My reading of the incident from this page is that the principal put the teacher on leave because the principal wanted the flags of China and Mexico (specifically cited) to be removed, and the teacher refused. Which means it’s not even the stupid law that’s at fault, but the stupid xenophobia of the principal that’s to blame. What kind of a moron does it take to have their sense of nationalism/patriotism/whatever threatened by the sight of a piece of cloth?
I suspect that it was tied to the flag burning rule in the same section of law. I also think that they actually tried to exclude the classroom from the law, though the whole “temporary vs. permanent” thing muddied the waters. What flag is ever truly displayed permanently? Ten seconds and a pair of scissors is all it takes to take a flag down. Even a mural can be undone in 10 minutes with paint roller.
I see a law like this as a clear attempt to restrict political expression. If I want to protest at city hall, and bring along a flag I would be in violation of this law, and would be subject to imprisonment. There’s no classroom exception for this. If any person flies a flag on government property that’s not one of the approved flags, they are in violation of this law. Of course, nobody would DARE attempt to enforce the law, not with that flag, at least. If you’re some stupid hippie, or a dirty foreigner carrying the wrong flag, promoting the wrong message, watch out!
I’d say the principal had better watch his back lest the Martinets’ Union starts picketing outside the school gates for bringing its members into disrepute.
As a teacher and reading through the comments (as well as some of the other threads on the dope) I count myself lucky that I do not have to live under what appear to be the extremely oppresive and stupid laws of the USA. As an outsider looking in it often seems as if the USA is one of the more conservative countries out there and not the great bastion of freedom as it would like to portray itself.
Agreed! I mean, we count ourselves lucky that you don’t live here too.
That’s pretty much the way I read it. To think otherwise would be to attribute stupidity to the Legislature that may not be warranted…yet.
But of course! 
It was a perfectly fine country until the conservatives got their grubby mitts on it…
Hard to argue with that. 1861 was a pretty shitty year.
In this, personally, I’d have to include the Democrats, who are a great deal further to the right even of our own Conservative Party.
The law clearly does address the quesiton of schools; there is, after all, this section in it:
So the folks designing the law anticipated this sort of misreading, and went out of their way to make it clear that they weren’t talking about schools.
The principal’s reading of the law was unambiguously wrong; that shouldn’t be debated by anyone who has read the law carefully.
Daniel
On rereading those several posts, I’m unclear, mhendo, whether you’re suggesting that the principal’s reading is defensible. If that’s not what you’re saying, my apologies.
Daniel
No, i’m completely in agreement with you about this: the law was intended to make an exception in the case of schools, and the principal fucked up.
I was merely questioning silenus’s contention that “the law says nothing about a classroom.”
It was more a problem with my phrasing than it was of **mhendo’**s understanding and position.
Okay, sorry–I think I read them too quickly on the first go-round.
Daniel
Two questions spring to mind here:
-
Why is there even a law about this on the books?
-
How could flying the flag of another country be considered “disloyal”? If we live in a democratic society, don’t we have the right to be disloyal if we so choose?
Ok, flying the Nazi Swastika in a Jewish neighbourhood could be seen as disturbing the peace- but, as another poster pointed out, there are already laws on the books covering disturbances of the peace.
Since everything is offensive to someone, perhaps they should ban the flying of the US Flag since it might offend Southerners, and the flag of Colorado might offend Native Americans…
Hmmm… would be interesting to know whether the law as it stands is one passed relatively recently in close to its present form, or if it built upon amendments to an older statute originating in WW1 or WW2 days, a time when folks were seriously hysterical about “loyalty” and found nothing contradictory about it.
Not necessarily. Depending on the contract, refusing to do what a principal tells you to do may not be insubordination if it relates to academic freedom re: implementing a curriculum as long as the teacher is not violating the law. Notice that the principal (erroneously) based the leave on the teacher violating Colorado’s flag laws.
Good thing he didn’t display the French flag or he would be facing charges of treason.