The Bigsibling Blog

I…I…I’m completely speechless. Seriously. I don’t even know what to say to this…

A national tour featuring decorated veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan won’t be stopping at Forest Lake Area High School today as planned, after school leaders abruptly canceled the visit.

Steve Massey, the school principal, said the decision to cancel was prompted by concerns that the event was becoming political rather than educational and therefore was not suitable for a public school.

He said the school had received several phone calls from parents and others, some of whom indicated that they may stage a protest if the event took place.

"The event was structured to be an academic classroom discussion around military service. We thought we’d provide an opportunity for kids to learn about service in the context of our history classes," Massey said. "As the day progressed, it became clear that this was becoming a political event … which would be inappropriate in a public setting.

"We decided to cancel," Massey said. Organizers of the National Heroes Tour then scrambled to relocate the event to the American Legion building in Forest Lake. The visit, which U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, had been scheduled to attend, is sponsored by Vets for Freedom, a national organization run by Pete Hegseth, a 1999 graduate of Forest Lake Area High School who served with the 101st Airborne in Iraq in 2005-06.

"I think it’s extremely unfortunate that a school would bow to the political pressure of outside groups and not bring in a veterans organization," Hegseth said. "Are we saying that patriotism and duty and honor have no place in our public schools?" So far, the tour has visited one school, albeit a private school.

The stop in Forest Lake was supposed to involve about 150 social studies students and was going to be closed to the public but open to the media. But the last-minute venue change left Hegseth wondering how many people would actually show up today.

"I don’t know if we’ll have a crowd," he said. "We changed venues, but we don’t have the ability to publicize it." He said he had talked with school officials ahead of time and assured them that the presenters would not make any political statements.

Forest Lake event canceled; too political

###

Stumble it!

One bright morning in New Haven, Conn., little Mikey Sheridan heads off to school - he is in the eighth grade. Mikey is a good kid. A great student. He’s on the honor roll, he is class vice-president, and has never, ever had any disciplinary problems. Not so much as a detention. Yet, he was suspended from school for 3 days. Three whole days, and stripped of his position as class vice-president.

His offense seems like one of the most grotesque transgressions that a student can do. He bought candy from a fellow student. A bag of Skittles. And not, that isn’t some euphemism for some sort of illegal (oops) undocumented drugs. What he really bought was a bag of Skittles.

Seems Mikey was caught red-handed by some over-zealous ardent teacher when the Skittles were found in his pocket. What the teacher was doing in Michael’s pocket, I have not idea. Maybe pocket searches are a usual occurrence in New Haven gulags middle schools. After all, we can’t have candy in the school. It’s just bad bad bad stuff.

Granted, Michael, as the class VEEP should have known about the no candy policy. But 3 days suspension? For a bag of Skittles? Sheesh, I wonder what they would do for playing tag, or hugging in the hallway.

source

Technorati Tags: New Haven, Michael Sheridan, Stupid School Policies, Idiotic School Officials

Stumble it!

Paul T. “Pete” Palmer found himself in hot water with his Waxahachie High School principal. He is screaming First Amendment rights, and the principal is claiming dress code violation. For the record, here is the Waxahachie dress code where it pertains to shirts:

Shirts, Tops, and Blouses

• T-shirts, other than WISD clubs, organizations, sports, or spirit t-shirts, college or university t-shirts, or solid-colored t-shirts, are prohibited. Permitted t-shirts must have rounded necklines and sleeves or cap sleeves. The sleeves must be hemmed. Special t-shirt dress days will be scheduled throughout the school year. These special dress days must be approved by the campus principal.
• Polo-style shirts and shirts with collars are acceptable for boys and girls. Blouses or shirts with low-cut necklines are prohibited. Tank tops, spaghetti straps, and off-the shoulder shirts, blouses, or sweaters are prohibited. Shirts, blouses, and sweaters that show the torso when arms are raised above the head are prohibited. All polo style (knit) shirts and shirts with collars containing pictures or slogans that are provocative, offensive, sexual or suggestive in nature, vulgar, lewd, or obscene are prohibited. Alcohol and tobacco pictures or slogans are also prohibited.
• For girls, all un-tucked shirts, tops, and blouses may not extend below the middle of the thigh.
• All boys must tuck their shirts in their pants or shorts. If the pair of shorts or pants does not have belt loops, the student must still tuck in their shirt.

The problem come because Palmer wore a t-shirt supporting John Edwards for president. The principal says it violated the school’s dress code policy. He doesn’t think it did. The question is, does the dress code violate a student’s right to free speech. We have seen time and again, that the school administration can place limits on free speech in order to maintain an environment conducive to learning, in order to maintain order and prevent conflict and/or disruptions. Would a t-shirt promoting Edwards for president cause a disruption? Well, this is Texas, but even in Texas, probably not. However, I also tend to believe that schools have the right to set dress code policy. They have the right to dictate what students may and may not wear to class. This is nothing new and revolutionary.

As long as the administration enforces the code equally and fairly across the board, I don’t believe that Palmer’s right to free speech is infringed upon by making him follow the dress code that every other student must follow. The principal states that he is certainly allowed to wear pins or buttons which would allow him to show his support for Edwards. And the dress code clearly states the only approved t-shirts for for school clubs, sports teams etc.

The principal even goes so far as to recommend that Palmer start an official “students for Edwards” school club, which would allow him (and other members of the club) to wear the club t-shirts.

Personally, I think the dress code is very reasonable, and the principal is showing quite a bit of latitude by encouraging Palmer to start his own school club in support of Edwards. Students, I hope, will eventually learn that they can’t have everything they want, that they can’t do whatever they want whenever they want it. And this students father, who is an attorney, should realize this. His father says “‘This is who I support for president.’ He has a right to stick that on his shirt.” Which is true to an extent. But I have to wonder what the effect would be if the father wore a t-shirt to court. I maybe wrong, but I do believe attorneys are expected to hold to a certain standard when appearing in court. So while I fully agree with Palmer’s right to wear his shirt, there are times and places where somethings are appropriate, and times and places where they are not. According to the school dress code, the classroom is not an appropriate place to declare one’s support of political contenders via a t-shirt.

source

Technorati Tags: Waxahachie, John Edwards, Paul Palmer, Pete Palmer, WISD

Stumble it!

Stephen Murmer is was a teacher at Monacan Hight School over there in Richmond, VA. He also had a side job, or possibly more of a hobby, I don’t really know (or care). What he would do is smear paint on his buttocks, and roll around on a canvas. Thus creating his “butt-print art”. For this, he was fired, let go, nixed, axed, removed, given a pink slip. Now, for some reason, instead of enjoying his free days where he doesn’t have to deal with high school aged kids, he is suing the school district to get his job back.

The whole thing blew up when school administration viewed a video on that nefarious YouTube site in which Murmer, under the pseudonym of “Stan Murmur”, wearing nothing but an anal floss thong and groucho marks glasses, demonstrated how is fabulous art is created (it is also for sale at buttprintart.com). Hey, give the guy credit for at least wearing a crappy disguise.

Of course, Murmer and the ACLU (and believe you men, it pains me to be on the same side of anything as the ACLU) are screaming First Amendment violations, and rightfully so. Unless Murmer’s outside activities interfered with his ability to teach art (yeah, an art teacher - go figure), then merely painting with one’s buttocks should not be enough reason to remove him from his position. If though, as a result of his work, he has lost credibility and the confidence of the parents and/or students, then, and only then, should he be let go.

The school officials probably think they are only moving up the inevitable, after students and parents find out about his butt paintings, it is quite possible his effectiveness would diminish to the point of requiring his removal. But the school administrators are not GWB, and they cannot launch an pre-emptive strike on any teacher’s First Amendment rights.

source

Technorati Tags: Stephen Murmer, Monacan High School, Stan Murmur, butt-print art, buttprintart.com

Stumble it!

Given the every increasing nannyism of many college campuses lately, it is surprising and refreshing to see a university like Michigan State stand up and defend the principles of free speech. The university has a student group lurking around campus which calls itself “Young Americans for Freedom.” This group has been bringing in speaker who are against illegal aliens coming into this country. Staying in this country illegally and receiving benefits paid for by the taxpayers.

While this might seem like a reasonable enough position, there are those who disagree with it. That is where another student group calling themselves “Chicanos and Latinos United” comes into focus. The CLU students don’t like what the speakers sponsored by the YAF students are saying. They are crying that the speakers are engaging in hate speech.

Of course, instead of offering a different viewpoint (I suppose that would be to just do away with the border all together), they want the YAF speaker muzzled. Silenced. To not be able to express their views and opinions and ideas. Fortunately, the university has a pretty firm grasp on the meaning, and spirit of the First Amendment, and Free Speech in particular:

Terry Denbow, Vice President, University Relations: “It’s an open marketplace where when somebody says something you disagree with, you have the opportunity and the forum to challenge that.”

I will have to chastise the folks at WLNS channel 6 because of their slightly (probably an oversight, but not excusable regardless) biased slant to the story. Actually, most of the story is very unbiased, but they just had to include this:

They call themselves Chicanos and Latinos united, and they are focusing their attention on another student group called the Young Americans for Freedom. That organization has recently brought in a string of openly anti-immigrant speakers. The Hispanic students say they feel betrayed that the university isn’t stopping it. [emphasis mine]

The speakers, it would be admitted later in the story, are not anti-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigrant. That little seven letter word is oh so important in the discussion of our porous borders, yet is most often left out by the MSM, and especially by activists who want and work towards an open border policy. A policy whereby anyone can come and go at will. Regardless of who they are or what their purpose is. But that is a different topic altogether.

In the realm of free speech, America is sadly becoming more and more politically correct. There are now things classified as hate speech. Thirty years ago, someone would have laughed at the idea of a crime such as hate speech. But there are those who want laws enacted for this, who want people to be muzzled when they speak their mind, promoting an unpopular, or offending point of view.

There are those who believe (wrongly of course) that by legislating what people can and cannot say, they will be able to legislate away hate. That is not only misguided, but also quite ridiculous. I have to wonder, back in the day, when George, Benny and Tommy were speaking loud and proud about the evils of the Britons, how much of that, if uttered today, would be considered hate speech? I’m certain some of the discussions became very vitriolic. It seems that our founding fathers were nefarious hate mongers, just as the people who speak out in favor of this country, what is stands for, and especially the right to free speech, are accused of being today.

Even farther back, when Jesus was cruising around mocking the pharisees and telling everyone what posers they were - how much of what he said could be construed as hate speech today? Certainly the part about homosexuality being a sin would be construed as hate speech - although, that might have been his followers after he left, I’m not Biblical scholar, and I dont play one on TV (or on the Internet). And probably that whole “no one gets to heaven except through me” thing would alienate the Jews and the Pagans and probably a couple of dozen other groups (note: it would not have offended the Muslims, because the religion of Islam was not invented for another 500 years or so). I guess Jesus was just a radical hate monger like the people who spread his word today are accused of being.

Here’s the thing, and it has been said this before, and maybe if it is said enough people might be able to connect the dots and put things in perspective and see the light. When a line is drawn, that line will not remain static. Eventually who ever cried loudest to have that line drawn, will end up on the wrong side of the line. We should never forget the words of Martin Niemöller:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

One can insert virtually any group and add as many as they need, into this poem, and it will maintain its relevance, and its spine chilling message. Free speech cannot be limited. Speech must be allowed to be free. Free speech is like a wild animal that cannot survive in captivity.

Technorati Tags: Martin Niemöller, Free Speech, First Amendment, Michigan State Univerity, Young Americans for Freedom, Chicanos and Latinos United

Stumble it!

Everyone by now should know about David McSwane. He is the editor-in-chief of the student newspaper at Colorado State University up in Ft. Collins, CO. For those that don’t know, he is also the one who published an editorial in the newspaper which was four simple words “Tazer this, [unmentionable] Bush”.

This was, of course, in response to the tazering of a student in Florida who tried to ask Senator John Kerry un-agreeable questions in a question and answer forum. Forget for the moment that somehow President Bush is responsible for what happened to the Florida student who was asking questions of Sen. Kerry (I have been trying to figure that out, but somehow I just can’t connect the dots), and just focus on the editorial.

The CSU Board of Student Communications which oversees the newspaper is calling McSwane to the carpet. They feel he has violated the paper’s code of ethics, and are looking into firing him. McSwane, of course, is crying they are violating his First Amendment rights. Kids these days, they just don’t understand the term ‘ethics’, or ‘appropriateness’.

If McSwane were working for a real newspaper, in the real world, reporting real news, he would have been fired long before now. The editorial appears on 21 September, and here it is 30 September, a full nine days have passed and McSwane still has his job. In the real world, the Board of Directors or the owner of whatever paper he was working for would have sacked him the day it appeared.

This is just another in what is becoming a fairly long line of cases where students display poor judgment, then scream First Amendment when they are called on it. McSwane has to learn at some point in his life that decisions have consequences, and while he has a First Amendment right to say what he pleases, his employers have every right to can people who make the company look bad.

His unethical, immature use of foul language in a newspaper should not be tolerated if the newspaper wants to retain any credibility as a reporter of real news. That might be okay in a tabloid type paper, or something akin the Lampoon of Harvard, but not an official school newspaper.

source

Technorati Tags: David McSwane, Colorado State University, Tazer This, Free Speech, First Amendment

Stumble it!

Well, not really. It was an exercise, a pay at Bishop Flaget school in Chillicothe, Ohio. For those not in the know, this is Constitution Week - celebrating the drafting of the Constitution 225 years ago on 17 September. The students put on plays which describe what they believe life would be like without our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The plays centered on the First Amendment (because, let’s face it, that is the most important one - at least in my opinion).

Frank Robertson/Gazette

A seventh-grader is arrested for praying by officers portrayed by students during a student play Monday morning at Bishop Flaget. The students were depicting what could possibly happen without first amendment rights.

source

Technorati Tags: Bishop Flaget, Ohio, First Amendment, Play, Exercise

Stumble it!

I reported on Avery Doninger’s troubles with her high school here and here. In what I am certain to Ms. Doninger, is a surprising revelation US district court judge Mark Kravitz does not believe there is a “substantial likelihood that Doninger would win her case….” Doninger was asking for a court order injunction against the school, and allowing her to serve as student council secretary.

A quick background on this case:
Avery Doninger was student body secretary at her school. The principal made a decision she did not agree with. She then went to her blog and wrote that the principal, and other admins were ‘douchbags’ [sic]. The principal removed her from the position, and forbade her to run for any student council office in the future. Doninger, of course, cried foul, and is currently suing the school and principal.

My belief is that the judge is correct. Doninger’s legal team is saying that her freedom of speech has been violated, that she wrote her blog on her own time, using her own computer, and not during, or at school, therefore, the precedent of limiting high school student’s free speech set forth by SCOTUS et al. should not be applied.

Anyone who reads this site regularly knows I am all about freedom of speech. In addition, I am all about freedom of speech without exceptions. But they should also realize that I am not about anything (free speech or otherwise) without consequences. For every thing we do, there are consequences. Some of them are negative, some are positive. Doninger engaged in uncivil and inappropriate behavior. One could easily say it was “behavior unbecoming of a student council secretary” and anyone would be hard pressed to disagree with that statement.

No doubt, her corageous words of wit and wisdom gained her some notoriety among her fellow classmates. That is the positive consequence experienced by her actions. The negative consequence is that the school felt that 1) she needs to learn how to spell the insults she hurls and 2) she needs to learn that as student council secretary, she represents the school everywhere she goes and in everything she does it is a 24/7 position. That the verbal attack on the principal is not proper behavior for a student council secretary.

If I were the principal, I would not only have removed her from her position, but would have remanded her to remedial spelling class as well.

source

Technorati Tags: Avery Doninger, Karissa Niehoff, Lewis Mills High School, Free Speech, Civility, Mark Kravitz

Stumble it!

Some people just don’t know when to quit. Case in point is Mr. Joseph Frederick. Joe is from Juneau, Alaska. Back in 2002 the students Juneau-Douglas High School stepped outside to witness a fairly rare, and unique event. The Olympic Torch was passing through that little city in the Last Frontier. Joe, being a wiseacre (and possible pot-head) that one can reasonably presume him to be, created and displayed a banner which read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

The banner was, in any reasonable sense, inappropriate, and rather sophomoric. Which is to be expected. These were high school students after all. The principle of the school viewed the banner as promoting the use of illegal drugs (for those not in the know, a ‘bong’ is someone one uses for ingesting marijuana). She confiscated the banner and suspended Joe for ten days for promoting drug use amongst the students.

For the past five years this thing has been floating around the courts. Finally the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the school. But ol’ Joe just doesn’t want to give up, and the case is going back to court. Not happy with his fifteen minutes of fame, he wants more. It seems to me this is a fellow who has been so spoiled that when he doesn’t get his way, he throws a fit. So now he is suing for damages. Damages? WTF? Damages? What damages? How was this guy damaged by the principal removing the banner? This is ridiculous and certainly I am certain that the good hard working tax payers of Juneau and Alaska really appreciate this spoiled little brat wasting the tax dollars in this manner.

Oh, this quote is a pretty good one, Doug Mertz, Joe’s attorney said the school district “continues to deny that students have free speech on serious matters.” Serious matters? Taking bong hits? How serious can that be? I could see their point if they were exposing something about the school board, if they were being silenced because their point of view would embarrass or expose the misdeeds of some official. But bong hits…serious? Puh-leeeze.

Of course, during the case Joe’s lawyer loaded his lip with the good story that the banner wasn’t about drugs or bong hits or Jesus (all three of which are verboten in public schools), but was ‘political speech’ - a protest in favor of student’s free speech rights. Yeah, right.

This guy, I am certain, will have a tough time in the future finding a good, lasting job. There are things we do which follow us the rest of our lives, especially with the Internet now, where things just don’t seem to ever go away. Some future employer is going to Google this guy, and come up with his little spoiled brat tirade. His actions here show a lot about what kind of person he is.

What I see from Joe’s actions is, he pulled a prank and got caught. Instead of taking his punishment like a man, he cries and whines about it and then tries to sue the punisher. When he loses that, he tries to sue more. He simply can’t take it that he doesn’t get his way. There is a great difference between fighting the good fight, and persevering through tough times, and fighting a battle that should never have been fought in the first place, and continuing to fight that battle after it has been lost just because it didn’t go your way.

But I have to wonder. I have to wonder how would this whole thing have unfolded if his banner had read “Bong Hits 4 Mohammad”. I wonder if the principal would have let him keep his sign for fear of offending the Muslims. The world may never know….

source

Technorati Tags: Joseph Frederick, Bong Hits 4 Jesus, Juneau-Douglas High School, Free Speech, First Amendment, Students

Stumble it!

In an update to a post I made here regarding Miss Avery Doninger and the problems she is facing for calling her high school administrators “douchbags” [sic] on her blog. The civil trial between Miss Doninger and the Lewis Mills High School is under way, and I have to say, the school admins are screwing this one up. I thought they had a good chance to win this thing, but their recent actions are like something out of a Monty Python skit, only without the funny.

The school officials, in June, placed a reprimand in Doninger’s file for an incident which took place in April. That seems fishy of the extreme. Also it is learned that some students, at the student elections assembly, sported t-shirts which read “Team Avery, LMS students support free speech”, and Lewis Mills High School Principal Karissa Niehoff would not allow the students into the assembly wearing the shirts. This is bad on Neihoff’s part. While I fully support Niehoff’s attempt at teaching the disrespectful and foul-mouthed student a lesson in civility, she went a bit far on that one.

Maybe it is time that Niehoff learn a lesson in free speech as well.

source

Technorati Tags: Avery Doninger, Karissa Niehoff, Lewis Mills High School, Free Speech, Civility

Stumble it!

« Previous entries