ROP is the "Religion of Peace", ie. Islam.
Posted on 06/09/2008 7:53:17 PM PDT by rhema
Two controversies involving schools, kids and flags have made recent news in Minnesota. But the cases had radically different outcomes.
The first occurred in May at Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton Junior High. Four eighth-graders refused to stand while the rest of their class recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. The kids got one-day, in-school suspensions. But school officials lifted the suspensions immediately after the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota fired off a letter pronouncing that the First Amendment protected the students' conduct.
The ACLU's letter warned of dark consequences for school officials who had violated the eighth-graders' free-expression rights. Teachers could be sued personally. School authorities should apologize to students. The ACLU cited soaring language from First Amendment court cases: "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. ... The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
Let's turn now to the second incident, last week at Bloomington Kennedy High School. Three seniors arrived on the last day of school in trucks flying the Confederate flag. They said they were Dukes of Hazzard fans, celebrating the Southern lifestyle.
Kennedy officials suspended the students for three days, barring them from their graduation ceremony.
Again the ACLU weighed in -- but this time with a helpless shrug. Any challenge to the school's action would have a "very, very slim" chance of succeeding, the organization's leader told the Star Tribune.
Why was the sacred "right to differ" suddenly, well, gone with the wind? Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota, says courts have held the First Amendment doesn't protect student speech that is judged to be "a material disruption of the educational process." That means Kennedy officials can decide that "at this
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
The reasoning on display here opens the door to political correctness ruling the day. At Dilworth, the kids were disrespecting the flag and stiffing the establishment -- classic '60s New Left stuff -- so they get a halo. At Kennedy, on the other hand, NASCAR-type, Dukes of Hazzard kids get the ax, with the ACLU's whimpering acquiescence.
We have become a land of non-confrontational wussys. Not the land my father fought for on D-day. ;-(
It would be interesting to see if the ACLU would defend the students flying the Confederate flag if the students were claiming they were trying to make a political statement .
Junior high kids MUST conform to the rules of the school or anarchy will prevail. They probably think they are hot stuff for making the school back down.
The aclu is a bunch of commies who pick and choose their battles to further their cause of integrating socialism.
Any action that defends American values is uncontested.
So the ACLU does not defend the Constitution. They obstruct the Constitution.
Seems to be a race in this country between the ACLU and the ROP (not that there is much difference).
Good point.
What is ROP?
Day 1) Arrive at school in trucks flying rainbow flags. Say that you are Rosie O'Donnell fans, celebrating the homosexual lifestyle.
Day 2) Arrive at school in trucks flying the Confederate flag ...
"Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate."Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
Do you think that would cause any disruption at a public school these days?
Day 2, however, would be handled differently by the authorities. The ACLU would come back and condemn the exercise.
So what's the point of the example?
And why would you say that on Day 2, the ACLU would condemn it?
If students were to wave ranibow flags and promote a homosexual lifestyle, I don't think most schools be be upset and I don't think the ACLU would care at all. It's just kids exercising their free speech, and saying what they've been brainwashed to say.
But if the same kids, a day later, were to wave confederate flags and promote a southern lifestyle, I think the school would be upset and I think the ACLU would throw a fit. It's a hate crime. It's oppressive. It's incorrect thinking.
That's what I would expect because in my years of watching the ACLU it seems clear that they are not in the business of protecting free speech. They are in the business of protecting leftwing, anti-western civilization speech.
But I think that game gets harder to pull off if you juxtapose what IS protected with what is NOT protected, just two days apart.
Because by agreeing that it wouldn't cause a disruption, you have supported the ACLU's position. As the ACLU pointed out, the presence of the Confederate flags caused a disruption, allowing the school to legally take action--while with the Pledge case, the students weren't causing a disruption. Thus, the ACLU is able to justify the differing actions.
Day 1) Be lionized by faculty and administration.
Day 2) Be vilified by faculty and administration.
How can one organization so consistently get it backwards? Then again, I could be talking about the Democrats, Planned Parenthood, the Episcopal Church, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
I never do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.