Oregon High School Student Suspended For Wearing Pro-Trump T-Shirt

Addison Barnes, 18, is  suing his school, Liberty High School in Hillsboro, for violating his free speech rights under the First Amendment.  Barnes had simply worn a t-shirt reading “Donald J. Trump Construction Co. . . .The wall just got 10 feet taller.” He was suspended for refusing to cover up the message.  It is clearly a political statement that some would object to. However, high school students are encouraged to become involved in the political system and nothing on the shirt is profane or racist or vulgar. If this t-shirt is offensive and barred, wouldn’t any political or religious or social cause be equally subject to such action?  The question answers itself and the implications are troubling.

Notably, Barnes wore the t-shirt to his People and Politics class for a discussion on immigration that day. He was told that at least one student and one teacher had been offended by his t-shirt.

Initially, he agreed to put something over the message but then decided to stand his ground and removed the covering.  He was then sent home.

The school later rescinded the suspension, but still said that Barnes would be barred from wearing the t-shirt again to school.  That would seem content-based discrimination on speech by the school.  I fail to understand why students cannot wear t-shirts expressing their views in a free and open forum so long as the t-shirts do not include racist or sexist or hateful language. This t-shirt expresses a widely held political viewpoint.  Rather than allow high school students to defend their own views as part of learning about being full citizens in our society, the school is teaching censorship and speech controls.

Here is the lawsuit: Barnes complaint

 

135 thoughts on “Oregon High School Student Suspended For Wearing Pro-Trump T-Shirt

  1. free speech is a lie, it’s always courts that decide content in the end, and culture that originates it in the first place. nobody is “free” that is just a pure enlightenment fiction.

  2. The Trump t-shirt boy has made the national news. How embarassing! He’s just proved how easily distracted youth are. They’ll find any excuse not to do school work. “I saw a Trump t- shirt” is the new “the dog ate my homework”. Are there any real scholars among the students or staff at that school?

  3. It is indeed content based discrimination. If public schools want to enforce a rule of no politics on campus, then they need to abide by those rules themselves, and inject no more politics in the classroom.

    I have yet to hear a compelling reason why we should allow and encourage illegal immigration instead of all immigration going through the front door. Whyever would anyone encourage people to forego criminal background checks, medical checks, as well as ensuring that immigration remains at sustainable levels that our environmental and social resources can handle?

    I also found it absurd that Democrats suddenly took issue with the citizenship question being returned to the census. This is the same question, verbatim, which has been on our census for decades until Obama took it out. The real reason why Democrats vigorously object to collecting data on who is a citizen in our country, is merely a business one. Funding and distracting is based on legal voters. Non-citizens are not legal voters; hence their numbers do not count in crucial financial distributions.

  4. “This school is very Latino-populated,” said senior Mark Guzman. “[The shirt] offended a lot of people. In the hall, kids would ask me if I’d seen it.”

    I.e. we let your papa in the country back in 1978, so now we’re your bitc*.

    Barnes said his school tolerated other political views without issue. “I had a teacher who had a pro-sanctuary city poster in her room which was up all year,” Barnes said, “yet as I wear a pro-border wall shirt I get silenced and suspended for wearing that.”

    Every double standard incorporates an unconfessed single standard.

    Barnes said after two students and a teacher complained about his shirt, an assistant principal pulled him out of the classroom.“She gave me the option to cover the shirt or get sent home,” recalled Barnes, who initially decided to cover his shirt with a jacket before changing his mind.

    https://www.tolerance.org/author/amanda-ryan-fear

    The ‘assistant principal’ in question is Amanda Ryan-Fear, Ed.D and political sectary.

        • Again, quit projecting. Other people have standards they adhere to. You’re a snotty juvenile and assume your personal pathologies are widespread. They are not.

          • And you have no standards when it comes to others venting or opinions. Your way or the highway? Just shut up and let the bubble write? You just want to read a process to answers you already want. Last time I checked you don’t run or own this site so let others that don’t have your totalitarian ideas write about theirs, OK? If you don’t like what I write, then don’t read it. Or will you change your name to FishWings is insufferable?

            • And you have no standards when it comes to others venting or opinions. Y

              Quite a number of people vigorously contest issues here. You haven’t the chops for that, so you fling little boogers at others. No, I don’t like what you write, because it’s low value. Pointing out quality (or the lack of it) is rather different from a public official administering now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t behavior standard which are in accord with her political views (and, yes, the vice principal in question has an internet trail). She didn’t tell him the T-shirt was tasteless. She told him he had to cover it and gave him a b.s. explanation for that.

              • So flinging Nutchacha is insullerable chops? High value? So what you write is high value and nobody else is. Your view of yourself from the mountain of BS must have quite a view. Free speech is good, as long as it’s yours. How about you leave me to my views, and I will leave you to yours. Or is that not deemed right by you because you and you only can deem what is quality.

                • NII provides content whether you agree with his opinions or not so he garners respect. I don’t know how one can gain respect by practicing the type of blogger vandalism you perform on a daily basis. I guess you do less harm here. On the street, you would probably be placing sand in other people’s gas tanks.

                  • Do NOT assume anything about me Allan. NII had this out already, stand down. I believe he understood my point and I understood his.

                    • Fishwings, I don’t assume much about you. You have drawn a picture of yourself on this blog and I have merely stated what that picture looks like. If you wish to say that your nonblog persona is different that is fine, but one has to deal with what one sees.

    • If the student was wearing a anti-Trump shirt, would the reaction on this site be the same?

      Absolutely! If you’d pay attention, there are many of us here that are not partisan lawfare enablers.

        • This site is nothing but ideology when it comes to right and wrong. The only wall that has been built is guys like you that are telling people how to build a wall. NII have said our piece, so again….Stand Down.

          • Fishwings, Right, and wrong doesn’t depend on an ideology which to a great extent is opinion. When one argues one provides proof but some like you feel proof isn’t necessary for any argument because right and wrong to you is determined by your ideology and what your leaders implant in your brain.

            I’m not quite sure what wall you are talking about or if you understand what a wall represents, however, I build walls and fences around my home to keep people I don’t like out. Of course among some ideologies, some build walls to keep people in. Then again you might be talking about walls in a metaphorical way.

    • FishWings – rules should apply equally. That’s the only way it’s fair.

      Either all political message are banned, or none are. Because someone, somewhere, is always going to be offended. If it is OK for students to wear clothes or make remarks criticizing Trump, then it is OK for other students to support Trump.

      They could simply impose a uniform dress code, and start educating students on Math, English, Science, and Chemistry, and stop turning schools into Progressive Madrasas. Perhaps then more high school graduates would be literate, and able to string together a cohesive argument. I have no problem whatsoever with schools requiring all politics to be left at the door, but that would also include the teachers and administrators. Strangely, this does not seem to be an avenue schools wish to explore.

      • and stop turning schools into Progressive Madrasas.

        That would require the people who do this to have some sort of critical distance from their own interests and desires. If they did, they wouldn’t be doing it in the first place. They’re only going to stop when agents of the larger society make them stop, and that means programs get an apporpriation of $0 and perpetrating teachers and administrators end up in the unemployment line. The family of the youth filed suit. It’s possible they had a hair-trigger reaction, but it’s a reasonable wager they got the brush off from one or more of the following: the offending vice principal, the principal, the deputy superintendent of something-or-other, the superintendent of schools, the general counsel to the school district, or the school board. Someone should have seen fit to keep this from getting tossed in the lap of the state courts.

  5. Don’t worry, sweet, tolerant liberals. Activities such as this will be prosecutable hate speech in another 15 years.

  6. http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2014/08/liberty_high_schools_new_princ.html

    This is a profile of the principal responsible for this travesty. The one oddity is that he received all his schooling at two small private colleges, one founded by Nazarenes and one by Dunkers. He seems to have married young and sired his children by age 30. No real red flags, bar that it’s a reasonable wager he didn’t have the grades ant test scores for the state schools wherever he was living in 1985 and he has the deficit of liberal education you see time and again among school administrators. We can’t put our best to work in primary and secondary schooling, but we probably could recruit better people than we do. See Thomas Sowell on this point.

    • Out of every field, from the lowliest to the highest echelon, there are standouts. There are outstanding auto mechanics, janitors, landscapers, restaurant servers, elementary school teachers, accountants, business managers, project managers…you name it, and there is a complete range in ability.

      We absolutely can and should hire the best elementary school teachers that we can find and train. Such positions have long been demeaned as inconsequential. However, if a child reaches 6th grade without having a solid education, and a critical skill in how to learn, then his education will forever be stunted.

      A building is nothing without a solid foundation. The lowliest bricklayer can make a monument that will stand the test of time, or make a shaky structure that will collapse the first time it is stress tested over traffic, regardless of millions spent on highly educated architects.

  7. Have a dress code. Better, a school uniform! My children benefited from this, and much else, from a year in the Edinburgh school system.

    • My child, too, has attended a school with a dress code. It avoids all sorts of issues, such as fashion value comparison. In addition, it creates the subtle attitude that everyone is on the same school team.

      • Either way has good and bad features and those features depend on the people that live in those communities. That is why the decision should be made on a local level. In the school system under question where the authorities don’t know how to act in an unbiased manner and the students are perhaps unruly I think I would favor a dress code.

        Proper discipline is needed or some might end up wearing orange or stripes for the remainder of their lives.

  8. I fail to understand why students cannot wear t-shirts expressing their views in a free and open forum so long as the t-shirts do not include racist or sexist or hateful language.

    The term ‘sexist’ is just a tool obnoxious women use in playing rhetorical games. It has no meaning. “Racist’ has largely been robbed of its force and meaning (and there’s little doubt a ban on obnoxious messages would be enforced in a sectarian manner given the school officialdom we have).

    You’re not getting it because you’re an outlier among the professional managerial class (and the dependents and hangers on of that class, which include school administrators and teachers). The modal opinion among such people is that the rest of the society is under their tutelage. They’re the teachers and administrators, we’re the pupils. Free speech is something that exists among peers. Deliberative choice is something that exists among peers. The rest of the population is regarded as if they were juveniles and democratic choice exercised by such people is annulled if it conflicts with the fashions among professional people (lawyers in particular). The young man in question does not have free speech as (1) he is a juvenile and (2) he is a deplorable. If his parents are ordinary Americans, they do not have free speech. If they are professional-managerial people, they still do not have free speech because it is the consensus among that class in Oregon that Trump is awful and they are thus deviants. In the mind of the school administration, people support Trump because they are (see Thos Sowell on this point) among the Benighted or they are not ‘well-informed’.

    You need to look around you and assess how your colleagues really feel about those they live among.

  9. Something else is going on. And it is political.

    The Oregon teachers union & education association (OEA) has an enemy list.

    The Portland Association of Teachers Political Action Committee (PAT PAC) and the Oregon Education Association Political Action Committee (OEA PAC) have endorsed candidates for the May 2018 primary election. The PAT PAC board considers candidates’ positions on public education, their commitment to union values, their alignment to PAT strategic goals including racial equity, and their electability. We look forward to working with these candidates to improve our schools, and move our state, city, and county to better support our students and families.

  10. The heart of the issue, which Turley left out of his own comments, is described in the last sentence of the article reference by the link provided:

    “The Liberty High School student handbook, posted on the school’s website, includes a rule that ‘only appropriate sayings or pictures are acceptable’ on students’ clothes, but mentions no specifics.”

    The questions are (1) who decides what is “appropriate,” (2) what messages are deemed “appropriate,” (3) is the list or description of what is deemed “appropriate” published and available to potential offenders and accusers, and (4) depending on the answers to the first three questions, does the school have a legal right to have such rules.

    It’s difficult to imagine a school administration so STUPID as to not understand how to properly resolve problems such as this before they arise. A decision about what constitutes “appropriate” clothing should not be ad hoc, stemming from a particular complaint or judgment made by a particular teacher.

    It’s not unusual for people under the age of 18 to have restricted rights, so interference with the right to free speech probably isn’t the issue. The issue is probably political or cultural discrimination achieved by vague and/or ill-conceive rules unequally applied.

    People cannot be expected to obey the law or the rules if laws and rules aren’t published and clearly articulated.

    I had to bring a matter such as this to the attention of a National Forest Supervisor a few years ago. There was a Forest Supervisor’s Order (not a legislated law, but nonetheless with supposed imprisonment and fines for violation) which stated people could not camp for more than 14 days in an area within a 10 mile radius. That is, to camp for more than 14 days, a person had to move to a location in the Forest more than 10 miles from a site that the person had previously camped.

    Apart from other issues, one major legal problem with this Forest Supervisor’s Order was that it wasn’t published anywhere. It wasn’t posted on any signs, it wasn’t posted on any bulletin boards at any of the ranger stations, wasn’t available on the website for the National Forest in question, and it wasn’t a law or rule that applied to all National Forest. The law or rule applied to just this one particular National Forest, and the Forest Supervisor was keeping it a secret, known only to the Forest Supervisor and Law Enforcement Rangers. And it was being unequally applied and used to harass, threaten, and punish some people but not others.

    That seems almost exactly like what this school is doing with its goofy dress code, and it seems just as inexcusable in the way that the MORONS making the rules pretend not to understand their own problems with exercising and/or abusing their own authority.

    • William Bayer,
      “It’s not unusual for people under the age of 18 to have restricted rights, so interference with the right to free speech probably isn’t the issue. ”

      While the student handbook is unclear, the following ruling clearly states students’ rights to free speech, especially political speech.

      Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community School District notes:

      “The court’s 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”[4] Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was “based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation’s part in the conflagration in Vietnam.” The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they “must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” that the conduct that would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.”[5] The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

      • Yes, but that decision was in defense of students offering views which dovetailed with what the faculty avant-garde wanted, which was also what the public interest bar wanted, which is also what the tastemakers in the legal profession wanted. It was to prevent a residue of old school administrators (always lampooned in mass entertainment) from imposing their deplorable standards on the avant-garde. The one similar aspect of the cases is that students were being subjected to chickensh*t by a school administrator. School administrators are, as a rule, great manufactories of that.

      • Yes, I’m familiar with all of that. However I believe that’s a secondary issue — that the actual issue in this particular case involves vague rules, unequally applied.

        They’d have to address that issue first, in my opinion, before moving on to consider the issue of whether the supposed (but not published) dress code “was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint …”

        There’s a point at which old Supreme Court decisions need to be reviewed in light of changed circumstances.

        Under the present conditions of life in the USA, where fully-grown adults are making preposterous statements implying — and sometimes directly stating — that violence is acceptable against someone with different political views, the school could reasonably argue that suppressing political speech in a public high school is acceptable, because the nature of politics at present leads to circumstances that make it difficult to learn science, history, English, etc. — skills which are necessary in life long after the current political issues have faded away.

        Reasonable people could argue that the school needs to do whatever it needs to do — as long as it does it fairly and even-handedly — in order to assure the proper learning environment for the kids — especially since children that age are almost always just parroting the political opinions of their parents, because they’ve not really learned enough or had enough experience in the world to form their own viable opinions.

        If I had kids in high school, I’d prefer that they were allowed to concentrate on analytical geometry and English literature and physics and American History, than be caught up in a bunch of daily political trash-talk.

        • If I had kids in high school, I’d prefer that they were allowed to concentrate on analytical geometry and English literature and physics and American History, than be caught up in a bunch of daily political trash-talk.

          Well, they have a current affairs class. Not the best use of secondary students’ time, but one can think of worse ones.

          • I’m not arguing against classes in civics and government and social studies. Sure, those are also necessary, and they could pick up some debating skills to go along with all of that. But wearing tee shirts that advertise politics is a step toward fist fights in the hallways and knife fights behind the gym, the way things are in the US today, mostly incited by political pundits on cable TV and a few members of Congress and an ex-president who comes to mind along with a former Secretary of State or three.

            • is a step toward fist fights in the hallways and knife fights behind the gym,

              1. There’s a current affairs class.

              2. A teacher put posters on the wall of her classroom.

              3. They’re in an exurb of Portland. Knife fights aren’t bloody likely. The parts of the world where knife fights are likely don’t have many Republicans in them.

              • The POINT is that classes are segregated by subject matter. You go into calculus class to study calculus, so there’s no place for an “I’m with her” tee shirt in calculus class. You go into English class to be tortured by Hamlet so that you’ll be sure to steer clear of Shakespeare for the rest of your life (that’s satire, he’s my favorite writer, but I sure as heck didn’t learn to love his writing in high school).
                Have the debates in government class. Have clubs for after school. But don’t turn high school into a West-Side-Story Jets vs. Sharks environment with gang rumbles between of Hillary supporters and Trump supporters.
                There’s a point where a little pragmatism goes farther than all the political ideology in the world. The kids don’t need to be walking political posters at school. It’s unnecessary and it interferes with some of their other rights — such as the right to learn in a rational environment.

                • William,
                  As long as our public schools are permitted to ban religion, perhaps there should also be a ban on politics. A Separation of School and State.

                  • @OLLY May 25, 2018 at 12:18 PM
                    “William,
                    As long as our public schools are permitted to ban religion, perhaps there should also be a ban on politics. A Separation of School and State.”

                    In my mind, there’s no doubt about the need to end the State’s indoctrination of children in the public education system.

                    John Taylor Gatto taught in the NYC public school system for 30 years and was a recipient of the New York State Teacher of the Year Award. The following is excerpted from his essay, “Against School: How Public Education Cripples Our Kids, and Why.” This is a long excerpt, but as it cuts at the root of the problem, I think it’s justified:

                    “Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
                    1) To make good people.
                    2) To make good citizens.
                    3) To make each person his or her personal best.

                    “These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose.

                    “We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924, ‘…that the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.’

                    “Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern. [Emphasis added]

                    “The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s ‘Seventh Annual Report’ to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here.

                    “That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German- speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens – all in order to render the populace ‘manageable.’ [Emphasis added]

                    “It was from James Bryant Conant – president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century – that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling.

                    “Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant’s 1959 book-length essay, ‘The Child the Parent and the State,’ and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modern schools we attend were the result of a ‘revolution’ engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis’s 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which ‘one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary.’

                    “Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses.

                    “Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever reintegrate into a dangerous whole. [Emphasis added]

                    “Inglis breaks down the purpose – the actual purpose – of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:
                    1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

                    2) The integrating function. This might well be called ‘the conformity function,’ because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

                    3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in ‘your permanent record.’ Yes, you do have one.

                    4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been ‘diagnosed,’ children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

                    5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called ‘the favored races.’ In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

                    6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

                    “That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force, but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers.

                    “In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.”

                    http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm

                    A welcome trend in the US is the increasing number of students who are learning in non-governmental settings, including those who are homeschooled:
                    “Last week, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released an eagerly awaited report on the number of homeschool students in the U.S. The new report concludes that [in 2013] approximately 1,770,000 students are homeschooled in the United States—3.4% of the school-age population.”
                    https://hslda.org/content/docs/news/2013/201309030.asp

        • William Bayer,
          “Under the present conditions of life in the USA, where fully-grown adults are making preposterous statements implying — and sometimes directly stating — that violence is acceptable against someone with different political views, the school could reasonably argue that suppressing political speech in a public high school is acceptable, because the nature of politics at present leads to circumstances that make it difficult to learn science, history, English, etc. — skills which are necessary in life long after the current political issues have faded away.”

          I disagree that speech should be silenced because people threaten violence. Those threatening violence or behaving violently should be dealt with. Students are to be learning what the First Amendment means. Does it mean it can be shut down by threat of violence or shut down by authority figures fearing violence? That is what is being modeled in your scenario. Teachers and administrators should be modeling best practices–and that means violence is not acceptable in response to speech but better speech is.

          Linguistic skills (English) and a sound understanding of history (including the suppression of speech and the risks and rise of authoritarianism) would be brought to life if his arguments were engaged instead of suppressed. What good is learning literature and history if it is bereft of meaning? A student’s reading of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich gains depth when attached to real life; as would the concerns of ‘those guys with goofy hairdos’ who established the Bill of Rights–they become real people (not just guys with goofy hair) with something of value for our lives today.

          “they’ve not really learned enough or had enough experience in the world to form their own viable opinions.”

          True. But they have to learn how to develop their own perspectives at some point, and, it ought to be modeled properly so they can learn how to think for themselves someday instead of becoming adults parroting ideologies.

          Also, such skills of wrestling with difficult ideas are indeed necessary in life and too often given short shrift. High school is a great time to wrestle with such things when the stakes are lower than after students have become voting and leading adults.

          • The political rhetoric is taking over life in America, and I’d guess that it’s taking over in high schools as well.
            I think this is a violation of students’ right to learn in a learning environment. Politics has NO place in math class, in English class, in phys. ed, music, art, physics, etc., and there’s no reason to violate the rights of students to be able to concentrate on these important subjects simply because a few morons have decided that their right to political speech can be inflicted upon other who, by law, are required to be locked into classroom with these political MORONS. I’d have never gotten into engineering school if politics had taken over the high school that I attended. Good luck to your children or grandchildren in being able to function in society based purely on the supposed right to political speech whenever and wherever they want it.

            • William Bayer,
              It isn’t an either or. Allowing political shirts and having a conversation about the issue and then laying out the expectation that disruptions are not tolerated works fine. I did attend a high school where political speech was allowed and managed by the teachers/administrators in a reasonable and intelligent manner. Plenty of my classmates went on to careers in engineering, including one of my siblings. Political speech can have a place in school without it ‘taking over’.

              • I agree with that. I’m just extrapolating into the public schools of today what I see happening in the world today, and expect that it would quickly get out of control, mostly because of the examples kids see on TV. It could be that it would be a full time job for the teachers, just having to break up political fist-fights in the hallways — not to mention their liability for what might happen in the recreation areas.
                And the bottom line is that I honestly don’t think a dress code is a big deal, as long as it’s enforced equally and not slanted for or against any political persuasion.
                The fact is that kids are not free adults. Like prisoners, they are required to be at specific places at specific times and therefore, despite their restricted rights, they DO have a right to not be subjected to other people’s political rhetoric — unless it’s in a classroom where political rhetoric is part of the subject matter.
                I, myself, took part in many fairly-heated debates about the Vietnam War, which was raging while I was in high school — but those debates happened in a current-events AP course — a contemporary history sort of course. It wasn’t something that anyone was subjected to in the hallways or anywhere else. Besides which, back then the bullies had no interest in politics, so it was only the well-mannered, well-studied people who were interested in that sort of subject matter.
                These days, every knuckle-dragging nimrod has a political opinion, and the stupider the opinion, the more forcefully it’s expressed.
                In short, I see it as a minefield waiting for a disaster to happen — like perhaps someone losing the debate and then coming back to school to try to win it with a gun.
                Perhaps the pragmatic thing to do is just have a reasonable dress code and limit the political rhetoric to classes where it’s deemed appropriate, and where rules of civil discourse are also introduced.
                I’m really just giving the idiots that run the school the benefit of the doubt about this, and suspecting that they might know more about the problems that could arise at their own school. Of course, they also might just be total idiots that don’t have a clue about how to handle their own business.

                • William Bayer,
                  “It could be that it would be a full time job for the teachers, just having to break up political fist-fights in the hallways”

                  While it could become a problem in some schools, I do not think so so long as the school is well run. The university students who engaged in violence to ostensibly stop ‘dangerous’ or ‘triggering’ speech were not only egged on by their professors (and some of the professors were violent), but the administration did not crack down on them. The university students figured nothing would happen to them for despicable behavior and they were right. That lack of good leadership allowed political violence to happen.

                  If students believe that violence will not be tolerated whatsoever and that repercussions like expulsion are likely, they will probably not be violent. Also, if there is a culture within the school supporting free speech (so long as it is not overtly disrupting class–like chanting slogans, off-topic commentary, etc.) then students are more likely to be reasonable in their responses–like ignoring the person wearing something they disagree with or actually participating in an open and reasonable discussion. That would be the best model teachers could show–reasonable disagreement and civil discussion.

                  “And the bottom line is that I honestly don’t think a dress code is a big deal, as long as it’s enforced equally and not slanted for or against any political persuasion.
                  The fact is that kids are not free adults. Like prisoners, they are required to be at specific places at specific times and therefore, despite their restricted rights, they DO have a right to not be subjected to other people’s political rhetoric — unless it’s in a classroom where political rhetoric is part of the subject matter.”

                  I agree that any dress code should be enforced equally and that the expectations should be expressed clearly to everyone. Regarding students as prisoners, I disagree that students should consider themselves to be like prisoners. Such a perception will kill any potential love of learning–and thinking. Prisoners are not to think for themselves–they are to do the bidding of the state since they have had their freedom legally revoked.

                  Students have an obligation to be at specific places at specific times so they can be ready to learn on time. Adults are not prisoners of their jobs–they are there to trade their time and expertise for money. Students are trading their time for an education that is intended to inculcate them with a greater understanding of history and culture, math and science, to develop their ability to think and express themselves such that they will someday be useful to themselves and society. While at school, they can also learn about polite society–that there is a time and a place for certain discussions (religion, politics), and that those times are not whenever they feel like it, especially if it overrides a teacher’s lessons.

                  Where does it say students have a ‘right to not be subjected to other people’s political rhetoric’?

                  While it would be very inappropriate for someone to emblazon themselves with religion or politics or any other banner at work (aside from, perhaps, a small piece of jewelry–like a small cross necklace or flag lapel pin), schools are a place where these concepts can become teachable moments. I am not advocating for students to become walking billboards–that can be part of discussions, too. I want students to learn that diversity of thought and wrestling with ideas is better than the shallow diversity of appearance.

                  “Perhaps the pragmatic thing to do is just have a reasonable dress code and limit the political rhetoric to classes where it’s deemed appropriate, and where rules of civil discourse are also introduced.”

                  I agree, and, I think that is what typically happens. If it relates to the class discussion, it will be brought up to be discussed. Otherwise, it gets ignored or students discuss it in the halls/lunch.

                  “they also might just be total idiots that don’t have a clue about how to handle their own business.”
                  This seems to be the most likely scenario. Zero tolerance and a radical liberal agenda that views speech as violence is going to equal zero thinking and a totalitarian bent to shut down views that are personally disagreeable with any lame excuse they can think up–like, somebody might, maybe get violent.

    • If you could be fined or imprisoned, then notice should be properly given. Sounds like the Balkanization of the National Forest System.

      You are right. Any rules should be clearly delineated and fairly applied. Personally, I believe that lawsuits are the only way to enact change in the education system.

      • “If you could be fined or imprisoned, then notice should be properly given.”

        And don’t think I didn’t mention that the to Forest Supervisor when I tracked him down. I gave that guy an earful. Part of the authority he was exercising was/is derived from his authority to institute emergency procedures. I don’t believe the authority to issue a Forest Supervisor’s Order such as the one he issued is intended to circumvent the authority of Congress to legislate laws, but is only a temporary measure for dealing with acute problems. He’s a Forest Supervisor, not an Emperor. I think I might have also pointed that out to him as well.

        And the maximum fine and imprisonment was so large that the alleged offense would generally qualify as a felony where I come from — which is all the more reason that signs should have been posted — especially since there were other signs all over the Forest which lulled people into breaking the Supervisor’s Order.

        But it wasn’t the entire Forest Service — just that one particular National Forest. I dealt with that Forest Supervisor concerning that issue over the course of two camping seasons. I spent more time hunting that idiot down and arguing with him than I spent camping. It’s how I got to know all of the law enforcement rangers on a personal level. They’re great guys, and had no clue that the Forest Supervisor had them engaged in unlawful conduct.

        • Sounds like it parallels the abuse of executive orders.

          What was the outcome of your bringing this to the Forest Supervisor’s attention?

          • Last time I checked, they’d posted notices of the Order in visible locations at all of the ranger stations, and put the information up on that Forest’s website. Still haven’t seen any posted signs out in the forest, though.

            It could be that the Order has been rescinded by now. It originally went into effect in 2010, and I believe it may have been instigated by lots of people having lost their homes and jobs during the economic collapse a year or two earlier — with unemployed homeless people taking to the forest just to survive.

            The situation was a lot like The Grapes of Wrath, except that they had government camps for people to go to back during the Great Depression, and there was nothing like that for people that got hit by the economic collapse at the end of the Bush Administration and beginning of the Obama Administration. As in The Grapes of Wrath, the main thing that police were doing was just keeping homeless people on the move, not wanting them to settle anywhere, and certainly not in the National Forest.

            One can see both sides of the issue — but the idea of having a secret law to deal with people was pretty disgusting. I only hear about it accidently, while shooting the breeze with a ranger. That’s what I like to do most when camping and hiking — meeting and talking to people. Greatest people you’ll ever meet anywhere are mountain hikers. The tough hike has a way of weeding out the idiots, and the deeper into the forest you go, and the higher up the mountain, the better class of people you meet — from ALL walks of life — rich, poor, educated or not-so-much — even met a few decent lawyers.

      • “I believe that lawsuits are the only way to enact change in the education system.”

        Watching the video on this page along with the others in this series should help to enact change in the education system. We need to recognize that the teacher’s union and thus all too many teachers ascribe to this comment by the union president. Perry Would Misrepresent Facts of Abuse on Reports to Cast Students as Liars, “I need to know the truth, so that we can bend the truth.”

        https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/05/01/nj-perry/

  11. The school may well have protected that student or others from harm. There could be a t-shirt on the opposite side of the spectrum that could incite a reaction. Schools are responsible for the safety of their students, perhaps they should hire additional security to protect him all day? Were any of you upset about the new NFL rule banning kneeling except in the locker room?

    • LOL — the NFL is a private organization and it can make up whatever goofy rules it wants (within limits). Public schools are governmental organizations which are required to protect people rights while conducting their governmental business.
      And it isn’t even a political problem related to being Trump or anti-Trump. The root of the problem is described in the link contained in Turley’s defective piece:

      “The Liberty High School student handbook, posted on the school’s website, includes a rule that ‘only appropriate sayings or pictures are acceptable’ on students’ clothes, but mentions no specifics.”

      The school has a vague rule concerning which students had no way of knowing what constitutes a violation, but were nonetheless being punished for alleged violations merely because someone claimed to be offended.

        • Noted that you didn’t conclude that stupid accusation with a question mark. Maybe you should change the fake screen name behind which you hide to anignorantblackcom.

          The First Amendment applies to the relationship between citizens and the government, not the relationship between NFL players or fans and the organized crime syndicate referred to as the NFL. It does, however come into play because the NFL receives massive funding and tax breaks in relation to constructing the stadiums used to play its games and put on its TV broadcasts — so there is legitimate reason for citizens to complain when NFL games are used to promote political causes.

          Meanwhile, as I said, it’s not uncommon for people younger than 18 to have their rights restricted. That’s just a fact of life. I’m not arguing it one way or the other. Kids can’t enter into contracts. Kids can’t vote. Kids can’t (legally) drink alcohol. Whether they should be allowed to do these things or not is a separate issue.

          But related to this issue, for the sake of discipline (and for perhaps other reasons), it’s not uncommon for schools to have dress codes. When I was in junior high, there was a dress code for girls about the length of their skirts. A skirt couldn’t be shorter than three inches above the knee. This was an issue at that time because mini skirts, not Trump, were the fashion statement of the day. And there was one science teacher at the school who was known for carrying around a yardstick to measure the distance from a girl’s skirt to the knee, I believe measured to the crease in the back of the knee. The rule was published, so it was well-known, and an alleged infraction was quantifiable — it wasn’t a subjective judgment by any particular teacher. The only thing subjective about it was the basic premise that a shorter skirt was objectionable.

          But I don’t think any parents complained, since it was easy to understand how not having such a rule could spiral out of control pretty quickly AND have a detrimental effect on the ability of the boys to pay attention in class.

          As I stated, the first issue here is that the nature of the dress-code rule in question appears to be 100% subjective. It also appears to be vague.

          There’s another right that people have. It’s rarely talked about and is actually inferred from the requirement of obeying the law. People have a right to NOT violate the law, and to do so, the law must be made clear. To create vague laws or to keep secret the precise elements that constitute a violation constitutes a violation of people’s right to obey the law.

          I’m sure you’ll understand precisely none of that because it has to do with the basic nature of laws and rules, and has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

        • “So a First Amendment purist you’re not.”

          Bayer’s more of a purist by recognizing the limits of free speech within a private organization than one that cannot differentiate that type of speech from the free speech that occurs outside of a private organization.

    • Enigma:
      A very stupid comment in view of the fact there was not even a suggestion of violent disagreement. You might as well have defended the illegal banning as saying it might have prevented a meteor strike. Step up your game even the Maoists are laughing.

      • Since you can’t imagine a scenario where someone gets hurt. I suggest you put on the shirt and wear it in an environment that includes multiple races, gangs and stressed out people. Like a high school but choose an adult situation. What could possibly go wrong?

        • Are you saying that if you openly oppose illegal immigration, and desire all immigration to go through legal channels, there are parts of the US where you will be physically attacked?

          Allow unlimited immigration or you will be beaten?

          And this is your reasoning for why it’s better to go along with the flow and remain silent on your convictions? Don’t piss off the illegal immigration supporters or you could get hurt?

          Sounds like the mafia.

          • I’m saying that policies that only look at certain borders and certain people, combined with policies that require people who “look like they might be illegal” to carry their papers, combined with pardoning a Sheriff that openly flouted the law in targeting and profiling people, tend to generate a bit of resentment. Not only from illegals but from American citizens who are affected by those policies on a regular basis.
            Wearing that shirt can be taken pretty much as a F**k You by some and may generate a response. People have a First Amendment right to be assholes, it just may not be received well.

            • It appears that you don’t recognize the other side of the coin. Americans that have been displaced by ILLEGAL aliens, or children that have to attend larger classes due to illegal aliens, or the taxpayer that has to pay the Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid bills of illegal aliens. Let’s not forget how people like Nancy Pelosi is saying F**K you to those whose lives have been altered by M-13 gangs. These American citizens including immigrants that have become citizens legally should have at least the same rights that Nancy Pelosi will enthusiastically give to M-13 while scorning the rights of American citizens.

              • Allan – I have no problem seeing the other side, if I were in a debate I could easily take the other side although I would have a few more of my facts straight. The majority of “ILLEGAL aliens” working in this country have traditionally displaced nobody but done jobs others weren’t willing to do. Without the protection of the law, they worked for substandard wages in poor conditions. The agriculture industry has depended on seasonal workers like pickers as has the construction industry. Donald Trump used to hire illegals for construction and now hires those on special temporary visas in his hotels.
                I’m sure you meant MS-13 which is an American gang but does recruit heavily from those here from other countries who found America the land of the not so free. Several state economies and American corporations depend on those illegals. America could have put a huge dent in illegal immigration a long time ago if it prosecuted employers.
                Yes school size is an issue but you can’t fail to look at the legislators who choose on a regular basis not to fund education. Strikes in Oklahoma and Kentucky recently have pointed out the impact of the constant fever to cut taxes, except those that go to for-profit charter schools like those DeVos advocates.

                • “The majority of “ILLEGAL aliens” working in this country have traditionally displaced nobody”

                  Enigma, We have no need to debate the numbers and their effect. They are illegal.

                  “Without the protection of the law, they worked for substandard wages in poor conditions. ”

                  In this statement, you have admitted that illegal aliens lower wages because they can be subjected to substandard conditions. We don’t have to debate how much lower the wages are or how much the conditions violate the law. They are illegal aliens.

                  “Donald Trump used to hire illegals for construction ” Prove it. Trump doesn’t hire the construction crews.

                  “now hires those on special temporary visas in his hotels.” Socialists don’t understand competition. In order to compete with other businesses one must be able to utilize the laws to their best advantage, but that doesn’t mean that Trump agrees with the law. He understands the in-depth need for such people, competition and the unintended results of the law so he is in a good position to change the law for the better.

                  Yes, MS-13, my error. Your arguments are starting to stray so let me get to an endpoint quickly written and not complete.

                  *We should not be faced with the problem of illegal aliens.
                  *Anyone trying to become a citizen of the US should benefit the people, not just the corporations and certainly not the voter rolls of any political party.
                  *Prospective citizens should love America and not hate it. They should understand that they will require some cultural changes for why else are they leaving their own countries other than the culture didn’t lead to a favorable lifestyle? They should adopt English as the official language.
                  *They should recognize our Constitution is supreme over whatever else they believe in.
                  *They should not be receiving any benefits unless they have become citizens and there should be no chain migration etc.
                  *Citizenship should not be granted based on being born in this country or an extension of this country.
                  *We should have a workers program that permits people to work here and leave at the nation’s discretion. Their families should not be supported by the American taxpayer and any social expenses such as healthcare should be covered by the alien or the business that hired them.

                  I have no problem with the vast majority of illegal aliens other than the fact that they are illegal and did not comply with the laws of the US. A good number of my close family were born in other nations and came to the US legally. I understand and sympathize with anyone that enters the country illegally, but a country requires control over its borders.

                  • Allan – You brought up all the allegedly displaced workers and when I disputed it, you no longer want to talk about displaced.
                    You wanted proof of Trump hiring illegal workers, not that you’ll accept it…
                    http://time.com/5039109/donald-trump-undocumented-polish-trump-tower-bonwit-teller/
                    Should you want the accompanying legal document (Proof)
                    https://www.scribd.com/document/365766750/Donald-Trump-Bonwit-Teller-Demolition-Memorandum-in-Support#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=58287X1517246X1b8ed69d137eb487ecb8b714b0b28b6b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

                    • “Allan – You brought up all the allegedly displaced workers and when I disputed it, you no longer want to talk about displaced.”

                      I’m more than willing to debate it and I have no doubt that Trump hotels and casinos utilized the law to bring in noncitizens so I don’t know what you are trying to say. I just figured debating statistics is futile since one can see the effect empirically. If you don’t see the empirical effect of the importation of labor then take a look at what happened to the employees at Disney.

                      Settlements are conveniences and occur all over the business world so if you want to show proof you have to clearly state what it is you are talking about and then clearly demonstrate the proof. Most of the arguments you use are “he said she said” arguments and they prove nothing. No person is totally bad and no person is totally good. That applies to you, me, and Donald Trump.

                    • Allan – Trump didn’t “use the law to bring in noncitizens.” He used undocumented Polish workers. Before you blame it on the contractor. It was the contractor who brought the lawsuit against Trump which he settled, you say as a convenience, for $1.375 million dollars. Not so convenient if you ask me. The workers worked without proper safety equipment including gloves and hardhats. This was no obscure remote facility that Trump wouldn’t have noticed, it was Trump Tower, his flagship property. How many times a week would you guess he was on site?
                      “We worked in horrid, terrible conditions,” Wojciech Kozak, one of the undocumented Polish workers at the demolition site, told the Times. “We were frightened illegal immigrants and did not know enough about our rights.”
                      There was court testimony that Trump both noticed and appreciated the Polish undocumented workers. According to court testimonies, Trump took notice of Kaszycki and his crew of 200 undocumented Polish workers when he visited a worksite near Bonwit Teller.

                      “He liked the way the men were working on 57th Street,” Zbignew Goryn, a foreman at the site, testified. “[Trump] said, ‘Those Polish guys are good, hard workers.’”
                      Trump litigated the case in court for 15 years, settling hardly seems like a matter of convenience.
                      As far as you and I, I’m sure we both have good and bad qualities, regarding Trump, any goodness he does is purely transactional.

                    • “Allan – Trump didn’t “use the law to bring in noncitizens.””

                      Enigma, he didn’t break the law and neither you nor I know the complete circumstances though you will bend the truth to match what you want to believe.

                      You seem to believe that the major criteria for being President are that the candidate is a goodie-two-shoes. I hate to have to enlighten you but I don’t think any President has ever met that criteria. Perhaps you have confused the presidency with the clergy, but even there I think you will be sorely disappointed. You have been alive and aware for many decades and likely voted for a multiplicity of Presidential candidates. I wonder how you dealt with Clinton’s foibles that occurred while serving the people in Arkansas through to his Presidency and did you forget about those problems?

                      You either want to be an honest broker or you wish to dishonestly attack anyone whose political beliefs differ from yours? I think the latter as has been proven over and over again on this blog. I have no false impressions of who Trump is so I don’t look at him as a saint rather a man whose actions sometimes fell below standards, but basically, one who can lead and protect America.

                      Take note how you have scoured the Internet trying to find evidence of wrongdoing and to date, your evidence doesn’t reveal anything that would make me think twice about voting for Trump. What you actually reveal are things that are common to most people in his line of work at the time those things may have been done. That doesn’t make him bad. It makes him normal. The fact that in this latest accusation you had to go back over 35 years ago makes this man appear more saintly than he is. Even the facts don’t demonstrate wrongdoing rather they are accusations common to time and place. There was no criminality (the laws were different at the time) and eventually, all parties were satisfied with the settlement that to my understanding was to be kept secret as agreed by all parties. It seems the records were opened up by those working for the government that are not supposed to do those things, but for abuses of power, you seem to demonstrate little concern.

                      Based on your extensive research that turns up pretty empty one can only conclude that for the most part, Trump is an honest hardworking American. Thank you for helping to prove that point.

                    • That you will accept no proof doesn’t mean he’s not a criminal. No reasonable person can read the stories and transcript and not conclude that Trump hired undocumented workers, knew he had done so and eventually paid $1.375 million because he did.

                    • “That you will accept no proof doesn’t mean he’s not a criminal.”

                      1) Enigma, you don’t have enough reasonable facts of the case and the facts you do have are in question.
                      2) You don’t know the law at the time.
                      3) You assume a suit between two parties is the equivalent of a criminal action.

                      You are wrong. If a person claimed you lied about a property where you were the agent and then sued and you settled, does that make you a criminal? Does it even mean you were guilty of lying? My plumber was just ripped off of half his fee because his client decided to renege on the deal. He didn’t sue or fight and settled for half because he didn’t want the bad publicity that could be involved and to sue would cost him more than he would gain. Is the plumber’s settlement an indication that he committed a crime? That is where your logic brings us and it is absurd.

                      If you wish to rhetorically make a criminal charge then state the charge in clear English along with the law at the time and your evidence. If you can’t do that then all one can assume is that you are having a temper tantrum because Hillary lost and Trump won.

                    • If I settled for $1.375 million, I’ll bet I would have been guilty. Now you want me to cite you the exact law at the time saying it was against the law to hire undocumented workers and fail to provide proper safety equipment. His entire life it was illegal. One Google search could tell you all about Trump’s mob connections. Look into his use of ready-mix concrete in Trump Tower which was controlled by the mob. The one thing I’m sure of, when Mueller issues his report, it will cite the laws he broke, provide witnesses and the money trail, and you won’t accept any of it.

                    • “If I settled for $1.375 million, I’ll bet I would have been guilty.”

                      Of course, you wouldn’t. You are small fry. Proportionately you might settle a $600,000 property for $1,375 figuring the costs of legal fees and court time might be more damaging than the settlement.

                      You make all sorts of Enigmatic leaps into the legal world. I suggest you stick to real estate sales preferably of the everyday home sale type.

                    • You might have fought the case for years because maybe your opportunists wanted $600,000 and finally, they were willing to settle for a $1,375 nuisance claim. You don’t have the slightest idea what went on in those intervening years so you make up stories to substitute for your lack of knowledge.

                    • I didn’t have to make up the story, it was well documented and covered in the news. You just won’t accept anything. He hired undocumented workers knowingly as they worked in hazardous conditions. A simple fact you can’t rationalize away.

                    • “I didn’t have to make up the story,”

                      As you say it is a story. There is some association, but that is not proof of a crime or evidence. You got these things all mixed up.

                      Start with a sentence or two of the criminal act and then provide the evidence. Even your articles don’t claim criminal conduct. You are all wet.

                    • Allan – did Trump hire them or did Trump hire a contractor who hired them (that is the usual method).

                    • “Allan – did Trump hire them or did Trump hire a contractor who hired them (that is the usual method).”

                      Yes, and I am not sure of the law at that time. Enigma seems to forget about these details.

                    • Allan – according to the article Trump hired the contractor who already had some crew and may have added to it. Trump also hired a union contractor who hired union workers.

                    • Paul, these articles do not bother to investigate deeply. They are made as hit pieces for weak minds. The left uses shame as a mechanism of attack. For example, they encourage illegal immigration and licenses so illegal people can get jobs. Then they try to shame hard working Americans that hire those illegal immigrants but only if the hard working Americans come from the right. The leftist elites will arm themselves with bodyguards carrying all sorts of weapons and defensive material but they want to extinguish the second amendment. These same elites fight against building a wall but have high walls around their property some of which are guarded like military bases. They are a bunch of hypocrites.

            • combined with policies that require people who “look like they might be illegal” to carry their papers,

              Do you ever get tired of playing rhetorical games?

        • That would necessarily mean that the multiple races, gangs and stressed out people are the aggressors and anti-American speech suppressors. Is that your obviously wrong point? And if by some strange circumstance it’s actually correct in limited circumstances, what does that say about your rainbow world? We don’t appease the wrong at the expense of the right.

    • The school may well have protected that student or others from harm.

      Brilliant! We’re going to strip you of your rights to secure your rights. Kind of like planting a spy within the Trump campaign was to protect Trump. Let me guess, the African slave trade was merely a jobs program?

    • Enigma:

      That is the crux of the problem. The hard Left has stated that they believe that violence is justified against people who disagree with them politically. I have heard it said that violence is the only language they would understand.

      Violence because of a difference of opinion is wrong. Clearly, the school was not concerned about conservative students engaging in violence in response to pro-illegal-immigration or anti-Trump cant. It is content discrimination created by mob rule. That cannot continue.

      If they are concerned that their students are so dangerous, that if anyone proclaims they want a border wall to stem illegal immigration, that they could be attacked, then yes, they have a significant security problem. Trying to walk on eggshells around violent, unstable people is not a legitimate safety measure in schools. You do not appease violent people; you explain to them in no uncertain terms that violence = suspension, expulsion, or criminal charges, depending on the degree.

      One tool at their disposal is to use school uniforms, thereby making it fair to everyone.

      “Were any of you upset about the new NFL rule banning kneeling except in the locker room?” I actually find this issue very interesting, as a business owner. You do NOT have the right to engage in political demonstrations at the workplace, and still remain employed. For instance, if I owned a restaurant, and my staff harassed my customers based on politics, I would have to fire them or go out of business. They would not go to jail, but they would not be employed either.

      The NFL is supposed to be equally welcoming to all, and it most certainly is not supposed to be anti-police. Kapernick’s wearing of pig socks to protest the police cast a negative light on his employer. He and his supporters have dragged in their employer and their sponsors into their own personal politics. That was unfair. There have been corporate sponsors who have taken a severe financial hit on both sides of the issue, an issue that none of them were in the business of getting involved in. That will impact the willingness of sponsors in the future.

      I do not believe that you can or should force anyone to show respect to our Flag. That is a First Amendment right. It is also the right of an employer to create a standard of conduct, including respect for our flag, as a condition of employment. The NFL has a long tradition of respect for our country. It is not a political organization. As such, it should employ accordingly. Dragging in divisive politics turns off fans, and hits their bottom line. If the National Anthem is such an intrinsic part of the game and fan base, then their employees need to be respectful of it. I actually find sitting in the locker room the equivalent of kneeling. It is still an open affront to our country, and the behavior will STILL piss off fans, who will vote with changing the channel.

      The players have plenty of opportunity on their own time to engage in politics. That said, if their behavior reflects negatively upon their employer, and costs them reputation or revenue, then their employment would be in jeopardy. Case in point are all of the domestic violence and dog abuse cases that impacted players’ reputation and that of the League.

      When they play the anthems of other nations at horse shows that I attend, I absolutely stand and maintain respect. If I knelt it would rightly be deemed insulting to that nation.

      • Karen “Violence because of a difference of opinion is wrong. Clearly, the school was not concerned about conservative students engaging in violence in response to pro-illegal-immigration or anti-Trump cant. It is content discrimination created by mob rule. That cannot continue.”

        Violence because of a difference of opinion is wrong – Agreed – That doesn’t mean it doesn’t occur and a high school is just the sort of place it happens. There is nothing in the article that suggests the school cares more or less about any side. The right believes itself to be under attack but recent history suggests they are more likely to be the source of violent behavior. I have no problem with school uniforms. My daughter and son-in-law run a private school and the students are proud to wear their uniforms.

        • I am glad we are in agreement in regards to violence.

          “There is nothing in the article that suggests the school cares more or less about any side.” Here is a link to the lawsuit (https://www.scribd.com/document/379885071/First-Amendment-Lawsuit#from_embed), which was also linked in Professor Turley’s article.

          In it, it is asserted that one of Barne’s teachers has a poster prominently displayed in his classroom, “Sanctuary City, welcome home.”

          The school is endorsing one political opinion over the other. It is ironic that the student was harassed during a class in which immigration was supposed to be discussed. Apparently, they took a zero tolerance viewpoint to dissenting opinions.

          The shirt was not racist or threatening. It took the stance that we need a border wall. Most people in the US oppose illegal immigration. His message was hardly unusual, but even if it was, it is his opinion.

          Perhaps the reason why we have so many neurotic college students, crying and screaming and threatening violence when confronted with opposing ideas, demanding their safe space and bubbles, is because they have made it from K-12 being presented with a single point of view.

          This might be a teachable moment in building character, guiding students on how to tolerate opposing opinions on emotional issues, without resorting to violence in an effort to bully the victim into silence.

          • “That doesn’t mean it doesn’t occur and a high school is just the sort of place it happens.” Again, we are in agreement. There are some high schools a couple of towns over in which the African American and Latinos self segregate. Most African Americans go to one school, and most Latinos go to the other. There are vicious fights between them during football games and at the malls, and sometimes shootings.

            The main point of contention is illegal immigration. Illegal immigration hits the African American community the hardest, as it dries up entry level jobs and that crucial first rung on the ladder. However, as you’ve stated, if you voice an opinion against illegal immigration, you just may get beat up. That is what the African American students learned – don’t piss off the pro-illegal-alien group or there will be violence. Tension is simmering between the two groups, and the Caucasians aren’t even involved in this racist morass. Merely belong to one group or another is now enough to trigger an attack. One black mother I spoke with told me how her special needs son was viciously attacked by Latinos, because he’s black. The last time they broke his ankle. That is how schools self segregate. The groups essentially claim one part of a school, or even the entire school itself.

            So I speak from the standpoint of horrified bystander when I say that, maybe, schools and parents need to firmly teach their children how to withstand opposing viewpoints in contentious issues without resorting to violence.

      • @Karen S May 25, 2018 at 12:59 PM
        “Enigma:

        “ ‘Were any of you upset about the new NFL rule banning kneeling except in the locker room?’ I actually find this issue very interesting, as a business owner. You do NOT have the right to engage in political demonstrations at the workplace, and still remain employed.”

        While looking for something else, I just now ran across this essay by a Harvard Law professor:

        @Karen S May 25, 2018 at 12:59 PM
        “Enigma:
        “ ‘Were any of you upset about the new NFL rule banning kneeling except in the locker room?’ I actually find this issue very interesting, as a business owner. You do NOT have the right to engage in political demonstrations at the workplace, and still remain employed.”

        While looking for something else, I just now ran across this essay by a Harvard Law School professor:

        “The NFL’s ‘Take a Knee’ Ban Is Flatly Illegal
        “Benjamin Sachs
        “May 25, 2018
        “Vox

        “There is a serious free speech problem with the owners’ rule. They believe that if they do not ban the protests, the president will continue to make the protests a national issue and damage the league’s income.

        “NFL team owners this week decided that players will no longer be allowed to take a knee during the playing of the national anthem. And if they do, they will be subject to punishment and their team will be subject to fines.

        “The owners did provide the players with an alternative, of sorts: If a player does not wish to stand and salute the flag, he can stay in the locker room and wait for the anthem to end. This new league policy is meant to enforce a particular vision of patriotism, one that involves compliance rather than freedom of expression.

        “The policy is also illegal — for a host of reasons.

        “The clearest illegality derives from the fact that the league adopted its new policy without bargaining with the players union. When employees, including football players, are represented by a union, the employer — including a football league — can’t change the terms of employment without discussing the change with the union. Doing so is a flagrant violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith.”
        https://webmail.smithville.com/tuxedo/?_task=mail&_action=show&_uid=271924&_mbox=INBOX

        • Ken Rogers – the league is already losing viewers and fans, thus ad revenue. They are protecting their brand.

          • @Paul C Schulte May 26, 2018 at 9:28 AM
            “Ken Rogers – the league is already losing viewers and fans, thus ad revenue. They are protecting their brand.”

            Yes, I’ve seen several reports to that effect. The question is why are they losing fans?

            In my own case, l no longer watch NFL games on television (I’ve never attended a game, physically), since I became aware of the concussion-brain injury problem a couple of years ago. I knew from my own experience in playing high school football that virtually every member of our team had serious injuries of one kind or another, but concussions weren’t recognized, let alone discussed. You might “get clipped” or “have your bell rung,” but you were expected to “walk it off and get back in the game.” I haven’t seen a poll indicating how many other people are similarly motivated to stop watching these Hobbesian agons, player participation in which is nasty, brutish, and short.

            This website owner presents some stats which I haven’t verified the accuracy of, but he maintains that a significant cause of the drop in ticket sales and TV viewing is attributable to Caucasians (who numerically dominate the fan base) who object to the protesting by NFL players of police brutality against blacks:

            “Whereas blacks make up the majority of NFL players (67.3% in 2014), the majority of NFL fans/viewers are whites or Caucasians (77% in 2015).”

            “The Sporting News reports:
            ” ‘Only 13 percent said they were more likely to watch an NFL game because of continuing protests by Kaepernick and supporters such as Antonio Cromartie of the Colts (who was cut only two days after raising a fist during the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” in London on Sunday).’

            “More than half (52 percent) say the protests have no impact on their decision to watch NFL games on NBC, Fox, CBS, ESPN and NFL Network this season. [Emphasis added]

            “Rasmussen’s poll results also break down along racial lines.
            Roughly 28 percent of African-American respondents say they’re more likely to tune in to an NFL game because of the protests vs. only 8 percent of whites and 16 percent of minorities. Whites are twice as likely as minorities to say they’re less likely to watch NFL game telecasts this season.”

            https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2017/09/26/nfl-rules-require-players-to-stand-for-national-anthem-ratings-drop/

              • @Paul C Schulte May 26, 2018 at 2:30 PM
                “Ken Rogers – are there more black males or white males that the NFL has to attract?”

                I don’t know that the NFL has to attract anybody, but if your question alludes to the number of NFL players it has to attract, the answer seems to be “blacks”; if it alludes to the game-watching fan base, and if you are also alluding to the NFL’s fan-base economics, then the answer seems to be “whites.” But are these the only considerations?

                “You raise an interesting question: how would the predominantly “white” fan base react to a “black” player strike, if “blacks” make up ~ 70% of the players, assuming a significant percentage of the players (sympathetic “blacks” and sympathetic “whites”) participated in the strike?

                This analysis sees the issue as an enforcement can of worms for NFL owners, who are reportedly very concerned, by the way, about Trump’s stirring up against them the “white” fan base. I suspect that the NFL Player’s Union will be reminding the owners of the contribution of the players to their bottom line:

                “The Real Reason NFL Owners Want to Punish Players for Protesting During the Anthem
                “This is about labor rights, and whether NFL players will exercise them in the face of a craven crackdown.”

                https://www.thenation.com/article/the-real-reason-nfl-owners-want-to-punish-players-for-protesting-during-the-anthem/

                • Ken Rogers – although I do not agree with a lot of the article, I do agree the owners are scared to death of Donald Trump. 😉

                  • @Paul C Schulte May 26, 2018 at 6:50 PM
                    “Ken Rogers – although I do not agree with a lot of the article, I do agree the owners are scared to death of Donald Trump. 😉”

                    Well, you know what craven, sniveling little sh*ts billionaires tend to be when it comes to facing the prospect of losing any of their ill-gotten gains. 🙂

        • Ken – it is not criminal for the league to create a policy without bargaining with a union. That would be a civil matter, I believe breach of contract. You mentioned the “clearest illegality.” I am not a lawyer, so if there actually is a criminal code requiring unions to be used, then I am not aware.

          As far as the First Amendment, I support free speech, even bad speech. The government does not have the right to criminalize speech. However, employers cannot be forced to continue employing people who destroy their business. For instance, the KKK has the right to free speech. I absolutely cannot under any circumstance hire any Klansman, especially one who wanted to proselytize to my company’s clients while on the clock. Also, if this hypothetical employee was all over social media, promoting racism, and it got back that he was hypothetically employed by us, our business would be ruined.

          Very few people have the ability to engage in political demonstrations in the workplace. Can you imagine going into the DMV, and half the employees are demonstrating, on the job, in favor of Trump and half are demonstrating against Trump? Do it on your own time, and if you damage your employer’s reputation or profit, there are consequences.

          Please note, as well, that it is not Trump’s fault that the NFL is losing money. The fans got upset all on their own, and Trump merely commented on it. I do think that Presidents need to remain above the fray on most of these events.

          My own Marine uncle, a Korean vet, refused to watch the NFL on his deathbed, even though watching football was one of his favorite things. He only watched college ball. He voted with the real treasure any of us have: our limited time.

          • ” He only watched college ball.”

            Interesting. I wonder how many people have switched in that fashion. I know a lot of my friends have moved in that direction and some are finding college ball more stimulating. From what I see the NFL has lost big time at the same time they were losing audience due to other factors.

  12. They can’t just chalk it up to “sins of youth”, have a laugh and go on with their jobs, can they? The teachers and admin are just as distracted as their students are.
    Adolescents notice what people are wearing —– not adults. Grow up and do your real job. PS: it’s not protecting kids from seeing a Trump t-shirt.

  13. Silly, silly school district. Making a martyr out of a Trumpkin. Let him speak his mind by wearing his shirt. Or else write him a check. Or else write your lawyers a check and then write him a check. Why spend money on students as a whole when you can pay your lawyers and your Trumpkin students instead?

  14. The school could avoid the matter entirely by requiring a school uniform, such as a plain white or navy polo shirt with no writing, pictures or brand logos. Trying to monitor and censure teen tee-shirts on a case-by-case basis is just asking for conflict.

    • I am all in favor of school uniforms with specifications set by the school board.

      Take too long to explain all the reasons. Should start in first grade.

      • @David B. Benson May 25, 2018 at 3:23 AM
        “I am all in favor of school uniforms with specifications set by the school board. Take too long to explain all the reasons. Should start in first grade.”

        This recommendation by you and other commenters here would certainly reinforce the Prussian education model’s “Integrating Function,” the desirability of which I’m confident any military school administrator (or drill instructor) would readily attest to:

        “2) The integrating function. This might well be called ‘the conformity function,’ because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.” (Comment at 5:53 PM, 5/25/18).

        And, of course, conformity is a prequisite step on the path to obedience, the paramount virtue in authoritarian systems.

  15. Depends on which part of the state. One single district takes in the entire eastern 2/3rds and the lower one third.

    In that district there is a good chance the young man just paid for his university education. No HS Diploma no problem try Hillsdale.edu.

    In any of the other four Districts plus state wide they will probably slap on a fine on top of the suspension. Oregon is a microcosm of why electoral college is so important.

  16. I view the most likely outcome is the school district losing this battle. Hopefully, they will arrive at a settlement quickly before the costs mount. But it often seems the case where egos and politics become involved and since it is other people’s money, there is not much motivation for an early settlement. Plus, depending on how strong their liberal leanings are, the officials will look at this as a referendum on the president and a cause célèbre to virtue signal their perceived superiority.

    The entire matter could be avoided by simply ignoring the student’s shirt and letting the matter go from the beginning. But, school officials broke the “Stupid Stuff” rule and the inevitable major fallout resulted.

    • It doesn’t speak well of the principal that it came to this. The school board and the superintendent should be all over him for this, but it’s a reasonable wager they’re as bad as he is.

  17. Obey your Progressive Deep State Overlords, or else…………..Progressives promote diversity and free speech, as long as it conforms to their ideology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.