*Sigh* Some people in this country...
And....source - http://cbs2.com/water/watercooler_story_069091113.html
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Foreign Language Pledges Irk Student
- Thread starter WedgeX
- Start date
- Status
*Sigh* Some people in this country...
And....source - http://cbs2.com/water/watercooler_story_069091113.html
Not that I agree with this boy's views, but how is it not inconsistent to allow students to sit for the pledge in general (as is their right, due to religious or political views), but then mandate that they either stand for these foreign language pledges or they'll have to leave the room? That sounds wacky to me...
What would happen if a student, for religious or political reasons, did not want to stand for the pledge in general (as happens often), and the teacher told them that they'd have to wait outside in the hallway? I'd say a lawsuit would be quick in coming.
I hate inconsistent behavior. Sure, you can make some finer distinctions, like saying that when people refuse to stand for the pledge they are doing so for religious/political reasons, but this boy is simply going against "school policy" (i.e., a program), but I don't think that's wholly accurate. After all, who's to say that his legitimate political beliefs don't include the idea that the pledge should not be recited in a foreign language out of respect for our nation? Why should those beliefs not be afforded the same protections and courtesy that other beliefs are?
Again, I totally disagree with what he's doing (I think it's silly and somewhat jingoistic), but telling him that he has to either stand or leave the room when people who abstain from the pledge in general are not given those same two choices strikes me as very inconsistent.
What would happen if a student, for religious or political reasons, did not want to stand for the pledge in general (as happens often), and the teacher told them that they'd have to wait outside in the hallway? I'd say a lawsuit would be quick in coming.
I hate inconsistent behavior. Sure, you can make some finer distinctions, like saying that when people refuse to stand for the pledge they are doing so for religious/political reasons, but this boy is simply going against "school policy" (i.e., a program), but I don't think that's wholly accurate. After all, who's to say that his legitimate political beliefs don't include the idea that the pledge should not be recited in a foreign language out of respect for our nation? Why should those beliefs not be afforded the same protections and courtesy that other beliefs are?
Again, I totally disagree with what he's doing (I think it's silly and somewhat jingoistic), but telling him that he has to either stand or leave the room when people who abstain from the pledge in general are not given those same two choices strikes me as very inconsistent.
Loki said:
We don't know how this school treats kids who normally don't want to stand/participate in general so it's a little presumptuous to call out an inconsistency. There's little consistency across the nation with how this situation is handled. Probably has more to do with the individual teachers than school policies.
levious said:
Fair enough. The only reason I made the post I did was because I was under the impression that it was absolutely illegal everywhere in the US to tell a student who wanted to abstain from the pledge that they had to "leave the room". Aren't you a lawyer, btw, or am I confusing you w/someone else? If so, isn't it illegal to tell a child who abstains that they have to leave the room, which in effect ostracizes them?
I was under the impression that this was the case; regardless, in an absolute sense, I don't think that people should be forced to stand or asked to leave the room in either instance (legitimate abstention or this case here, which can also be construed as "legitimate").
If this particular school routinely asks abstainers to either stand or leave the room, and did so in this case as well, then that's at least consistent (though wrong imo in either case, as noted above).
not a lawyer, just a law student.
I don't know if the judicial system has ever touched something like this. I'd like to assume what you say is right, but just that no one has ever cared enough about a student's rights being violated to challenge this.
While I never actively participated in the pledge, this latest story just punctuates how silly the entire "issue" is.
I don't know if the judicial system has ever touched something like this. I'd like to assume what you say is right, but just that no one has ever cared enough about a student's rights being violated to challenge this.
While I never actively participated in the pledge, this latest story just punctuates how silly the entire "issue" is.
MrPing1000
Member
whats the point in having the pledge in lots of different languages?
xsarien said:
How? "Indian" is derived from "Un gente in Dios" or, a people in God. It's a perfectly respectable title.
Of course, it does cause some confusion over where you're referring to them or the other Indians. Generally, to solve this, I always ask "dots or feathers?"
Minotauro said:
Well, as the story goes, Columbus was trying to get to ye olde Indies, landed here, and not knowing any better started to call them "Indians." Presumably, because upon checking MapQuest, the system insisted that he arrived at his intended destination.
"Native American" is accurate, and it doesn't perpetuate a glaring error. In fact, it's pretty much admitting that they were here first. Not that simple acknowledgement even begins to cover what this country's founders did to the tribes, but sometimes an admission is very powerful in and of itself.
xsarien said:
Whoops, completely forgot about the link.
http://cbs2.com/water/watercooler_story_069091113.html
It happened in...
Maryland
xsarien said:
Looking around the internet, there seems to be some controversy over the true root of the word. If any history buffs would like to chime in, I'd appreciate it. Either way, I don't think there is a negative connotation to it even if it does suggest Columbus's stupidity.
xsarien said:
It's the use of the word "American" in the term that bothers me. Let's say you go to Brazil, conquer it, and force its people onto designated wastelands. Then, after renaming it, Jesusland, you start referring to it's original inhabitants as "Native Jesuslanders." Doesn't this seem a bit arrogant?
Minotauro said:
Columbus was basing the term 'Indian' on the best knowledge of the time. He had never been to India or to Asia, so he assumed that if he sailed west he would hit India. He landed in what? San Salvador? and thought it to be India.
Minotauro said:
By that logic, 'Indian' should be an equally offensive term. Columbus forced the name 'Indian' on the natives. America is the continent we're on. They were here first, thus 'Native Americans'. It's not disrepectful at all. They should be thanking Vespucci for showing the world that they weren't indians.
levious said:
Yeah, that's what I meant to say.
As for the rest, I thought I heard of a few cases where people legally challenged being forced to stand for the pledge, which is why I thought that people all around the country were allowed to abstain. Guess it's never been codified into law or made legal precedent, as you said. Weird.
levious said:
See, that's where the ironic humor comes in...
levious said:
I may grant you that it's equally offensive. The problem stems from the fact that they didn't have a collective name for themselves and instead went by tribes. Any name used to refer to them as a group would be inaccurate at best and disrespectful at worst.
Minotauro said:
We call everyone born here 'American'. It doesn't matter what state they live in, what group they're a part of, or how they choose to live their life. You can be a Texan, but you're also an American.
The same applies to natives of this land. They can be Souix, but they're also native americans. Now, they're also Americans.
And I don't see what's so offensive about the term. I don't believe they had a collective name prior to us settling here because they were unaware of their distinction from the rest of the world. Columbus alerted them to that fact, gave them a name, and it stuck and was later changed for accuracy and for PC whores.
This is the definition of 'non-issue'.
olimario said:
I just find something degrading about naming a group of people after their conquerors.
That's really all it boils down to. Now, I'm stubborn-as-hell but I really don't want to keep arguing back and forth over semantics and classifications for the rest of the day.
Loki said:Yeah, that's what I meant to say.
As for the rest, I thought I heard of a few cases where people legally challenged being forced to stand for the pledge, which is why I thought that people all around the country were allowed to abstain. Guess it's never been codified into law or made legal precedent, as you said. Weird.
No, don't misunderstand, I just said that I didn't know if it had ever been, blah blah.
Let me know if you remember what case you're thinking of, I'd be interested in learning more.
Minotauro said:
Well, if you insist on splitting hairs, "America" wasn't coined by the British. It's named for Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian navigator who, unlike Columbus, realized that he was looking at unexplored territory when he came sailing along in the late 1490s.
Google's telling me that even he didn't bother to name it for himself, but was simply dubbed "America" by your friendly, neighborhood German clergy who happened to be writing a book that included a few maps.
Loki, I think you were right in your initial assumption.
After some extensive half-assed research over the course of 12 minutes, I've concluded that:
1) a state can require that it's public schools have pledge recitals daily
2) individuals cannot be made to participate
3) most schools that get away with punishing non-participants do so by claiming the student was disruptive... and really, what pre-teen/teen isn't disruptive?
When I was a student and didn't want to participate, I stood quietly with my hands to my side or something. Not reciting it was my own personal act that I did simply cause I thought the whole idea of voicing your commitment to your country in that manner sort of didn't jive with the idea of patriotism
But kids who make a big deal about it in a "hey look at me, I'm so anti-establishment" look really lame, and probably deserve at least verbal ridicule.
Like when Veio tried to look cool in front of that marine recruiter.
And I hope you're killed by a drunk driver with a bumper sticker that says, "Proud to be a Native American"
After some extensive half-assed research over the course of 12 minutes, I've concluded that:
1) a state can require that it's public schools have pledge recitals daily
2) individuals cannot be made to participate
3) most schools that get away with punishing non-participants do so by claiming the student was disruptive... and really, what pre-teen/teen isn't disruptive?
When I was a student and didn't want to participate, I stood quietly with my hands to my side or something. Not reciting it was my own personal act that I did simply cause I thought the whole idea of voicing your commitment to your country in that manner sort of didn't jive with the idea of patriotism
But kids who make a big deal about it in a "hey look at me, I'm so anti-establishment" look really lame, and probably deserve at least verbal ridicule.
Like when Veio tried to look cool in front of that marine recruiter.
Minotauro said:
And I hope you're killed by a drunk driver with a bumper sticker that says, "Proud to be a Native American"
levious said:
Well, if that's the case (this was the assumption I was working from, as you noted), then like I said, consistency should dictate that one cannot be punished for either offense (abstaining from either the english or foreign-language pledges). Handing out punishment for only one (as the teacher in this case did by telling him to leave the room) but not the other is wrong imo. As previously stated, however, I do not believe that either situation should be punished.
:lol
That was the biggest ownage ever.
Loki,
You glossed over my point 3. If the student is disruptive, it's gonna get punished. And I'm sure teachers would have the same sort of leeway that police have with probable cause.
Teacher: you're being disruptive!
Student: WHY? All I'm doing is sitting here.
Teacher: It's disruptive cause I had to yell at you during the pledge!
But really, even with that recent video getting on the net with the teacher going psycho and yelling and then pulling the chair out from under the student... they were being douches about it, talking and laughing during the pledge.
So until we know exactly what this particular kid did, we can't say whether what happened was right. And besides, doesn't seem like he was even punished.
He was probably being disruptive in some way, just assuming that cause of what the teacher said.
You glossed over my point 3. If the student is disruptive, it's gonna get punished. And I'm sure teachers would have the same sort of leeway that police have with probable cause.
Teacher: you're being disruptive!
Student: WHY? All I'm doing is sitting here.
Teacher: It's disruptive cause I had to yell at you during the pledge!
But really, even with that recent video getting on the net with the teacher going psycho and yelling and then pulling the chair out from under the student... they were being douches about it, talking and laughing during the pledge.
So until we know exactly what this particular kid did, we can't say whether what happened was right. And besides, doesn't seem like he was even punished.
He was probably being disruptive in some way, just assuming that cause of what the teacher said.
-jinx- said:
I wasn't serious. While I'm certainly not his biggest fan, I don't really wish olimario any harm. I was just responding to his assholish sarcasm with some of my own.
Plus, isn't he waiting until marriage? That might make it difficult for him to contract an STD.
levious said:
Sorry, didn't mean to skip over this point or anything, I just didn't think it terribly relevant. If the standards for punishment (re: "disruptive" students) are this arbitrary, however, then that obviously needs to be remedied by law, particularly where freedom of expression/religion is concerned.
Agreed (about not knowing the particulars); I never meant to make it seem as if asking him to leave the room was some sort of terrible "punishment". However, I'm reasonably certain that you're not allowed to ask people who normally abstain from the pledge for religious/political reasons to leave the room because it ostracizes them in a sense; like I said, I'm pretty sure there have been lawsuits regarding this, though I could be wrong. Hitokage would know better, I think-- he always knows about stuff like this.
(As an aside, here in NY, you can't tell a kid to stand outside in the hallway for any reason, since it's considered "corporal punishment", believe it or not. Obviously this particular interpretation would vary by locality, though, and consequently is not necessarily germane to this topic)
I don't think one can reasonably infer that-- not from the progression of the article, at any rate. It seemed that his elaborations on his rationale for abstaining came after he had left the school (to his family and the media) and not inside the classroom, which could have been considered disruptive. Still, we'll see I guess.
Fight for Freeform said:You forgot to post a source WedgeX.
It'd be funny if it was all fake
No but seriously we need a source, then we know which city he lives in and look up Charles Linton in the phone book and then call him up...
"Bonjour!"
"Aargh! My ears! They burn!"
Yeah I did, and I've gotten too used to some forums that have no edit function...but it's there now. Plus I posted it at about post #30 too...
King Jippo
Banned
Minotauro said:
You're right. Let's start referring to them as "savages" again.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked