematic.]
The Confederate flag has not been treated in the federal courts as a form of hate speech and continues to appear in a wide variety of public locations and private displays. Ironically, for some of those students on social media, this controversy may make the flag a symbol of self-expression or resisting compelled speech codes.
What do you think? Was indefinite suspension and the bar on social media discussions warranted in this case?
DATE: April 16, 2014
RE: Confederate flag incident
From: Brother Gary Cregan, OSF, principal,
Saint Anthony’s High School, Huntington, NY
On the evening of Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at Saint Anthony’s High School, Huntington, NY, during a supervised intramural European Handball game with multiple teams, a small number of students displayed a symbol of hate – the Confederate Flag. Upon entering the gym, the flag was confiscated by faculty moderators, and the students were told to leave the property.The two individuals who were responsible for bringing the flag to school, and for wearing it into the gym, were immediately given a long term suspension the next day. After further discussion and consultation, it became necessary to impose additional disciplinary action. In addition, two other students blatantly disregarded the principal’s request to discontinue the use of social media to inflame discrimination in the school community by displaying an inappropriate picture and comment. These students have been appropriately acted upon.
Saint Anthony’s is committed to addressing the issue of racial intolerance with faculty, students and parents through education, awareness and dialogue in an ongoing basis. The use of any symbol, either historic or current, which carries a meaning designed to revive past injustices, or to inflame discrimination or racial intolerance is completely unacceptable and profoundly offensive. As a Catholic and Franciscan school, Saint Anthony’s will always demand acceptance and respect for all races, religions and cultures.
# # #
Contact:
Christina Buehler
Director of Communications
E-mail: cbuehler@stanthonyshs.org
Source: CBS
Inge Marler, Arkansas Tea Party Leader, Makes Racist Joke At Event
The Huffington Post
By John Celock
Posted: 06/14/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14/inge-marler-tea-party-arkansas-leader-racist-joke_n_1597334.html
Excerpt:
Tea Party leaders in Arkansas are on the defensive after a board member of a Tea Party group in the Ozarks made a racist joke at a rally over the weekend drawing laughs from the audience.
The Baxter Bulletin in north-central Arkansas reported that Inge Marler made the comments at the annual rally of the Ozark Tea Party. The remarks, which suggested that African-Americans are on welfare, were condemned by Tea Party leaders in the state. The Bulletin reported that the condemnation came after they contacted the Tea Party for comment.
The Bulletin reports that Marler, who told the newspaper she would stop using the joke, said the following as an ice-breaker in her speech:
“A black kid asks his mom, ‘Mama, what’s a democracy?’
“‘Well, son, that be when white folks work every day so us po’ folks can get all our benefits.’
“‘But mama, don’t the white folk get mad about that?’
“‘They sho do, son. They sho do. And that’s called racism.’”
There are precious few African Americans that will buy the Republican meme that the Democrats are racists, not Republicans. Blacks and other minorities will continue to vote with the idea that they will be voting in their own best interests, which is a rational thing to do.
Annie wrote: “Blacks and other minorities will continue to vote with the idea that they will be voting in their own best interests, which is a rational thing to do.”
Actually, it is the irrational thing to do. Blacks and other minorities do better under Republican policies. The reason they vote toward Democrats is because of the lies weaved by Democrats, that they are the party that most helps the poor. It is the Nanny Government message of Democrats that attracts blacks, and that is not a rational decision. It is a decision based upon their desire to be dependent upon government or assistance programs rather than self sufficient. Right or wrong, Republicans have believed in the ability of blacks to be self sufficient and to stand equally, shoulder to shoulder, with whites. Their voting tendency toward Democrats is actually an indication that perhaps Republicans have been wrong about their ability to be self sufficient. But we are not giving up yet. There is time for them to wake up, especially with black leaders like Ben Carson and Alan Keyes.
David,
And you really believe this? Please provide support that blacks are better off under the GOP policy’s…..
AY wrote: “… you really believe this? Please provide support that blacks are better off under the GOP policy’s…”
Yes, I do believe it. It is the message and example of Booker T. Washington. Here’s a video where a Louisiana Senator explains it:
Elbert Guillory: “Why I Am a Republican”
http://youtu.be/n_YQ8560E1w
States currently are allowed to self govern to a certain degree. For instance, the minimum wage is different from states to states. This is known as states rights, and any politician in office understands the dichotomy between state and federal rights. It sounds like you’re going with a “code word” theory that anyone who claims they want states to set minimum wage (such as setting a higher wage in a higher cost of living state) using states rights is really racist.
I recently heard that the term “Obamacare” is racist.
Paul Schulte
Dredd – that is voter registration not voter ID. Two different cases.
…
================
The issue was whether a voter must show proof of citizenship as required by the Arizona law, but not by federal law.
The Arizona law requiring proof beyond the federal ID requirements was struck down.
You have trouble with reading comprehension.
So, I ask again, where is your link to a case?
Scott: “However, you have a great many Republican politicians who say racist things all the time.” What percentage of Republican politicians have said racist things all the time? What percentage of Democrats have? Please provide proof.
Calling black people racist slurs is a bit worse than just “calling them names.” Racist slurs should never be tolerated. There is no reason on this Earth to call a black person a racial slur.
Method to Racist Madness in Fresh Racial Attacks on President Obama
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Posted: 08/13/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/method-to-racist-madness-_b_3749451.html
Scott – Please re-read Dredd’s posts about “that party” which refers to a “party” – not individuals, not a sub faction in a part. There was no qualifier.
Oddly enough, the major TV networks have refused to televise Obama. Does that make them racist.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/14/cynical-race-baiting-will-fail-to-save-the-democrats.html
Study on the low-quality of polling places in low-income neighborhoods (low-quality was defined as having difficulties such as street #s hard to find or lack of adequate parking): http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/precinct_quality.pdf
This makes sense to me, as any polling place in a city will struggle with parking, well-marked street #s, and ease of finding the polling place. By definition, the polling place needs to be in the neighborhood of the people it serves. If there are problems in the neighborhood, such as traffic and lack of parking, then the polling places will experience those problems, too.
Make the argument about improving polling places, and I will support it. But claiming it’s racist to have to prove who you are seems like a spurious argument.
Paul, No, never been to that canyon. This was our first time @ the Grand Canyon.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/08/eich-intolerance-and-the-growing-demand-for-absolutism/
Elaine – Andrew Brietbart put up a big chunk of change if anyone could prove racism at a Tea Party event. No one ever collected, or came forward to collect. At best your graduate student could only find signs that were racially-tinged. But no racism. How odd.
Karen:
“So it has been claimed that the entire Republican Party is racist.”
Wrong again. No one claimed that every republican, or even every republican politician, is racist. However, you have a great many Republican politicians who say racist things all the time. Just because they say, hey, I’m not a racist doesn’t mean they don’t do and say racist things. You don’t have to be conscious of your disease to have it.
“please provide proof”
Um, the last 50 years of American history? The Southern Strategy? The fact that Ronald Reagan started his campaign for President in Philadelphia, Mississippi talking about “states rights.” How about Boehner rejecting, for the first time ever, the official request of the President to speak before a joint session of congress? Maybe all the birther stuff? Food stamp President? Pictures of the President emailed by Republican operatives in a long list of places all over the country? Sarah Palin saying Obama’s explanations of BENGHAZI! were a “shuck and jive schtick.” Shall I go on? OK, how about this:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.””-Lee Atwater
—
“creates intense pressure on blacks to vote for “approved” candidates and measures”
Interesting… Are you aware of some of the things said about blacks by some Republicans? You go and find black people who get very upset by what they perceive as members of their own race selling them out, and you want to complain that this practicing of free speech “creates intense pressure on blacks to vote for “approved” candidates and measures”?
Mind if I translate that? Black people get mad at other black people and call them names, and that causes some kind of sociological phenomenon that follows people into voting booths where no one knows for whom they’re voting and FORCES them to vote for someone?
OK, then. Please continue…
Scott: “As I mentioned above, the ID laws (addressing a non-existent problem) are just the tip of the iceberg. The real tricks are down at ground level. Minority areas have fewer polling places, fewer machines, longer lines… ”
Proof that voter fraud does not exist and will never be a problem?
I absolutely support helping people get IDs, and ensuring there are plenty of polling places. But getting rid of voter ID seems like inviting fraud, and yet I rarely hear about polling shortages in the media . . . it’s all about how racist it is to ask for ID.
Karen,
I followed the National Review link to the Washington Post story about that UCLA. That was some in-depth study!
Few signs at tea party rally expressed racially charged anti-Obama themes
By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 14, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html
Excerpt:
A new analysis of political signs displayed at a tea party rally in Washington last month reveals that the vast majority of activists expressed narrow concerns about the government’s economic and spending policies and steered clear of the racially charged anti-Obama messages that have helped define some media coverage of such events.
Emily Ekins, a graduate student at UCLA, conducted the survey at the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington last month by scouring the crowd, row by row and hour by hour, and taking a picture of every sign she passed.
Ekins photographed about 250 signs, and more than half of those she saw reflected a “limited government ethos,” she found – touching on such topics as the role of government, liberty, taxes, spending, deficit and concern about socialism. Examples ranged from the simple message “$top the $pending” scrawled in black-marker block letters to more elaborate drawings of bar charts, stop signs and one poster with the slogan “Socialism is Legal Theft” and a stick-figure socialist pointing a gun at the head of a taxpayer.
There were uglier messages, too – including “Obama Bin Lyin’ – Impeach Now” and “Somewhere in Kenya a Village is Missing its Idiot.” But Ekins’s analysis showed that only about a quarter of all signs reflected direct anger with Obama. Only 5 percent of the total mentioned the president’s race or religion, and slightly more than 1 percent questioned his American citizenship…
Ekins spent the summer researching the tea party movement and also as an intern at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. The survey was for her UCLA graduate studies…
Adam Brandon, a spokesman for FreedomWorks, said his organization did not instruct protesters to limit their messages to fiscal slogans, but he did patrol the crowd and threw out a few protesters carrying signs depicting Obama as Adolf Hitler.
Paul Schulte,
The Supreme Court ruled:
(Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, June 2013). They struck down that Arizona Voter Id law.
“Republican are also less affected in their voting patterns, says Ebonya Washington of Yale University in a forthcoming article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.
In fact, white Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black …
In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black.”
Data carries the most weight with me.
“Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?
“I wouldn’t put it quite so starkly,” said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats “less principled” rather than bigoted … , the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim. … for Democrats, race mattered — and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) “Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. “However, their position is ‘principled’ in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts).” Fiscal conservatism is part of the Republican Party platform – but they are equally conservative with everyone.
Parties aren’t racist, Karen. People are. So, some Tea Partiers are racist. Some aren’t. Often, though, the ones that aren’t racists per se, are often what’s known as “accidental racists.”
We all have biases. The trick is to try to recognize them and stop them before they become institutionalized, or deadly.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Paul Schulte
Dredd – like many sociological diatribes, I find little of worth in your article on symbolic racism, unless you are calling one or more of us racists.
===============
It is a social diatribe if it explains subconscious, cultural behavior which many individuals are not aware of about themselves?
It is not my article, it is a compilation of common knowledge in the educational realms that deal with the subject.
You can take it or leave it, but you can’t defy the reality it documents.
Dredd – that is voter registration not voter ID. Two different cases.
As I mentioned above, the ID laws (addressing a non-existent problem) are just the tip of the iceberg. The real tricks are down at ground level. Minority areas have fewer polling places, fewer machines, longer lines… It goes on and on. Blue states expand the franchise for everyone, red states restrict it for targeted communities.
And I can’t resist mentioning to Paul that anyone who knows anything even close to the truth about the Civil War knows damn well that had the shooting not started at Sumter, it would have started somewhere else. The racist traitors wanted a war, and they got one.
And as Ta-Nehisi says, that war was really just one battle in a centuries long war against brown people. It’s not as bad as it was, there’s a lot less strange fruit hanging around, but when the “heritage” you’re celebrating is the treasonous rants of racist warmongers, maybe you should think twice about the way you celebrate it.