I'll bet this guy doesn't get off because he is "too pretty to go to jail".

A Freeburg High School driver's education instructor and professional wrestler, whose ring name is "The Teacher," has been charged with breaking the neck of 17-year-old Ashley Reeves of Millstadt and leaving her in dense woods to die.

She was found by police at 2 a.m. Saturday. First listed in critical condition, Reeves had improved somewhat as of late Saturday afternoon after being evacuated to Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital in St. Louis.

On Saturday evening, hospital spokesman Bob Davidson listed Reeves' condition as serious.

The sheriff's department held a press conference at 11 a.m. Saturday to announce the charges against Samson "Sam" R. Shelton, 26, of Wildwood Lake Estates in Smithton. Shelton was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count of kidnapping. He is being held at the St. Clair County Jail with bail set at $1 million.

Shelton teaches both driver's and physical education and is a volunteer assistant baseball coach at Freeburg High School.

The formal charges state that Shelton "used his forearm with such force as to break the neck of Ashley Reeves," and also used his belt in an attempt to strangle her. The 6-foot, 1-inch, 200-pound Shelton is listed as a wrestler in the Ultimate Wrestling Alliance and has appeared in several metro-east prize rings, including in Fairview Heights and Cahokia.

After spending more than 30 hours over a rainy night in thick brush and trees behind a baseball diamond at Citizens Park in Belleville, Reeves, a student at Columbia High School, was discovered about 2 a.m. Saturday by sheriff's investigators.

She was reported missing by her family about 3:30 p.m. Thursday.

Now I will say that this guy clearly was not Ashley's teacher -- she attended school in a different district. Knowing what I do of the geography of the area, I suspect he may have been a neighbor or a member of the same church.

But regardless, this is a horrifying crime. It sounds like there is much more to come out -- but hopefully not in a manner that resembles the circus unfolding in North Carolina.

May this young lady recover and be restored to health to whatever degree is possible.

UPDATE: Just read the article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch -- this guy was a real freak!

A profile of Shelton on the Web site for his fast-pitch softball team says: "Sammy is single and currently looking for a female companion. This may include long term or short term relationship. Age does not matter, must be cute or hot."

The profile also said his hobbies include "touching hookers" and pornography, and described his occupation as a "teacher, pimp, pimp teacher, pro-wrestler."

Why do I get the impression that there may be some guys in the Illinois prison system who are hoping to have Shelton as a cellmate?

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 AM | Comments (70) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like here may be a little justice in the vandalism of a pro-life display at Northern Kentucky University. Not enough, but some.

A professor and six students at Northern Kentucky University have been charged with vandalizing an anti-abortion display on campus, a prosecutor said.

Professor Sally Jacobsen and six students face misdemeanor charges of criminal mischief and theft by unlawful taking, Campbell County Attorney Justin Verst said. Jacobsen, who teaches in the literature and language department, also faces a charge of criminal solicitation because she allegedly encouraged students to participate in the destruction, Verst said.

Four hundred crosses representing aborted fetuses were pulled from the ground and thrown in trash cans around campus on April 12. A sign explaining the temporary display, which had been approved by university officials as an expression of free speech, was also removed.

Jacobsen told The Kentucky Enquirer that she had "invited" students in her graduate-level British literature course to exercise free-speech by destroying the display. She said she was offended by the simulated cemetery, which she considered intimidating to women who might be considering abortions.

* * *

Jacobsen would plead not guilty, Grubbs said, adding that the dismantling of the display didn't amount to a criminal act.

"The intent was just an expression of freedom of speech," Grubbs said. "She saw harm coming from it, and she was just expressing her attitude toward the harm."

The six students charged were Michelle Cruey, Katie Nelson, Heather Nelson, Stephanie Horton, Sara Keebler and Laura Caster. A court date was set for May 11.

That Jacobsen is still unrepentant is a sign that her only sorrow is related to being caught and punished. She is not at all sorry for violating the civil rights of the student group which had requested and received permission to erect the display, as is permitted in a number of public areas on the campus
Students do have a right to free speech on a college campus. That includes setting up displays on controversial political matters and not having them destroyed by individuals with fascist mindsets.

The real shame here is not that Jacobsen and her brainwashed acolytes will face criminal charges -- it is that there is not a felony charge included, and that Jacobsen will be allowed to retire and receive a pension after violating the Constitutional rights of students at the university. Moreover, it is my hope that the students involved receive severe disciplinary action from the University for the same reason --preferably expulsion, but a suspension of at least one year should be sufficient.

And before you ask, I would feel just as strongly if the display were one on behalf of a cause or issue I reject. The First Amendment knows no ideological limits. I wish that the Left would learn that lesson.

MORE AT The Moderate Voice and The American Moderate

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

Oops, never mind – she’s a Republican, so she loses all human rights protection on campus.

The threats began after the College Republicans sued the school over discriminatory distribution of student funds and violations of the First Amendment by the University. I’m not familiar with the merits of the suit, and will not address them here. What is undeniable is the campaign of racial and sexual harassment that began against the head of the campus chapter of the College Republican. Mike Adams sums the situation up well, in his usual colorful style.

Currently, the Pride Alliance at Tech receives funding from the SGA. The College Republicans do not. Now that Tech has been sued by a Republican over the funding issue the tension is palpable. Gays and their allies are calling the suit “intolerant” because, among other things, it seeks to allow the Republican group to be funded on an equal footing with Tech’s homosexual group.

But the gays and their allies don’t want that. They want two things: 1) For the school to keep funding the Pride Alliance and 2) For the school to keep denying the Republicans equal funding.

The fact that the gays and their allies a) see themselves as open-minded for supporting a one-sided presentation of gay issues and b) see the Republicans as narrow-minded for supporting a more diverse presentation of viewpoints speaks volumes about both their intellectual prowess and emotional stability.

But pointing out the lack of intelligence and emotional grounding of the Georgia Tech Gay Gestapo isn’t enough to make them angry. The way to really make them mad is to point out their intolerance. Lately, that’s been easy to do.

Gay Yellow Jackets and their allies have started a campus group condemning a plaintiff in the lawsuit. They have sent emails to that plaintiff (from Georgia Tech addresses) saying things like “bitch I want to choke you.” Some have expressed a desire to throw acid in her face. They have posted pictures of her adorned with swastikas on the internet. They have also passed out posters in dorms calling her a “Twinkie bitch” – this to suggest that she is Asian on the outside and Caucasian on the inside.

In other words, these people are more than just dumb and emotionally unstable. They are also intolerant, not to mention violent

Now let me make a couple of observations here. I have serious qualms about using student fees about student fees funding ANY political groups – but if political groups are to get funds, they must receive them on an equitable basis. I have serious issues with “status” groups receiving funds – whether we are talking gay groups, ethnic groups or gender groups, though I believe that they should also receive funding on an equitable basis. Heck, I’ve never believed in the notion of student fees being used to fund student groups, feeling that they should be self-funded and self-sustaining.

But whatever issues I might take on the question of funding, I can see no legitimate basis for threats of violence, gender-based insults, or the distribution of racist materials. I realize that such basic moral principles are not generally shared by the Left (see the treatment of Michael Steele by Maryland Democrats or the racist insults directed against Condi Rice).

Unless, of course, “tolerance” policies are simply an “Endangered Species Act” to protect liberal interest groups – and intended to turn convert conservatives into road-kill.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 5 kb.

Oops, never mind – she’s a Republican, so she loses all human rights protection on campus.

The threats began after the College Republicans sued the school over discriminatory distribution of student funds and violations of the First Amendment by the University. IÂ’m not familiar with the merits of the suit, and will not address them here. What is undeniable is the campaign of racial and sexual harassment that began against the head of the campus chapter of the College Republican. Mike Adams sums the situation up well, in his usual colorful style.

Currently, the Pride Alliance at Tech receives funding from the SGA. The College Republicans do not. Now that Tech has been sued by a Republican over the funding issue the tension is palpable. Gays and their allies are calling the suit “intolerant” because, among other things, it seeks to allow the Republican group to be funded on an equal footing with Tech’s homosexual group.

But the gays and their allies donÂ’t want that. They want two things: 1) For the school to keep funding the Pride Alliance and 2) For the school to keep denying the Republicans equal funding.

The fact that the gays and their allies a) see themselves as open-minded for supporting a one-sided presentation of gay issues and b) see the Republicans as narrow-minded for supporting a more diverse presentation of viewpoints speaks volumes about both their intellectual prowess and emotional stability.

But pointing out the lack of intelligence and emotional grounding of the Georgia Tech Gay Gestapo isnÂ’t enough to make them angry. The way to really make them mad is to point out their intolerance. Lately, thatÂ’s been easy to do.

Gay Yellow Jackets and their allies have started a campus group condemning a plaintiff in the lawsuit. They have sent emails to that plaintiff (from Georgia Tech addresses) saying things like “bitch I want to choke you.” Some have expressed a desire to throw acid in her face. They have posted pictures of her adorned with swastikas on the internet. They have also passed out posters in dorms calling her a “Twinkie bitch” – this to suggest that she is Asian on the outside and Caucasian on the inside.

In other words, these people are more than just dumb and emotionally unstable. They are also intolerant, not to mention violent

Now let me make a couple of observations here. I have serious qualms about using student fees about student fees funding ANY political groups – but if political groups are to get funds, they must receive them on an equitable basis. I have serious issues with “status” groups receiving funds – whether we are talking gay groups, ethnic groups or gender groups, though I believe that they should also receive funding on an equitable basis. Heck, I’ve never believed in the notion of student fees being used to fund student groups, feeling that they should be self-funded and self-sustaining.

But whatever issues I might take on the question of funding, I can see no legitimate basis for threats of violence, gender-based insults, or the distribution of racist materials. I realize that such basic moral principles are not generally shared by the Left (see the treatment of Michael Steele by Maryland Democrats or the racist insults directed against Condi Rice).

Unless, of course, “tolerance” policies are simply an “Endangered Species Act” to protect liberal interest groups – and intended to turn convert conservatives into road-kill.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm not the author of those words describing the anti-First Amendment decision handed down by a pair of Ninth Circuit judges in Harper v. Poway Unified School District.

No, they are the assesment of the decision by the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times -- a group which is generallly knee-jerk in its support of gay rights and not too friendly towards conservatives Christians.

But in this case, I think ithe paper has put together an editorial that says what i've been trying to say, only better.

Free-speech fashion

IF STUDENTS AT A PUBLIC SCHOOL have a 1st Amendment right to wear black armbands as an antiwar protest — and they do, according to the U.S. Supreme Court — does a Christian student have a similar right to wear a T-shirt proclaiming "Homosexuality Is Shameful"? He should, despite a recent federal appeals court ruling so sweeping and loosely reasoned that it virtually begs the Supreme Court to overrule it.

Offended by the fact that Poway High School near San Diego had declared a "Day of Silence" designed to teach tolerance of gay and lesbian students, sophomore Tyler Harper wore a T-shirt with the "Homosexuality Is Shameful" message on the back and this message on the front: "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned." A teacher told him that the shirt violated the school dress code and was inflammatory. When he refused to remove it, he was kept in a school office for the rest of the day.

Harper and his parents asked a U.S. District Court to issue an injunction preventing the school from interfering with his constitutional rights. The court declined, and its ruling was affirmed last week by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, in explaining why the school was within its rights, Judge Stephen Reinhardt misapplied the Supreme Court's 1969 armband decision and created a "right" that doesn't exist: the right not to be offended.

The armband case gave schools the constitutional authority to suppress student speech only when it poses a "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." A federal district judge had cited that exception in ruling for the school district in the current T-shirt case.

But Reinhardt, joined by another circuit judge, tacked on a spongier rationale: that the T-shirt was "injurious to gay and lesbian students and interfered with their right to learn." He maintained students should be protected not only from face-to-face harassment but also from "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation."

There are several problems with this broad formulation. Harper's T-shirt did not feature lewd or "fighting" words. It did not attack individual gay students. Reinhardt's expansive definition could cover all sorts of utterances that gay students might find offensive — like a classmate's praise for the pope's opposition to gay priests or a civics class comment that states shouldn't legalize same-sex marriage.

Students certainly have a right to learn, free of bullying and harassment. But they also have the right to express opinions that their classmates might find offensive — as long as doing so doesn't pose a substantial threat of disruption.

Thirty-seven years after the armband decision, some may wish the high court had never let the genie of student free speech out of the constitutional bottle. It is also true that gay students have been victims of bullying that no one believes is protected by the 1st Amendment. But Reinhardt's opinion does gay students no service by endowing them with a "right" to be shielded from the offensive opinions of others.

Precisely right -- and if I may extend the principle beyond the scope of this editorial, I'd like to say that no student, regardless of race, sex, orientation, ethnicity, or religious faith is well-served by giving them the right to be shielded from views which offend them if it involves permitting them to invoke the censorship of their fellow students.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 690 words, total size 4 kb.

One of my favorite columnists is Mike Adams, a professor from University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

In today’s columns, he recaps some of his “most offensive” (to liberals) lines from his columns. I’ve taken the liberty of excerpting a few.

“When I talk to liberals, I don’t expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own.”

* * *

“When I am hunting and I know I see a deer in the brush, I pull the trigger. When I know it is a human, I hold my fire. When I don’t know, I also hold my fire. The feminist who doesn’t know whether it a fetus is a person, has the abortion anyway. In other words, she just pulls the trigger. Nonetheless, feminists still feel they are morally superior to hunters.”

* * *

“Over the last couple of years, I’ve been tying to see things from a liberal perspective. Unfortunately, I can’t get my head that far up my ass. I guess it takes a lot of flexibility to be a liberal. It also takes a considerable lack of backbone.”

* * *

“Men are fully capable of masturbating without taking a seminar. For men, it’s a natural talent. For campus feminists, it’s another excuse to seek funding from the university administration.”

* * *

“Bringing American professors to laughter is nearly as tough as bringing American feminists to orgasm. It’s a theoretical possibility that is seldom achieved without a workshop.”

* * *

“I do not believe that surgically applying a breast to a man’s chest can make him a woman any more than surgically applying a horn to a man’s forehead can make him a unicorn.”

* * *

“If you are easily offended by free speech on campus, I have just the solution: Get the hell out of college.”

Well done, Dr. Adams! Academia is in need of many more men and women with your clarity of vision.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

One of my favorite columnists is Mike Adams, a professor from University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

In today’s columns, he recaps some of his “most offensive” (to liberals) lines from his columns. I’ve taken the liberty of excerpting a few.

“When I talk to liberals, I don’t expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own.”

* * *

“When I am hunting and I know I see a deer in the brush, I pull the trigger. When I know it is a human, I hold my fire. When I don’t know, I also hold my fire. The feminist who doesn’t know whether it a fetus is a person, has the abortion anyway. In other words, she just pulls the trigger. Nonetheless, feminists still feel they are morally superior to hunters.”

* * *

“Over the last couple of years, I’ve been tying to see things from a liberal perspective. Unfortunately, I can’t get my head that far up my ass. I guess it takes a lot of flexibility to be a liberal. It also takes a considerable lack of backbone.”

* * *

“Men are fully capable of masturbating without taking a seminar. For men, it’s a natural talent. For campus feminists, it’s another excuse to seek funding from the university administration.”

* * *

“Bringing American professors to laughter is nearly as tough as bringing American feminists to orgasm. It’s a theoretical possibility that is seldom achieved without a workshop.”

* * *

“I do not believe that surgically applying a breast to a man’s chest can make him a woman any more than surgically applying a horn to a man’s forehead can make him a unicorn.”

* * *

“If you are easily offended by free speech on campus, I have just the solution: Get the hell out of college.”

Well done, Dr. Adams! Academia is in need of many more men and women with your clarity of vision.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

The Centralia Orphans (IÂ’m not making up the team name) went 1-8 last year during the high school football season. But earlier this week, several members of the team proved themselves to be winners of a different sort.

Eleven members of the Centralia High School varsity football team are being credited with saving a mechanic's life by lifting a pickup that had crushed him after it slid off a hydraulic lift.

The injured mechanic, Ed Marsh, 33, was in serious condition Tuesday at St. Louis University Hospital, where doctors had placed him in a coma to treat his injuries.

* * *

Marsh, a married father of three, had been working Saturday morning at ExpertTire in Centralia when the Ford F-150 pickup slipped off the lift.

At the time, 11 Centralia football players were collecting used tires on ExpertTire's rear parking lot as part of a community cleanup.

Travis Patten, 16, one of the players, said: "We were throwing tires into the back of a semi when some guy came running over from the Sonic (restaurant) next door. He said, 'We need all you guys to help us. There's a guy trapped underneath a truck.'"

Without hesitation, the boys sprinted around to the front of the garage. In one of the bays, they saw several tire company employees straining to keep as much of the truck's weight as possible off of Marsh. The back half of the truck was still resting on the hydraulic lift.

All that could be seen of Marsh were his legs.

"I grabbed under the driver's tire," said Patten, who stands 5 feet 9 and weighs 135 pounds. "The rest of the players grabbed all around the front.

"We got it up, and they were able to scoot him out."

The other team members involved in the rescue were Jarren Baker, Tyler McAbee, Kyle Pender, Darren Whitelow, Travis Arnold, Lucas Waters, Marquise Shackleford, Nathan Berry, Marcus Currie and T.J. Erlinger.

Well done, men – this is the sort of victory that transcends any you might win on the playing field.

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

Those silly Islamists! Not only do they want to kill folks for daring to show cartoons of their false prophet, but now they want to punish anyone who dares criticize them or their religion on the basis of the terrorism regularly carried out in its name.

An Islamic student group at Michigan State University demanded Monday that university officials publicly reprimand a professor whose Feb. 28 e-mail called on Muslims who don't "like the values of the West" to leave the United States.

But MSU officials said there's little that can be done to punish Indrek Wichman, 55, a tenured professor of mechanical engineering, because his comments essentially constitute free speech. Wichman sent the message to the Muslim Students' Association of Michigan State University while it handed out free cocoa during a public awareness event about controversial cartoons that depicted Islam's founder as a terrorist.

The cartoons, one of which depicted Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, sparked violent protests and riots around the world in February.

Now let’s be clear on the context here – these comments were written at a time when Muslims were rioting in the streets over the fact that non-Muslims dared exercise freedom of speech. It was at a time when hostages were being beheaded in the name of Islam. It was at a time when homicide bombers were committing many murders in the name of Islam.

What did Wichman write?

Dear Moslem Association: As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intened to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian chirches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavain girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsul you dissatisfied, agressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West -- see the 1st Ammendment -- you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially, I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Strong words? Yes, they are. Reasonable words? I would say yes, but that is subject to debate? Offensive words? Probably, but then again the First Amendment does not require that we refrain from uttering words that offend others, even in an educational setting (contrary to the belief of some commenters around here). The University was actually rather timid in its refusal to discipline Wichman – his message was not “essentially” free speech – it was essential free speech, plain and simple. My only real objection here is to the fact that he didn't use the spell-check.

Notice, please what sort of things Wichman objects to – murder, violence, rape, violations of human rights. How can anyone be offended by someone objecting to such things? He indicated that these issues were more important than mere drawings that are an affront to religious belief. Only someone who supports them – or who is so weak intellectually, morally, spiritually and physically that they cannot handle having their own beliefs and actions challenged.

Well, it appears that the president of the Muslim Students Association is such an individual.

To Farhan Abdul Azeez, an MSU senior studying human biology and the president of the student association, the e-mail was startling.

"Naturally, I was very upset. I was disgusted. All of those emotions went through my body," said Azeez, 20, of Canton.

In other words, son, you are a pathetic weakling. Rather than respond with ideas, you responded with a call for censure and censorship – with a healthy dose of thought control thrown in.

Unfortunately, the University is buying into some of your demands – both silencing the professor and “discussing” (read “capitulating on” ) the demand for a reeducation and thought control

Terry Denbow, spokesman for MSU, said Wichman's views in no way represent the university's views. But, he said, they do not violate the university's antidiscrimination policy.

"He was cautioned that any additional commentary ... could constitute the creation of a hostile environment, and that could ... form the basis of a complaint" under the policy, Denbow said.

* * *

Denbow said discussions with students about sensitivity training are ongoing.
"We're not only willing to, but eager to listen to the students. Their commentary to date has been thoughtful," Denbow said.

So you see – Michigan State really doesn’t believe that Wichman’s words are covered by the First Amendment. After all, if they did support the First Amendment, there would have been no need to caution him or dialogue implementing the demanded brainwashing program.

Which leads me to echo Wichman’s comments about those who are troubled by First Amendmen freedoms – any member of the MSA who is so offended by the exercise of free speech here in America is welcome to leave.

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 897 words, total size 6 kb.

I usually respond to comments in the comment section. Sometimes, though, a comment is of such length or its content is so notable that an entire separate post is warranted.

I got one of those last night, in response to my (widely read, thanks to the Houston Chronicle) post entitled "First Amendment (Revised Edition)". The commenter, Jan L Perkins, rather vehemently disagrees with me, and clearly put a lot of time and thought into her words. In doing so, she fell into what I see as some common errors -- errors that I want to correct publicly. I don't do this to ridicule her (in fact, I praise her efforts), but to attempt to lay to rest certain incorrect notions regarding the First Amendment and schools.

So let us begin with the fisking of Jan's comment.

WOW – a court makes a ruling that a school has the right to enforce rules, which are designed to prevent disturbance between different factions within the school, and the court is now violating the US Constitution – how about that – and I thought it was just attempting to head off the conflict before it became nasty – but, of course, perhaps the objection is because the T-shirt read “homosexuality is shameful” rather than “homosexuality was created by God, too”

Several points here.

First, as a government entity, public schools must conform their rules with the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Second, schools cannot, as a rule, permit speech on one side of a controversial issue and not ont he other. The school had been more than willing to permit and sponsor a so-called "Day of Silence" (complete with literature distributions and students disrupting the academic mission of the school by opting out of verbal participation in class as a form of political/religious/social expression). It could not then turn around and argue that a single student expressing the opposite perspective in a passive manner (via a t-shirt) constituted a material disruption or a threat to good order and discipline. In fact, the situation that existed appears very close to that set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines, which is the major precedent dealing with the First Amendment rights of students.

The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, [508] to hair style, or deportment. Cf. Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 392 F.2d 697 (196 ; Pugsley v. Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250 S. W. 538 (1923). It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to "pure speech."

The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.

Only a few of the 18,000 students in the school system wore the black armbands. Only five students were suspended for wearing them. There is no indication that the work of the schools or any class was disrupted. Outside the classrooms, a few students made hostile remarks to the children wearing armbands, but there were no threats or acts of violence on school premises.

* * *

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

* * *

It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol--black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation's involvement [511] in Vietnam--was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible.

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend." Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

How very like the events which happened that day at Poway High School! Tyler Chase Harper was passive, did not disrupt or confront, and while he was subject to a few hostile remarks, there was no substantive disruption. For his trouble he was removed from class, questioned by law enforcement, and told by assistant principal Ed Giles that he must "leave his faith in the car" if it was deemed offensive by school officials. This is in blatant contradiction of the major holding of Tinker.

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

It seems that Mr. Giles, along with the rest of the administration of this school and district, slept through that portion of their school law classes while working towards tehir administrator certification.

Similarly, they ignored an even older precedent, that of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures-Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

Such Boards are numerous and their territorial jurisdiction often small. But small and local authority may feel less sense of responsibility to the Constitution, and agencies of publicity may be less vigilent in calling it to account. . . . [N]one who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution.

Oh, and Jan, nice attempt on your part to tar me with the taint of homophobia. You ignore that I did note some anti-homosexuality messages might be legitimately banned as disruptive. You also are unaware of my past writings on incidents of school censorship and punishment of student speech -- posts in which I stand up for students taking decidedly liberal views as well as conservative ones.

As a teacher you know that children do not have all of the constitutional protections afforded to adults.

You are right -- but I never said they did. There are limits placed in the school setting, but as i noted above, they are tightly drawn.

For example, their lockers may be searched without their permission, even over their objections,

True -- but then again, the school owns the locker and makes those search provisions a part of the student code of conduct. A kid does not have to use thelocker, either.

and they may be compelled to submit to drug tests even when there is no probable cause, indeed no cause whatsoever, to believe they have used drugs,

Half true -- the courts have upheld those policies only with regard to participation in extra-curricular activities, not school attendance.

and the case law is replete with decisions upholding limitations on student speech.

And replete with decisions the other way, which make it clear that the ability of schools to limit student speech is, dare I say it, limited to narrow circumstances.

Those are just three of the ways in which they do not have the same rights as you may have as an adult.

They are three ways in which you misrepresented the holdings of the courts regarding the rights of students under the Constitution.

Even as an adult it is well established in courts all over the country that one may not yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Nice try -- the only problem is that hte quote you are reaching for refers to FALSELY crying "fire" in a crowded theater, because it needlessly and recklessly puts individuals in danger. One could, for example, shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there were a fire. But the expression of a political, social, or religious oipinion could never fall under that rubric, for the expression of a dissenting opinion is not the sort of thing likely to cause a crowd to stampede and trample the vulnerable under foot.

This school may well have had good reason to believe that the T-shirt in question was crying “fire” in a theatre.

The school could never have legitimately taken such a view.

I should not need to have to point out that a “Day of Silence” is not the same as a T-shirt with a message.

Actually, it is functionally the same, and is even less disruptive than the Day of Silence, for reasons I pointed to above. And given the "leave your faith in the car" policy dictated by one school official, the competing event (the Day of Truth) would have been prevented under the same standard -- and the opinion of the judges in this case would mandate the school prohibitting the event.

In fact, if those opposed to homosexuality had sought to have their own day to express their viewpoint silently and peacefully, then you would be closer to having a valid position, assuming they had been denied that right.

Jan, dear, free speech is free speech is free speech.

The problem with Justice Alex KozinskiÂ’s position as reported by you (I have not read the decision) is that he viewed the school as having taken a position on a controversial topic, when, based solely on your version of the facts, it appears to me that the majority concluded the school correctly saw the difference between a Day of Silence and a T-shirt as the difference between the proverbial apples and oranges, and had the power to act to prevent potential violence.

How was the shirt creating a potential act of violence? Would not the Day of Truth be considered equally impermissible, due to the fact that instead of one student expressing the offending opinion we would have many doing so?

By the way, who is Theriot?

Don't be lazy -- click the link and find out for yourself.

I would note that the phrase “under God” was not in the Pledge of Allegiance until I was nearly out of high school. I was raised in a country Methodist church in the Midwest. My mother ensured that I went to church every Sunday, for which I avow I am eternally grateful, although I was not always so grateful at the time I was being required to get out of bed and go. I do not recall anyone in my community at that time, who spoke either for or against the insertion of “under God” into the Pledge, yet they were all good god fearing country folk. I have no strong personal opinion about the phrase, but I have to wonder why one might believe the sky would fall if it were removed?

I'm not going to engage on that issue -- if you notice, the quote you are referring to is bringing out the fact that the Ninth Circuit -- and one of the judges in this case in particular -- has a perceived hostility towards religious speech that offends minorities, to the point that he has repeatedly sought to ban such speech even when it is clearly protected by the Constitution. It is part of why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been the most overturned circuit for the last several years -- it is out of step with the Supreme Court precedents and the US Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 2243 words, total size 15 kb.

I've long had mixed emotions about punishing students for online speech.

As a rule, I don't believe schools have any business regulating out-of-school activity.

On the other hand, I do believe that schools need to monitor -- and perhaps punish -- certain behaviors that bear a direct nexus to school and cause a major disruption.

And that raises some questions.

When high school teacher Lee Waters logged onto a popular Web site and read the demeaning sexual comments a student had posted alongside her picture, the Sarasota woman felt completely degraded.

The school district suspended the North Port High School student, but attorney Geoffrey Morris said Waters doesn't think the boy understands the humiliation she feels.

The teacher filed a lawsuit against the student in March, but she isn't looking for money. She just wants other students to understand how harmful Internet pranks can be, Morris said.

"This teacher was maligned by this kid," Morris said. "She was so upset about it and she filed this lawsuit because she says teaching is a profession and that the administration turned their back on her complaint."

The Sarasota County School District said it did what it could to help Waters, by suspending the student and taking other disciplinary action, but it's not alone as it struggles to deal with cyber-bullying. Similar lawsuits and complaints are popping up in Florida and elsewhere nationwide as bullies move from punching someone on the playground to writing nasty and sometime libelous postings about classmates, teachers and school officials on the Internet, where everyone can read them.

There is a serious question here. The First Amendment is high on my list of non-religious sacred things, but i recognize that there are limits to the First Amendment, especially for kids, when it disrupts school. At the same time, schools regularly exceed authority, and sometimes even attempt to suppress legitimate speech that teachers/administrators find inconvenient.

Ultimately, I guess it comes down to a question of whether the speech/behavior would be within the reach of school officials if it happened someplace other than MySpace or other internet venues.

Threats of violence and assualt at school would clearly be covered.

So, too, might incidents of racial/sexual/other harassment by students against students, if it can be tied to the school setting -- i.e. was part of a pattern of behavior which exists both at the school and away from it.

And at the risk of sounding quite self-serving, retaliatory attacks on teachers and other staff members might qualify, provided the goal is not an attempt to suppress true statements about matters of legitimate public concern.

And remember, sometimes a bit of school discipline might be preferable to the alternative.

Which is preferable -- a three deay suspensio from school for cyber-bullying or criminal charges 9even juvenile charges) for harassment or communicating a threat? A ten day assignment to an alternative school setting or a lawsuit for defamation? And in Texas, there is specific language in state law which protects teachers from acts of harassment (or violence) by students if it is related to the teacher's performance of his or her job, and it even applies to events that occur off school ground and outside school hours -- and the offense can rise to the level of a felony.

And then ther eis the other issue -- can the contents of websites be used for disciplinary purposes by schools.

And it's not only cyber-bullying that's a problem — it's the photos students post. Young girls in barely there clothing, cigarettes dangling from their lips. The basketball team chugging beer at a party. Blogs that threaten a Columbine repeat. All have public and private school officials debating possible disciplinary actions.

What happens when some kid posts a picture on their website of the star quarterback holding a can of beer? Can the school use that picture to punish the student under a no-drinking policy that the athlete and his parents signed as a condition of his participation in extra-curricular activities? Can the coach use it to bench the kid without involving the school?

The internet raises all sorts of questions and issues for educators. What is the solution? I don't know the answer.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 705 words, total size 4 kb.

What else can be said about this statistic?

Chicago public high school freshmen are battling daunting odds: Only 6.5 percent of their predecessors have been earning four-year college degrees by their mid-20s.

For black and Latino male ninth-graders, the numbers are even more alarming. Only about 3 percent wind up graduating from four-year colleges within six years.

So says new research from the University of Chicago's Consortium on Chicago School Research, which looked at the high school graduating classes of 1998, 1999, 2002 and 2003.

One of the study’s authors calls the statistics “appalling.” I agree – and also call it evidence of educational malpractice. It is time for CPS to be taken out of the hands of the corrupt Democrats of the Chicago and their union cronies. Vouchers, anyone?

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

What else can be said about this statistic?

Chicago public high school freshmen are battling daunting odds: Only 6.5 percent of their predecessors have been earning four-year college degrees by their mid-20s.

For black and Latino male ninth-graders, the numbers are even more alarming. Only about 3 percent wind up graduating from four-year colleges within six years.

So says new research from the University of Chicago's Consortium on Chicago School Research, which looked at the high school graduating classes of 1998, 1999, 2002 and 2003.

One of the study’s authors calls the statistics “appalling.” I agree – and also call it evidence of educational malpractice. It is time for CPS to be taken out of the hands of the corrupt Democrats of the Chicago and their union cronies. Vouchers, anyone?

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, after a day off for . . . well, I don't know why they scheduled a day off from testing yesterday, TAKS testing resumes today with the 10th grade Science test. So I'll be trapped in a room all day with the same kids as Tuesday (including one of my most obnoxious students from my history classses), silently praying for the coming of the bell that signals the end of the school day.

* * *

In honor of the day of torture (for them) and boredom (for me), I hereby declare this special edition linkfest and trackback carnival to be OPEN!

Post a link to your noteworthy writings and most interesting rants -- not to mention your well-reasoned and intellectually challenging essays -- for all of us to see.

As usual, I will not limit the number of items you can link, provided you stay reasonable.

And also as usual, remember the rule.

No Porn. No Spam. No Problem.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

They have decided to add BCE and CE to the textpbooks in Kentucky. It is a move that caused controversy.

State board of education members approved curriculum recommendations that would change the designation of time from only the traditionally used terms B.C., or Before Christ and A.D., Anno Domini, for in the year of our Lord. Now, time designations will also include B.C.E., for Before Common Era, and C.E., for Common Era.

Board member David Webb attempted to pass an amendment that would prevent the inclusion of the new terms, but the majority of board members voted against it.

"Dates throughout history have been referred to as B.C. and A.D.," said Webb, who abstained from the curriculum vote. "It's also some degree of a faith-based issue. Especially this Easter season, I thought it was inappropriate for us to reference this."

The changes are recommendations to curriculum standards for students from preschool through 12th grade. The proposal would use both kinds of dating. For example, a date could read 500 A.D./C.E.

"I would want my child to have familiarity with both terms," said board member Hilma Prather. "I could not vote for the deletion of one or the other; I would like the inclusion of both."

The changes will now have to be voted on by a legislative committee and go through a public hearing, board spokeswoman Lisa Gross said. The recommendations could be in effect as early as the 2006-07 school year.

Looks to me like the supporters of the change are doing this for the right reason, and the opponents are supporting the specious argument that it is somehow an attack on religion. The point is that both will be used and taught, so that students will be aware of the commonly used terms that they WILL encounter in college.

I wrote on this issue about a year ago, and feel like it might be useful to repost that earlier commentary on the issue for those who find the issue one of interest.

ORIGINALLY POSTED APRIL 26, 2005

B.C./A.D. Or B.C.E./C.E

We got new textbooks at school last year. As I began to flip through them, I noticed that they used the traditional B.C./A.D. dating convention rather than the newer B.C.E./C.E. convention that has become more popular in recent years. Personally, I donÂ’t have a problem with using either system, but it seems that folks on both sides of the debate are somewhat more worked up over it.

In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out.

The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars.

Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.

The life of Christ still divides the epochs, but the change has stoked the ire of Christians and religious leaders who see it as an attack on a social and political order that has been in place for centuries.

For more than a century, Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era.

This raises the question: Can old and new coexist in harmony, or must one give way to the other to reflect changing times and attitudes?

Now I don’t see why both sides cannot exist in harmony. The breaking point is still the same, and that is the life of Christ. But while I am generally accepting of the B.C.E./C.E., I was initially taught it as Before Christian Era and Christian Era. In my classes, I present both dating systems, and discuss the underlying reasons for using each. I also tell my students that they ultimately have to make a choice in what system to use, and that either one is acceptable – and then proceed to use B.C. and A.D myself for the rest of the year.

Now I am particularly shocked at this criticism that shows up in the article, indicating extreme ignorance or extreme bias.

Although most calendars are based on an epoch or person, B.C. and A.D. have always presented a particular problem for historians: There is no year zero; there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs. Critics say that's additional reason to replace the Christian-based terms.

Hold on just one moment. There is no 33-year gap between the eras. The year 1 B.C. is followed by 1 A.D., marking the traditional year of the birth of Christ (who probably was born between 7 B.C. and 4 B.C.) – there are no years floating around in limbo, falling into neither category. And the lack of a Year 0 is a rather absurd idea as well. After all, when we start counting something, we do not begin by labeling the first one as zero. No, we count them out sequentially, beginning with the number one. The arguments the article makes are just plain stupid, and I cannot imagine any serious scholar offering them.

Now there is a legitimate argument to be made against using B.C. and A.D., and that is the fact that it makes every date into a statement about a religious figure who is rejected by about 75% of the people of the world – more, if one recognizes there are a lot of folks out there who call themselves Christian who have no particular faith in Christ. I certainly understand where making a religious profession every time one uses a calendar might trouble them.

"When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us," said Steven M. Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

I accept that argument, which is why IÂ’m not troubled by the usage of B.C.E. and C.E. as meaning Before Christian Era and Christian Era. It accurately acknowledges the reason for the reason for making a change in dating in the traditional Western calendar system, but avoids requiring anything that resembles a profession of faith. At the same time, it does not engage in religious cleansing, in that it acknowledges the historical centrality of Christianity in the Western world.

Not everyone agrees with me, though.

Candace de Russy, a national writer on education and Catholic issues and a trustee for the State University of New York, doesn't accept the notion of fence-straddling.

"The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police -- a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order," she said.

For centuries, B.C. and A.D. were used in public schools and universities, and in historical and most theological research. Some historians and college instructors started using the new forms as a less Christ-centric alternative.

"I think it's pretty common now," said Gary B. Nash, director of the National Center for History in the Schools. "Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few."

Now I think de Russy overstates the case. The original use of the term in Hebrew schools was designed to be sensitive to both Christians and Jews, and I think that principle certainly extends beyond those two groups and into the world as a whole. But I think Nash carries the argument too far, given that the logical implication of his position is that we should develop a whole new calendar that begins with the year 1 B.W.S.S. (Because We Say So). And that ignores the fact that for some 15 centuries, dates in the West have been calculated according to the system set up by Dionysius Exiguus. It has become the de facto dating system of the world.

In the end, I find myself coming down on the same side as the Professional Association of Georgia EducatorsÂ’ Tim Callahan.

"Is that some sort of the political correctness?" said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an independent group with 60,000 educator members. "It sounds pretty silly to me."

The entire debate is rather silly. There are much greater issues for us to look at. In the end, any of the usages should be considered acceptable. This is a battle that does not need to be fought by either side, and from which all should disengage with an understanding that all three dating conventions will be tolerated. Anyone who cannot do that does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1449 words, total size 9 kb.

Imagine this situation. Two black children, a brother and a sister, enrol at a school which is predominatly white. they are subject to racial slurs and other harrassment. They are threatened and assaulted. In one instance, after the girl is threatened, her white nemesis is forced to apologize -- only to return to school three days later with a weapon, threatening to kill the girl.

What do you think would happen?

We know the answer. There would be marches, protests, outaged community members appearing at emergency meetings to demand that action be taken. State and federal officials would intervene. There would certainly be changes inthe school and district administration, designed to change the "festering culture of racism" that had been permitted to arise in the school.

Well, that isn't what happened at one school in Peoria, Illinois. But then again, the victims were white, and the perpetrators were. . . well, the columnist is too PC to actually tell us what race the perpetrators are. Doing so might be construed as racist, I suppose.

Up to the point a fourth-grader brought a box cutter to school and threatened to kill their daughter, Joe and Jessica Sweeney wanted to give Glen Oak Primary School a chance.

"'This is our neighborhood. This is where we live. Let's give the public schools a shot,'" is the way Joe describes their reasoning. "We've lived here six years. Let's give it a shot."

* * *

From the beginning, it was uncomfortable. Both children were taunted with racial slurs, particularly Alexis. The Sweeneys tried to make this a life lesson, coaching their kids to respond appropriately. They advised the children to report any threats or poor treatment to teachers, assuming the adults were addressing the problems. And they prayed their kids were simply learning the uncomfortable truth that life can be tough. But the incidents didn't stop, despite a lot of back-and-forth with the school. The kids kept their grades up, but they got pretty quiet.

In mid-March, matters came to a head during an after-school program. Alexis was alone in a bathroom when she was threatened by three other girls. Jessica went to the principal, who brought the ringleader in and made her apologize. Days later, the same girl was back - with a box cutter - threatening to kill Alexis. On the ride home after that incident, Jacob displayed a large bruise on his arm from being shoved to the ground and called a "stupid white boy."

Jessica pulled both kids out of the school immediately.

"I'm done," she says. "I'm done putting her life at risk because you won't do anything."

"This is beyond standard fourth-grade stuff," agrees Joe. "This is becoming racial now. They're not going back."

Frankly, I think these parents should have pulled the kids much earlier. The failure of the school to adequately address the situation should have been a signal that the situation would only get worse. After all, consider how the school and the district responded.

He feels this is a two-part problem. First and most importantly, they feel the school has failed to ensure the children's safety. But, second, they don't think Peoria School District 150 offered much in the way of alternatives or support. The Sweeneys were given the option to switch to Kingman Primary School. They refused. Alexis and Jacob would still be a small part of the handful of white children there.

"It's racial harassment. It's just the other way," says Joe. "There needs to be a zero-tolerance policy of any type of harassment."

One suggestion was that the family move. Again, they refused. Four houses along their street near Midtown Plaza belong to members of Jessica's family. The kids have plenty of friends - and cousins - in the neighborhood. Their grandmother runs a small business up the block.

"This is our home," Joe says. "It may not be in the best area, but this is our home."

THEY TOLD THE FAMILY TO SELL THEIR HOME AND MOVE! Could you imagine the outrage if they had been a black family in a mostly white school and had been told that the solution was for them to move somewhere where there were more of their own kind? That district would be under court supervision until two or three years after the Second Coming. Individuals would have lost their teaching and administrative credentials. But since the kids are only white, it really is not a big deal, I suppose.

And lest you think this is a family of whiners, consider the situation of the older brother who is a few years ahead of the threatened students.

Unlike other families who have pulled children from Peoria schools in favor of Catholic education or more upscale neighboring districts, the Sweeneys are in a unique position to publicly explain why. They are not fleeing the inner city. This is not a knee-jerk reaction against District 150. And it's tough to brand them as closet racists.

They actually have three children. Their oldest son, Caleb, is bi-racial. He has attended District 150 schools and thrived.

"My son is in Von Steuben," Jessica says. "He's mixed. He doesn't have one problem."

The mixed-race child is fine. He isn't subject to the harrassment faced by his younger siblings. So the problem clearly comes down to one of race, and the failure of a school and district to address racist actions by minority children.

Most galling, in my opinion, is the reaction of Assistant Superintendent Cindy Fischer. She claims that all procedures have ben followed correctly.

The bottom of the official line is that the district has policies that were followed in each of these instances. Every one was addressed, in large part through a nationally-recognized program that teaches and reinforces appropriate behavior. District-wide, 150 has four committees exploring various aspects of discipline problems. And for this family, offering Kingman is a respectable option: It is late in the year, so the district is reluctant to make any transfers. But Kingman has fewer discipline problems and several openings. Hines Primary School, which is the Sweeneys' choice because Caleb did well there, has none.

"It certainly is our regret that we were not able to bring satisfaction to this parent," Fischer says. "As consumers, when we're not satisfied with one product, we go to another. I think that is what this parent has done."

In other words, the family should be thankful that the district even offered the kids refuge in another school -- they could have been required to stay in their old school, under regular threat of violence with no effective response from the administration. And that last line about consumers making choices is positively obscene, for the parents are taxpaying citizens who will still have a portion of their assets extorted from them in the form of taxes to support a school system which so ineffectively dealt with the racial abuse of their children. Yeah, they made a choice to move the kids to a school where they would be safe -- but they are still paying for the school they wish to have their children attend but cannot due to safety concerns.

It is situations like these that make the best case for vouchers -- if not the outright shuttering of the public school system. After all, if the funding of the district actually depended on dealing effectively with racial harrassment of all children -- and not just those of vocal minority communities -- maybe there would be an adequate response.

Posted by: Greg at 12:34 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1268 words, total size 8 kb.

We've heard a lot about freedom of speech and academic freedom from professors over the last couple of years as our nation has wrestled with the issue of political indoctrination in the classroom and hostility to Christian and conservative viewpoints at various schools around the country. Interestingly enough, the academics always are defending the Left to be heard, despite the fact that such views are teh dominant ones in the groves of academe. Conservative views, on the other hand, are almost always dismissed as irrelevant at best and intolerant at worst, and those expressing them usually find themselves fighting for the right to be heard (when there are not active attempt to suppress such views as intolerantbigottedracistsexistandhomophobic).

Which takes us now to Northern Kentucky University. (H/T Michelle Malkin)

A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.

NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials.

Public universities cannot ban such displays because they are a type of symbolic speech that has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Witnesses reported "a group of females of various ages" committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police.

Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU's literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.

"I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said.

Asked whether she participated in pulling up the crosses, the professor said, "I have no comment."

Such courage on the part of this so-called educator -- inciting criminal activity (not free speech) by her students and then refusing to answer a simple question about the extent of her own involvement. And I would like to remind the professor that property destruction is not free speech -- and she would not consider it to be so if someone ransacked her office, broke her car windows, or torched her house in protest of her vile act of speech suppression.

Why encourage/participate in this anti-freedom activity? Jacobsen explains it this way.

She said she was infuriated by the display, which she saw as intimidating and a "slap in the face" to women who might be making "the agonizing and very private decision to have an abortion.'"

Jacobsen said it originally wasn't clear who had placed the crosses on campus.

She said that could make it appear that NKU endorsed the message.

Pulling up the crosses was similar to citizens taking down Nazi displays on Fountain Square, she said.

"Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged," Jacobsen said.

Let's break that down.

1) The display made her mad -- and her unstable emotional state trumps the rights of every other American.

2) Women are so emotionally delicate that they could be upset by the display's message and so the display needed togo -- but women have the strength of mind and will to be permitted to decide whether or not to take an inconvenient human life.

3) Right to life folks are Nazis and Nazis are entitled to no free speech rights (funny, that isn't what the First Amendment, the courts, and even the ACLU have to say on the matter).

4) The display's sponsorship was unclear, and someone might infer that private speech by students represented an official university position (this is false -- more on that in a moment).

Notice -- not a single legitimate justification for her violation of the rights of others. So much for freedom of speech and academic freedom!

And then there is that sponsorship issue.

In an e-mail sent to campus officials earlier this week and obtained by The Kentucky Post, Jacobsen demanded the display be removed immediately. She wrote that the crosses violated the separation of church and state because NKU is a state institution.

Jacobsen knew who had put up the display, and that the university had determined that the pro-life group had every right to do so under the laws and the Constitution of the United States. She further knew that the university could not legally censor the speech that offended her. So she took it upon herself to gather a group of vigilantes and engage in conduct which differed from that of a KKK lynch mob in degree but not in nature -- the violation of the civil rights of American citizens designed to intimidate others who might exercise those same rights.

Fortunately, NKU has a president and a dean who will not stand for such unAmerican conduct by a faculty member, tenured or not. Police are investigating, charges against those involved are promised, and support for the victims is being offered. Let's hope the result is the removal of this uncivil anti-libertarian from the faculty.

Oh, and to those who want to argue that the actions of Jacobsen and her band of anti-free-speech terrorists constitutes civil disobedience, I have one question -- would you consider it to be an act of free speech and civil disobedience if a group of men, hurt by their inability to stop the feticide of children they wanted, were to attack Sally Jacobsen with clubs in order to express their outrage at her activities and then justify it by claiming that "any violence perpetrated against that silly woman was minor compared to how we felt when we read of her actions"?

MORE AT: Texas Rainmaker, Flynn Files, Stop the ACLU, ATTOTWT, Where I Stand, Pollywog Creek, Darleen's Place, Bizzy Blog, Urban Grounds, Zero Point, Shock and Blog, Right Wing Nation, Freedom Folks, Expose the Left, Verum Serum, Pro-Life Blogs, Black Republican, Wizbang (twice), Mean Mr. Mustard, Jawa Report, Last Round, Right Minded, Yippee-Ki-Yay, Colossus of Rhodey

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1043 words, total size 9 kb.

This little blurb from the Alliance Defense Fund appeared in my email today. I'll be interested in watching the story develop -- and hope that some press accounts appear that will flesh out the story.

Officials at the Ohio State University are investigating an OSU Mansfield librarian for “sexual harassment” after he recommended four conservative books for a freshman reading program. ADF has demanded that OSU cease its frivolous investigation, yet the university is pressing forward, claiming that it takes the charges “seriously.”

“Universities are one of the most hostile places for Christians and conservatives in America,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who heads ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom. “It is shameful that OSU would investigate a Christian librarian for simply recommending books that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the university.”

Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU MansfieldÂ’s First Year Reading Experience Committee. The four books he suggested were The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat YeÂ’or, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Savage made the recommendations after other committee members had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective, by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.

Savage was put under “investigation” by OSU’s Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel “unsafe.” The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges.

If the facts as presented are, in fact, accurate, then this complaint is a serious breach of academic freedom. Furthermore, if the professors in question are threatened or made to feel "unsafe" by the mere suggestion that students be exposed to ideas other than their own, then it strikes me that they need to be terminated forthwith as unfit for membership in the University community.

MORE AT Instapundit, Volokh, Ed Driscoll, Ace of Spades

Posted by: Greg at 04:27 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

And what's more, provided no option for students who did not wish to attend or who were offended by the speaker -- making them a captive audience.

A Tucson High Magnet School student will tell state lawmakers next week that she was forced by school officials to listen to a pro-immigrant speech.

Senior Mon-yee Fung,17, voluntarily attended an assembly where co-founder of the United Farm Workers Union Dolores Huerta spoke, but could not leave after Huerta began saying "Republicans hate Latinos."

"I wanted to listen to what they had to say, but all they had to say was hate speak," said Fung, head of the school's Teenage Republicans Club. "They're saying that I don't like Mexicans or that I don't try to understand what they're doing, but I am trying to understand."

State Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, wants Fung to tell her story to Fox News today at 5 p.m.

"She was forced to listen to a political speech for over 40 minutes," Paton said. "To me that's a real problem because we shouldn't have the schools as a forum for political speech. They should be a forum for education."

Now her attendance clearly was not voluntary, based upon this admission by the principal of the school.

Tucson High Principal Abel Morado said he was unaware of the incident involving Fung.

"I will take the young lady's word for it," he said. "It may have been a supervision issue. We ask teachers to properly supervise their students during an assembly and sit with their class."

Students were told they could go to the assembly or the library, but the library locked because of miscommunication.

"I did learn after the fact that the library was closed," Morado said. "It may have been that the librarian chose to go to the assembly. That's my responsibility."

In other words, you could choose to attend the assembly -- or attend the assembly. So you see, there really was no free choice on Fung's part. Besides, if attendance was voluntary at this political event, doesn't that include the right to leave in protest of the hateful and malicious falsehoods being spewed by the speaker?

Now I have no problem with the choise of speaker -- Dolores Huerta is a figure of historical importance in contemprary Hispanic history -- but I do believe she crossed a line in this setting. That Huerta did not see this is troubling -- and that she remains unapologetic for her defamatory comments is more disturbing still.

Huerta said she was invited to speak at Tucson High as part of the effort to keep students in school and disagreed with Paton's assertion that political speech has no place in school.

"This is a terrific opportunity for young people to learn what the democratic process is about, the way that bills are passed," Huerta said. "I explained this whole procedure to the students."

Huerta said her "Republicans hate Latinos" comment was based on the number of anti-immigration bills sponsored by Republicans.

"Large numbers of the Republican Party are anti-immigrant or anti-Latino," she said. "I can justify that."

Wrong, Ms. Huerta -- there are large segments of the GOP that are anti-wetback, just like Cesar Chavez was. You know, the guy who you worked with all those years in founding and runing the UFW. Chavez recognized that those who come to this country illegally depress the wages of citizens and legal immigrants, and that illegals are exploited by unethical employers. So unless it is your contention that Cesar Chavez was anti-immigrant or anti-Latino, your statement is way out of line.

I'm also cuious -- precisely who invited Huerta to speak? the article does not say, and it would appear that the school administration was not involved. After all, if they were, they surely would have brought in another speaker to provide the other side, in the interest of intellectual honesty.

Or maybe not.

Morado said the school is a "wonderful venue" to see the opposing sides of an issue, but acknowledged that no effort has been made on his part to bring in somebody who supports the controversial immigration bill, HR 4437.

"I don't see that it is my role to turn around and say that "OK, we've had this speaker, now let's turn around and get this speaker," he said. "If there was somebody in favor of that and they wanted to speak at Tucson High, I wouldn't oppose that if my students invited them or if my teachers invited them."

Excuse me? You don't see it as your role to provide a balanced look at a hot-button issue when you have brought in a speaker from one side of the issue? Are you running a school, or an indoctrination center. Never mind, sir, you don't need to answer -- the above makes it quite clear what the honest answer would be. Not that you would give us an honest answer.

Oh, and while we are at it, maybe you could address this little issue of censorship.

Flung also said she was asked to remove a poster recruiting young Republicans because it was "too inflammatory."

The poster read "Be an American, join the Teenage Republican Club."

I get it -- "GOP=PATRIOTIC" is inflamatory, but ""GOP=RACIST" is just fine. Sounds to me like there needs to be a housecleaning at this school -- starting with the principal.

Posted by: Greg at 04:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 908 words, total size 5 kb.

It took a while, but the Alabama Democrat Party has called upon West Limestone High School science teacher Steve White to withdraw from the race for the party's nomination for the state legislature, due to his unprofessional conduct in the classroom.

Under siege by Republicans, a Limestone County teacher has been asked by Democratic leaders to withdraw his Democratic candidacy for a state House seat amid allegations that he showed students a vulgar video of President Bush.

The Alabama Democratic Party, in a statement Wednesday, said the withdrawal was discussed with Steve White, a candidate for the House District 4 seat, "days ago, prior to Republican protests."

It also said White had resigned his position as a local party official. But there was no immediate word from White on whether he will drop out of the race.

"The safety and welfare of Limestone County's children and their families is our number one concern right now, not politics," Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham said in the statement.

Turnham said that if the allegations against White are proven true, he will face "appropriate consequences" by the party committee.

The statement came amid GOP calls for Democrats to rebuke the teacher and for school officials to fire him.

The Alabama Republican Party in a statement released Wednesday asked Turnham to rebuke White. Accused of showing the vulgar video about Bush and other conservatives, White first was issued a reprimand; he was put on leave after another complaint, the details of which have not been disclosed by school officials.

Before Turnham released his statement, state GOP Chairman Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh issued one denouncing Democratic inaction. "By remaining silent, Joe Turnham is, in essence, condoning what Steve White did, and that says a lot about the Alabama Democrat Party," she said.

I wonder what "appropriate consequences" would be. After all, the party would have no way of forcing him off the ballot prior to the primary, nor if he were to officially win the nomination. Could it be that they are just blowing smoke as a matter of "saving face"?

And is it a matter of concern for the children in White's classes, or that he is alleged to have shown a video to his students which mocked Bill Clinton?

Now let's hope that the school board has the guts to fire Steve White.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, SpunkyHomeSchool, Right Wing Nation, AListReview, J Rob's House of Opinion, Church and State, HoodaThunk?, Freedom for Some, Freedom Folks, Once More Into The Breach, Daily Musings, Moonbattery, Brutally Honest, Aldaynet, Right Voices, Independent Conservative, Expose the Left, Michelle Malkin (again), Media Crunch, Church and State (again), Skilletfan, Mike's America, Strata-Sphere

Posted by: Greg at 03:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 5 kb.

Remember Steve White, the moonbat schience teacher and Democrat candidate for the Alabama Legislature who showed a profane anti-Bush video to his eighth grade science students? Well, it appears that he is under further investigation for unprofessional behavior in showing inappropriate and non-subject related material to his students. This one also provides presidential insults, and could result in more serious discipline.

But then again, this (allegedly) obscene video mocks and insults Bill Clinton. No wonder they are taking action.

School officials were talking with some students Monday at West Limestone High School after receiving additional complaints from parents about offensive material shown to students by teacher Steve White.

“We’re investigating that now,” said Superintendent Dr. Barry Carroll.

White, who is a Democratic candidate for the District 4 seat on the state House of Representatives, was previously accused of showing an offensive Internet video against the Bush administration to his eighth grade science class at West Limestone High School.

“We’ve had some calls from parents about other allegations and we are talking to students,” Carroll said. “We hope by (Tuesday) we will be able to determine something and move in whatever direction we need to.”

Carroll did not describe the new complaints but one parent said an obscene video showing an animated Bill Clinton was shown to students.

Sorry, but this double standard is pretty offensive. The first offense was so egregious that White should have been fired, or at least suspended, due to his unprofessional conduct, not merely reprimanded. That there is a pattern makes termination of the now-suspended teacher mandatory.

And interestingly enough, the superintendent that defended the initial reprimand of White had a much harsher standard when it came to recommending the termination of a bus driver a few months ago. I didn't know the details when I first wrote on this issue, but it seems that the language used in that case was significantly less offensive than that which White brought into the classroom and for which he was merely reprimanded.

However, in a public school board meeting in December, Carroll recommended the board fire a bus driver who allegedly said the phrase “p—-ed off” and the d-word to students on the bus. The board voted not to terminate the driver.

Compare that to over twenty uses of the word "asshole" in the video, along with one use of "shit" and the flipping of a profane gesture. Seems to me that Dr. Carroll has some serious explaining to do about his sense of proportionality.

Hopefully this incident will be sufficient to result in Steve White's permanent removal from the classroom -- and that certain other folks in both campus and district administration are ushered out the door in Limestone County.

UPDATED HERE

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, SpunkyHomeSchool, Right Wing Nation, AListReview, J Rob's House of Opinion, Church and State, HoodaThunk?, Freedom for Some, Freedom Folks, Once More Into The Breach, Daily Musings, Moonbattery, Brutally Honest, Aldaynet, Right Voices, Independent Conservative, Expose the Left, Michelle Malkin (again), Media Crunch, Church and State (again), Skilletfan, Mike's America, Strata-Sphere

Posted by: Greg at 12:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 6 kb.

Well, he is a liberal – and a Democrat candidate for the legislature. Why would they possibly want to fire him for professional misconduct?

An eighth-grade science teacher, who is a Democratic candidate for state office, won't face suspension for showing students a derogatory, profanity-filled Internet film about the president.

Limestone County Superintendent Barry Carroll said Thursday that he talked with West Limestone High School teacher Steve White about showing the film.
"It's a personnel matter, and it's been handled," Carroll said. "Both I and Principal Stan Davis discussed the matter with him. He's not on suspension or anything like that."

Carroll would not specify how he handled it.

White has qualified to run for District 4 state representative, which includes portions of Limestone and Morgan counties.

A personnel matter? Well I suppose it was, but it should have been handled much more severely. Consider what he showed to a captive audience of middle school students.

The video by Filmstripinternational.com opens with the words "American Civics Volume II" and shows black and white clips of war and what appears to be the Great Depression.

It refers to a country at war, the poor getting poorer and jobs moving overseas. Then it shows a color photo of President Bush with a profane caption.

That upset some parents, who complained to school officials about the content of the clips featuring Bush, members of his administration and his supporters.

Other captions, some containing profanity, are shown under photos of Texas Rep. Tom DeLay, Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The band Big Jim's Ego performs the film's song. As images of Bush's administration scroll across the screen, the song says:

And I know there are those people,
Who say they never are to blame;
And that's not my modus operandi,
I don't play that game.
And then there are some people, who claim the sun shines out their behind
And it's oh so hard to get them to change their mind;
And I've given up trying.

Carroll said White did not give a reason for showing the film. Carroll said the incident occurred before spring break.

Somebody, please, explain to me a sound educational reason for showing a profane political propaganda piece in a middle school level science classroom. I mean, I only have a decade of experience teaching on the high school level (half of it teaching social studies courses) and a nearly a decade teaching government on the college level, so I may lack the training and level of expertise to understand the valid educational objective that the film would accomplish in an eighth grade science setting . IÂ’ve not been able to think of one -- not even for my high school history classroom.

In light of the clear abuse of his position, I think termination is in order. And if the school board does not quickly intervene in this situation, I believe that the voters should see to it that they also are removed from any position of influence in the school district.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin writes on this topic today -- and the article she links to points to some interesting details about this clown's "science" class. This isn't the first time he has turned the topic to politics -- or imposed his views on students.

[Parent Christy] Jackson said she is disturbed by both the political message and the obscenities in the video. “I don’t see what that has to do with science,” she said.

According to her son and his friends, she said, discussion in WhiteÂ’s science class often turns to politics.

“I know of one instance where my son was told he couldn’t leave the room without saying, ‘John Kerry rocks,’” she said. “I think my son is entitled to his opinion, just like (his teacher) is. I don’t think any issue should be forced on my son.”

I'm sorry, but such conduct by a teacher is outrageous! He certainly out-did Jay Bennish by a country mile. Imposing a statement of political loyalty upon a student in any class -- much less a science class -- is not simply unprofessional, but also unAmerican.

Oh, and about the content of the video in question -- this additional article includes some furhter explanation of the objectional contents.

The video clip, which can be viewed at Filmstripinternational.com, shows a slideshow of images accompanied by a song called “A—hole.” The slides show President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration. Words are typed on each image; a photo of bush in college bears the caption “A ‘bad apple’ in college.” A scene showing Rice said she was shopping for shoes after the “levee broke.”

The word a—hole is sung nine times and shown on screen 11 times; the s-word is used once and someone is shown “flipping a bird” once.

In.

Eighth.

Grade.

Science.

Class.

How on earth can this be defended -- and how can a reprimand possibly be sufficient?

Oh -- don't overlook these previous actions by the panty-waist superintendent, Dr. Barry Carroll.

On Dec. 14, Carroll immediately suspended and then recommended that board members fire a school bus driver accused of using a vulgarity aboard the bus. The board did not terminate the driver.

In August of 2004, Carroll removed Internet access for teachers and students from county schools to prevent misuse and protect students. A few months later, access was returned to those faculty and staff who signed Internet use agreements and stated they would not access the Internet for personal use. Students only have access to Internet sites that are pre-approved by teachers.

A single vulgar statement was grounds for terminating a bus driver back in December, according to Carroll -- but 21 vulgar words and an obscene hand gesture in the classroom merits only a stern talking-to for a teacher. Seems to me that he has a warped notion of appropriate professional conduct. And givent hat the material in question would have been barred to the students under district policy -- and that accessing the video from school could in no way be deemed as a part of White's professional duties (remember -- he teaches science), it appears that Carroll is unwilling to enforce district policies in a fair and even-handed way when the out-of-control employee is a politically-connected left-winger. I'd have to argue that not only does Steve White merit termination, but that Dr. Carroll needs to go as well. And if I lived in the area, I'd look askance at the school board, too, for letting this situation be handled in such a manner.

UPDATED HERE -- 4/11/06 & HERE

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, SpunkyHomeSchool, Right Wing Nation, AListReview, J Rob's House of Opinion, Church and State, HoodaThunk?, Freedom for Some, Freedom Folks, Once More Into The Breach, Daily Musings, Moonbattery, Brutally Honest, Aldaynet, Right Voices, Independent Conservative, Expose the Left, Michelle Malkin (again), Media Crunch, Church and State (again), Skilletfan, Mike's America, Strata-Sphere

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Stop the ACLU, Right Wing Nation, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Wizbang, Bullwinkle Blog, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Uncooperative Blogger, Samantha Burns, Stuck on Stupid, Voteswagon, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Outside the Beltway, Conservative Cat, Third World Country

Posted by: Greg at 12:34 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1225 words, total size 11 kb.