Below is my column in The Hill on the recent significant victory for free speech out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It is a story of how this little first-grade girl schooled her principal and a federal judge on the essence of free speech.
Here is the column:
In March 2021, California principal Jesus Becerra was confronted by a clear and present threat to his school.
Standing before him was the culprit — a student apparently so dangerous that Becerra had to act without delay to protect the entire Viejo Elementary School in the Capistrano Unified School District.
The little girl is known only as B.B. in federal filings, but her actions were so heinous that a parent alerted Becerra to take whatever action was necessary.
Beccera showed B.B. the incriminating evidence: a picture of children with the words “any life” written under “Black Lives Matter.”
Confronting the little girl, Becerra allegedly called the paper “racist.” He told her that she would need to apologize for the outrageous statement. (Becerra denies using the word “racist.”). Her family alleges that she was also suspended from recess for two weeks, apparently to consider her failures as a human being.
B.B. had just sat through a book reading about Martin Luther King. It ended with “Black Lives Matter,” an expression that she had never previously heard. She felt bad that black people in the book were shown as being treated differently and unfairly. She decided to draw a picture of her friends holding hands under those words with the addition of “any life.” She gave the picture to one of those friends, a girl known in the litigation as M.C.
Throughout history, friends have given each other such notes and pictures without incident. But in these times, an array of adults felt the need to intervene, to make sure the girls understood that this innocent act was actually a despicable act of latent racism.
When M.C. brought the picture home, her mother was upset. M.C. is the only black student in the class and B.B. is white. She wrote to Becerra to object that “while we can appreciate the sentiment of Black Lives Matter, my husband and I do not trust the place ‘any life’ is coming from.” She did not want this to become a “larger issue” but asked Becerra to take the “actions that need to be taken to address the issue.”
Becerra allegedly demanded that B.B apologize and then suspended her from recess. B.B. did not tell her mother, Chelsea Boyle, about the incident or the alleged punishment for eleven months. But then the family moved to address the matter. They faced an array of administrators and lawyers who fought them at every stage. The school denied that the punishment had even happened, asserting that “the weight of evidence” did not support the claim that the little girl had been punished in any way.
Ultimately, the case made its way before federal District Court Judge David Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee. The school demanded summary judgment. Even though a court at that stage must assume all disputed facts in the most favorable way for the nonmoving party (B.B. in this case), Carter held that she could indeed be punished for writing those two words, “any life.”
Judge Carter declared that B.B.’s drawing was “not protected under the First Amendment” and that teachers like Becerra “are far better equipped than federal courts at identifying when speech crosses the line from harmless banter to impermissible harassment.” Besides, Carter added, “the downsides of regulating speech there is not as significant as it is in high schools, where students are approaching voting age and controversial speech could spark conducive conversation.”
In Judge Carter’s world, there is little danger that elementary students are likely to develop a taste for free speech, let alone contemplate its use. (Judge Carter had shown equally dismissive views of free speech in a controversial ruling related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.)
And so B.B. apparently got what she deserved as a little harasser, roaming the halls of Viejo Elementary School with her hateful box of crayons.
Fortunately, however, with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation, the parents appealed Judge Carter’s chilling opinion. Last week, they won a major free speech victory before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In 1969, the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” However, since that iconic case, federal courts have often given short shrift to the free speech rights of students.
Teachers around the country have become notorious as speech commissars who bar expressions deemed divisive or intolerant. That often includes any conservative or religious speech.
An elementary school in Kansas came under fire recently after Arbor Creek Elementary Principal Melissa Snell stopped the wearing of shirts reading “Freedom,” which became popular after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
In another case, U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko ruled in Ohio that students could be barred from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” shirts — a coded political expression criticizing the media and former President Joe Biden. Other courts have also upheld such censorship by teachers, who claim that the expression is a substitute for a vulgar expression chanted by crowds (“F— Joe Biden”). But these shirts do not contain vulgarity. Rather, the expression is used as a defiant reference to the media bias that led to the original substitution of the words, allegedly to protect Biden — it is a “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.
In these cases, judges also wrote opinions upholding the arbitrary censorship of words by school administrators, who often show greater tolerance for progressive political expression.
In this case, however, the Ninth Circuit broke from these ranks in defending this little girl.
The panel (composed of Judges Consuelo Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee, and Roopali Desai and Ana de Alba, Biden appointees) ruled that just being in elementary school does not mean that B.B. has no meaningful free speech rights. A school, they found, “may restrict students’ speech only when the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the safety and well-being of its students.”
B.B. will now have the opportunity denied by Judge Carter: to prove that giving a friend a picture celebrating all lives is not a threat to “the safety and well-being” of the entire Viejo Elementary School. Ironically, the school has taught its students an invaluable lesson: They have the right to speak and should never allow others to silence them arbitrarily. This first-grader prevailed over administrators, teachers, lawyers, and a federal judge who saw little “downside” in censoring her.
I doubt it is a lesson that will take. Perhaps the girl, by now probably a middle schooler, should draw a picture of Principal Becerra, Judge Carter, and others holding hands with the expression, “We all can speak.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Turley has spent years hunting for ‘state rage’ in the faculty lounges of liberal universities, yet he seems to have developed a sudden, convenient case of cataracts when it comes to actual federal retaliation. He’ll write a 2,000-word eulogy for a child’s right to scrawl ‘Any Lives Matter’, but when the FCC starts using ‘public interest’ standards as a literal hit list for news organizations, Turley is nowhere to be found. It turns out free speech ‘absolutism’ is a lot easier to maintain when you only defend the speech that makes liberals and progressives look bad.
George/X has spent months/now years hunting for ‘unity of thought’ in the legal blogs of America’s citizens, yet he seems to have developed an inconvenient case of cataracts and comprehensionlessness when it comes to actual rejection of his comments. He’ll write a 200-word eulogy for any comment critical of Turley, but when the FCC (Fighting Cataracts Comprehensionlessness) and allows ‘public interest’ standards to permit response to George, especially from those who critique George on the merits, George is nowhere to be found.
It’s ironic, Lin: you’re cheering for a free speech win while acting like criticism of Turley is a federal offense. That retort was impressively thin—even for you. Maybe spend less time policing ‘opposing views’ and more time developing a coherent one of your own.
aw, wah wah crybaby always strikes out when someone hits target. try again X
You heard it here, X is against ‘public interest’.
sounds about right.
Everyone knows X is against ‘public interest’.
I’m confused. Just who is the child in this case? The principal, the offended parents, the District Court judge, or the first grade student?
You left out the whole corrupt teacher’s union.
Child abuse.
Hopefully this tragedy strengthens this girl’s sense of self.
As logical and legally sound this decision was, even with Dem appointed judges, does anyone here think that Katanji Brown Jackson, and probably Sotomayor, would not have upheld the rediculous District Court’s ruling? KBJ does not follow the Constitution, law or precedence, she only follows what she thinks (or should I say feels) is right due to her own world view.
If (when) the Democrats get a majority in the Senate with a sitting Democrat president they will end the filibuster (they came Sicema and Manchin away the last time) and pack the Court with 5 new Katanjo Brown Jackson legal minds. These are “legal minds” that have come out of our new Law Schools (new in ideology, like the “new” Harvard and the “new Yale) the ones that have been taken over by the deconstructionists. It is the same with J Schools and unbelievably even Med schools.
Is there a point in your screed?
Only for those that read AND comprehend.
That means you didn’t.
I see at least two or three points that hullbobby made.
I’ll make a fourth one: can the losing parents of little “M.C.” (who filed the initial complaint to the school) be trusted to explain the merits of the Ninth Circuit decision to their child, and allow their child to continue her friendship with little B.B.? Or will they carry that unfounded resentment (at losing) into raising a child to be like Katanji Brown Jackson or Sonia Sotomayor?
Lin,
Brilliant observation.
Brillant? Would you do the same if you were black?
Hullbobby, You aren’t upset that the law is being ignored; you’re just upset that, in this instance, it isn’t being used as a weapon for your side.
It’s remarkably silly to claim that ‘deconstructionist legal minds’ from ‘new Harvard’ are coming to destroy the Constitution when a Biden-appointed Harvard graduate just joined a unanimous opinion to protect this student’s speech.
A unanimous ruling is the ultimate kryptonite to your court-packing narrative; it proves the system worked exactly as intended, regardless of who appointed the judges. You’re forced to invent a hypothetical scenario where Justice Jackson ignores the law just to keep your grievance alive, even though the actual judges in this actual case did the opposite. You aren’t worried about the law being ‘deconstructed’; you’re just frustrated that a fair process functioned perfectly without your partisan interference.
“upset that, in this instance, it isn’t being used as a weapon for your side….” Well said. hullbooby and farmer have rage issues, attacking everyone who won’t kneel to them.
Na… just kidding, just a pair of old crazies, one a uneducated pig farmer with a homemade apple whiskey fixation and the other just a plain ole drunk who claims to be a lawyer. Have the comment where they admit such.
Considering that, its impossible for them to think beyond their god given limitations. Funny thing, they think they’re intellectuals.
This case is quite revealing. Black Lives Matter stokes “us vs. them” instincts based on superficial immutables. “All lives” counters those primitive instincts with a plea for universal humanity.
Research with infants has shown that “self-similarity preference” and ability to sense racial appearance differences doesn’t need to be taught, it’s inborn. A post-racialist intellect begins with acceptance of this reality, a legacy of 200,000 years of survival in migratory tribes. The “us vs. them” categorization instinct afflicts ALL human beings universally, and stalks us all throughout life.
Therefore, part of socialization in today’s world is beginning to quell those innate social instincts through learned impulse control. That’s not to say we shouldn’t make distinctions and discriminations based on how someone behaves — we have to in order to reward learning, responsibility-taking, and excellence. Being post-racial means being self-aware of our own ancient tribalistic social impulses, and not allowing them to affect our judgments.
This 6-year-old knew the Black Lives Matter narrative was as “us vs them” exercise in which she was being “othered”,
categorized as different and less important. She countered with holding hands (brotherhood) and equality (universal humanity). This show of post-racialism by a 6-year-old is very inspiring. She is a natural leader.
Well said and exactly the thinking we need to teach children. Yes, we are different: by sex, by race, by dispositions, by many characteristics. But, we can’t make those differences that are irrelevant to our humanity towards others be used for intolerance. Political speech, even among youngsters, should be an opportunity to help students learn that thoughtful understanding of others with different opinions is the first step to a civil society.
It’s also interesting how they change their tune (code-switching, i believe is the term), depending on the situation. When it’s Ukraine, Palestine, Iran, the trans, the queers, the illegals (especially the illegals), no life is illegal, all lives matter. But, when it’s a white person saying the same thing in a slightly different context (i.e. not someone of the cult), suddenly it is an affront to life, God (the democrat god of Moloch or whomever), and the very existence of the cult.
– a Lurker
Being part of an “in group” was a necessary evolutionary trait for survival, not merely a socialization urge.
For example, European settlers brought small pox with them to North America. Native Americans had never been exposed to it. After they were exposed, their immune systems offered little resistance. They experienced catastrophic loss of life. Had they remained isolated in their “in group”, they may never have been exposed to the disease.
Furthermore, as Jonathan Haidt has pointed out, we continue express “in group” preferences all of the time. We choose to join social clubs composed of people similar to us. NYC holds a Puerto Rican day parade every year. While nobody is excluded from attending, it’s geared toward people of Hispanic heritage. Society recognizes Black History month to celebrate black people. Homos get a month to celebrate their perversions, which are called “pride”. Again, nobody is excluded from any of these events, but they are meant to celebrate differences between humans.
You are far more likely to support your city’s professional sports teams, or the sports team of your high school or college alma mater, than any other team. We root for Americans in the Olympics, not athletes of foreign countries. Those are your “in groups”.
In group identification is how we evolved. It’s part of our nature. It’s not “bad”.
May we never forget Joe Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board.
Racism mixed with Fascism leads to punishing a student for daring to believe that ALL lives matter, even hers. Wow, imagine a child daring to believe her life matters. And imagine a school having to face a KKKindergartner in their midst. The parents who complained are the biggest racists in the whole story, and they taught a valuable lesson in intolerance to B.B., one that she will never forget, or forgive.
What struck me most in this case is not only the Ninth Circuit’s welcome correction, but the lesson in formation this first grader just received.
Before the adults descended, she did what healthy children and healthy citizens do: she heard a moral story, internalized it, and expressed an instinctive sense that “any life” matters in a simple drawing for a friend. She did not invoke a right; like breathing, speaking that way was just part of being human.Then came the awakening. Powerful adults informed her that this natural act of conscience was forbidden, that her words were “harassment,” and that her liberty to speak exists only at their sufferance.
That is very close to what happened to the founding generation. Under Britain’s long period of salutary neglect, colonists practiced self rule for decades until, after 1763, the Crown tried to rein them in and they discovered that what had been lived habit now had to be defended as a right. The tragedy is that eighteenth century British policy accidentally formed people fit for self government, while many twenty first century American schools now form children to be managed subjects, trained to assume that someone else will do the thinking and tell them which “rights” remain on offer.
You got any facts and sources to support any of that?
Yes.
how about the human condition, hundreds of years of psychological research, and history? Then again, it refutes your own narrow world-view, so this will go in one eye and out the other, leaving you with no recourse but to submit a snarky one-liner that does nothing but try to derail the conversation further.
Enjoy the 0.10$ per word you get from the dwindling USAID slush.
-Lurker
And your point is?
That it’s so easy to prove myself right.
-a Lurker
Come on olly, anon asked a question, afraid to answer it? You just wrote two anon comments attacking anon, but you won’t answer a simple – your point?
Oh, look!! Annony is so desperate, he has to fake he is TiT. But we all see though annony’s lame effort.
How marvelous!
Oh, look!! farmer is so desperate, he has to fake he is TiT. But we all see though annony’s lame effort.
How marvelous!
Mr. Olly,
I find it fascinating that there is a troll dedicated specifically to refuting you, no matter how quoted and referencial you are. It is honestly an interesting study case.
– long-time lurker, sometimes commenter
Oh look, it’s Olly the lurker. Funny he calls his alter ego – lurker.
Same IP olly.
You cannot see anyone’s IP address. You would need access to the WP back end and sysadmin privileges. Only Darren has those. Your ignorance is showing . . . again.
Upstate, I thought the hijacking of TiT’s name was the real tell. 😉
So you’re sayin an anon hijacked a tit meme? Thinking here, thinking it was you to blame someone else. Calm down.
WordPress Certified Administrator here. You are wrong. Accessing internet line data is easy with the right tools.
And I have been a WP admin too.
So, what tools would those be?
What is my IP right now?
What is my IP address now?
I live in a smaller rural community and I share IP with about five others, only two that I know.
Olly’s attempt to cast a first-grader as a colonial revolutionary is an imaginative stretch that collapses under the weight of its own history. Comparing a playground drawing to the Stamp Act isn’t legal analysis; it’s a category error.
The American colonists in 1763 were adults fighting for political sovereignty; a first-grader is a child in a compulsory environment where ‘being managed’ is the literal job description of the institution. By framing a child’s mimicry of a political slogan as a ‘natural act of conscience’ akin to breathing, Olly ignores that 18th-century ‘salutary neglect’ involved strict corporal punishment and zero legal rights for children.
The ‘tragedy’ isn’t that schools are forming ‘managed subjects’—it’s that Olly is using a romanticized myth of the 1700s to ignore the actual, modern state power being wielded today. He is deeply troubled by a principal’s overreach but is conspicuously silent as FCC Chairman Brendan Carr uses ‘public interest’ standards to threaten the licenses of the free press. If your ‘Age of Rage’ only triggers when the ‘Crown’ is a liberal school board, you aren’t defending a ‘lived habit’ of liberty—you’re just picking a side in a culture war.
Your response confirms you do not understand what historians mean by “salutary neglect” or why it matters for formation. The point is not that the 18th century was kind to children; it is that, over generations, British policy and practice left colonists to tax themselves, govern themselves locally, and participate in assemblies and juries long enough that those routines became a lived expectation of how free people are supposed to exist. That is what Taylor, Greene, Morgan, Greene and Pole, Harper, Miller, Holt, Middlekauff, Bailyn and others document: political independence in habit and practice long before anyone talked about independence in theory. My analogy runs to that structure. A child who speaks as if moral judgment is hers by nature and then discovers that distant authority claims the power to label that speech forbidden is experiencing the same basic collision between formation and control. You can disagree with the parallel, but waving it away as “romanticized myth” just advertises that you have not done the reading.
For the record, the claim I made in my earlier comment is not free‑floating opinion. It rests on standard works in the field that document how British policy and practice unintentionally formed colonists for self‑government long before 1763. The following sources, all discussed in Chapter I of my book Awakening a Forgotten Republic, lay out that formation story in detail:
Notes
1. Alan Taylor, American Colonies (New York: Viking, 2001), pp. 132–35.
Shows how British North American colonies matured into stable, self‑confident societies where local assemblies and institutions exercised real day‑to‑day governing power.
2. Jack P. Greene, The Constitutional Origins of the American Revolution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 18–23.
Explains that long‑standing colonial control over internal taxation and legislation was understood as a constitutional right grounded in custom, charters, and British practice.
3. Edmund S. Morgan, Inventing the People (New York: Norton, 1988), pp. 39–44.
Argues that regular elections, juries, and local consent “invented” the people as a governing presence and made representation and participation habitual long before independence.
4. Lawrence A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws (New York: Octagon Books, 1964), pp. 97–102.
Demonstrates that imperial trade laws were enforced loosely and pragmatically, so colonists became accustomed to wide practical autonomy in their economic life.
5. Jack P. Greene and J. R. Pole, eds., Colonial British America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), pp. 17–42.
Describes British America as a composite empire in which colonial assemblies, courts, and local bodies functioned as the real centers of power under a negotiated constitutional order.
6. Perry Miller, The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), pp. 223–27.
Shows how early losses of self‑rule, like the Massachusetts charter revocation, were felt as a profound breach of covenant and left a lasting memory of imperial betrayal.
7. J. C. Holt, Magna Carta (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 317–20.
Traces how Magna Carta became a symbol of ancient, inherited liberties and legal limits on sovereign power, shaping English and colonial expectations about constitutional restraint.
8. Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), pp. 85–91.
Reframes colonial development from Native perspectives, highlighting that colonial self‑government and expansion operated within a contested landscape of Indigenous autonomy and dispossession.
9. Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 25–28.
Identifies the post‑1763 shift as a rupture where British “reforms” collided with colonial expectations formed by decades of de facto self‑rule and weak central oversight.
10. Bernard Bailyn, Atlantic History: Concept and Contours (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), pp. 56–61.
Places colonial self‑government in a wider Atlantic system, showing that distance, mobility, and structural limits on metropolitan control made local autonomy the norm rather than the exception.
I am pleased by the 9th Circuit ruling and especially since it will set the precedent for the rest of the 9th Circuit. I am also pleased that the judges, appointed by different presidents, were able to agree on such an important right of speech. I think that is the most important result in this case since it implies that there are still legal questions and rights which disparate judges can agree on. This case has been in the news and I remember reading about it so it’s not new..
Hypersensitivity and over-reaction when some simple conversations between parents of 2 children and with the principal should have been sufficient. I suppose that is too much to ask for.
The children seemed to have been acting like reasonable adults but some of the adults, teachers, and principal were acting like spoiled brats,
Maybe the adults should stand in the corner and the children conduct the class.
To think that two unwitting racist black adults almost negatively affected the lives of some ca, 35 million public grammar school children of all colors.
What I see as most concerning is that the black parents made an issue about a white child’s drawing, that some see as harmless. So, the parents: ‘my husband and I do not trust the place ‘any life’ is coming from.” She did not want this to become a “larger issue” but asked Becerra to take the “actions that need to be taken to address the issue., ‘
Any life? So black parents wanted retribution against a white 6 year old. No matter what the consequences – white children are acceptable collateral damage.
Black fatigue anyone?
In his very last paragraph, Prof. Turley seems to be prescribing speech himself: now the girl “should” draw another, different picture.
This whole essay is redolent of sarcasm, replete with adjectives like “heinous” (I’ve been waiting to use this one myself), “outrage®ous”, “dethpicable [as Bugs Bunny would say]”, “hateful”. Let’s hope that girl never reads it.
The thing itself, her actual picture, speaks ten thousand words and is enough. https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/03/2021-including-phrase-life-drawing-123504386.jpg
“. . . now the girl ‘should’. . .”
And according to you, JT *should* use another, different word.
Not very self-aware, are you.
We can’t all be ignorantly perfect like you sam.
Prof. Turley can draw his own picture.
“Dethspicable” was Sylvester speaking.
Thanks for the correction!
“. . . impermissible harassment.” (Judge Carter)
Which is determined by emotionalist gibberish such as this:
“. . . I do not trust the place ‘any life’ is coming from.” (the complaining mother)
Good luck defending yourself from neurotics who speak in tongues.
This is the kicker for me and what eliminates all doubt we are dealing with regime creep: the ideological targeting of children. It cannot be framed as sane or healthy in any light or context whatsoever. This reinterpretation of civil rights by people who were not there or even alive then is quite concerning.
Yes, ideological targeting of children. I learned the Pledge of Allegiance in kindergarten. My teacher graciously noted that one little girl had permission from her parents not to say it, but the teacher would teach it to the rest of us. Now I’m an adult who votes and doesn’t obstruct ICE operations.
Another example of why we need to abolish “public” schools. Collect school taxes, give the money to parents in the form of school vouchers, and let the parents select the school.
Abolish public schools huh? Why, to keep people ignorantly? Respectfully… like you?
The point was not to abolish public schools but was intended to show how liberals have had a strangle hold on the freedom of parents to have their children attend the school of their choice.
No, the government union schools are doing that all on their own, just splendidly. Your grammar alone is proof. Most college grads could not pass a sixth grade exam from 100 years ago.
I believe they should be called “government” schools, not public schools.
Semantics then, is your rally cry?
Why not? That’s what you always resort to.
-a Lurker
In the world of the Left, age offers no protection—at either end of the spectrum. Whether you are six or ninety-six, the treatment is the same. Commit a single violation, and the machine comes for you; it will target your innocence, your livelihood, your family, and your reputation. In this new hierarchy, accusations of racism and “genderism” transcend even pedophilia—now frequently reframed as a mere illness. And don’t you dare critique “Drag Queen Story Hour.”
Don, you got kids in grammar school? Hopefully not, they would be infected with you biases.
We see you still have not mastered the use of “you, “your,” and “you’re.” Have you figured out “by,” “buy” and “bye” yet?
Would of, could of, should of.
If the two girls were friends, it would have been better for the black mom to talk directly with the white mom to try to understand the white girl’s intention. This could have been handled so much better.
If one party is black, there is no simple settlement. That is the USA we all live in.
Wrong! If one party is a black, victimhood-absessed neurotic….
You only hear about abnormal black people from media coverage. I’m speaking up for the millions of normal black Americans who don’t deserve to be represented (in your mind) by those crazies. Get to know a few personally and then you’ll start to see how the media has warped your perception of black Americans.
Reality is not what the media portrays. It’s what the media doesn’t cover. Don’t feel bad. It took me 60 years to realize this, and begin comparing my day-to-day direct experience with the trash being pushed on me from the media.
Speaking up? Folks, wanna bet this one is a liberal, purple haired, white female, aka birthing person? 60 years you say? Stupid or just blind?
“Abnormal black people”? Not some much offended she wrote “abnormal”, just that she didn’t capitalize Black.
Given the attitude and actions of the mother of African-American heritage, I think it unlikely any conversation would have been productive. As one poster here put it earlier: black fatigue.
“African-American heritage”? What happened to just “American”?
Black pride fatigue. It’s true that around 30-40% of black Americans cling to victimhood and excuses instead of responsibility-taking. But what about the 60-70% who are self-actualizing and non-neurotic? Do they deserve being lumped together with the losers based on having the same skin color?
You can tell commenters who have no black friends. They get all their impressions of black people from the media. The media ignores normal black people, just like they ignore everything normal, good and expected.
Purple hair is back. No black friends huh? How many “black friends” do you own? Are you saying Americans should state on this social media profiles how many they have?
What a ridiculous comment. What the little girl said is in plain English, like the 2nd Ammendment. Any mental illness issue is on the part of those taking offense
Another in a long, long line of great articles. I’m sure the professor knows, but will not write it, this is a victory over the lefts’ American fascism.
I think a greater lesson has been taught as well – that a non-racist child (a CHILD, for Pete’s sake) can be attacked for a friendly gesture and punished for it by these crazy, insane adults. Said child may very well learn the lesson that discrimination against whites is thriving in these institutions. That, if she hopes to remain free, she will have to fight back against those in authority who misuse this authority. I see it with my grandchildren already – they don’t go along with the trans thing, they behave in school and then relate the unfair acts once they get home and how they resent those in authority pushing this crap, and so on. Wait for it – these kids are the up-and-coming voters and activists. They won’t be so quick to jump on the faddish bandwagons. Their sense of justice and fair treatment has been stimulated by this sort of thing and they will fight back.
You have to consider that what the school system demands of its employees, complete obedience to DEI. Or else.
But the girl is a child, she won’t be unscathed by this. Which is good in a sense.
I wonder if MC and BB are still friends? Guessing – no. Not if those adults have anything to say about it.
Lastly, who paid for all that?
Pacific Legal Foundation represented BB and her parents, as Professor Turley noted in his commentary. US taxpayers pay the salaries of US judges.
Not complete. Who paid for the school? The district? How much.
Who paid for the school? Taxpayers.
phantomboldly5cb0d04b6f,
Not only the school, but the teachers salaries. All the more reason why there should be more transparency, parents choice.
I await a youth rebellion in favor of post-racial meritocracy and excellence in our schools and universities.
Racist teacher, racist principal, racist District Judge.
Racist everything? Ever stop to think that the district has policies e.g., blacks are a protected race.
Respectfully, you sound crazier than the teacher.
“Racist everything? ”
No just teacher, principle, and judge.
These is no such thing as a protected race – THAT is racist.
Respectfully, you sound crazier than the teacher.
Say, you are crazier than all of us. We all can’t be as gay as you.
And why, pray tell, should there be a ‘protected race’ policy in primary education? Haven’t we already passed, and constantly enforce laws where all races are equal? Kids should be learning about getting along with each other, the three R’s, and how to Human, not learning that some people are better than others merely because of melanin levels.
And don’t tell me we don’t have those laws. We have many non-white politicians, and even had a black president and VP (at different times)! It just so happens that black president spent every waking moment in the mindset you are in, where the black privilege card should be used constantly and forever, and it is never enough.
-a Lurker
blacks are a protected race?
Ummm no. They are not and that is insulting and you are a racist.
policies? you love policies even when they are obviously wrong?
You support this kind of child abuse?
little first-grade girl
______________________
This is nuts. The left has lost their minds. They think everythink is racist.
They project themselves on others.
Schools targeting children… get them while they’re young, bend them, break them, but they must obey.
Recess privileges denied too?
Yup, get where it hurts. Even 6 y/o’s.