Gainesville High School Students' Racist YouTube Rant Forces Girls To Leave School

[Texashiker]

It's ironic that on one hand, you have people saying "there's no discipline in the schools, the kids are out of control." And on the other hand, you have statements like this. 😛

Disciple should be limited to while the student is in school.

But for some reason the control freak teachers and administrators want to disciple students for what the students do on their own time.

 

[Subyman]

The outrage is pretty funny. Like people have never been on Xbox live before. Kids said much worse stuff daily at my school. I think it is funny how certain incidents are picked out of the swarm of filth for everyone to condemn, then pat themselves on the back before burying their head in the sand awaiting the next viral outrage.

 

[highland145]

It is the logical outgrowth of parents expecting the public school system to act as de facto day care facilities.

Amen.

 

[Riparian]

There have been numerous cases where the courts have upheld the right of schools to discipline students for actions taken outside of school. Most (all?) of the summaries have pointed that the school was able to show a disruption or very reasonable fear of a disruption. For years, every month, they toss pamphlets filled with recent court decisions into our faculty room at school. Finding educational law to be fascinating, I've read every one of them from cover to cover (to to mention grad classes in educational law.)

Also, it should be pointed out that even teachers lose their first amendment rights at the door. (As is generally the case at the workplace.) Just at a quick glance, here's one: http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com...ourt_teachers_first_amendment_rights.html.csp

Like I said, I haven't read into that many cases about this subject other than the more famous ones. My only contention is that the off-campus events did not involve a fundamental right like the First Amendment. I'm not sure if you have more examples of where the school applied disciplinary actions against disruptive student speech that occurred off-campus.

To play devil's advocate a bit here, if we play on another clause in the First Amendment, would it be ok for a school to suspend a student for being Muslim during the height of 9/11 paranoia because it would cause disruption in the school? It seems the very principal in Tinker is a bit flawed in that student speech is so easily trumped by a standard like "disruption."

Yeah, but look more closely at the majority opinion in the Morse case you mention (2007). There, the Court said it was OK to suspend a student for holding up a banner that said "Bong hits 4 Jesus" across the street from the school (off school grounds) because it "promoted illegal drug use." Pretty bad ruling IMO. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" LOL he should have gotten a medal.

Clarence Thomas is terrible on civil rights, in general. The worst in the Court by far.

I was not too surprised at that ruling mainly because it felt like the Court was deciding based upon purely ideological lines. I maintain, though, that even in that case, the student may have been off-campus but was attending a school supervised event. So even if the decision was based on ideology, it does not entirely disregard the principals from Tinker. It's arguable that his sign could cause a disruption of the school's drug policies.

I only brought up Clarence Thomas as a comical notation. Nothing is quite as funny to me as a textualist that reads the First Amendment's clause that states, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," and then goes on to explain that there should be no freedom of speech for minor students. Didn't realize the First Amendment actually reads, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech except for minor students who shall have no rights." Maybe that policy was hidden in a footnote somewhere in the BoR. As an aside, I am borderline against even Justice Holmes interpretation of the First Amendment from Schenck v. United States with his analogy of yelling fire to cause a false panic.

 

[Oyeve]

Everyone is racist. We are all racist. All animals are racist. Insects are racist. If you are alive, you are racist.

 

[Munky]

My faith in the people of the United States is improving. These dopey girls got what they deserved, ostracized and ridiculed. The less tolerance we show for this kind of stuff the more the nation will be the better for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/gainesville-high-school-s_n_1290929.html

I find your lack of tolerance disturbing... and hypocritical.

 

[Riparian]

Yes, I am.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the girls, you have to uphold their right to speak.

Who gets to determine if something is racist? You, me, the government? Whats next, we burn books from the 1700s and 1800s that talk about slavery? Do we censor the bible? Do we censor the Koran?

I do uphold their right to speak. I say they should speak away as much as they want to but people have every right to ostracize these girls. Ostracizing these girls for what they have said is "intolerant" in the most literal definition of the word but we all know that what people are complaining about is their racially based remarks. As you will see in my other posts, I am all for pretty much unfettered free speech rights but that does not mean society cannot have an opinion about what these girls have said.

I have noticed in other threads that you are quite fervent on your stance about the wrongs of abortion. Who gets to determine what is wrong? You, me, the government? Everyone can have opinions and everyone will be evaluated based upon those opinions.

 

[HomerJS]

Yes, I am.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the girls, you have to uphold their right to speak.

Who gets to determine if something is racist? You, me, the government? Whats next, we burn books from the 1700s and 1800s that talk about slavery? Do we censor the bible? Do we censor the Koran?

I completely support their right to speak. Just as much as I support the public's right to respond to them exercising their right. Obviously at their age they have no concept of the resonsibility that comes with that right. It will do them some good to learn this lesson now rather then 6-7 years from now.

 

[Triumph]

Schools have a right to discipline students for off campus activities outside of school hours too. At least in California they do. Get into a fight off campus a mile from school and an hour after school ends, you can be expelled.

if true that is some bullshit. i understand maybe a private school has the right to expel students as they see fit because you are there voluntarily, but not public school. despite what they think, they do not own you.

 

[Linflas]

I completely support their right to speak. Just as much as I support the public's right to respond to them exercising their right. Obviously at their age they have no concept of the resonsibility that comes with that right. It will do them some good to learn this lesson now rather then 6-7 years from now.

So basically we will impose political orthodoxy by the mob? That is what you are advocating distilled down to the base essence. Would you be as supportive if these girls had posted some pro OWS type screed on youtube and their peers made them feel so threatened at school that they were forced to withdraw or does this standard only apply in situations where you feel the mob has "right" on their side?

 

[HomerJS]

Bad analogy. OWS people are not a race. That is a political debate.

People are free to their opinions about race but when you present yourself in a public forum (youtube) and fire before aiming that public forum can/will respond.

There was a way to get their point across by maybe focusing on "ignorant/uneducated" people w/o ranting on ni**ers. Kind of a common sense thing. Don't know why this is such a blind spot with people.

 

[Mursilis]

I completely support their right to speak. Just as much as I support the public's right to respond to them exercising their right. Obviously at their age they have no concept of the resonsibility that comes with that right. It will do them some good to learn this lesson now rather then 6-7 years from now.

People aren't just responding with "Those statements are ignorant", which would be fine with me. People are responding with death threats. You'd have to be pretty hardcore in your First Amendment viewpoint to think there's a right to make death threats.

 

[yllus]

How much must it suck to be the larger girl in the back who's clearly the sidekick? It's one thing to attain infamy on your own, but as a clinger-on to a racist? That's just sad.

 

[HomerJS]

People aren't just responding with "Those statements are ignorant", which would be fine with me. People are responding with death threats. You'd have to be pretty hardcore in your First Amendment viewpoint to think there's a right to make death threats.

Yes there are a lot of stupid people. Death threats happen for a lot less then this. Not condoning violence but I do condone the public outrage.

 

[werepossum]

So the families got death threats in response to something extremely stupid two teenage girls (not exactly a group known for well-considered actions) posted on youtube, and your faith in the US is improving? I agree that the comments were offensive, but death threats? Sounds like something that might happen in some Middle Eastern country.

This. Although anyone who would record racist comments and post the video on Youtube needs to leave school and find one requiring her to wear a helmet while riding the nice compact bus to it.

If you can't do smart, you can at least be nice.

 

[werepossum]

Like I said, I haven't read into that many cases about this subject other than the more famous ones. My only contention is that the off-campus events did not involve a fundamental right like the First Amendment. I'm not sure if you have more examples of where the school applied disciplinary actions against disruptive student speech that occurred off-campus.

To play devil's advocate a bit here, if we play on another clause in the First Amendment, would it be ok for a school to suspend a student for being Muslim during the height of 9/11 paranoia because it would cause disruption in the school? It seems the very principal in Tinker is a bit flawed in that student speech is so easily trumped by a standard like "disruption."



I was not too surprised at that ruling mainly because it felt like the Court was deciding based upon purely ideological lines. I maintain, though, that even in that case, the student may have been off-campus but was attending a school supervised event. So even if the decision was based on ideology, it does not entirely disregard the principals from Tinker. It's arguable that his sign could cause a disruption of the school's drug policies.

I only brought up Clarence Thomas as a comical notation. Nothing is quite as funny to me as a textualist that reads the First Amendment's clause that states, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," and then goes on to explain that there should be no freedom of speech for minor students. Didn't realize the First Amendment actually reads, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech except for minor students who shall have no rights." Maybe that policy was hidden in a footnote somewhere in the BoR. As an aside, I am borderline against even Justice Holmes interpretation of the First Amendment from Schenck v. United States with his analogy of yelling fire to cause a false panic.

Big difference between freedom of speech and freedom from consequences. They aren't being imprisoned, merely invited to not attend normal school. You know, school for people who aren't total douche bags.

Children should be seen and not heard anyway. And preferably not seen.

 

[Riparian]

Big difference between freedom of speech and freedom from consequences. They aren't being imprisoned, merely invited to not attend normal school. You know, school for people who aren't total douche bags.

Children should be seen and not heard anyway. And preferably not seen.

Not exactly sure which part of my statement you are addressing but in the context of freedom of speech and freedom from consequences, the general point of freedom of speech is that there cannot be enforced consequences by the government. The general public is more than welcome to ostracize, criticize, praise, etc. whatever someone has to say but the government is specifically prohibited from creating those consequences for exercising those free speech rights. While these kids are douches, it does not mean a public school should be allowed to remove them for off-campus speech activities.

 

[shortylickens]

Big difference between freedom of speech and freedom from consequences.

Agree 100 percent. Way too many Americans these days seem to think freedom means do whatever the hell you want and nothing bad happens.

But thats a rant for another time.

 

[Texashiker]

I do uphold their right to speak. I say they should speak away as much as they want to but people have every right to ostracize these girls.

Well said.

I have noticed in other threads that you are quite fervent on your stance about the wrongs of abortion. Who gets to determine what is wrong? You, me, the government? Everyone can have opinions and everyone will be evaluated based upon those opinions.

What is right and wrong is determined by the opinion of the majority.

 

[Riparian]

Well said.



What is right and wrong is determined by the opinion of the majority.

As far as I can tell, we pretty much agree on this issue. In the same light, it's the opinion of the majority that will determine whether what these girls did is considered racist and outside of the inappropriate threats of physical harm, the majority has made its opinion clear.