The school has a close tie to me because...that's the high school I graduated from.
It seems counter-intuitive, banning a kid from wearing an anti Nazi patch. Then you get to reading the article and see the whys of how it happened.
Then I wondered why the group of kids taunting another group with Nazi remarks weren't disciplined in the first place.
The case was upheld because he was banned from wearing it because it could invoke a violent response from the other group of students.
Somehow, it seems the situation got out of control way before this kid decided to start wearing that patch.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's really bizarre. I can't imagine a situation where making Nazi-esque remarks to a group, even if that other group was responding violently, is acceptable to a point where it could escalate to this level.
I agree, mackillian, it almost seems as if the patch is completely unrelated to the actual problem. The school officials were incapable of dealing with the violence and threats any other way, so they seized upon the first tangible symbol of aggression- which happened to be an Anti-Nazi patch.
quote:High school officials suspended Hendrickson because they felt his wearing the patch was a taunting gesture aimed at a specific group of students.
I suppose that the bullying and threats themselves are far harder to prove.
I can't help thinking that this is by far the wrong case in this situation. They're arguing over completely the wrong thing.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree! The patch is the least of their troubles. It boggles me that he thinks by removing the patch he's keeping anyone safe. If someone lets a patch incite them to violence, it's the one who is violent that is at fault, not the patch wearer. It really makes me suspect the school authorities are on the side of the violent ones.
This reminds me of people blaming peaceful protesters for the violence that erupted when thugs would come and beat them up during the civil rights movement.
There's not enough information given to know for sure, but something smells wrong here.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It really makes me suspect the school authorities are on the side of the violent ones.
The only reason I don't suspect that is that schools chronicly tend toward policy choices aimed at avoiding conflict, not at establishing "justice" (as in finding the wrongdoer).
If the Tinker principle can be overriden by the fear of how others react to speech, then the First Amendment is being held hostage to mob violence.
I've always been torn on regulating dress as speech in schools. On the one hand, you've got a couple hundred to a couple thousand teenagers densely crammed into a building. Provocation (and whether these kids were trying to provoke or not, it's definitely a common tactic) can lead to violence.
On the other hand, part of the reason they are there is to learn how to get along in society.
I want to say that they should risk the violence and punish the offenders when it happens, but I'm not sure that's fair to those not involved who are likely to get hurt or have their learning disrupted. I probably still fall on the side of allowing most speech. But I understand the principal's concern.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
