School Sells Out Students' First Amendment Rights, Apologizes And Deletes Article Containing Controversial Images

from the when-you-value-the-relationship-with-the-PD-more-than-the-relationship-with-stud dept

This line of thinking can never be reinforced too often by public officials: the First Amendment is great but only if your speech doesn’t offend someone powerful. (via Adam Steinbaugh)

A California high school took matters into its own hands — not even waiting to see if powerful people were offended — and memory-holed both its physical and online student publication after a student wrote article about the relationship between art and activism made some parents take to Facebook to complain about “liberal propaganda.”

The article contained images found via Google searches, including one depicting Trump with a Nazi symbol on his head and another with a cop in Klan hood pointing a gun at a black child meant to represent Travon Martin. The following image comes from the Facebook post that started the backlash against the school.

The cascade of criticism on Facebook led to the mayor of the California town (Don Kendrick) to offer this explanation of how someone at the Bonita High School made the mistake of allowing students to engage in protected speech. [Line breaks added for readability, since apparently even mayoral announcements on Facebook must be delivered as a wall of text.]

First, I would like to thank everyone for your interest in this topic. Yes, I was furious when I first learned about this and I am still concerned. But I have had discussions with a number of people and would like to share those with you.

I would like to address two issues. One, the incident, and the other, the clubs at Bonita High School. First the incident. As most of you know, the city of La Verne Police Department has a very good, if not excellent, relationship with our school district, and especially Bonita High School, with a police officer assigned to the La Verne schools as a School Resource officer. This is a relationship that has been ongoing for over 25 years.

This unfortunate incident with the school newspaper has turned out to be a very bad judgment call by a new teacher, not an example of what normally goes on at the school. One Bonita teacher went to the police station on his own, talked to the Chief of Police, and apologized on behalf of what he said was 99.9% of the teachers at the school. Further, the Superintendent of Bonita Unified School District and the Principal of Bonita High School also went to the police station, met with the Chief, and apologized. Mistakes are made. The Police Department is fully committed to working with everyone in the school district, including the students, to make our community the best it can be. The Chief said it was an unfortunate mistake, but should not be used to judge the school district or the relationship that exists with the police department, and one that will continue to exist.

The second topic is the Bonita High School clubs. Did you know that there were over 60 clubs on the campus? Why so many? Because there is a wide variety of interests among the students. There is a club for everything you can think of, and even a club if there is no other club to belong to. Engaged students, doing things they like, leave little time to become engaged in destructive activities like we have recently witnessed in Florida. Every student at Bonita High School is expected to be engaged and involved in something. We are a better community when they are.

Thank you for your time.

Within this announcement are several concerning statements and assertions. First, the mayor is ready to throw a single teacher under the bus for allowing students to freely express controversial ideas. Second, the school is apparently so worried local officers might be offended that it took it upon itself to make sure local cops knew this was the work of one bad apple. Third, the mayor insinuates that approved school activities, if there’s enough of them, will either prevent school shootings (which I doubt is what he meant — no one refers to shootings as “activities”) or prevent students from engaging in activism (like the several protests/walkouts that followed the Parkland shooting). If it’s the latter, the mayor is encouraging the school to further divert students away from any outlet in which controversial ideas might be expressed. This is bad for students and bad for the First Amendment.

The thread of comments on the Facebook post that started this all is the expected hellhole of ignorance and calls for heads. The two Fox articles covering this both claim officers were offended by the publication but feature no direct quotes from anyone at the PD saying as much. As quickly as staff rushed off to prevent public servants from having their feelings hurt by a publication they likely never would have seen, it’s hard to believe any officers were offended until after they’d been apprised of the situation. It’s not like the PD applied pressure on the school. The school just simply abdicated its responsibility to its students in favor of preemptive feather de-rufflings.

To top it all off, the school’s statement on the issue is a non sequitur.

“There is a California Education Code that affirms the First Amendment rights of student newspapers,” Carl Coles, the interim superintendent of the Bonita School District, said in the statement. “The student journalist’s article does not represent the views of Bonita High School or the District.”

Great. But what the hell does that mean in this context? A school vanished away speech it find uncomfortable despite this “affirmation” of students’ rights. If the school had left the article live on the website and the physical publication untouched and simply informed parents, cops, and the mayor that it did not represent the views of the school, everything would have turned out much better than it has. Instead, the school has announced its subservience to local law enforcement and its willingness to silence students rather than overrule heckler’s vetoes.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “School Sells Out Students' First Amendment Rights, Apologizes And Deletes Article Containing Controversial Images”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
bhull242 (profile) says:

Did the article mention these images in a way suggesting that the writer agreed with the message of these images? Did it have images critical of liberal and/or historical figures, too? Because the title sounds more like it’s purely analytical of how art and politics interact rather than espousing a particular viewpoint. It seems plausible that the people yelling “liberal bias” didn’t bother to consider the context the images were used in and/or cherry-picked only the images that offended them while ignoring any others that they agreed with.

Unfortunately, with the original article now gone, I cannot know for sure. Has anyone here seen the actual article to determine the full context for these images.

Valkor says:

Re: Re:

I would rather have a discussion of crappy political art, and how logical fallacies like false dichotomy and straw man arguments effect “propaganda” of every stripe. In my perfect world, the memory-holed article “Artist and Activist” would discuss how was as important to be coherent with your images as it was with your words.

Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

>"There is a California Education Code that affirms the First Amendment rights of student newspapers," Carl Coles, the interim superintendent of the Bonita School District, said in the statement. "The student journalist’s article does not represent the views of Bonita High School or the District."

But what the hell does that mean in this context?

I read it to mean that the student newspaper, which is owned by the Bonita School District, has First Amendment rights; but the students do not.

That might seem incorrect (and it is) but that’s the view the Supreme Court holds as well. After all, we must protect the little kiddies from having "wrong" thoughts.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Any school newspaper would presumably have had a teacher in charge to review and approve everything before it got published. I don’t know how the 1st amendment comes into play, since the school administration would have ultimate authority over school publications anyway, and any public school is essentially a government organization (as are the police) so does the 1st amendment even apply?

And what about the copyright of these images presumably “stolen” from internet websites?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No, what the SCOTUS ruled is that students have free speech rights in school activities up until the speech causes disruption in those activities. It’s not an unreasonable (nor an incorrect) balance between the rights of a student and that of the school’s interest in order and discipline to get on with the school’s role in education. It doesn’t say anything about restricting students holding from contrary views to what the school is teaching. Only that the student may not express (any) views (for or against) in a manner that disrupts a school’s need to maintain discipline.

Whether or not the voting public agrees with what the school is teaching and the manner of maintaining discipline is a matter for the school boards and legislative branches.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District 1969
Ingraham v. Wright 1977

Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Which means the students do not have free speech.

Let’s put it this way. Suppose the First Amendment said:

Congress shall make no law abridging free speech except for the purpose of preventing disruption of the country.

Would you think we would be able to say anything the government didn’t like? Of course not, because everything the government doesn’t like would be obviously disruptive.

So the Supreme Court authorized schools to ban any student speech the administrators don’t like, equals no free speech Right for students.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“students have free speech rights in school activities up until the speech causes disruption”

Isn’t this very similar to being in public? You can talk all you want in town square until you cause a disturbance and then leos write you up for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, loitering, skateboarding, not reading the signs or some other such non sense.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Loitering, skateboarding...

Loitering as a criminal offense is typically a response to merchants who are worried kids around will lose them walk-in traffic.

Skateboarding is disruptive to pedestrians when they skate too close. As a result, law enforcement tends to presume all skateboarders are disruptive.

It’s similar with law enforcement harassment of teens in general. Teens have a reputation of being ruder, poorer, more mischievous than adults, so policies are made to discourage teen traffic, and law enforcement is more inclined to engage teens than adults. Also teens are less familiar with the law, and are less certain what a police officer is allowed to do or not do.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Loitering, skateboarding...

Skateboarding is disruptive to pedestrians when they
> skate too close. As a result, law enforcement tends to
> presume all skateboarders are disruptive.

Well, that and when they use my driveway as their own personal skate park. I literally have to keep my car parked in the driveway instead of in my garage to create an obstacle for them, or I’ll have a pride of skateboarders every day doing their little flip tricks for hours on end. And when they miss (as they do about 90% of the time because they’re not even very good at skateboarding), the board slaps down on the concrete with a sound the equivalent of a rifle shot, which makes it so super easy for us to put our infant down in the afternoon for a nap. Oh, and for a bunch of 11-14 year olds, they have quite the filthy vocabulary. My three-year-old is learning some wonderful words from the pre-pubescent assholes outside.

Yes, I’m that old man shouting “Get off my lawn!”

I don’t care.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Using a driveway as a skate park

The skateboarders miss a lot because they’re practicing.

But noise pollution is a legitimate gripe, especially when you (or your child) are trying to sleep. My town is a pass-through point for touring motorcyclists who’ve removed / sabotaged their mufflers since it helps motorists know they’re there (that’s the explanation, at least). It doesn’t help my sleep when they go by the main boulevard where I live.

But again that’s not motorcyclists in general, but a storm of problems that makes for many offenders to my sleep.

Tony Hawk is apparently trying to open free public-access skate parks in low-income neighborhoods, so that prides of skaters have a place to practice. It doesn’t fix the problem, but it helps.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Using a driveway as a skate park

And they can practice elsewhere. Your whataboutism is irrelevant in the face of the fact that boards slapping the concrete right outside your window in your driveway in your residential neighborhood repeatedly for hours is nothing like a noisy vehicle passing by every now and then.

I grew up skating, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are not beholden to the desires of children who generally care only about themselves.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Using a driveway as a skate park

I don’t know what I said that was whataboutism, rather I was trying to be empathetic and note that the vermin infesting your parking lot are not representative of all children.

But apparently Anonymous you’re determined to be antagonistic. Fair enough. Feel free to push legislation to outlaw children in your community.

Azrael says:

Re: Re:

Yes, i know, you’re a liberal, big complex thought are way beyond your mental capabilities, hence the need for line breaks, but come on, the ruling was clear: while the student had his right of free speech the student newspaper was in no way forced to carry it.
As for protecting the little kiddies from having “wrong” thoughts, we already do that: it’s called political correctness.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Wow, my poe meter just went off the scale.

Azrael I can’t tell if you really hate liberals with that much fervor (and buy the ultra-conservative party line) or are parodying the degree to which extremists hate. Well done, walking the razer’s edge!

I get having reverence for Ingsoc and Big Brother, but pretending your girlfriend is BB while you fuck her is a bit over the top.

JoeCool (profile) says:

Re: Probably wasn't a math teacher.

I was going to point out the same thing. This was CLEARLY not the math teacher… at least, I HOPE it wasn’t.

But it’s telling that the first thing they thought was to go grovelling on their hands and knees and hoped that throwing someone to the lions was enough to appease their local slaughter machine. It’s more telling of what the local police are like than the image that started all this.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Wow, it is amazing how far up their asses he managed to get his nose.

The clubs will keep them from shooting up schools… W T F?

While YOUR community might have a wonderful relationship where the mayor is willing to suck all the cocks, have you seen the rest of the country? How DARE these children who need to grow up to be adults discuss things that make me uncomfortable to the point I have to screw over a teacher, who I have no actual power over, and send another teacher to apologies to the cops who’s feelz got hurt.

Luckily the teacher who went didn’t surprise the cops and get shot.

You can not keep high school students in cocoons where the ills of the world are never mentioned, they are gonna be able to vote soon or go to war, or run a recall campaign for a mayor more interested in trampling the 1st Amendment & orally servicing cops than follow the Constitution of the US.

Parents were offended!!! OH MY HEAVENS!!!
I’m offended they expect the rest of the world to be censored only to the nice parts so they never have to have real discussions with this kids and do that hard work of parenting.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

It is fact that our prison populations do not reflect the distribution of race as seen in the general public.

There are many possible reasons for this, some more plausible than others.

“and that has nothing to do with their economical and educational status.”

Of course not. It has everything to do with the criminal justice system.

“How about that?”

Yeah – how ’bout that … Ok, so you are a bigot.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is a face that the distribution of the prison population reflects the criminality rate of the demographics that make up the prison population.

Stop pretending plea downs for repeat offenders is “they were just smoking weed, mannnnn”.

And cut the crap with the labels. You morons have caused them to lose all effectiveness.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Wealth and connections keep many people from going to prison who would otherwise likely get ‘the book’ thrown at them. Considering that billionaires Sholom Rubashkin and Marc Rich — who got presidential pardons — were so deep in criminality that they should have been locked away for life.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Nazi Presidents

Feel free to point to proganda-laden articles and
> blogspot posts that show how Obama acted like a fascist
> while in office.

Well, Obama– despite being lauded as a ‘constitutional law professor’ by his acolytes– decided that Congress was a mere formality and could be completely ignored in favor of presidential decrees whenever it was politically convenient for him.

When Congress wouldn’t act to create DACA, he just did it himself, despite there being zero authority for the president to unilaterally amend an act of Congress with an executive order, and despite campaigning against just that sort of abuse of power by the Executive Branch during his campaign, calling it ‘dictatorial’.

He did the same thing with Obamacare. The statute passed by Congress had hard deadlines for implementation and Obama just waived them with a stroke of his pen, despite having no legal or constitutional authority to do it.

That may not be ‘fascist’– too many people use that word as a synonym for ‘bad’ these days without knowing what it actually means– but it sure as hell is a significant step toward the dictatorial and not in line with either the letter or spirit of the Constitution.

Contrast that to what Trump is being called ‘fascist’ for– mostly for his crackdown on illegal immigration– which is not actually fascist, dictatorial, or unconstitutional at all. It’s actually right in line with both the constitutional duties and responsibilities of the Executive Branch of the US government. The fact that both parties have shirked that responsibility for years, resulting in unbridled lawlessness with regard to immigration, does not make Trump ‘fascist’ for putting a stop to it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Nazi Presidents

Deportations of illegal aliens were actually higher under Obama than under trump.

and let’s not forget Obama’s infamous “White Paper” in which he gave himself the extraordinary power to assassinate American citizens on US soil.

or promising to end domestic spying and instead greatly expanding it.

Obama was also a warmonger, threatening Iran and Syria and attacking Libya without congressional approval, then refusing to abide by the War Powers Resolution.

The list goes on and on. Obama turned out to be the exact opposite of what he so forcefully promised he would be as president. Yes, a power-hungry fascist in many respects. But Obama was the best bullshitter since Ronald Reagan, so the public always gave him a free pass on his failures.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Nazi Presidents

No, you ding dong, it means the sword cuts both ways.
It means that BOTH sides are guilty of defending “their guy” at the same time they’re condemning the “other guy” for the same sorts of things.

Back to the original post’s point, different people would have lost their shit, but shit still would have been lost.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Nazi Presidents

The both sides argument is simply a device to distract and deflect, thus providing relief (a pass) for the perp, otherwise why not continue with the discussion about how such activity, no matter who has/is/will be doing it, is unacceptable and should be punished …. oh wait – that is what you are trying to avoid – ok I see.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 "Best bullshitter since Ronald Reagan"

George W. Bush was pretty awful. Maybe people these days don’t remember Bush’s predilection for signing statements which he took to a level beyond any President before him. He also was able to suspend the budget for the Iraq war so everyone was surprised the quagmire bill cost 1.9 trillion dollars. But we like to say Thanks, Obama for all that, right?

We haven’t had honest presidents for a while now, and Obama was no different, but it gets weird when he gets dissed bracketed between Bush and Trump. It’s the evangelists (the same ones that called Iraqi Freedom a just war when no other ministers would) giving Trump a mulligan that made it clear that we reserve our morals only for people we don’t like and people we seek to impugn. When it’s a chum, we’re happy to look the other way.

Trump is expanding drone strikes. He’s desperate for a cause to blow shit up, and we’re terrified he’ll go nuclear. He’s also thirsty for torture and just appointed a torturer to run CIA. And that’s before we get to all the unbecoming behavior that has turned the US into a laughing stock on the global theater. It’s before we get to the Putin-love, the blatant racism and taking cues from Fox and Friends.

So I have really good cause to be outraged at the new boss, even if the old bosses were less than great.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Nazi Presidents

That may not be ‘fascist’

Actually, based on your wording, you are calling Obama a fascist. As you yourself point out, too many people use it as a synonym for bad. Maybe you should actually look up the definition yourself?

decided that Congress was a mere formality and could be completely ignored in favor of presidential decrees whenever it was politically convenient for him.

You mean like how Trump likes to sign executive orders to get what he wants? Kind of seems like Trump also has decided that Congress is a mere formality.

mostly for his crackdown on illegal immigration

You mean the all the people who had valid visa’s/greencards/etc… that, with the stroke of a pen, he denied re-entry into the country and tried to deport the ones who already were in the country? Those "illegal" immigrants?

which is not actually fascist, dictatorial, or unconstitutional at all

You mean the exec orders that courts have declared fascist, dictatorial, and unconstitutional?

Yes, both parties have shirked various responsibilities in the past. That doesn’t mean we give the current moron a pass because of it.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Nazi Presidents

You mean the exec orders that courts have declared
> fascist, dictatorial, and unconstitutional?

No court has declared a Trump order to be fascist or dictatorial, if for no other reason than those are not legal terms and therefore no court has the legal authority to make those determinations.

As for unconstitutional, that process is still ongoing. We’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say. However, whatever its ruling may ultimately be, it will not include a determination on fascism or dictatorialism.

> > That may not be ‘fascist’

> Actually, based on your wording, you are calling Obama a
> fascist.

No, my wording clearly stated it’s NOT fascism.

> Yes, both parties have shirked various responsibilities
> in the past. That doesn’t mean we give the current moron
> a pass because of it.

I certainly never advocated giving anyone a pass. All I said was that it’s my experience that the same people who had no problem depicting Bush and Trump as Hitler lost their collective shit when Obama was given the same treatment.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Nazi Presidents

No, my wording clearly stated it’s NOT fascism.

Fascism – form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce

I don’t know man, everything you accuse Obama of certainly fits the definition of fascism. Regardless of what you said you’re not saying, you’re basically calling Obama a fascist.

No court has declared a Trump order to be fascist or dictatorial, if for no other reason than those are not legal terms and therefore no court has the legal authority to make those determinations.

True, but some of his orders have been declared unconstitutional for reasons that are not all dissimilar from fascism.

As for unconstitutional, that process is still ongoing.

Yes and no. Several of his orders have been struck down as unconstitutional. He then revised them and signed new ones which were also struck down. It is only the latest incarnation of those that are being brought before the Supreme Court.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Nazi Presidents

Yeah, that’s not fascism.

Nationalism – definitely Trump, not so much Obama

Disdain for Human Rights – somewhat Obama with extrajudicial drone strikes and domestic spying, but Trump advocates for murdering drug dealers and killing the innocent families of terrorists, so definitely more Trump than Obama

Identification of Enemies as Scapegoats for Unifying a Cause – Obama spoke for unity, Trump blames immigrants, hispanics, blacks, etc for problems and united a front of racists and sexists and bigots

Supremacy of the Military – He wants a goddam military parade like North Korea

Rampant Sexism – “grab em by the pussy”

Controlled Mass Media – The media criticized Obama, and I’m not just talking about Fox. Trump has tried to control the media, constantly attacks them for telling the truth, and has even barred some of them from the White House press breifings

Obsession with National Security – “build the wall” “let’s nuke North Korea”

Religion and Government are Intertwined – the evangelicals think Trump is god-sent and they excuse his sinning for their own benefit while he pretends to be a Christian (who can’t quote the bible and doesn’t go to church). His VP Pence hates the gays and transgender people like a good little fundamentalist

Corporate Power is Protected – Trump’s cabinet has a number of wealthy and corporate interests. Ajit Pai killed NN for his corporate buddies. The tax bill gave a big chunk of change to the wealthy and corporations are using that to fire workers and restructure, literally costing people their jobs

Labor Power is Suppressed – Trump’s administration has fought against unions in the SCOTUS, his education secretary is anti-union

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – “let’s fund the military and build a wall, while cutting funding for the national endowment for the arts”

Obsession with Crime and Punishment – “let’s murder drug dealers,” telling cops to unconstitutionally rough up suspects

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Do I even have to spell out examples?

Fraudulent Elections – Sure, let’s pretend Russia didn’t interfere for Trump’s sake, let’s also pretend that Trump didn’t claim that millions of illegal voters voted for his opposition when there’s been almost no evidence of any voter fraud, let’s also pretend that Trump didn’t convene a committee to look into voter fraud and his cronies didn’t claim they found voter fraud proof because some people moved to a different state and weren’t required to tell the previous state that they moved so their previous voter registration could be canceled

nuff said?

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Nazi Presidents

Supremacy of the Military – He wants a goddam military
. parade like North Korea

Or France.

Or even like the US actually currently does.

I grew up in Killen, TX, right next to Fort Hood. Every 4th of July, we’d have a big parade down the main business avenue in Killeen with all sorts of military vehicles and helicopters and planes flying overhead. And they’d park the tanks and other vehicles that were too heavy to drive down the street in a nearby parking lot for the kids to climb up on and inside.

A good time was had by all and no one was clutching their pearls and running for the fainting couch over how ‘fascistic’ it was.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Nazi Presidents

<i>Something tells me the reaction would be vastly different if the article had depicted Obama as Hitler.</i>


Do you mean the school would have apologized and taken down the article? Or that it would have left it up as people “lost their collective shit,” as long as it wasn’t police people? I honestly have no idea what point it is you’re trying to make here.

Ryunosuke (profile) says:

Okay everyone, Let's say this one more time with GUSTO!

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street Or a public forum, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".

(emphasis added for clarification)

Matal vs Tam reaffirms that hate speech (WHICH THIS IS NOT) is also protected under the first amendment.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Incidentally, re: "Liberal Propaganda"

Part of the point of school is to provide context: why things are what they are, what they were before, and ideally, what we would change.

Id est, Liberal Propaganda

Conservativism in its purest from stems from the basis that things are fine enough the way they are that we can choose to not make changes at all, or at least make changes very slowly to so as not to distress those who like the status quo.

Liberalism recognizes that the status quo is miserable to a not-insignificant portion of the population and each day that change does not occur is to prolong their suffering. And this is a perspective that those outside their lot do not experience, and don’t get without: education.

Propaganda traditionally meant information serving a specific cause or argument, sometimes false but often true. The term has evolved much like Tyrant and Despot (which used to simply be dictators).

Granted, some people want education to be limited to literacy and math, but then they get pissy when their kids don’t understand the significance of their heritage, or American icons and the precepts of American Exceptionalism. They want their kids to be angry when certain statues are taken down and different statues are put up. And in that regard contemporary public education does become a vector to communicate lies and partial truths in order to serve a specific ideology. In that case, education is propaganda in the contemporary sense after all.

But then it’s not very liberal, now, is it?

What it comes down to, is that our community doesn’t trust that their kids have been sufficiently taught to think critically. But then teaching them to think and assess for themselves gives them the power to challenge the values with which they were raised, which they will do once they reach adolescence and are defining their identity as separate from the parents.

And because our parents don’t like that (id est, don’t like their kids actually growing up) a lot of communities have stopped schools from teaching critical thinking.

That One Guy (profile) says:

That's one definition of 'good'

As most of you know, the city of La Verne Police Department has a very good, if not excellent, relationship with our school district, and especially Bonita High School, with a police officer assigned to the La Verne schools as a School Resource officer.

I see ‘grovelling servility’ apparently counts as ‘good, if not excellent’ in that school district, with their frantic rush to the police to throw one of their teachers under the bus just in case something published my offend any sensitive police feelings.

That sort of action does not strike me a the act of someone with an ‘excellent relationship’ with the police, something that would involve a measure of trust that the other party is reasonable. Rather, it comes across as one where the school feared that the police would be offended and take it out on the school/administrators, and therefore rushed to cover their own asses from an over-the-top backlash.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: That's one definition of 'good'

We can’t have the people talking about the oppressive socio-economic structure of our society and the obvious caste system under which we all exist.

This needs to be named something that the people have been conditioned to abhor, otherwise it might get out of hand when more people find out how much they have been screwed over.

The hard part is deciding which of the many dog whistles to choose from. It is interesting to watch as the chorus begins to congeal into using same dog whistle.

ECA (profile) says:

i ask...

WHEN People Throw around big words, I LIKE TO.,.
Stop them and ask them to DEFINE the word..
Liberal?? what the hell?

If this is Liberal, then the person saying it believes in a police state.
Apologizing FOR THE STUDENT…is doing the same thing..
Apologizing TO the POLICE?? I would of asked them their opinions.. And suggest that THIS IS THE TIME, (while still in school) to make friends and Impress them.. Instruct them.. Because all they see, is the BAD things, and the BAD people doing these things.. And if they were perfect..they wouldnt be human..

ECA (profile) says:

If I were to post to FB, site..

I cant/wont sign up to their site..

But would ask them if they like people with Free thinking?
That this was a News/publication class.. And they were supposed to Create what they saw on the news..

For all of this, they didnt talk to the student??
Did they perchance give him other numbers…That show more blacks shoot black people..and White shoot more Whites??

This from a nation that sends our military around the world, to shoot other people..

Brent says:

First Amendment rights are applicable for the publisher

This is simply a misguided school, not a first amendment issue. If the school is the publisher, then the school gets to decide what can be published (or remain published). If the kids don’t like it, they can publish independently. On the web, it’s easy to be your own publisher. Printed copies would cost a small amount of money.

The lesson that rights are meaningless unless you are willing to fight for them is worth teaching. If only that lesson was what the school had intended to teach.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...