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
Annie,
Don’t get caught in the delusion……
Man a really good topic getting dumped on…. I have it on good authority that Annie is not the only one contacting Jonathan….. So, Paul… Nick…. Get a life and stay out of the gutter…. Follow the civility rules and you won’t have issues….. And know if I have an issue I will contact Jonathan directly….
Also Paul, Professor Turley does read these threads. There are any number of people who could and would “narc” you out. Following basic rules of human decency should keep you ‘safe’. 🙂
Nick:
“Tip O’Neil was Speaker of the House.”
I know who Tip O’Neil was.
“HE INTRODUCED THE DRACONIAN RACISTlaws”
And a whole bunch of people from both parties were behind writing the law before he introduced it. Just look at all the co-sponsors. Just look at the final vote tally I posted (if you didn’t get that deleted when you ran and tattled to the teacher).
“Of course Regan was on board”
Well, yeah, it was HIS Drug war, part of the southern strategy, designed to go after minorities. The fact that some spineless Democrats went along is shameful to me as a Democrat.
“but it COULD NOT HAPPEN unless Tip wanted the racist law passed.”
Yes, it could have. Some other Democrat could have introduced it. Or some Republican could have put up a discharge petition. It would have easily passed that way too. I guess my civics class wasn’t so bad, eh?
“The other dirty little secret is Boston Irish hate blacks, and virtually all Irish in Boston are hard core Dems.”
So? I can find non-racist Republicans, and I can find racist Democrats. In fact, there’s research out there that showed that many Democrats, especially in, say, WV, did not vote for this President while they did vote for the other Democrats on the ticket.
So, what’s your point? Lots of racists in both parties. But you don’t see Democrats going around blaming inner city blacks for a culture of dependency and being lazy because most Democrats these days know that 2/3rds of this nations poor are rural whites.
“Remember the Irish DEMOCRATS hate when blacks were bussed into Southie. The Irish threatened to kill the Federal judge who ordered the bussing. This is the history. It is not spin.”
And you know what? A whole bunch of those Irish in Boston vote Republican now. That’s how Mitt Romney managed to become another of your one term governors. But, hey, at least he finished his term.
Please folks, there is a substantive discussion going on here. let’s respect the blog and stay on topic. Does anyone have any substantive information about how the racist crack cocaine laws became law? My wife had had to deal w/ these racist laws initiated and passed by Tip’s House. She saw on a daily basis It was the most racist law passed in our lifetime. It was a case handled by my wife’s office in Madison, Booker v US, that the Supreme Court found this law unconstitutional. I REALLY know this law.
Paul: “do you not know who all the racists were during the 1960s?”
Do you not know that that was over 50 years ago and that a lot has happened since then, like the Southern Strategy?
“Do you not know what party they belonged to.”
DO you not know which party they switched to?
“Do you not know it was the Republicans who got the CRA passed, not the Democrats”
DO you not know that this is horribly wrong, that LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act, twisted lots of Dixiecrat arms, SIGNED THE BILL (you are aware the Presidents have to sign bills to make them law, and that LBJ was a Democrat)?
Here’s the vote total on the CRA. Democrats held majorities in both houses. ERGO, it could not have passed with ONLY Republican votes.
House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34
Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6
And you look at that and say “it was the Republicans who got the CRA passed”?
OK, then.
“do you not know the amount of racism in the black community, both inside and out?”
I’m not sure what you mean. Perhaps you should provide a link to something that proves your point, if you can figure out what it is? Are there blacks who are upset at how their race has been treated by whites, who see stories of kids wearing confederate flags specifically to anger black kids, and get mad about that? You bet! I’m sure there are even black people who have racist attitudes toward whites. Somewhere up there, if it didn’t get deleted, is a link to the Harvard implicit racism test. You should take it.
But be sure to look at the study. Very few among us don’t have some racial bias. Most of the time, we’re not even aware of it. The question we should be looking at isn’t who are the racists, but who has the power to institutionalize racism? When I look around red states and see how minority districts have many fewer voting machines and polling places than white neighborhoods, I know what’s going on. Do you?
” if you read the rules, follow them. Life will be much easier.”
I’m not interested in making my life easier. I’m interested in making yours harder.
Paul, “narcing out Nick”? This isn’t a playground. If I ever contact Professor Turley about Nick it’s about something that isn’t known here on this blog and have explained to Professor Turley in detail. I think perhaps you shouldn’t involve yourself in something you know nothing about. Professor Turley has stated that we should contact him regarding serious abuses of the civility rules. I have and I will continue to do so for reasons you aren’t privy to. Sometimes you need to mind your own business.
Partly correct….. All revenue measures must originate in the House….. But the president has Veto power if they do not get what they want….. So, tell me in this fairy world where all the bad guys are democrats and all the good guys are republican…. Where do we go….. The president suggests the agenda….
Tip O’Neil was Speaker of the House. As Mr. Supak should have learned in 6th grade civics ALL LEGISLATION ORIGINATES IN CONGRESS. Tip O’Neil, was getting a lot of pressure when the #1 pick of the Celtics, Len Bias, blew up his heart smoking crack. Tip O’Neil is famous for the quote, “All politics are local.” This glad handing, whiskey drinking, red nosed politician was correct, and he was a master politician. He saw a tough election coming. The Republicans were running TV ads w/ a caricature of O’Neil driving around in a limo and laughing @ raising taxes. So, w/ the local pressure[Celtics are God in Tip’s district] and the upcoming national election, Tip decided the Dems needed to buck up. HE INTRODUCED THE DRACONIAN RACISTlaws. Of course Regan was on board, but it COULD NOT HAPPEN unless Tip wanted the racist law passed. The other dirty little secret is Boston Irish hate blacks, and virtually all Irish in Boston are hard core Dems. Remember the Irish DEMOCRATS hate when blacks were bussed into Southie. The Irish threatened to kill the Federal judge who ordered the bussing. This is the history. It is not spin.
AY: “I don’t do tit for tat”
Me either, but I did tell the professor, multiple times in these comments, as did others, about Nick calling me names, and yet all those comments are still there.
I suppose that unless you actually send Jonathan an email you don’t get what you want.
I have not, and will not, report anyone to him. I don’t care if I’m called names. I have thick skin from years of being physically attacked by racist Republicans that I called out for their racism.
Heck, I don’t even care if the rules are enforced fairly. What I do care about is that this supposed dedication to civility, as unevenly enforced as it is, is actually taking away from my replies to what is a particularly sad bunch of arguments, as per usual for conservatives these days…
Honestly, to suggest that because over 50 years ago most of the racists were Democrats means it’s still the same is just hilariously… um… uninformed.
Scott – maybe she did and Turley did not see it rose to the level he needed to see. I had the happen one time.
David: “Based upon these statistics that you shared, I do not support the stop and frisk policy.”
But you supported it before I showed you the statistics? So, you’re OK with stop and frisk, as long as minorities, who are targeted MORE, actually have more weapons and drugs? Or, maybe we should target whites, since they have the most drugs and weapons?
Oh, and Paul: “We know from self-reporting that Annie was/is narcing Nick out to Prof. Turley.”
Um, apparently Annie isn’t doing it enough, because Nick gets to call me a “Shiite liberal” but if I call him a BSer, my comment gets deleted.
Maybe the Professor just likes Nick… Who knows. But the policy is certainly not being enforced fairly or equally. Not that it has to. It’s his place. He can delete whatever he wants, and leave whatever he wants.
I read the rules, Paul. And I also joked that someone would say Nathan Bedford was a Democrat. 150 YEARS AGO! When Republicans were liberals.
HOW many times do I have to point out that the racial attitudes of the parties switched after LBJ signed the CRA? Do you not know what the Southern Strategy is?
David:
“Research is conclusive that minimum wage creates higher unemployment among UNSKILLED workers.”
Because you say so? Research by biased freshwater economists says what you want it to say, doesn’t it? Show me the research. I just showed you how the state of Washington has shown, in the REAL WORLD, how having the highest minimum wage in the US actually helped LOW SKILL workers.
“Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. ”
I don’t need to go read more “discussions” from people like you that simple deny basic facts while you claim the opposite of the truth is true.
And I want to get back to another particular erroneous statement by you:
“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.”
The ENTIRE Republican party practices the Southern Strategy. What Atwater, one of your chief strategists was saying was that this was HOW THE PARTY did these things. This was how you won elections.
Ken Melman wasn’t going around blowing dog whistles about gay haters. Ken Melman didn’t build an entire strategy out of pro-gay propoganda in order to get pro gay people to vote for Republicans.
Lee Atwater ADMITTED that the party developed just such a strategy to get racists to vote for them.
So, please, don’t tell me about MY argument be fallacious.
Scott – do you not know who all the racists were during the 1960s? Do you not know what party they belonged to. Do you not know it was the Republicans who got the CRA passed, not the Democrats, but they took credit for it.
BTW, do you not know the amount of racism in the black community, both inside and out?
And Scott, if you read the rules, follow them. Life will be much easier.
Scott Supak wrote: “Lee Atwater ADMITTED that the party developed just such a strategy to get racists to vote for them. So, please, don’t tell me about MY argument be fallacious.”
Lee Atwater described the Harry Dent Southern Strategy in the wake of the Civil Rights Act that President Johnson signed. Previously, the vote in the South was won by fighting against Civil Rights. Now that the Civil Rights Act became law, the strategy was to use coded words to gain votes from racist people on the sidelines. Yes, this was used by Strom Thurmond, a racist Democrat turned Dixiecrat, then turned Republican. It was used with Barry Goldwater and Nixon. But Lee Atwater was very clear that it was not necessary by Reagan’s time. Basically, it was a strategy used to garner voters from the South in the wake of Republicans winning on the Civil Rights issue. But your take on it is blown way out of proportion. Here’s a link to an analysis that is much more balanced in truth:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/what-did-lee-atwater-really-say.php
KKK
Scott – Nathan Bedford Forrest was a Democrat and founder of the KIKK.
Help Help Help the spam monster has eaten two of my comments. I would like either of them back.
David defending the Cornerstone speech…
“You seem to ignore the bulk of the CSA. Most of the speech was not about white supremacy.”
Um, THE CORNERSTONE of the CSA was white Supremacy. Hence the name of the speech? Their whole new nation was based on the idea that whites are superior and you want to reject that by saying, well, the rest of the speech wasn’t about that? Hilarious.
” You also ignore that his racist remarks did not encapsulate the sentiments of all Southerners”
Now where did I say that ALL southerners were racists? Many southerners were blacks. OK, they were really only 3/5ths southerners, but…
“How many other speeches can you find that expresses such racism? ”
Tons. You should know. You’re a smart guy. You’re familiar with the racist terrorist Nathan Bedford Forrest?
“Achilles Clark, a soldier with the 20th Tennessee cavalry, wrote to his sister immediately after the battle: “The slaughter was awful. Words cannot describe the scene. The poor, deluded, negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. I, with several others, tried to stop the butchery, and at one time had partially succeeded, but General Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Fort_Pillow
Not exactly white supremacy, but pretty damning testimony against the first grand dragon of the KKK, eh?
And, of course, he was probably a Democrat, so that means the Democrats of today, 50 years after LBJ signed the CVA are the real racists who still blow the god whistles and use the Southern Strategy.
I could waste my day teaching you the history of the racist traitors who attacked the United States in order to continue slavery. But it wouldn’t matter, because you don’t care about facts.
Scott,
Just so you have a heads up…. Someone is most likely complaining directly to the professor about you….. You see that way they keep you from keeping the eye on the ball…. It’s a shell game or three card Monty…. Take your choice….
I don’t do tit for tat… But just thought I’d give you a heads up…….
Scott, you might be interested in the article by Darren Smith and the ensuing discussion we had back in January about the city of SeaTac in Washington raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour:
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/01/04/city-of-seatac-minimum-wage-increased-to-15-00-consequences-could-be-beneficial-and-detrimental/
davidm2575, after quoting from a now deleted comment of mine: “I’m not saying these events never happened. I just process them a little differently.”
Yeah, I bet you do. Because Republicans know they have people in their party who’ve been caught passing pictures of our President around dressed as a witch doctor, eating watermelon, etc… You know that most of the racist attacks toward blacks in this country come from your party. You desperately want to call the Democrats the real racists, using twisted “facts” like your argument against the minimum wage, but it just doesn’t fly. Minorities have been running from your party for years now.
As for your link to your fellow conservative at volokh, here’s a little hint: You guys might think it’s not racist to stand in front of a Bunch of Mississippi Republicans 7 miles from Philadelphia MS and talk about state’s rights, but those who are fluent in dog whistles know what it was about.
You can try to lie away these basic facts all you want, but the more people hear you talk about these issues, the less they believe you.
So, keep talking.
As for Lee Atwater, the quote I put up, which has since been deleted, is a DIRECT quote. It was not “wrongly edited.” HE was not, as Jonathan Chait has been trying to argue from his nowhere land, Atwater saying the southern strategy was dead. It was Atwater talking about the code, about the dog whistles, which continue to this day with the likes of “food stamp president” or Paul Ryan’s BS about a culture of dependency in the inner cities when 2/3rds of the poor in this country are rural whites….
Here’s another example. The new Progressive Mayor of NYC is getting rid of stop and frisk. Thank goodness. He’s opposed by Republicans who support the law.
But I wonder if those who support stop and frisk know the results of their policy…
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/
“The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.
• The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.”
I could go on all day with examples of racist policies supported mostly by Republicans, and opposed mostly by Democrats. But you wouldn’t care.
Now, why don’t you count up all the Democrats who were birthers, who sent racist emails of Obama, who called him a food stamp president, or said he was doing a “shuck and jive” act… I’ll do the same for Republicans who’ve done that.
And then we’ll compare lists. OK?
Scott Supak wrote: “I could go on all day with examples of racist policies supported mostly by Republicans, and opposed mostly by Democrats. But you wouldn’t care.”
Based upon these statistics that you shared, I do not support the stop and frisk policy.