My daughter's PC day at school

[LiberalNation]

Anything can cause disruption. If you were to go for banning things to prevent any chance of disruption you'd have to ban the kids themselves.

More when i get home and no students don't leave their free speech at the school door and this was upheld by the SC.

[darin]

Anything can cause disruption. If you were to go for banning things to prevent any chance of disruption you'd have to ban the kids themselves.

Logical Fallacy - you are trying to shift the focus of the discussion to specific ACTIONS of students distracting from the learning environment, to a discussion about "Are kids themselves a distraction?"

[Abbey Marie]

Anything can cause disruption. If you were to go for banning things to prevent any chance of disruption you'd have to ban the kids themselves.

More when i get home and no students don't leave their free speech at the school door and this was upheld by the SC.

Not a good analogy. Schools do discipline kids who disrupt class. They are taken out of class, given detention, suspended. However, this PC nonsense can disrupt class all day, and yet is untouchable.

[LiberalNation]

Just following ya'll argument that nothing that could even possibly cause a disruption shouldn't be allowed in school.

[darin]

Just following ya'll argument that nothing that could even possibly cause a disruption shouldn't be allowed in school.

Now you are taking extreme examples...it's classic, really...makes me giggle:

"NOTHING" which could even POSSIBLY cause a disruption...nobody has said that. YOU are saying that in a way to ridicule the idea that school should be orderly.

[LiberalNation]

Kids not speaking for a day also will not make the school disorderly. The teachers knew this protest would happen and would not dusrupt class to try to force a kid to speak and break the protest. Sorry some kids not speaking for a day in a political protest is their right. School is not just to learn reading and math it is to learn about life and these kids should be appaulded for being political activists in a proper non-voilent way and one of the few ways they can.

Also there is no rule I know of that says you have to speak in school. Some kids actually never.

[darin]

Sorry some kids not speaking for a day in a political protest is their right.

First, this wasn't a POLITICAL PROTEST...it was a SOCIAL protest.

Secondly, Children are in school to LEARN. Schools should not be a social/political/religious stage for a Jacked-up kid (My Opinion) to rant and rave on behalf of people with sexual disorders.

School is not just to learn reading and math it is to learn about life and these kids should be appaulded for being political activists in a proper non-voilent way and one of the few ways they can.

Where do politics come into this?

Also there is no rule I know of that says you have to speak in school. Some kids actually never.

Again - logical fallacy; what you are saying is so far off of the point it's laughable.

[LiberalNation]

It is a political subject, gay rights and all that. All social protests are entwined with the political. The civil rights protests were of course social but also political as an example.

[Abbey Marie]

It is a political subject, gay rights and all that. All social protests are entwined with the political. The civil rights protests were of course social but also political as an example.

They can be all political and such before and after school hours, and all weekend if they'd like. The object of this nonsense is to get society, in this case, straight students, to join their bandwagon. Interestingly, it may be having the opposite effect, as I mentioned earlier. Polarizing kids, when they should be together focused onlearning.

School is for learning. With kids doing poorly in English, Math and Science (as you youself have said), they need all the focus on those subjects they can get. Are you not aware that that is why you are there?

Pretty soon you can go your merry way and protest all the live long day, if you can afford it. But for now, try to focus on learning. For your own and society's sake.

[LiberalNation]

Not what the SC said.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...qs.aspx?id=33&

In Tinker, the Supreme Court said that students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The court ruled that Iowa public school officials violated the First Amendment rights of several students by suspending them for wearing black armbands to school.

The court noted that the students’ wearing of armbands to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam was a form of symbolic speech "akin to pure speech." The school officials tried to justify their actions, saying that the armbands would disrupt the school environment.

But, the Supreme Court said that "in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression." School officials cannot silence student speech simply because they dislike it or it is controversial or unpopular. Rather, according to the court, school officials must reasonably forecast that student speech will cause a "substantial disruption" or "material interference" with school activities or "invade the rights of others" before they can censor student expression. The Tinker case is considered the high-water mark for student First Amendment rights.

[darin]

Not what the SC said.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...qs.aspx?id=33&

What isn't what the SC said?

[Abbey Marie]

Not what the SC said.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...qs.aspx?id=33&

Leaving alone for the moment the liberal tendencies of the courts, I would argue that there is a difference between weating an arm band, and refusing to speak in class when called upon.

Many public schools have implemented dress codes for the reasons of non-distraction, too. Our elementary schools do not allow any insignia or writing whatsoever on clothing for that reason.

[LiberalNation]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...spx?id=33&#q33

[LiberalNation]

Leaving alone for the moment the liberal tendencies of the courts, I would argue that there is a difference between weating an arm band, and refusing to speak in class when called upon.

The teacher knew the protest, the kids doing it were identified with a sticker, they would not call on them.

[Abbey Marie]

The teacher knew the protest, the kids doing it were identified with a sticker, they would not call on them.

How is that not disruptive to the learning process?