Student Protesting and Consequences

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Certain high schools are threatening to suspend students for walking out protests against gun violence. One in Texas, another in Wisconsin have made some explicit statements. It goes without saying that most high schools are going to follow the same kind of procedure... If the movement is extremely large some pressure may be exerted against the schools...not sure.

In the meantime, some colleges have come out saying that any disciplinary action for peacefully protesting will not affect the college admissions: MIT, Smith, WPI, UMass @ Amherst to name some schools:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...FPiwaLonPN/amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

I can’t believe I even have to clarify this: students applying to WPI will not be penalized for exercising their 1st Amendment rights to speak out against gun violence.

 

[repoman]

I agree that most reasons for a walkout should not be punished. Left or right wing.

 

[Derec]

I can’t believe I even have to clarify this: students applying to WPI will not be penalized for exercising their 1st Amendment rights to speak out against gun violence.

That dean must not be a legal scholar. The First Amendment does not cover right to skip school without consequences.
If it was just about free speech, the students could protest after school, not while they are supposed to be studying.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that most reasons for a walkout should not be punished. Left or right wing.

Reasons should not be. Truancy should.

 

[repoman]

As long as some can protest FOR the wall, I am good.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think that the idea isn't merely about First Amendment but the First Amendment as it applies to the current location of the walk out. So, it's like saying "This place isn't safe. I am going to use my free speech and free peaceful, assembly to walk out of this unsafe place and demand policy change to make it safer."

So, to repoman, if a million students believe they need a wall to make their schools safe, then they might organize a similar protest. That would make the analogy better. Of course, you might also show some evidence of kids dying in school due to not having a wall to help your case, but it isn't clear that is necessary.

 

[Toni]

That dean must not be a legal scholar. The First Amendment does not cover right to skip school without consequences.
If it was just about free speech, the students could protest after school, not while they are supposed to be studying.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that most reasons for a walkout should not be punished. Left or right wing.

Reasons should not be. Truancy should.

You possibly do not know this, but in fact, school administration--and a dean is part of university administration--actually sets policy for admissions, among other things. So, the dean CAN say that the university will not penalize any applicants who take part in activities to protest school violence.

Maybe try a different flavor of shoe leather to chew on.

 

[dismal]

As long as some can protest FOR the wall, I am good.

Well, a public school would have to be viewpoint neutral, so they'd have to allow unpunished walkouts over literally anything.

But what possible problems could arise from that, right?

 

[Angry Floof]

As long as some can protest FOR the wall, I am good.

Well, a public school would have to be viewpoint neutral, so they'd have to allow unpunished walkouts over literally anything.

But what possible problems could arise from that, right?

Depends. What kinds of things inspire children to passionate protest? You might see it a lot at universities, but how often in high schools?

There's something really important to notice in this situation - the lazy, systematic demonization of people acting on their own human responses to their own experiences. Notice who diminishes that and who doesn't. It's important to the kind of world we really want to live in. Stop excusing the easy, automatic demonization of human beings by those who can't think past the ends of their stunted ideology. What some among us are too stupid to notice is that these kids are acting of their own accord. They have the support of millions of adults, yes, but their impetus is their own. Notice who accuses them of being unfeeling entities used as puppets. It's important to call that out for the lazy, diseased callousness it actually is.

 

[dismal]

As long as some can protest FOR the wall, I am good.

Well, a public school would have to be viewpoint neutral, so they'd have to allow unpunished walkouts over literally anything.

But what possible problems could arise from that, right?

Depends. What kinds of things inspire children to passionate protest? You might see it a lot at universities, but how often in high schools?

There's something really important to notice in this situation - the lazy, systematic demonization of people acting on their own human responses to their own experiences. Notice who diminishes that and who doesn't. It's important to the kind of world we really want to live in. Stop excusing the easy, automatic demonization of human beings by those who can't think past the ends of their stunted ideology. What some among us are too stupid to notice is that these kids are acting of their own accord. They have the support of millions of adults, yes, but their impetus is their own. Notice who accuses them of being unfeeling entities used as puppets. It's important to call that out for the lazy, diseased callousness it actually is.

This is all irrelevant. The school must have viewpoint neutral policies.

If you allow a punishment free protest of anything, you must allow punishment free protest of everything.

A student could protest the fit of his pants one day, and the color of green beans the next. Then protest the fact the school day is interrupting his Gilligan's Island reruns for the other 363 days of the year.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why should you not be allowed to skip classes for whatever reason you want? It may effect your grades. Your grades should not be adjusted upwards because you skipped class, but nor should you be told you can't do so, and a black mark shouldn't be out on your record to prevent you from getting into college.

Can we stop all the coddling? Let the students make their choices and make them accept the consequences.

 

[Angry Floof]

Depends. What kinds of things inspire children to passionate protest? You might see it a lot at universities, but how often in high schools?

There's something really important to notice in this situation - the lazy, systematic demonization of people acting on their own human responses to their own experiences. Notice who diminishes that and who doesn't. It's important to the kind of world we really want to live in. Stop excusing the easy, automatic demonization of human beings by those who can't think past the ends of their stunted ideology. What some among us are too stupid to notice is that these kids are acting of their own accord. They have the support of millions of adults, yes, but their impetus is their own. Notice who accuses them of being unfeeling entities used as puppets. It's important to call that out for the lazy, diseased callousness it actually is.

This is all irrelevant. The school must have viewpoint neutral policies.

If you allow a punishment free protest of anything, you must allow punishment free protest of everything.

A student could protest the fit of his pants one day, and the color of green beans the next. Then protest the fact the school day is interrupting his Gilligan's Island reruns for the other 363 days of the year.

This is nothing more than a silly slippery slope fallacy. Allowing kids to protest for the basic right of safe schools is exactly that - kids protesting for safe schools, not for whatever superficial reason you pull out of your ass. Set your inner control freak aside and allow some kind of humane, mature view to emerge.

Given the nature of the right wing mentality, though, I can understand the underlying fear that drives opposition to children demanding safe schools. The ideological line is of utmost importance and so any justification must be pulled out of your asses to avoid seeing them as human beings doing what needs to be done.

 

[Angry Floof]

Why should you not be allowed to skip classes for whatever reason you want? It may effect your grades. Your grades should not be adjusted upwards because you skipped class, but nor should you be told you can't do so, and a black mark shouldn't be out on your record to prevent you from getting into college.

We already allow them that, after the age of 16 or so, depending on the state.

Can we stop all the coddling? Let the students make their choices and make them accept the consequences.

Can we also stop viewing kids as non-human cardboard cutouts with no thoughts of their own?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can we also stop viewing kids as non-human cardboard cutouts with no thoughts of their own?

Exactly. Let them think for themselves, make their decisions, and deal with their own self made consequences. This coddling culture needs to end if we want to have free thinking citizens with a sense of personal responsibility.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why should you not be allowed to skip classes for whatever reason you want? It may effect your grades. Your grades should not be adjusted upwards because you skipped class, but nor should you be told you can't do so, and a black mark shouldn't be out on your record to prevent you from getting into college.

Can we stop all the coddling? Let the students make their choices and make them accept the consequences.

Yep. This issue might be important enough to accept some bad grades for that day. But a school isn't there to decide what is good speech.

 

[fast]

On my planet, we are allowed to walk, but we aren't allowed to chew gum. In fact, we encourage walking and arrest those that chew gum. A mistake is never made, as only those that chew gum are arrested.

Just today, several people were out walking, and they were arrested. What we're they doing? They were walking. Guess why they were arrested. Yes, they were walking, and we encourage walking, and when asked why they were arrested, they said they were just walking. They lied. Walking yes, just walking no.

Guess. Just guess. It wasn't because they were walking.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think that the idea isn't merely about First Amendment but the First Amendment as it applies to the current location of the walk out. So, it's like saying "This place isn't safe. I am going to use my free speech and free peaceful, assembly to walk out of this unsafe place and demand policy change to make it safer."

So, to repoman, if a million students believe they need a wall to make their schools safe, then they might organize a similar protest. That would make the analogy better. Of course, you might also show some evidence of kids dying in school due to not having a wall to help your case, but it isn't clear that is necessary.

I am not really seeing a response to this.

So there appears to be a meme here of content neutrality or "if they can protest a particular x in X, then they can protest any x in X."

My comment was meant to indicate that X might be a smaller subset of the world of politics, in this case such things that the students think directly affects their survival in school.

So, if the school beats them every day, then they might walk out in protest. Or if the school does not provide lunch, recess, and toilet paper then they might walk out in protest. This sort of set of things is much less than the set X. It's a subset lesser than X, an X' if you will. So maybe we're talking about X' c X. And we're talking if they can protest particular x in X', then maybe they can protest any x in X', which is a different question than the meme from detractors.

To give some more concrete examples... Suppose there was a church in town that beat the students. Ought the students walk out of school to protest? That would be an x in X, but not an x in X'.

This is actually a non-political functional difference that remains content-neutral.

So far:
*crickets*

 

[dismal]

Depends. What kinds of things inspire children to passionate protest? You might see it a lot at universities, but how often in high schools?

There's something really important to notice in this situation - the lazy, systematic demonization of people acting on their own human responses to their own experiences. Notice who diminishes that and who doesn't. It's important to the kind of world we really want to live in. Stop excusing the easy, automatic demonization of human beings by those who can't think past the ends of their stunted ideology. What some among us are too stupid to notice is that these kids are acting of their own accord. They have the support of millions of adults, yes, but their impetus is their own. Notice who accuses them of being unfeeling entities used as puppets. It's important to call that out for the lazy, diseased callousness it actually is.

This is all irrelevant. The school must have viewpoint neutral policies.

If you allow a punishment free protest of anything, you must allow punishment free protest of everything.

A student could protest the fit of his pants one day, and the color of green beans the next. Then protest the fact the school day is interrupting his Gilligan's Island reruns for the other 363 days of the year.

This is nothing more than a silly slippery slope fallacy. Allowing kids to protest for the basic right of safe schools is exactly that - kids protesting for safe schools, not for whatever superficial reason you pull out of your ass. Set your inner control freak aside and allow some kind of humane, mature view to emerge.

Given the nature of the right wing mentality, though, I can understand the underlying fear that drives opposition to children demanding safe schools. The ideological line is of utmost importance and so any justification must be pulled out of your asses to avoid seeing them as human beings doing what needs to be done.

Nope, sorry, it's settled Constitutional law.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1028/viewpoint-discrimination

Also, BTW, you're the fascist here. My position is the keep-the-government-out-of-our-speech one.

 

[Angry Floof]

This is nothing more than a silly slippery slope fallacy. Allowing kids to protest for the basic right of safe schools is exactly that - kids protesting for safe schools, not for whatever superficial reason you pull out of your ass. Set your inner control freak aside and allow some kind of humane, mature view to emerge.

Given the nature of the right wing mentality, though, I can understand the underlying fear that drives opposition to children demanding safe schools. The ideological line is of utmost importance and so any justification must be pulled out of your asses to avoid seeing them as human beings doing what needs to be done.

Nope, sorry, it's settled Constitutional law.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1028/viewpoint-discrimination

Also, BTW, you're the fascist here.

Yeah, I'm the fascist for supporting students walking out of school in protest.

My position is the keep-the-government-out-of-our-speech one.

Whatever bullshit helps you to not see murdered children as a problem that should inspire reevaluation of your ideology of selfishness. YEEHAW! Ain't no idiot kids gon' take mah gunz!

 

[dismal]

Yeah, I'm the fascist for supporting students walking out of school in protest.

My position is the keep-the-government-out-of-our-speech one.

Whatever bullshit helps you to not see murdered children as a problem that should inspire reevaluation of your ideology of selfishness. YEEHAW! Ain't no idiot kids gon' take mah gunz!

No, you're the fascist for supporting the government engaging in viewpoint discrimination, which is abhorrent to our free speech rights.

From the link:

In Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995), the Supreme Court declared: “When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yeah, I'm the fascist for supporting students walking out of school in protest.

My position is the keep-the-government-out-of-our-speech one.

Whatever bullshit helps you to not see murdered children as a problem that should inspire reevaluation of your ideology of selfishness. YEEHAW! Ain't no idiot kids gon' take mah gunz!

Would you support the kids who support the NRA and walking out to offer their opposing views?