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
Jonathan,
I think you need to take a look at this ….. I think it’s really contrary to your view on civility….:
on 1, April 18, 2014 at 12:20 pmNick Spinelli
Where’s the white knight, Scott? As I suspected, he was just a drive-by hater looking for hits. But, he was a short-lived hero for some of his ilk here.
Paul Schulte I’m well aware of the history of drug laws, thank you. What you avoided is that the current crop of marijuana laws, as they were laid down in the early 20th century, were racist and targeted Mexicans. Are you denying this fact?
And the point of bringing that up is to refute the idea that the most racist law ever passed in this country was Reagan’s 1986 law that was wrongly attributed to Tip O’Neil (as if darn near everyone in congress didn’t vote for it).
I’m also well aware of the black unemployment rate, and the piece you’ve linked to does not refute what I said about minimum wage laws not causing unemployment. Did you even read the Bloomberg piece I linked to that points out that the State of Washington has had the nation’s highest minimum wage for years, and their job growth rate is way higher than the national average? Or that their poverty rate is very low compared to the rest of the country?
The idea that increasing the minimum wage causes unemployment is a lie.
As for this: “Permanent suspension is too much.” Well, now, that depends on what other trouble those kids had been in before, eh? Kind of hard to make a judgement when you don’t have all the facts.
Supak – on the effects of the minimum wage on entry level positions.
http://www.jbartlett.org/minimum-wage-hike-will-hurt-entry-level-workers-most
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html
Scott wrote: “… as if the last 50 years, and the Southern Strategy from the GOP never happened. As if Ronnie Raygun never kicked off his Presidential campaign in Philadelphia MS. As if Lee Atwater never said “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” ”
I’m not saying these events never happened. I just process them a little differently. Reagan’s kick off speech was actually in New Jersey, but if you want to know more about his Neshoba speech 7 miles from Philadelphia, MS, then read the following from another legal blog, the Volokh Conspiracy:
http://www.volokh.com/2011/08/16/reagans-infamous-speech-in-philadelphia-mississippi/
In regards to Lee Atwater, his interview in 1981 had been wrongly edited to foster hatred toward Republicans. That speech actually argued that the Southern Strategy was no longer relevant and that Reagan had no need to use it because racism was no longer an issue in the South. By that time, many Democrats had either left the Democratic party to create the Dixiecrats, or later switched to the Republican party because their fight for racism somewhat ended with Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act. The problem is that to characterize the Republican party as a racist party because of Lee Atwater’s statement is like trying to characterize the Republican party as the party of gays and same sex marriage because Ken Mehlman also was the RNC chairman and supports these things. Such is a fallacious argument.
Censorship Notice: Jonathan Turley, supporter of the Citizens United Decision, thinks free speech ends at his blog…
Look, Jonathan, I’ve reined it in. The posts you deleted went out of my way to not call people names. IN place of calling someone a BSer, I actually detailed what the person is lying about.
Also, I didn’t say I disagree with your civility policy, I said civility is overrated. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Finally, this: “If there is a comment that you believe violates the civility rule, feel free to contact me.”
I have stated many times now, as have others, that the comments by Nick toward me, like calling me a Shiite Liberal, or the comment above that anon pointed out wasn’t civil, are still there… It seems you’ve focused on me for some reason.
I wonder why that is?
Supak – on black unemployment rates
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/03/unemployment-rate-black-people-has-always-been-least-50-percent-higher-white-people/358934/
Something that has gotten missed in all of this discussion in that it was an INTRAMURAL contest of teams, lots of teams, playing European handball. The black students involved would have gone to the same school as the whites.
I think the students were thoughtless to have worn the Confederate flag to a sporting event, however, I know high school kids are thoughtless by nature. It goes with the territory. I thought the original ten days was too strong, but it was a judgment call. Permanent suspension is too much. That is just a power play. It it PC out of control.
Deletion notice: Scott Supak, I have once again had to delete comments by you. This are not close questions but uncivil and name-calling posts. If there is a comment that you believe violates the civility rule, feel free to contact me. However, I ask you again to comply with our civility or move on to another site. You have stated before that you do not agree with the civility rule. I understand. However, you continue to engage in personal attacks directed at particular posters. Your cooperation would be appreciated.
Supak – a history of cannabis according to wikipedia. You will notice the start date of laws against its use pre-date the United States of Mexico.
The legal history of cannabis in the United States relates to the regulation of marijuana use for medical or recreational purposes in the United States. Regulations and restrictions on the sale of Cannabis sativa as a drug began as early as 1619. Increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s Cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act.[1]
In the 1970s, many places in the United States started to abolish state laws and other local regulations that banned possession or sale of cannabis. The same thing happened with cannabis sold as medical cannabis in the 1990s. All this is in conflict with federal laws; cannabis is a Schedule I drug according to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified cannabis as having high potential for abuse, no medical use, and not safe to use without medical supervision. Multiple efforts to reschedule cannabis under the Act have failed, and the United States Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative and Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has a right to regulate and criminalize cannabis, even for medical purposes
davidm2575 up there with the same old GOP talking points about nanny states and Democrats wanting welfare and not work, and BLAH BLAH BLAH. I won’t call it what it is, because my comment will just be deleted, while his comment, as wrong and insulting and derogatory as it is toward liberals, will stay.
So, let’s put it this way… Progressives, like the Congressional Progressive Caucus, want to put people to work. Read the Better Off Budget. It invests in education and infrastructure. It rewards work by expanding the EITC (A favorite or Ronald Reagan). Progressives want to raise the minimum wage to encourage work. A strong safety net is necc, especially as a counter cyclical weight to recessions like the Little Bush Depression, but Democrats don’t support a Nanny State any more than Republicans support a low dollar policy.
That’s right. The high dollar policy supported by elites in both parties is the reason imports are so cheap. This policy, which thanks to China not manipulating their currency any more is getting better, is responsible for imports being so cheap. The policy helps Walmart stock holders, but hurts manufacturers. Further, countries with low labor costs often have poor infrastructure. The high transportation and other costs associated with this poor infrastructure in third world countries has high costs that are much lower in the US. If our currency weren’t kept artificially high, many companies would, as they have begun to, return to this country to manufacture goods. Improving our infrastructure would only help this phenomenon.
And this: “Minimum wage is a huge job killer for the black community, contributing to their higher unemployment rate.”
So wrong for so long… All kinds of research, as if you cared about facts, shows that a higher minimum wage has a very minimal impact on unemployment. The State of Washington has had the highest minimum wage for years now, and they have FASTER job growth than the rest of the country…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/washington-shows-highest-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html
“the state’s minimum wage climbed to $9.32 — the highest in the country. Meanwhile job growth continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the national rate. Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.”
Scott Supak wrote: “All kinds of research, as if you cared about facts, shows that a higher minimum wage has a very minimal impact on unemployment.”
Research is conclusive that minimum wage creates higher unemployment among UNSKILLED workers. You can raise minimum wage all you like among skilled workers, and you are right, it will not have an effect or in many cases it benefits the skilled workers. The issue is what effect does raising the minimum wage have on unskilled workers, like teenage blacks.
The problem is that young blacks, generally speaking, are not skilled workers. In South Africa, they implemented the minimum wage admittedly as a racist policy, to cause people to hire more whites than blacks.
Take a look at this article by Walter Williams:
Politics and Minimum Wage
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/01/08/politics-and-minimum-wage-n1772533/page/full
“Economics textbooks that mention the minimum wage say that it increases unemployment for the least skilled worker. The only significant debate about the minimum wage is the magnitude of its effect.”
“… Republican politicians have long resisted increases in the minimum wage, but that makes no political sense. The reason is the beneficiaries of preventing increases in the minimum wage don’t vote Republican no matter what; where’s the political quid pro quo?”
“Our nation’s first minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, had racist motivation.”
Elaine,
I think you are correct that the school knows there is a problem. I do not usually agree with any censorship, but bringing a confederate flag to an athletic event against a mostly African American student body, is an accident looking for a place to happen. Should they be allowed to keep the flag? Yes, but maybe they should pay for the added security protecting them from those who agree that it is a racist symbol.
Nick Spinelli:
“Where’s the white knight, Scott? As I suspected, he was just a drive-by hater looking for hits. But, he was a short-lived hero for some of his ilk here.”
————
And the above comment is civil? Really?
Scott,
I find that there is often a story behind the story. It looks as if the school is trying to keep its students from participating in stunts/incidents that some might consider to be racially insensitive–or that might stir up the pot and cause some serious trouble. I think that the two students who draped themselves in the Confederate flag were probably hoping to cause a problem. The fact that there were two other students who posted a picture of themselves in black face along with racist comments on the Internet tells me that there may be something simmering under the surface at that Catholic school.
Anon, anon, anon….. Surely you mistake civility nick….. For a pot stirrer….. Pot….. Something….
Ah ha, Scott! My Shiite librul buddy is back. I knew you wouldn’t leave us so easily. Keep commenting, it will annoy certain people and enhance the conversation. It’s all good. 😛
Oh my…. Scott did reappear…..
Scott will be back I am sure…. I don’t think calling him names will keep him away…..
Dredd – I think ‘symbolic racism’ is an artificial construct invented by liberals to make themselves feel better about themselves. Your bandying it about just makes my case.
And who was president when that law was passed….. War on Drugs Regean…. Just say No Nancy….. Facts do matter and race baiting is not necessary to get this message across…..
David,
Is that a reason that the Chinese economy is in dispare now….. An unexpected middle class because of the jobs…..
AY – the Chinese economy is chugging along according to most reports. There is some slowing since they are not building government buildings at the same pace, but other things are still being built. I have an architect friend who works in China and he says business has actually increased under the new regime. Just a different type of project. They are now designing entire universities and huge shopping malls.
David, As we know, the most racist and draconian law that incarcerated hundreds of thousands of black men and women were the Federal crack cocaine laws. It was initiated and pushed through Congress by the Dem Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neil. Facts matter.