Should a school be allowed to ban a Confederate flag decal on a student's truck?

Great Debates
121

It’s a thorny issue. I don’t believe it’s necessarily a threat, or a signal of racism, or any of the other black-and-white views about the flag that inevitably get spouted. It can be, of course, but so can damn near anything else in this old world.

And I agree with regulating what kids can and can’t wear into the school building, or in any other school-related situation where people are going to be closely together for extended times and everyone will be able to see your shirt, hat, banner, whatever. I don’t like it, but sometimes practical concerns have to trump ideals.

A bumper sticker in the parking lot, though, I don’t know that there’s a lot of practicality to banning it. I mean, it’s out there in the parking lot all day, while the students are, presumably, in the freaking school. Someone might see it for a minute or two coming in or out in the morning, but it’s not even remotely similar to the sort of exposure they’d have if the kid was wearing it on a shirt in the building with them all day.

As for the possibility of threats, intimidation, or violence…if this kid is going to threaten, intimidate, or attack black students, he’ll do that no matter where his vehicle is parked, no matter what decals are or aren’t on it. If black students are going to threaten, intimidate, or attack him because of his purported racism, they’re going to do that no matter where his vehicle is parked, no matter what decals are or aren’t on it.

So right now I’m not really seeing any practical advantage to banning this bumper sticker from the parking lot, certainly not anything strong enough to trump freedom of speech. I reserve the right to re-evaluate if further relevant specifics come up, like a history of racial violence in the school parking lot, or kids being able to mill about the lot during the school day, or…well, you get the picture.

122

When I was in high school - 5 years ago - black guys and white guys rode together in the back of pickup trucks - trucks with “Rebel” flags on the back. There was one football player with a huge red Dodge truck, the rear glass completely covered with a Confederate mural. One of his best friends - and I mean, real best friends - was a black guy. I don’t think he had much of a problem with it. These guys all played football together, they all partied together. The black contingent and the farm-boy element mixed freely together, Confederate flags and all.

Again, this was five years ago, not in the 1970s. (In the 70s film Stay Hungry, with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the gym that both black and white guys work out at has a huge Confederate flag on one of the walls, and not a word is said about it - it’s just there. Just like the Confederate flag on the wall in Animal House. It’s not racist, it’s just a flag.)

123

The Supreme Court has ruled that no such right exists.

I didn’t say they don’t have any, but it’s a matter of established jurisprudence that the school can restrict it under certain circumstances. It’s also not arbitrary. There are delineated parameters for it. And it’s not because they’re under 18, but because the students, regardless of age, don’t have a right to disrupt the mission of school. They have no more right to wear swastikas in school if they’re over 18 than if they’re under.

The question isn’t about what I support, the question is about what schools have a right to do, and if those shirts are going to be disruptive or inflammatory in the future, then, under current case law, schools would have the right to restrict them.

To take this to another extreme, do you think that schools have the right to tell kids not to say “fuck” in a classroom? If your answer is yes, then you agree that the school can restrict free speech.

124

Correct - speech may only be banned if it is disruptive to the educational mission of the school. And the burden of proof remains with the school, to show that bumper stickers in the parking lot disrupt the educational mission of the school.

The usual dodge is to say that any speech I don’t like necessarily implies violence. Thus black armbands = funerals = death = implied death threats against anyone I don’t like. Flag burning = threats of violence against the Constitution of the US. National Day of Silence in high school = advocating sex with minors. Head scarves = support for terrorist Islam. And so on.

Sure it is - that’s what political correctness turns out to be.

Students do not shed their Constitutional rights to freedom of expression at the school house gate, as the Supreme Court famously remarked in 1969. But “free speech for me, but not for thee” is too tempting a mantra to be forgone for long.

Regards,
Shodan

125

Not true. The school only has to believe it has the potential to be disruptive (this was established in Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

There’s no dodge. The school has a right to restrict anything disruptive to its mission.

No it isn’t. Read the thread title. The question in the thread title has a factual answer. The answer is yes. I already said far upthread that I personally would not restrict a sticker on a car in the parking lot, but that doesn’t mean it’s not within the school’s discretion. As a matter of legal fact, they have a right to do it.

According to the Supreme Court, yes they do.

This alleged double-standard exists only in your imagination.

126

…did you even read the thread? Several left-wingers are arguing that this should be allowed, including me.

127

During segretation, lots of Black people rode in the back of buses, attended inferior schools, used separate washrooms and drinking fountains… and didn’t say anything about it. Clearly, segretation wasn’t an issue! :rolleyes:

128

According to the Supreme Court, no they don’t - that is a direct quote from a Supreme Court decision. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Regards,
Shodan

129

(Bolding mine.)

I respectfully disagree.

I think there was a “state’s rights” issue at hand as well, but it is overshadowed by far by the slavery issue nowadays.

The South saw the influence of the more populated Northern states (which translates into political power in the House of Representitives) slowly eroding at the viability of the Southern slave based economy (and political power) in favor of themselves (that is, the Northern states).

Tariff of Abominations - Wikipedia & Nullification crisis - Wikipedia

One of the issues, for example, was whether or not a state must be forced to accept a Federal Tariff. Or, in other words, how strong of a central Federal government do we want? (Similar to the somewhat recent discussions we had here on how an International treaty signed by the State Department is binding on all of the states. Texas pops into mind here.)

The Federal government did not set Emancipation as a goal/demand until well after the shooting started.

To recap, the US Civil War seems to be a struggle for regional political and economic power, and Federal power over the States, with slavery being a major way to differentiate between the parties involved.

If slavery was not in the picture, I still believe that a war may have been fought over the growing imbalance of political power, and of the power of the central government. (Like most other civil wars seem to be about.)

RE the flag: (I grew up in Massachusetts.)

In the 70’s, the flag was about the “spirit of individualism and independence” (like on the Dukes of Hazard), but since then the flag has become much more closely identified with White Supremacy. So the laxness in the restrictions on this symbol in the 70’s does not reflect that the situation has changed.

The public school system everywhere is charged with ensuring that the students and faculty have a safe enviornment to work in, and they have the right to ban assembly or speech if it can be proven that that is what is needed to achieve this, but it outta be a high bar to prove, IMO. While I don’t know the school in question (was there recent racial tensions?), I am sceptical that a bumper sticker is such a threat to safety. I don’t wish to provide a way for someone to restrict free speech solely on the basis that they personally disagree with.

130

You need to update yourself. The Supreme Court just ruled a couple of months ago that schools can restrict speech.

131

This always happens in GD for some reason, and I can’t be the only one frustrated by it. The OP asks “Should something or other happen?”, and somebody always comes in and says “Well, according to such and such clause of such and such law, it is perfectly legal”. Well no shit. This would be in GQ if it was a question specifically about the letter of the law. It is a question of what you think is right, moral, correct, whatever, and your reasons for thinking so.

Do you agree that speech and expression should be restricted whenever it is convenient to do so? Or is it just in this case? Or are you just playing devil’s advocate? Please state your reasons.

I said before that disrupting a lecture is one thing that can be restricted, because without a somewhat orderly classroom you don’t have school, just Romper Room. I’ll give the school a little leeway in deciding when and where to allow free vocal expression. To deny it outright, however, is a travesty.

It IS wrong to ban speech outside of the classroom, say in the lunch room or the hallway. For that matter it is wrong to ban “fuck” in the classroom as long as the student raised their hand and didn’t interfere with the lecture. Like I said before, it isn’t the ideas, it’s the time and place that should be discouraged. It IS wrong to ban articles of clothing for any reason except legal indecency, whether they have a Budweiser logo or not. And it is definitely wrong to ban bumper stickers of any kind from the cars in the parking lot. In short, it is wrong to ban ideas, period.

132

Or this?

Not sure what your point here is. Is anything with a St. Andrews Cross on it supposed to be a reference to the Confederacy?

133

Oh come on, LP. Those state flags all post-date the Confederacy and obviously reference the design elements of the Confederate battle flag. That the Confederate battle flag was in turn based on St. Andrew’s Cross doesn’t change that. (Or do you mean to seriously suggest that no reference to the Confederate flag was intended by the designers of the state flags?)

134

If it comes from a state that was in the Confederacy, it’s not an unreasonable assumption.

135

That’s actually St. Patrick’s Cross, if I am not mistaken. The St. Andrews Cross is white on a blue field, like on David Coulthard’s helmet.

136

Totally. Allow me to quote a prominent left-wing thinker:
“A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment , restrict student speech at a school event.”

Note the dissent from the right wing:
“In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students.”

More Pinkos supporting the restriction of student free speech. Stupid lefties. Why can’t they be more like conservatives?

137

Nevermind.

138

Yep. Next step is to withhold all Federal funds until those “states” stop glorifying racism.

139

The right wing and the left wing are equally bad in their hypocrisy regarding the First Amendment and their supposed support of it. For the right wing, they claim to be for free speech until something that’s sexual comes along; for the left wing, they claim to be for free speech until something “racist” or otherwise insulting towards minorities comes along. In either case they’re hypocrites.

140

But there were no regional blocs without slavery. Minnesota (1860 pop. 172,023) showed no resentment of or desire to wrest political power from Pennsylvania (pop. 2,906,215). The only power blocs were slave states vs. free states–Texas and Maine had roughly equal populations at that time, but Texas stood with populous Virginia while Maine was squarely in the same camp as Pennsylvania and Massachussets. The thing uniting Virginia (pop. 1,596,318; 5th most populous state in the Union) with Florida (pop. 140,424; 31 out of 33 states in population) was slavery. The secessionists in 1860 barely mentioned tariffs; what they did talk about, over and over again, was slavery–about fugitive slave laws, and about the expansion of slavery into new territories in particular. It was the expansion of slavery that threatened the balance of power–between slave states and free states, which was the balance of power that everyone cared about–not tariffs or anything else.

(None of this means we should ban the symbols of the Confederacy; which is both wrong and counterproductive. We just need to do a better job of teaching people the facts; if we can do that, then only the hardcore who genuinely sympathize with the Confederacy’s worldview will even want to display its flag.)