Posted on Sep 28, 2020
Student Told To Leave Virtual High School Class Unless He Removed Trump Flag Behind Him | The...
1.08K
34
19
8
8
0
So much for the First Amendment.
Student Told To Leave Virtual High School Class Unless He Removed Trump Flag Behind Him | The...
Posted from dailywire.com
Donald Trump
Education
Politics
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
Has nothing to do with first amendment. You would have a holy cow if your child walked into a classroom and saw support the candidate you oppose on the wall. Same thing they are in school so treat it as such.
Just take it down or change rooms and get on with.
Just take it down or change rooms and get on with.
(4)
(0)
SSG Robert Ricci
Good morning, MSgt. I respect your opinion but purely from a legal standpoint I am going to politely disagree with you.
Because students maintain certain constitutional rights to free expression when they are in a public school, their decisions about their appearance are, to some extent, protected as well. The Supreme Court case I'm about to cite deals with wearing clothing. But in a virtual education world there is no difference between what an individual is wearing versus what is on the wall of their private residence. To be seen is to be seen. The legal principle remains the same. If they were at school and it could be seen on their clothing, it is no different than seeing it on a wall of a virtual classroom.
In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines, one of the most well-known student rights’ cases considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that students had a constitutional right to wear black armbands to school to protest the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Since then, courts have continued to hold that students generally have a right to express political views through their clothing. This can include, for example, wearing clothing that endorses or criticizes a politician or, as in more recent cases wearing t-shirts concerning gay rights.
The bottom line is that the teacher was wrong. Based on Tinker V Des Moines the teacher violated the constitutional rights of the student. The ruling could not be more clear.
Schools these days like to think that students are just going to acquiesce to their demands. Since I'm a father of four and my oldest just turned 18 and graduated, I'm quite well in tune with "requirements" of the school district. When it comes to clothing the school district may moderate morality to a certain extent, which I disagree with because I believe it's my responsibility to moderate what my child wears to school (and I'm less forgiving,) and because the schools don't think that parents are going to say anything, they get away with it.
Paradoxically, teachers seem to believe it's their right to indoctrinate students to their way of thinking. It's either all or it's nothing.
I would not allow my child to participate in a particular class in history that involved participation in a nationwide program that had been created in Chicago by an extreme left-wing, progressive professor. It took me as an IT professional less than 5 minutes to find a complete list of their left-wing, progressive non-profit backers.
The school district tried to convince me that there was no political framework but it was clear by the organization's attached to the online training that that was a false statement on its face. My daughter took another class instead. Schools believe they have the absolute right to control what students think and they demonstrate it regularly. They do so however in contradiction to both codified law and case law rulings.
There's an old expression that I think you probably know. "If we stand for nothing, we will fall for anything." I have taught my children to be aware of their constitutional rights and not to be afraid to speak up for them. But not in a manner that we see in Portland or Seattle or Chicago or Louisville or name any other Democrat State that's are having riots. No, I've taught my children that there's a right way and a wrong way.
In this example there's no functional difference between wearing a t-shirt supporting President Trump for having a sign behind him in his bedroom. It still remains his constitutional right.
Thank you for your message.
Because students maintain certain constitutional rights to free expression when they are in a public school, their decisions about their appearance are, to some extent, protected as well. The Supreme Court case I'm about to cite deals with wearing clothing. But in a virtual education world there is no difference between what an individual is wearing versus what is on the wall of their private residence. To be seen is to be seen. The legal principle remains the same. If they were at school and it could be seen on their clothing, it is no different than seeing it on a wall of a virtual classroom.
In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines, one of the most well-known student rights’ cases considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that students had a constitutional right to wear black armbands to school to protest the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Since then, courts have continued to hold that students generally have a right to express political views through their clothing. This can include, for example, wearing clothing that endorses or criticizes a politician or, as in more recent cases wearing t-shirts concerning gay rights.
The bottom line is that the teacher was wrong. Based on Tinker V Des Moines the teacher violated the constitutional rights of the student. The ruling could not be more clear.
Schools these days like to think that students are just going to acquiesce to their demands. Since I'm a father of four and my oldest just turned 18 and graduated, I'm quite well in tune with "requirements" of the school district. When it comes to clothing the school district may moderate morality to a certain extent, which I disagree with because I believe it's my responsibility to moderate what my child wears to school (and I'm less forgiving,) and because the schools don't think that parents are going to say anything, they get away with it.
Paradoxically, teachers seem to believe it's their right to indoctrinate students to their way of thinking. It's either all or it's nothing.
I would not allow my child to participate in a particular class in history that involved participation in a nationwide program that had been created in Chicago by an extreme left-wing, progressive professor. It took me as an IT professional less than 5 minutes to find a complete list of their left-wing, progressive non-profit backers.
The school district tried to convince me that there was no political framework but it was clear by the organization's attached to the online training that that was a false statement on its face. My daughter took another class instead. Schools believe they have the absolute right to control what students think and they demonstrate it regularly. They do so however in contradiction to both codified law and case law rulings.
There's an old expression that I think you probably know. "If we stand for nothing, we will fall for anything." I have taught my children to be aware of their constitutional rights and not to be afraid to speak up for them. But not in a manner that we see in Portland or Seattle or Chicago or Louisville or name any other Democrat State that's are having riots. No, I've taught my children that there's a right way and a wrong way.
In this example there's no functional difference between wearing a t-shirt supporting President Trump for having a sign behind him in his bedroom. It still remains his constitutional right.
Thank you for your message.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
No. It is his room and he should NOT remove anything nor change rooms. They allowed posters in the the school of BLM. But a kid cant have something in his room? Get over it.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Ricci
MSgt (Join to see) I agree with you as well as your direct point that students can put up BLM posters but they can't put up Trump posters. Both involve politics. But that's not even the issue given the case law the Tinker v Des Moines. The Supreme Court has already ruled fit students have a First Amendment right to free speech. Once you introduce the fact that they're in their own home the school district isn't just skidding on Ice, they're going through it.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SGT Edward Wilcox
SSG Robert Ricci - I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you on what is and is not Communism, Marxism, or fascism. I encourage you to look them up and get a better understanding of each. When you can show that have done that, then we can have a discussion or debate. If it takes a 'personal' attack to get you to do that, then you're welcome.
If you had actually read my comment, you would have seen that I agreed that the teacher was out of line. I don't support the suppression of ideas and opinions any more than you do. The only place we differed was that I put some of the responsibility on the student. Notice, I did not bring politics into the conversation, you did. And when you did, you got it completely wrong. I called you out on being wrong. And in response, you doubled done on being wrong. Educate yourself, then come talk to me.
If you had actually read my comment, you would have seen that I agreed that the teacher was out of line. I don't support the suppression of ideas and opinions any more than you do. The only place we differed was that I put some of the responsibility on the student. Notice, I did not bring politics into the conversation, you did. And when you did, you got it completely wrong. I called you out on being wrong. And in response, you doubled done on being wrong. Educate yourself, then come talk to me.
(2)
(1)
SSG Robert Ricci
SGT Edward Wilcox for a board-level repair Tech your level of vitriol an absolute contempt and what could have been a normal discussion next question who you think you are. Hear clear air of superiority really doesn't phase me. The Striking part is that you have gone out of your way to be disrespectful. Most adults know that one can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. You chose to be disagreeable.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google