It forces the administration to keep looking at the problem. They can't pretend things are back to business as usual. The administration has to decide how to respond. Will their response continue to alienate students and faculty who have an ounce of empathy? Or will it begin to address their previous mistakes in a meaningful way. Either way, these students are forcing the conversation. Even if the administration does nothing at all, that is in itself a message.
MerrySkeptic
joined 2 years ago
Buttery males
From the article:
Brian Cullen, an attorney for the school district, said Monday he was pleased with what he called a well-reasoned ruling that affirms that school districts can and should protect students from harassment from adults on school grounds. And he noted that the ruling doesn’t prevent the plaintiffs from expressing their views in other ways.
“It simply prevents them from bringing their protest to the sidelines of a game being played by kids. That should not be a controversial limitation,” he said.
Yes, private organizations can set their own rules. That doesn't change the basis of this ruling.
If a private club league had their own rules that said (among other things) "We do not tolerate promoting views that exclude on the basis of sexual identity during league events," then the league would be within its rights to remove anyone violating that rule. Absent that, free speech applies. Especially for wearing something as vague as a pink bracelet.
Re: your example, there are many organizations that exclude on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. The Boy Scouts, for example, still require that members sign a Declaration of Religious Principle saying that they believe in some sort of higher power. This excludes atheists and agnostics. They also used to exclude homosexuals. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor back in the late 90s or early 00s that as a private organization they had the right to exclude whoever they wanted. They changed their stance on homosexuality voluntarily, but the SC ruling still applies. It is public institutions that cannot exclude, not private.
As far as this ruling goes, it's not about the message it's about the target and the fact that it was at a school function.
Don't misunderstand, people. The key here isn't that it's hate speech. All kinds of unpopular views are protected by the First Amendment. This is why you can still see Trump supporters waving Nazi flags in parades. If it was just because it was deemed hate speech, well then we should all be worried because Trump's government is now saying that anyone who preaches hate against America is subject to deportation.
The key is that it happened at a school event. The FA doesn't apply to non-students at school events if students are the target of speech meant to harass or demean. If this had happened at a club soccer game as opposed to a school event they would have been protected.
He knows. He just doesn't care. He will befriend whoever he thinks will get him the best deal
She wasn't preaching at you, unless you're a music executive
A coodle doodle do! A coodle doodle do!