Student Protesting and Consequences

[Horatio Parker]

Here in NYC, students have to submit permissions to participate approvedly(?) in the walkout. Otherwise, their absence will be unexcused.

 

[Angry Floof]

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?

I certainly wouldn't stop them walking out or try to pull some lazy excuse like "it's against the rules to walk out so therefore punish them" because I oppose their views.

 

[dismal]

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

I certainly wouldn't stop them walking out or try to pull some lazy excuse like "it's against the rules to walk out so therefore punish them" because I oppose their views.

You don't seem to be registering the basic point here. Their views are irrelevant. The school is Constitutionally required to have a policy that is entirely independent of views.

You have two and only two Constitutionally permissible choices:

1) You support students walking out of class without punishment for any view
2) You don't support students walking out of class without punishment for any view

Any time you are discussing the merits of a given view as if its validity has any relevance to what you support you are venturing into the legally impermissible.

 

[Angry Floof]

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

I certainly wouldn't stop them walking out or try to pull some lazy excuse like "it's against the rules to walk out so therefore punish them" because I oppose their views.

You don't seem to be registering the basic point here. Their views are irrelevant. The school is Constitutionally required to have a policy that is entirely independent of views.

You have two and only two Constitutionally permissible choices:

1) You support students walking out of class without punishment for any view
2) You don't support students walking out of class without punishment for any view

Any time you are discussing the merits of a given view as if its validity has any relevance to what you support you are venturing into the legally impermissible.

I support teenagers walking out of class for any reason they like. After the age of 16 or so, depending on the state, they can do as they choose. It actually takes a lot for a school to expel a student who doesn't want to be there. One day of protesting being punished as if they are giving up on their education to play hookie is a lowlife excuse to control, nothing more.

 

[dismal]

You don't seem to be registering the basic point here. Their views are irrelevant. The school is Constitutionally required to have a policy that is entirely independent of views.

You have two and only two Constitutionally permissible choices:

1) You support students walking out of class without punishment for any view
2) You don't support students walking out of class without punishment for any view

Any time you are discussing the merits of a given view as if its validity has any relevance to what you support you are venturing into the legally impermissible.

I support teenagers walking out of class for any reason they like.

Without consequences? Like they can walk out of class at 16 in protest of green beans being green, never come back, and still graduate with honors?

 

[Angry Floof]

You don't seem to be registering the basic point here. Their views are irrelevant. The school is Constitutionally required to have a policy that is entirely independent of views.

You have two and only two Constitutionally permissible choices:

1) You support students walking out of class without punishment for any view
2) You don't support students walking out of class without punishment for any view

Any time you are discussing the merits of a given view as if its validity has any relevance to what you support you are venturing into the legally impermissible.

I support teenagers walking out of class for any reason they like.

Without consequences? Like they can walk out of class at 16 in protest of green beans being green, never come back, and still graduate with honors?

You're really comparing murder of children to green beans? In your mind, you really equate a petty annoyance with weekly mass murders of students?

I watched a doc on the Kent State murders a few years ago. They had voices from all sides of the issue, including one high ranking military officer who blamed the students for their own murders, citing their stupidity as the cause.

Is there any act so heinous and inhumane that even right wing authoritarians might pause to say, "maybe the powers that be should not have acted as they did"? At what point do human lives (other than your own) impinge, if at all?

So before we go on with this conversation, tell me exactly how many kids should be murdered or by whom or how often or whatever injustice or depraved act could give you pause on the "rules are rules" mentality that demonizes opposition to power and criminalizes victims so you can comfortably sit on your ass and avoid examining the inhumane implications of your own world view.

 

[dismal]

Without consequences? Like they can walk out of class at 16 in protest of green beans being green, never come back, and still graduate with honors?

You're really comparing murder of children to green beans? In your mind, you really equate a petty annoyance with weekly mass murders of students?

I watched a doc on the Kent State murders a few years ago. They had voices from all sides of the issue, including one high ranking military officer who blamed the students for their own murders, citing their stupidity as the cause.

Is there any act so heinous and inhumane that even right wing authoritarians might pause to say, "maybe the powers that be should not have acted as they did"? At what point do human lives (other than your own) impinge, if at all?

So before we go on with this conversation, tell me exactly how many kids should be murdered or by whom or how often or whatever injustice or depraved act could give you pause on the "rules are rules" mentality that demonizes opposition to power and criminalizes victims so you can comfortably sit on your ass and avoid examining the inhumane implications of your own world view.

Tip: my position has been stated several times. The view does not matter. It can't matter. The policy must be independent of the view.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Without consequences? Like they can walk out of class at 16 in protest of green beans being green, never come back, and still graduate with honors?

You're really comparing murder of children to green beans? In your mind, you really equate a petty annoyance with weekly mass murders of students?

I watched a doc on the Kent State murders a few years ago. They had voices from all sides of the issue, including one high ranking military officer who blamed the students for their own murders, citing their stupidity as the cause.

Is there any act so heinous and inhumane that even right wing authoritarians might pause to say, "maybe the powers that be should not have acted as they did"? At what point do human lives (other than your own) impinge, if at all?

So before we go on with this conversation, tell me exactly how many kids should be murdered or by whom or how often or whatever injustice or depraved act could give you pause on the "rules are rules" mentality that demonizes opposition to power and criminalizes victims so you can comfortably sit on your ass and avoid examining the inhumane implications of your own world view.

But you have decided what's important and what's not. But that's not the schools job since it's the government too. If the policy is X for leaving for green beans than it needs to be policy X for a protest on school shooting

 

[Angry Floof]

Without consequences? Like they can walk out of class at 16 in protest of green beans being green, never come back, and still graduate with honors?

You're really comparing murder of children to green beans? In your mind, you really equate a petty annoyance with weekly mass murders of students?

I watched a doc on the Kent State murders a few years ago. They had voices from all sides of the issue, including one high ranking military officer who blamed the students for their own murders, citing their stupidity as the cause.

Is there any act so heinous and inhumane that even right wing authoritarians might pause to say, "maybe the powers that be should not have acted as they did"? At what point do human lives (other than your own) impinge, if at all?

So before we go on with this conversation, tell me exactly how many kids should be murdered or by whom or how often or whatever injustice or depraved act could give you pause on the "rules are rules" mentality that demonizes opposition to power and criminalizes victims so you can comfortably sit on your ass and avoid examining the inhumane implications of your own world view.

Tip: my position has been stated several times. The view does not matter. It can't matter. The policy must be independent of the view.

Like with Kent State. Nothing is worth challenging laws and rules. Gotcha.

 

[dismal]

Tip: my position has been stated several times. The view does not matter. It can't matter. The policy must be independent of the view.

Like with Kent State. Nothing is worth challenging laws and rules. Gotcha.

Do you want me to repeat my position again? It doesn't seem to be having much effect.

Regardless, my position is the law of the land.

 

[Angry Floof]

Tip: my position has been stated several times. The view does not matter. It can't matter. The policy must be independent of the view.

Like with Kent State. Nothing is worth challenging laws and rules. Gotcha.

Do you want me to repeat my position again? It doesn't seem to be having much effect.

Regardless, my position is the law of the land.

Yes, I know. What I'd like to know now is at what point do human lives become more valuable to you than rules?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How are human lives being sacrificed for these rules dismal speaks of?

If you find it important to skip class to attend a protest, have at it. Nobody will kill you for doing so.

 

[Angry Floof]

How are human lives being sacrificed for these rules dismal speaks of?

If you find it important to skip class to attend a protest, have at it. Nobody will kill you for doing so.

I didn't use the word "sacrifice," and the human lives I speak of are the hundreds of students that have been murdered because right wingers nurture a deep lust for guns and for their group identity. A crucial part of that identity is using rules and punishment against out groups.

So yeah, any right winger would call for the criminalization and punishment of people who speak out, especially children who have been traumatized by the violent world right wingers are creating. After all, children are among the most vulnerable in our society and the right wing disease in our country so loves punishing the vulnerable. Fascist, might-is-right minds always go for the low hanging fruit.

 

[abaddon]

Do the walkouts seem potentially educational for the students? Is this a noneducational experience for them?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I thought the first amendment had to do with free political speech, not lima beans.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How are human lives being sacrificed for these rules dismal speaks of?

If you find it important to skip class to attend a protest, have at it. Nobody will kill you for doing so.

I didn't use the word "sacrifice," and the human lives I speak of are the hundreds of students that have been murdered because right wingers nurture a deep lust for guns and for their group identity. A crucial part of that identity is using rules and punishment against out groups.

Where did dismal say any of that in the post you responded to? Did I miss a post?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't know, but I bet that school administrator in Texas who wants to suspend kids also likes to force them to pledge to a flag and wants to introduce his own thoughts and prayers at them through a bullhorn. I mean children are being forced to be in a building under conditions they disagree with. They want to protect their life and liberty and we get things in here like that's "Truancy!" Yes, de facto force the kids to hear the politicians on tv talk about thoughts and prayers. Don't give them a venue to disagree collectively. Keep them in what they may very well think are death buildings.

Because.

Lima beans.

Oh what, you didn't follow my posts yet? I will let you in on a secret.

I am okay with high school students doing a protest because they are afraid of being murdered in school. I am okay with it if they are Republicans who want to have more guns in school and I am okay with it if they are Democrats who want gun control.

But lima beans, seriously? No, you can't skip school because you hate lima beans, unless the school is serving you only lima beans every day and you are protesting that.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Afaict it's more relevant to school administrators choosing to punish protesters. A school can decline to penalize a student for a protest related infraction, but they can't single out protesters for excessive punishment.

The major takeaway here is that schools can almost certainly punish students for walking out of their classes–but not due to the content or message of their protests. In other words, schools, school districts and administrators can constitutionally punish students for being absent from class but not for the underlying expressive walkout itself. And, schools who do overreach on the issue are very likely to face opposition in the courts.

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/is-it-legal-for-schools-to-punish-students-over-walkouts/

 

[coloradoatheist]

Afaict it's more relevant to school administrators choosing to punish protesters. A school can decline to penalize a student for a protest related infraction, but they can't single out protesters for excessive punishment.

The major takeaway here is that schools can almost certainly punish students for walking out of their classes–but not due to the content or message of their protests. In other words, schools, school districts and administrators can constitutionally punish students for being absent from class but not for the underlying expressive walkout itself. And, schools who do overreach on the issue are very likely to face opposition in the courts.

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/is-it-legal-for-schools-to-punish-students-over-walkouts/

Can't answer for dismal, but I agree. If punishment is X for leaving school to hang out at 7/11 then punishment X for this.

 

[RavenSky]

That dean must not be a legal scholar.

It appears that YOU must not be a legal scholar.

It has already been decided by the USSC that students absolutely DO have the right to free speech and the right to protest, and the school CANNOT penalize the students for that.

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.

You are making the same mistake the idiots of the Texas and Wisconsin are making, by implying truancy rules while explicitly referencing the protest itself. Stupid move.

What the USSC ruling said is that schools can give out consequence (i.e. suspension) for the truancy, but only if it is exactly the same consequence as any student would receive for any truancy.

Curtis Rhodes, the superintendent of the school district in Needville, a small town southwest of Houston, wrote a letter to students and parents that was distributed Tuesday on the social media page for the town’s high school. It began with a reference to the protests around the country after a shooting in Parkland, Fla., left 17 people dead.

“Please be advised that the Needville ISD will not allow a student demonstration during school hours for any type of protest or awareness!!” Rhodes wrote. “Should students choose to do so, they will be suspended from school for 3 days and face all the consequences that come along with an out of school suspension. Life is all about choices and every choice has a consequence whether it be positive or negative. We will discipline no matter if it is one, fifty, or five hundred students involved.”

Rhodes — a registered Republican, according to public records — said parental notes would make no difference.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-but-thats-not-legal/?utm_term=.e0d15aa17470

So, his biggest mistake was to explicitly reference the gun protest directly, including his snarky comments about "respecting yourself".

And the next question the ACLU will be asking him is if a THREE day suspension is the customary consequence for any and all partial day truancies. If he cannot show that it is, he has violated the students' civil rights.

A further question will be, does a parental note normal excuse a student's absence? When my daughter was young, I had to take her out of school for part of the day many times for doctor appointments or other events I deemed important. These were ALWAYS "excused" absences, and my child was NEVER issued a suspension for them. Even if these absences became so excessive that the school would have been required to call social services, my child would not have received a punishment because the absence was on me as the parent.

So if the parents of these students support and authorize the student leaving school for the protest, how can the school legally punish the student.

And finally, you are directing your snide comment at the Dean of Admissions for Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Are you suggesting that the Dean of Admissions to a university be FORCED to hold a high school suspension (valid or not) against a student for college admission purposes?