sad Days for america

[DangerBoy]

This is getting funny now. You have intentionally twisted what I wrote. You are not being ridiculed for being against flag burning. I specifically showed why and you've changed what I wrote and now argued against something you've written.

Here's the quote with Woodruff's intentional dishonest spin.

all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

Because you emotionally jumped all over the kids by stating that they "annoyed the hell out of you" and that they "pissed you off" for wearing the flag as part of their clothing.

So that causes everyone to attack my person? Really...that's all it takes to set you folks off...my dislike of disrespect for the flag? My God, if I start talking about how I hate flag-burning, that should really set everyone off frothing at the mouth.

Notice my post said nothing about being angry over Woodruff's dislike of disrespect for the flag. He then goes on to make an illogical leap by claiming that if he started talking about how he hates flag-burning, that it would really set everyone off frothing at the mouth.

Very sad, Woodruff. And you're the one always complaining about how people don't properly read your posts.

You then proceeded to judge them by saying that they were "frankly trying to instigate trouble". You said this with absolutely no evidence.

Absolutely no evidence? Really? None at all, you say?

Another intentional deflection by Woodruff. I specifically said that he was judging them without any evidence. If he had some, he would have presented it. However, he judged them in his opening post without presenting a single citation.

The fact that they'd never worn that type of clothing previously, and decided to do so on Cinco de Mayo is "absolutely no evidence" in your mind?

A jump to conclusions without reading the end of my post. There was an interview with the mothers of 2 of the boys. They both claimed their sons had worn the clothing previously. Unless Woodruff has specific evidence that they are lying, this is another pathetic deflection.

You then built upon that accusation by claiming that they were trying to "incite violence". You had absolutely no evidence to back this up. You then attempted to leave yourself some wiggle room by saying that if they had worn these clothes before it changed the situation. But that was all AFTER you had already judged them in your second paragraph.

So what you're saying is that my entire post is irrelevant, simply because you didn't like the first part of it?

Once again, an intentional misquote or dodge by Woodruff. Not once in my post did I claim that his entire post was irrelevant. The fact is Woodruff presented no evidence of intention to incite violence by the students mentioned in this story. However, he judged that as their motivation. Page 1 of this thread bears this out.

I just saw an interview with mothers of 2 of the boys. The kids wore the clothing previously on other school days.

That goes counter to all the other witnesses, from everything I've read on the situation. I'm not saying they're lying necessarily, but it's certainly possible that the parents may be understandably falling on the side of their children in this. Don't you think that's a reasonable possibility?

This is about the only honest point Woodruff has made. It is a reasonable point. The parents could be taking the side of their kids. The other students could also be falling on the side against the kids. Why would you automatically assume their testimony is more authentic than the parents?

You've made another poor attempt at trying to twist what I and other people have written and argue against something you've projected onto them. It is dishonest and quite frankly needs to be pointed out.

[bradleybadly]

some people can admit when they were wrong.

and then we have Woody.

[Woodruff]

This is getting funny now. You have intentionally twisted what I wrote. You are not being ridiculed for being against flag burning.

I didn't twist anything, nor did I say I was being ridiculed for being against flag burning...you are the one attempting to twist what I wrote.

I specifically showed why and you've changed what I wrote and now argued against something you've written.

What? I didn't change what you wrote at all...I directly quoted you. Please provide exactly how I changed what you wrote. You may begin now.

Here's the quote with Woodruff's intentional dishonest spin.

all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

Because you emotionally jumped all over the kids by stating that they "annoyed the hell out of you" and that they "pissed you off" for wearing the flag as part of their clothing.

So that causes everyone to attack my person? Really...that's all it takes to set you folks off...my dislike of disrespect for the flag? My God, if I start talking about how I hate flag-burning, that should really set everyone off frothing at the mouth.

Notice my post said nothing about being angry over Woodruff's dislike of disrespect for the flag. He then goes on to make an illogical leap by claiming that if he started talking about how he hates flag-burning, that it would really set everyone off frothing at the mouth.

You specifically responded with a reference to my "emotionally jumping all over the kids" by stating my feelings about wearing the flag as part of their clothing as being the reason for people attacking my person. I took that example one step further and precisely along the same lines.

You then proceeded to judge them by saying that they were "frankly trying to instigate trouble". You said this with absolutely no evidence.

Absolutely no evidence? Really? None at all, you say?

Another intentional deflection by Woodruff. I specifically said that he was judging them without any evidence. If he had some, he would have presented it. However, he judged them in his opening post without presenting a single citation.

There's no deflection here. The evidence has been plainly stated by me in this thread several times. In fact, I stated it again immediately following what you've quoted above, and yet you're trying to characterize me as not having presented any evidence.

The fact that they'd never worn that type of clothing previously, and decided to do so on Cinco de Mayo is "absolutely no evidence" in your mind?

A jump to conclusions without reading the end of my post. There was an interview with the mothers of 2 of the boys. They both claimed their sons had worn the clothing previously. Unless Woodruff has specific evidence that they are lying, this is another pathetic deflection.

I've already addressed this. You do understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof", right?

You then built upon that accusation by claiming that they were trying to "incite violence". You had absolutely no evidence to back this up. You then attempted to leave yourself some wiggle room by saying that if they had worn these clothes before it changed the situation. But that was all AFTER you had already judged them in your second paragraph.

So what you're saying is that my entire post is irrelevant, simply because you didn't like the first part of it?

Once again, an intentional misquote or dodge by Woodruff. Not once in my post did I claim that his entire post was irrelevant. The fact is Woodruff presented no evidence of intention to incite violence by the students mentioned in this story. However, he judged that as their motivation. Page 1 of this thread bears this out.

And yet, I did present evidence, so yes you are claiming that my post was irrelevant.

I just saw an interview with mothers of 2 of the boys. The kids wore the clothing previously on other school days.

That goes counter to all the other witnesses, from everything I've read on the situation. I'm not saying they're lying necessarily, but it's certainly possible that the parents may be understandably falling on the side of their children in this. Don't you think that's a reasonable possibility?

This is about the only honest point Woodruff has made. It is a reasonable point. The parents could be taking the side of their kids. The other students could also be falling on the side against the kids. Why would you automatically assume their testimony is more authentic than the parents?

I don't. Up to the point that you stated it, I'd not heard anything about the mothers making any such claim. In fact, I took you on your word that they said it...I haven't seen it anywhere. However, up to that point, I HAD absolutely seen where other students made their statements.

You've made another poor attempt at trying to twist what I and other people have written and argue against something you've projected onto them. It is dishonest and quite frankly needs to be pointed out.

I haven't done any such thing, but you are clearly making a rather poor smear attempt here. You are clearly not trying to discuss the issue with any sort of honesty, and simply want to use this as a bully pulpit to continue to attempt to attack me. Are you going to try to discuss the issue honestly, or do you want to just continue to play this tapdance of lies against me?

Now...do you think you can talk about the situation for a change, instead of talking about me? Yet again, you folks are the ones making this about me...not me. It's really quite ridiculous.

[Woodruff]

some people can admit when they were wrong.

and then we have Woody.

I've admitted to being wrong in these fora more often than you as well, bradley. Guaranteed.

[targetman377]

Woodruff...How can you continue to side withe the principles decision and claim that it was within his authoritative right to do so as a "judgment call", when the district already publicly stated that the principles decision was outside of the established rules for these types of situations?

If you'll read all of my posts, you will have seen that I stated that the school's principal, in making that judgement call, was certainly under the potential for retraction/reprimand by his superiors...that's what judgement calls are all about. My point is that the principal is right in making a judgement call...whether it is that one in particular or not. I support his authority in doing so...it's a definite part of his job. That has been my position from the beginning.

I further have stated that I certainly can understand his reasons for coming to the conclusion/taking the action that he did. I have EVEN STATED THAT I CONSIDERED THE TURNING INSIDE-OUT OF THE T-SHIRTS TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO THE FLAG. But all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

woodruff. i have herd you i do understand that the Principal made a judgment call and he felt it was in the best dissicon of the school to send them home. i agree with everything you have said. including his side i understand his reasoning however i do not agree with it at all.

[Woodruff]

woodruff. i have herd you i do understand that the Principal made a judgment call and he felt it was in the best dissicon of the school to send them home. i agree with everything you have said. including his side i understand his reasoning however i do not agree with it at all.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I respect it.

[jay_a2j]

some people can admit when they were wrong.

and then we have Woody.

I've admitted to being wrong more often in these fora than you have, Jay. Guaranteed.

Well, that's only because you are wrong a lot more than I.

[Woodruff]

some people can admit when they were wrong.

and then we have Woody.

I've admitted to being wrong more often in these fora than you have, Jay. Guaranteed.

Well, that's only because you are wrong a lot more than I.

Sure, Jay...sure. <grin>

[Army of GOD]

some people can admit when they were wrong.

and then we have Woody.

I've admitted to being wrong more often in these fora than you have, Jay. Guaranteed.

Well, that's only because you are wrong a lot more than I.

I hope you meant to inject all of that irony in that sentence.

[BigBallinStalin]

Past three pages were hate, anger, and fire.

What were y'all arguing about?

[Phatscotty]

The community has left me no choice. I must activate the auto-lock feature.

[Borderdawg]

Yo, Woody, on many things, I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with you.
However, you are so far out of line here, I suggest you quit commenting.
At this point, you can only hurt yourself. The asshole (assistant?) principal was so far out of line it isn't funny. And quit asking people for sources. It's easy to find, get off your ass and look! I've found the emails for boden and martinez, the principal and asst. principal, and shot off an email to both of them, and the super of schools, Dr. Wesley Smith. You want info, go find it, don't whine at other people to find it for you. Oh, and FYI, I have teens in school, a school that is 98% Mexican. Oh, and I am also a vet, and I don't have a problem with flag t-shirts.
In fact, way back in the early 80s, me and some amigos of mine rode up on a protest in Dallas. They were about to burn a flag.We stole a line from an old Junkyard Gentry song. We took the flag away from them, pointed to our shirts with the flag displayed, and said, ya wanna burn a flag, burn this one you cunt!! Guess what, not a soul took us up on it!! Now, the ACLU and la raza frowned on it, but they both ran away, as did the rest of the pussies! Like I say Woody, you need to think about what you say. you are starting to sound like the bastard offspring of sultana and player!!

[silvanricky]

How about you try discussing the issue, silvanricky? So far in this thread, you haven't even tried to - ALL you've done is directly attack me. Or perhaps you've overlooked that...why is that, silvanricky? As you say...you can't have it both ways. But I'm sure it's all my fault that you haven't tried discussing the issue, right silvanricky?

Hell, I was directly attacked with the following: "You're more of a disgusting individual than I originally thought. f*ck you, Woodruff." for simply making a very basic statement that didn't carry this "sheer arrogance" that you're speaking of. How do you figure that one, silvanricky? You actually think I was baiting and trolling there, silvanricky?

Damn, you keep calling out my name as if you're being knocked up during a one night stand!

You jumped all over those students without any proof. That was hardly a very basic statement. If anything, it was a very basic, judgmental accusation without any credible evidence against those students.

I will admit that people, myself included, have been a little rough on you. That's probably been built up from other threads where you fall back upon this template of yours where you accuse people who disagree with not being as intelligent as you. The fact that so many people here are trying to directly get you to knock it off should ring a bell in your head. Instead of being the tiniest bit humble, you continue regurgitating your sarcastic soundbites. I mean, we usually all disagree with each other, but the one thing we're unified about is how annoying you are with this sanctimonious tripe.

As to this issue: Yeah, you came out strongly against the students who wore the flag. They have a first amendment right to wear those clothes. You disregarded that, and immediately launched into how you were certain that their motivations were to stir up trouble. Without providing any proof, you spouted off against them and sided with the administration, who attempted to bully them. First Amendment trumps any futile attempt by you or any other to articulate some lame, backhanded attempt to demonize your fellow citizens who express their patriotism and love for our country.

[jay_a2j]

The community has left me no choice. I must activate the auto-lock feature.

How dare you display the American Flag on Ocho de Mayo!!!!!!!!


(Apparently we are to cease being Americans on the 5th of may.)

[b.k. barunt]

Anyone who knows me knows that i have no love for the American flag. Anyone who knows me knows that i bear no ill will towards Mexicans. I have an adopted Mexican niece, my son's wife is part Mexican and so my grandchildren will also be part Mexican. I bear the illegals no ill will as i'd be doing the same in their shoes. However . . .

This situation really chaps my ass. The protests of the illegals who're making royal jackasses out of themselves are a good reason to start hating Mexicans , and most of all the pussywhipped PC American faggots who're bending over to take it all meekly up the ass are pushing me very close to the edge. These wankers left their country because Mexico is a shithole that's not a fit place to live because of corruption that makes ours look nonexistent. Now instead of embracing their new country for the better life that it's given them they want to stir shit. f*ck me running. Remember the Alamo goddamnit!


Honibaz

[Woodruff]

As to this issue: Yeah, you came out strongly against the students who wore the flag. They have a first amendment right to wear those clothes. You disregarded that

I didn't disregard that. I said I hated that they did it (again, similarly to how I hate flag-burning). I didn't say they should be stopped SOLELY for wearing them, despite my personal feelings on the subject (just as flag-burning simply cannot be stopped, despite my personal feelings on the subject. As I've pointed out the U.S. Flag Code is not law of the nature that has any sort of disciplinary repercussions.

and immediately launched into how you were certain that their motivations were to stir up trouble.

This I certainly did do, and I stand by it. You say I didn't provide any proof, which is certainly true but who could provide PROOF of such a thing? Motivations cannot be proven. There absolutely is some evidence for it, which I have detailed.

Again, from the beginning, my position has been to support the school administration in this situation because I believe they know the environment within that school far better than I or any of the rest of us do. The school administration has a duty to protect their students and IF their reason for taking the action they did was to protect the students, then it may be an appropriate action in that light while still not falling within agreement with how the school district views the action. In other words, their intentions could have been proper but the actions (as deemed by their superiors) not been...which is largely how I see this coming out.

You keep talking about the First Amendment, but you do realize that the First Amendment has been supported by our court system as not applying in many ways to the school system, right? I'm not saying it doesn't apply in this particular case, because there is no need to challenge it due to the school district coming out against the action, but there are many cases where it does not (school uniforms, for instance) and which would seem to support the administration taking action of some nature if it were to have been supported by the school district.

[Woodruff]

The protests of the illegals who're making royal jackasses out of themselves are a good reason to start hating Mexicans

Many of those protesters really are making royal jackasses out of themselves, and I'd sure like to see a lot more of the violent protesters arrested than have been (from what I've seen). And unfortunately, I think that what you say may come to be seen as a reasonable reaction by many people (start hating Mexicans or Hispanics).

[DangerBoy]

Unfortunately Woodruff, I've received a private message from the mods for this thread. It's not a warning, but they don't want this thing to escalate because they want to avoid locking it down.

That being said, I believe I've outlined specific points where you've twisted what I've said. Anyone who wants to go back and see for themselves is welcome to come to their own conclusions based on what I've said. I've never thrown the F-bomb against you. I stand by my disagreements with you. Others have also expressed their disgust at the way you've argued on this subject. So on this one, I've got to leave one last post to sum up.

1. The students in question did not violate any rule in wearing the patriotic apparel.
2. They were within their first amendment rights of expression
3. The administration was personally offended and attempted to use their positions of power to intimidate the students
4. The mothers of 2 of the boys have spoken publicly that they wore those clothes previously.
5. The school board has come out to disapprove of the way the administration handled this incident.

Once again, you didn't deserve to have a "f*ck you" reference thrown against you, but you did deserve to be refuted by a variety of posters here.

[Woodruff]

Unfortunately Woodruff, I've received a private message from the mods for this thread. It's not a warning, but they don't want this thing to escalate because they want to avoid locking it down.

I'm glad the moderators are trying to avoid locking the thread, because I think it's an important one.

Once again, you didn't deserve to have a "f*ck you" reference thrown against you, but you did deserve to be refuted by a variety of posters here.

I'm ok with being "refuted"...quite frankly, I very much enjoy it. However, some in this thread have gone far beyond "refutation".

[PLAYER57832]

I had avoided this topic, because I thought I had said about all I would already, but .. WOW.

First, while I understand your basic point, I do disagree with you Woodruff, from an educational standpoint. my own son was criticized for wearing a joke T-shirt (one of those "the dog ate my homework, an alien ate my homework, etc...) T-shirts. My issue then, which concurs with my statement earlier was both to question that this really was a matter over which the teacher had jurisdiction AND the manner in which it was held.

Schools generally do have guidelines, BUT, they also tend to fall into 2 categories, "no offensive material"/"no exposed body parts" OR "no writing/symbols/gang displays", etc. (that last often includes bandanas, all hats, etc.). Our school has only the first policy. The teacher, on her own, decided that it was "offensive" and not something she would permit in her 2nd grade class. Worse, she told my son it was unacceptable, in front of the whole class, she did not contact us, did not send us a note.. she just yelled at my son and told him he was to never wear that shirt again! I was mad. I was mad about the way she did it, but I was also upset that she, and she alone was given the authority to decide what was and was not acceptable. Other kids could and did wear that same T-shirt or even worse.

Anyway, I had the same basic comment about this. The bandana.. OK, clear policy, and I know the reason is sensible. Its because bandanas so often are tied to gangs (at least in CA, where this happened). The rest... if they had a flat-out policy against any kind of symbols, then it would have been a violation. I would question making the US flag on that list, but more importantly, it doesn't even seem that this school has such a policy. Instead, by all accounts, it was a "judgement call" made by the assistant principal.

OK, so set aside the day, the complaints, and even that these are American flag representations and you have a principal (or assistant principal.. I have seen both references) who sent kids home because he decided, without any previous warning, etc., that these shirts were so offensive they were not allowed at school. Just hearing that, I would say this was a gross over-reaction. The proper thing would have been for the principal to issue a warning and move on, end of story.

Add in that this decision was made because kids wore representations of the US flag to a school in the US.. not only that, but a public US school. And I have a serious question about why this would be. Woodruff made a good point about flag statutes. I DO know a bit about it, (part of scouting) but the issue here was not in any way that the flag was being displayed disrespectfully, it was just that the flag was being displayed at all. Even so, if this were just a matter of ANY symbol, then .. sure. For just such reasons as this, "no symbols" mean "NO symbols".. no exceptions. (or exceptions only as specified). Usually those rules have to do with gang activity or just to keep teachers from having to make judgement calls. If NO symbols are allowed, then there is no dispute. (OK, I am dreaming, but it does make things easier...).

So, a principal sent kids home because of a judgement call violation. That judgement was that wearing a US flag would cause problems in a US school. HUH?

But, yes, it does get worse.

Again, this day happened to be Cinco De Mayo. A big holiday in many areas, particularly parts of California. It is not so much a political day (or isn't supposed to be, in my experience) but it is a day to celebrate Mexican/hispanic culture. (it is not, as some think, the Mexican independence day. It celebrates a victory over the French in one battle). So, you can argue that someone wearing a US flag is trying to be disrespectful. EXCEPT, well, this IS the U.S. Again, in my experience most celebrations have the U.S. flag and Mexican flag/symbols side-by-side. Certainly, that these boys chose this day was significant. But, to call it "offensive", even so.. is a bit much. If they were told to wear clothes in the colors of Mexico, they could be said to be a bit, well, non-compliant. However, the best course would have been to ignore it, even so.

HOWEVER, b.k. makes a good point. Like him, I am not opposed to immigrants, even illegal ones, (but that is for another thread). HOWEVER, I lived in California enough to have seen a fair number of hispanic-Americans who are not content to just come here, have jobs, vote, etc. NO, they want everyone around them to speak Spanish (never mind that it, too, is a colonial tongue), they don't want to have to learn English, etc. I differ from b.k. in that my experience is its mostly citizens, not illegal folks, making these demands. However, it is a very real and yes, frankly outright offensive attitude.

AND, quite apparently, this school is filled with kids brought up with that very view. To them, just showing a U.S. flag is reason enough to label someone "racist" is reason enough to cause a confrontation, for them to complain. In a U.S. school. And, the principal, instead of telling these kids that wearing a U.S. flag in the U.S. is not racism or using it as any other point of education, he instead decides to send the boys home!

To sum up:
1.Boys sent home, not simply warned, etc., for an issue that was left up to personnal discretion and that had NOT been brought up earlier.

2.The issue was representations of a U.S. flag in a U.S. school. NOT that the display was disrespectful of the flag or even that it violated a "flat" ban on any such symbols. No, this was specific against the U.S. flag.

3.The people voicing this were kids of Mexican heritage, who felt that Cinco De Mayo was, effectively, too important a day to be "sullied" by the U.S. Flag. I don't know if these kids are immigrants themselves or not. It is irrelevant.

4. Instead of telling the kids who complained that showing a U.S. flag is just not racist and that this was the U.S., he bowed to the complainers and sent the boys home to change. Apparently Mexican flags were allowed, just not U.S. ones.


Well, Woodruff, sorry, but the more I hear about this, the more I am frankly offended. I don't care where you come from, who you are or how you got here. Once you get here, though, you accept our rules, you live by our norms. You don't come here and then declare our flag is "offensive". You don't come here and tell me that I have to speak YOUR language if I want a job. You definitely don't come here and teach your children so little about freedom and tolerance that they believe displaying a U.S. flag is racist.

[Woodruff]

I had avoided this topic, because I thought I had said about all I would already, but .. WOW.

First, while I understand your basic point, I do disagree with you Woodruff, from an educational standpoint. my own son was criticized for wearing a joke T-shirt (one of those "the dog ate my homework, an alien ate my homework, etc...) T-shirts.

What would be the problem with a T-Shirt like that? How could it be considered offensive?

Other kids could and did wear that same T-shirt or even worse.

Why didn't you go to the school administrators with this? Sounds like the teacher was targeting your son, to me.

OK, so set aside the day, the complaints, and even that these are American flag representations and you have a principal (or assistant principal.. I have seen both references) who sent kids home because he decided, without any previous warning, etc., that these shirts were so offensive they were not allowed at school. Just hearing that, I would say this was a gross over-reaction. The proper thing would have been for the principal to issue a warning and move on, end of story.

On the presumption that the principal had the kids sent home because he was concerned about the potential for it to escalate into violence, "issuing a warning" wouldn't have had any effect at all. The violence (if it were going to happen) would still happen. In that context, issuing a warning would be the same as taking no action at all, in my opinion.

HOWEVER, b.k. makes a good point. Like him, I am not opposed to immigrants, even illegal ones, (but that is for another thread). HOWEVER, I lived in California enough to have seen a fair number of hispanic-Americans who are not content to just come here, have jobs, vote, etc. NO, they want everyone around them to speak Spanish (never mind that it, too, is a colonial tongue), they don't want to have to learn English, etc. I differ from b.k. in that my experience is its mostly citizens, not illegal folks, making these demands. However, it is a very real and yes, frankly outright offensive attitude.

Agreed.

Well, Woodruff, sorry, but the more I hear about this, the more I am frankly offended. I don't care where you come from, who you are or how you got here. Once you get here, though, you accept our rules, you live by our norms. You don't come here and then declare our flag is "offensive". You don't come here and tell me that I have to speak YOUR language if I want a job. You definitely don't come here and teach your children so little about freedom and tolerance that they believe displaying a U.S. flag is racist.

I agree with you. But did someone declare the flag T-shirts were offensive prior to the principal's decision? From what I've seen on the situation, it was a preventive action by the principal/vice principal alone to have the boys turn their T-shirts inside out (and then send them home for non-compliance) and not a reaction to complaints from others.

I've seen statements from some of the Hispanic kids at the school AFTER THE FACT that they thought it was offensive of the boys to wear the flag t-shirts...as you say, they shouldn't feel that way. It's ridiculous. But as we see many times in these very fora, humans have a surprising tendency to act in ridiculous ways.

[PLAYER57832]

I had avoided this topic, because I thought I had said about all I would already, but .. WOW.

First, while I understand your basic point, I do disagree with you Woodruff, from an educational standpoint. my own son was criticized for wearing a joke T-shirt (one of those "the dog ate my homework, an alien ate my homework, etc...) T-shirts.

What would be the problem with a T-Shirt like that? How could it be considered offensive?

Other kids could and did wear that same T-shirt or even worse.

Why didn't you go to the school administrators with this? Sounds like the teacher was targeting your son, to me.

Think we didn't? They got tired of seeing our faces. And, this was not the only issue we had, it was just the first. Had I known a bit more about this teacher and had my father-in -law not been dying at this same time (passed away in Nov) and some other issues, we would have probably gone to court to get him removed from the class. But, that has its own risks, too.

OK, so set aside the day, the complaints, and even that these are American flag representations and you have a principal (or assistant principal.. I have seen both references) who sent kids home because he decided, without any previous warning, etc., that these shirts were so offensive they were not allowed at school. Just hearing that, I would say this was a gross over-reaction. The proper thing would have been for the principal to issue a warning and move on, end of story.

On the presumption that the principal had the kids sent home because he was concerned about the potential for it to escalate into violence, "issuing a warning" wouldn't have had any effect at all. The violence (if it were going to happen) would still happen. In that context, issuing a warning would be the same as taking no action at all, in my opinion.

Except the problem would have been the overreaction by the other students. THAT should have been the focus.. to send home the kids making the threats, not to punish the boys who were not doing wrong. (the stories did not say the boys were shouting slurrs or inciting the others ... that would along have been reason to send them home, t-shirt or no).

HOWEVER, b.k. makes a good point. Like him, I am not opposed to immigrants, even illegal ones, (but that is for another thread). HOWEVER, I lived in California enough to have seen a fair number of hispanic-Americans who are not content to just come here, have jobs, vote, etc. NO, they want everyone around them to speak Spanish (never mind that it, too, is a colonial tongue), they don't want to have to learn English, etc. I differ from b.k. in that my experience is its mostly citizens, not illegal folks, making these demands. However, it is a very real and yes, frankly outright offensive attitude.

Agreed.

Well, Woodruff, sorry, but the more I hear about this, the more I am frankly offended. I don't care where you come from, who you are or how you got here. Once you get here, though, you accept our rules, you live by our norms. You don't come here and then declare our flag is "offensive". You don't come here and tell me that I have to speak YOUR language if I want a job. You definitely don't come here and teach your children so little about freedom and tolerance that they believe displaying a U.S. flag is racist.

I agree with you. But did someone declare the flag T-shirts were offensive prior to the principal's decision? From what I've seen on the situation, it was a preventive action by the principal/vice principal alone to have the boys turn their T-shirts inside out (and then send them home for non-compliance) and not a reaction to complaints from others.

That is actually irrelevant. As you probably know, it is standard to ask kids with offensive t-shirts to wear them inside out. My issue is that the principal too ANY such action in this case. Doing so made the t-shirt, rather than the response to the t-shirt, the issue. The issue was the response, not the t-shirt, in this case.

I've seen statements from some of the Hispanic kids at the school AFTER THE FACT that they thought it was offensive of the boys to wear the flag t-shirts...as you say, they shouldn't feel that way. It's ridiculous. But as we see many times in these very fora, humans have a surprising tendency to act in ridiculous ways.

Its a school's job to educate and inform kids of what is and is not appropriate. The entire reason this was a problem was because some students complained that the boy's t-shirts were offensive. As you yourself said, the principal was acting to avoid conflict.

What I am saying is that he took action in exactly the wrong direction and for exactly the wrong reasons. There could have been legitimate reasons for him to have sent the boys home, as I said above. But in this case, he sent boys home for wearing a flag in the U.S. because some hispanic students felt the U.S. flag was "offensive".

To add to the above, if violance were his real concern, then either you sent the ones who are in the wrong.. in this case, the ones complaining that a U.S. flag is "offensive" and making threats about, home OR you send them ALL home for the simple reason that they were involved in a dispute. This principal took the exact wrong course of action.

[Woodruff]

OK, so set aside the day, the complaints, and even that these are American flag representations and you have a principal (or assistant principal.. I have seen both references) who sent kids home because he decided, without any previous warning, etc., that these shirts were so offensive they were not allowed at school. Just hearing that, I would say this was a gross over-reaction. The proper thing would have been for the principal to issue a warning and move on, end of story.

On the presumption that the principal had the kids sent home because he was concerned about the potential for it to escalate into violence, "issuing a warning" wouldn't have had any effect at all. The violence (if it were going to happen) would still happen. In that context, issuing a warning would be the same as taking no action at all, in my opinion.

Except the problem would have been the overreaction by the other students. THAT should have been the focus.. to send home the kids making the threats, not to punish the boys who were not doing wrong. (the stories did not say the boys were shouting slurrs or inciting the others ... that would along have been reason to send them home, t-shirt or no).

True enough and I even agree with what you're saying here...and yet then the school administrators could have been held culpable for not ensuring the safety of the students if a student were to have been seriously injured because of it. I don't believe that "warning plus inaction" would have protected them at all in that case.

I've seen statements from some of the Hispanic kids at the school AFTER THE FACT that they thought it was offensive of the boys to wear the flag t-shirts...as you say, they shouldn't feel that way. It's ridiculous. But as we see many times in these very fora, humans have a surprising tendency to act in ridiculous ways.

Its a school's job to educate and inform kids of what is and is not appropriate. The entire reason this was a problem was because some students complained that the boy's t-shirts were offensive. As you yourself said, the principal was acting to avoid conflict.
What I am saying is that he took action in exactly the wrong direction and for exactly the wrong reasons. There could have been legitimate reasons for him to have sent the boys home, as I said above. But in this case, he sent boys home for wearing a flag in the U.S. because some hispanic students felt the U.S. flag was "offensive".
To add to the above, if violance were his real concern, then either you sent the ones who are in the wrong.. in this case, the ones complaining that a U.S. flag is "offensive" and making threats about, home OR you send them ALL home for the simple reason that they were involved in a dispute. This principal took the exact wrong course of action.

As I've stated, I don't believe there was any "complaining about" or "making threats about" at the time the principal took the action he did. Some students have stated they were offended by it after the fact, in speaking with reporters, but from everything I've read on the issue, the principal acted on his own judgement and without prompting by complaintants. So there wouldn't have been anyone complaining or making threats TO send home. Otherwise, I agree with you...those making threats in particular should have been sent home (possibly suspended, depending on prior history).

[silvanricky]

This thread just keeps getting more bizarre. I can't remember a time where I agreed with bk barunt, bradley, player, and john9blue all at the same time.

[john9blue]

This thread just keeps getting more bizarre. I can't remember a time where I agreed with bk barunt, bradley, player, and john9blue all at the same time.

I think this thread stands as a testament to how resistant Woody is to admitting his mistakes.