We have previously discussed the ongoing controversy over the confederate flag as well as past cases of student speech being curtailed. This story combines those themes after Jordan Beattie, a student at Cossa Academy in Wilder, Idaho was banned from flying the confederate flag that his girlfriend had given him. He was told that the flag was interpreted to be a gang symbol.
Schools officials said that they found an image of the flag on a gang site used by the local police but the Caldwell Police Department Gang Unit told the media that it was unsure as to where the school received that information. Caldwell Police Department Captain Frank Wyant said “We don’t look at the Confederate flag as a gang symbol. We don’t encourage anybody to take it down. Those are their rights and that’s what we’re here for is to protect and uphold those rights.”
Caldwell Police Department uses information from the website http://www.idahogangs.com. which lists the Confederate flag as an identifier of possible gang ties for “Aryan” gangs though it can also be simply a confederate heritage symbol.
I fail to see the basis for the decision. This is clearly not being used as a gang symbol and anyone with a Confederate flag could be similarly barred because some group happens to sometimes incorporate the symbol. It is also a symbol used by others for cultural or historical identification.
We have previously discussed cases where students were punished for displaying the Confederate flag, including cases involving flags on cars. There is a growing presumption against student free speech, particularly when it comes to unpopular or divisive symbols. This extends in this cases and earlier cases to symbols on cars in a parking lot — outside the school building or classrooms. I find that troubling from a free speech perspective.
What do you think?
Source: Scripps Media
Sorry, Paul. “Fun Home” is fresher and more accessible to a freshman than than 1850 Gogol and “into Thin Air” is just a boy’s adventure fun read. A better choice would be about Shackleton. Even so, an adventure story is hardly an auspicious beginning for a Duke education. I’ll stick with “Fun House” and wish the fundamentalist Christian good luck with his education.
HenryH – so El Cid should not be taught in college? The adventures of the Round Table should not be taught? You are lowering the bar. Just the fact that they used a graphic novel suggests they do not think highly of their entering freshman class. I have seen harder reading for AP English. I have assigned harder reading in high school. Let me suggest something more contemporary, The Nightingale.
Paul
I’m going to try testing out of AP “The Walking Dead” but I’ve never actually read the “book” on my Kindle so fingers crossed.
Oh, I don’t know, Paul. Perhaps because this is 2015, the graphic novel is a newish concept, sexual identity is effecting contemporary society and law, most readers will be just discovering their own sexuality, and while mountain climbing is an exciting challenge it doesn’t generate too many interesting ideas and Gogol may have been thought to be too ‘foreign’
But as you so thoughtfully pointed out – maybe somebody on the committee was a lesbian or something – you know, the ‘agenda’ thing.
HenryH – supposedly they were to have a common read. Who is more fun than Gogol? Into Thin Air teaches about adversity and team work. How even the best laid plans of mice and men do oft go astray.
One book I would strongly urge all Duke University students read is, Until Proven Innocent. It’s about the way Duke University administrators and professors allowed PC and lies ruin the lives of innocent young men. I found the book to be a page turner. There’s another book on this shameful episode in Duke history titled, The Price of Silence. I’ve not read it so I can’t comment.
Paul
Somebody ALWAYS has an agenda. Is this news?
I thought the agenda here was to support controversial ideas – especially on campus. In that respect, Duke’s choice seems a good one. The freshman who objected to the book would seem to be in need of a few new ideas. Perhaps he will learn that lesbianism and gayness are not catchy.
HenryH – why have them read that when they can read Into Thin Air or Dead Souls, etc.
“As to those idiots waving the confederate battle flag ā itās quite clear what they are saying. Theyāre your team, Olly. Youāre welcome to them.”
Annie,
Apparently Henry’s “insults and demeaning comments” aren’t stopping him at all.
Paul, We’ve discussed the new/old trolls now that a certain blog imploded. I think that’s what we got here. Just sayn’.
HenryH, keep commenting. Don’t let insults and demeaning comments stop you.
So to summarize:
Annie and Isaac do not believe in unalienable rights. They believe ALL rights come from government. And that the purpose for government is to rule according to the desires of the majority.
Vote early, vote often.
DBQ, If the Canadian keeps spouting his ignorance there might be a majority voting to build a wall on the northern border and deporting all Canadians. Just let him keep spewing his total lack of knowledge about the US Constitution. He’s digging a hole deeper by the day. It is funny watching the desperado’s here seeking alliances and friendship. Actually, sorta sad.
Spot on Issac.
Annie
I find, as well, that there seems to be a quasi religious overtone to how these posters refer to unalienable and the source of their arguments. I have recently begun referring to the ‘Pantheon of Founding Fathers’ as it seems to fit better with their positions than with who they were, in fact, a bunch of men seizing an opportunity. If you study the history of the US you will find that conditions were unacceptable for the upper middle class mainly, not the majority. The arguments were primarily economic as regards to commercial taxation and the freedom of merchants to trade with the West Indies in competition with Great Britain. There were, of course, affronts to the ‘everyman’, however, when compared to the conditions in other countries around the world, before the Revolution, the colonists had it pretty good.
The point I am trying to make is as with the Pantheons of ancient Greece man creates gods to give authority to rules and regulations. Times change and so do the interpretations. Perhaps someday the ‘Pursuit of happiness’ will over power the right to kill people based on the emotions of a reasonable threat.
Nick,
He’s a real deep thinker, that one. DailyKos writes and he regurgitates. Nicely done!
Olly, I distinguished the two w/ “colorful.” I find your photo spot on, the other 7th grade show and tell. Expect a few more shortly. As predictable as the tides.
Olly, Henry likes to lump people together. He thinks all Asians look alike.
Nick,
Hey, my photo was an 8th grade photo, thank you very much. š It was on point though.
HenryH,
HUGE difference between “anti-government” and “less government”. I’ve already figured that out and I’m quite certain you have no idea what that difference is.
Olly, The veracity of certain folks here has been proven to be lacking. So, that may be the case in this instance.
Libertarians believe the government should provide national defense, police the streets, and extinguish fires. Being a libertarian, I take every chance I get to personally thank soldiers, cops and firefighters.
Here’s a real life mate to Olly’s posted cartoon of progressives:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/25/1415271/-This-One-Weird-Pic-DESTROYS-Ayn-Rand?detail=email#
Government firefighters thanked for saving anti-government man’s home.
I wonder if Olly has figured THAT out yet.
Since I have no idea what discussion that was in, perhaps you would provide the context. For all I know David was correct and I was wrong. Perhaps David and I both were wrong. What I am certain about is both David and I have always agreed that unalienable rights exist and that the purpose for government is to secure them for all.