National Anthem controversy extending to schools

[Czarcasm]

34 schools in Louisiana have been told that athletes must stand for the anthem.

Trump’s remarks only emboldened players to unite in the protest. Last weekend, the majority of NFL teams saw players taking a knee during the national anthem. In a recent HuffPost/YouGov survey, 48 percent of Americans said they know the protests are about police brutality, not disrespecting the flag.
And yet more than 30 schools in Louisiana, ranging from elementary to high school, have been told students are expected to stand. It’s an issue that smells of lawsuits, with the ACLU already adamant that they will fight any school unwilling to let students express their First Amendment rights.

The ACLU has responded with this tweet, “The Supreme Court ruled that students don’t have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance—that goes for the national anthem on the ballfield too.”

1. Is what the ACLU said true?
2. How do you stand on this issue of telling kids in school that they MUST stand?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

1. Yes, what the ACLU said is true: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. The Court’s 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed “beyond the reach of majorities and officials.”

2. I don’t like it.

[Ravenman]

Yes, the ACLU’s tweet is correct:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

(The article also has a picture of kids doing what would now be considered a provocative salute to the flag.)

The idea of compelling kids to do symbolic things like this does not sit well with me. The harm of a child not standing, saluting, reciting, or otherwise participating in these things is really zero. I’m sure the vast majority of kids overall will either join these activities without thinking about it, or will do so because they think it is the right thing to do. If some don’t, nobody else’s patriotism is harmed in any way.

[Bone]

My two personal favorites from the Barnette decision:

*To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.*

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Here’s some recent relevant news items:

Florida: Teacher told 6-year-old student to stand for Pledge, mother says he was stripped of rights - this was posted yesterday, btw

Texas: Texas students told ‘It’s the law’ to stand for Pledge of Allegiance - this was posted 6 days ago

[John_Mace]

Is there a difference for the athletes? Can a school say: Stand for the anthem, or you’re cut from the squad.

[Ravenman]

By the way, I just read the story about the previous Supreme Court case in which they ruled nearly unanimously that students could be compelled to stand for the Pledge. It’s shocking.

Days after that decision was announced, there were several incidents of senseless violence… against Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were on the losing side of the case! What a disgrace. Patriotism, my ass.

[Ravenman]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Here’s some recent relevant news items:

Florida: Teacher told 6-year-old student to stand for Pledge, mother says he was stripped of rights - this was posted yesterday, btw

Texas: Texas students told ‘It’s the law’ to stand for Pledge of Allegiance - this was posted 6 days ago

On the other side of the ledger…

A kid walked into a GameStop wearing a Kaepernick jersey. Two NFL players...

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Ravenman

On the other side of the ledger…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2017/09/28/a-kid-walked-into-a-gamestop-wearing-a-colin-kaepernick-jersey-two-nfl-players-bought-him-an-xbox/

While I love the reporting at the Washington Post, I don’t love their “Pay us or democracy dies” business model. This model has led to them blocking browsers after 1 visit.

Please, everyone, if you’re going to link to the Washington Post, at least indicate what you’re linking to with a descriptor of some kind, as in the OP or in post #5. If you could quote some relevant text that would be great also.

[Ravenman]

Ah, I have a subscription and didn’t know they were that aggressive. Here’s the short version:

Kid is in a mall and runs to his mom in another store, saying some guy wants to buy him an Xbox. Mom gets alarmed, thinking it’s some pedophile deal. She goes with her son to the GameStop, and it’s two Washington Redskin players who overheard the kid saying he was saving up for the Xbox, and the clincher was that the kid was wearing a Kaepernick jersey.

There’s a nice photo of the two ballplayers with the kid and the Xbox they bought him.

[TroutMan]

@John_Mace

Is there a difference for the athletes? Can a school say: Stand for the anthem, or you’re cut from the squad.

No. Another relevant case is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969).

@Supreme Court

The principle of these cases is not confined to the supervised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom … A student’s rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others. The constitutional right at issue is freedom of expression, not that of participation in extracurricular activities. That there is no constitutional right to participate in athletics or other extracurricular activities may be pertinent to an analysis of other sorts of constitutional claims, such as a Due Process claim, a Privileges and Immunities claim, or an Equal Protection claim, but not to a freedom of expression claim. What this means is that a student cannot be punished with a ban from extracurricular activities for non-disruptive speech.

See here for a good discussion on schools limits when it comes to athletes.

[John_Mace]

@TroutMan

No. Another relevant case is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969).

See here for a good discussion on schools limits when it comes to athletes.

Much thanks!!

[k9bfriender]

@John_Mace

Is there a difference for the athletes? Can a school say: Stand for the anthem, or you’re cut from the squad.

I hope not. Government institutions shouldn’t be compelling speech and expression on the part of students, whether it is a punishment for disobeying or a reward for acquiescing.

@Ravenman

On the other side of the ledger…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2017/09/28/a-kid-walked-into-a-gamestop-wearing-a-colin-kaepernick-jersey-two-nfl-players-bought-him-an-xbox/

That story kinda made my day, thanks.

I assume they won’t be buying an x-box for the guy that got the jerseys in order to tape them on the ground in front of his bar.

[Okrahoma]

@TroutMan

No. Another relevant case is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969).

See here for a good discussion on schools limits when it comes to athletes.

Very nice. But schools can ban displays of US flag. So I guess all it takes is threats of violence over national anthem protests, and schools can ban them as well?

[Czarcasm]

Is there any support online for the theory that this restriction could possibly be legal? A glance through the net is yielding nothing so far.

[Czarcasm]

BBC News article from yesterday gives a pretty good account of the overall situation.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Ravenman

Ah, I have a subscription and didn’t know they were that aggressive. Here’s the short version:

Kid is in a mall and runs to his mom in another store, saying some guy wants to buy him an Xbox. Mom gets alarmed, thinking it’s some pedophile deal. She goes with her son to the GameStop, and it’s two Washington Redskin players who overheard the kid saying he was saving up for the Xbox, and the clincher was that the kid was wearing a Kaepernick jersey.

There’s a nice photo of the two ballplayers with the kid and the Xbox they bought him.

Many thanks.

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

Very nice. But schools can ban displays of US flag. So I guess all it takes is threats of violence over national anthem protests, and schools can ban them as well?

Do you even read the links you post?

The panel held that school officials did not violate the students rights to freedom of expression, due process,or equal protection.
The panel held given the history of prior events at the school, including an altercation on campus, it was reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real.
The panel held that school officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances.

Are you advocating threats of violence as a way of controlling speech?

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

Do you even read the links you post?

Are you advocating threats of violence as a way of controlling speech?

The court decision clearly affirmed that threats of violence are a way of controlling speech.

Would you approve of NFL banning the “take a knee” thing if there were threats of violence?

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

The court decision clearly affirmed that threats of violence are a way of controlling speech.

Not as a way, as a reason.
Are you looking for an excuse? I thought you were against Antifa’s tactics.