Maureen Downey (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) writes:
This is one of those stories that turns into a cause celebre and riles up lots of folks. But at the heart of the issue — five California high school students were kicked off their campus Wednesday for wearing t-shirts and bandannas emblazoned with American flags on Cinco de Mayo — is simple courtesy toward others.Yes, the students at a San Jose high school are entitled to wear patriotic garb, but did they only do so on this specific day to poke at their Mexican-American classmates? And was that intent clear to the school officials?
I would like to know if the boys wore the t-shirts and bandannas any other day of the school year.
Sorry, if my kids donned the country’s colors only as a dig at their foreign-born classmates, it would not be an action that I would applaud or defend.
I know that this is going to set off folks who believe that these kids are true patriots defending American values and culture, but there is a difference between patriotism as principle and patriotism as a rebuke or put-down of others.
I don’t think that’s right, at least based on the material that I’ve read and that Downey quoted. Even if the students wore American flag garb only on Cinco de Mayo, I take it that the message was “you want to stress your Mexican heritage, and we want to stress our American heritage” or at most “we don’t entirely approve of your stressing your ethnic heritage, since we should all think of ourselves as Americans.” This might convey some disagreement, but it hardly strikes me as discourteous; and to the extent that it’s a “rebuke,” it’s the sort of message that people are entitled — not just as a matter of law, but also of good manners — to send. Courtesy doesn’t require absence of disagreement. It requires that the disagreement not be framed in a rude way, and I don’t think there’s anything rude in the messages that I infer the clothes were trying to send.
Now under certain circumstances, otherwise polite symbols might acquire rude meanings; to take the clearest example, if someone says one day “I’ll wear American flag images on Cinco de Mayo to show what a bunch of idiots you are,” that’s itself rude, and it imbues the later wearing of the flag images with a rude meaning. Likewise, one can imagine events or contexts where even otherwise politely expressed disagreement is considered rude because of the solemnity of the event: It would almost always be rude to express condemnation of the deceased at a funeral, or even prominently express disagreement with a religious belief system when a guest at a religious service associated with that belief system.
But the article didn’t point to any such special circumstances: It just pointed to circumstances that suggest that the students might have been trying to express their preference for a purely American affiliation on a day when many of their classmates where expressing their Mexican heritage. And I don’t see anything discourteous in expressing such disagreement by the simple act of wearing American flag images.
Michael B says:
Maureen Downey is very likely projecting her own guile and presumption onto the kids. The one interview I heard with the kids in question – the four or five who wore the t-shirt with red, white and blue – it was apparent enough, absent such projection, that there’s was a simple, unbeguiling decision.
“This is one of those stories that turns into a cause celebre,” indeed. Another MMM example from the MSM.
MMM – (Chris) Matthews’ Masturbatorial Mouthings, as he epitomizes such mouthings as much as anyone within the MSM, or the DL/LEM, dominant left/liberal establishment media
May 6, 2010, 7:34 pmAnderson says:
Sorry, I don’t buy this. “Preference for a purely American affiliation” was in fact discourteous, on a day which has come to be an occasion for Mexican-Americans to take pride in the Mexican part of their heritage.
I don’t support the action against the students, but I don’t see any need to wear blinders, either.
May 6, 2010, 7:34 pmChrisTS says:
EV: In light of your many posts, and wise words, on the Harvard 3L ‘case,’ I am surprised by your comments, here.
Of course, one could imagine an explanation of the boys’ wearing U.S. flag symbols on this particular day that is entirely polite. But isn’t that stretching credulity beyond the reasonable point?
Why, for heaven’s sake, would these boys be
if not to [also] express their disregard for/hostility to the Mexican heritage of their peers?
May 6, 2010, 7:39 pmwfjag says:
I wonder how Ms. Downey would feel if on February 2d the school allowed students to wear clothes bearing American flag emblems, the colors red, white and blue, etc., and sent home students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag, or its emblems?
That is, would it be disrespectful if the school allowed celebration of the day that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and Mexico relinquished any claim to California and the U.S. gained control of it? It would be a way of teaching a significant event in California.
Or, would that be too discourteous?
May 6, 2010, 7:46 pmEugene Volokh says:
Anderson, ChrisTS: Some people take the view that it’s good for Americans to publicly stress their ethnic heritage (other than their American ethnic heritage). Others take the opposite view. I’m actually somewhere in between, but that doesn’t matter here. Neither view is discourteous, at least when expressed in a public place such as a school. The former view does not express hostility to American heritage; the latter view does not express hostility to Mexican heritage (again, absent some specific contextual circumstances).
To the extent that the “we should all just label ourselves American view” expressing “disregard for” others’ “Mexican heritage” — in the sense that it says that all of us should disregard our separate ancestral heritage and focus instead on our shared American heritage — that strikes me as a plausible viewpoint that people should be free to express (again, as a matter of good manners and not just of law). Wearing American flag images is a perfectly polite manner of expressing the viewpoint. And the celebratory days of particular ethnic groups, when those groups are wearing the flags of their ancestral countries, are particularly apt days to express the viewpoint. The viewpoint is indeed critical of a rival viewpoint. But that doesn’t make it discourteous.
May 6, 2010, 7:49 pmPatent Lawyer says:
ChrisTS: Because they’re Americans, and they want to advertise that fact? In particular, if one commenter is correct, one of the boys is Hispanic, in which case the message is “I think of myself as American, not Mexican, despite my ethnic background.” Which is a pretty admirable message, IMHO.
I can also imagine that in a heavily Mexican-American school, students who have no particular regard for Cinco de Mayo or Mexico would feel isolated and left out on May 5, and want to make some sort of statement. If others don’t like it, they can ignore it.
May 6, 2010, 7:50 pmMichael B says:
Innocent ’til proven guilty?
Well, as in so many other instances, not here. Instead, presume, insinuate, inveigh, condemn – and all of it without forwarding any evidence whatsoever. “Clearly,” these kids were expressing a hostility, an animus, they were expressing suspicious behavior – and the wiser-than-thou class of apparatchiks, of ideological and political gate-keepers will have nothing – nothing – of any child-like or presumptive innocence.
May 6, 2010, 7:55 pmGrizzyBear says:
As the Mexican-American students walked into their school, if it was anything like my school, there was a flagpole with the American flag on it. In every classroom, there was an American flag, and they opened each day by pledging to it. To say then, that on Cinco de Mayo, wearing the American flag is disrespectful is silly.
Were they being confrontational? Sure. But they did so by displaying a patriotism that, by law, our schools try to foster in its students everyday. For any principal, or egg-headed columnist, to see that wrong is idiotic.
May 6, 2010, 8:00 pmDougger says:
I agree with EV.
You cannot project motives onto these kids. There is a large constituency of Americans who reject the hyphenation entirely. This is a melting pot, not a salad bowl. Expressing that viewpoint on the day many of their classmates are celebrating rejection of that philosophy is not discourteous. Their actions would have no meaning on any other day, so to deny them that right of expression on that day is to deny their 1st amendment rights. They showed courage and maturity by protesting in a respectful and non-violent way.
May 6, 2010, 8:02 pmChrisTS says:
So, let’s go back to my example in the most recent of the many threads:
My college, did in fact, have a kind of celebrate Israeli independence day (more like a week). Some of our non-Jewish/pro=Palestinian students suddenly started wearing the scarves that, apparently, signify a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli view.
I think that was rude of them. I think it was an intentional insult to the Jewish [or, at least, pro-Israel] students: they intended to insult and undercut the celebrations of some of their peers. I would think the same if students wore swastikas on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Again, this is not to say these students do not have the right to express themslves in rude and provocative ways. It is simply to note that these expressions are rude and provocative – and intentionally so.
May 6, 2010, 8:02 pmDavid McCourt says:
“one could imagine an explanation of the boys’ wearing U.S. flag symbols….”
Do they need to have an explanation? People are having the vapours over the prospect that someone, somewhere, will be asked to produce a driver’s license, but the boys need to provide an explanation for why they are displaying their own country’s symbol? I suppose they must also explain to the authorities if they had the temerity to refer to the date as the 5th of May. I’m reasonably proud of my own heritage, but I’ve never taken unbrage at displays of unhyphenated Americaness, because … I’m an American and this is America.
And the official demanding the explanation is named Miguel — not Michael — Rodriguez. This sounds like the case of the gay British policeman arresting the street preacher for saying that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Worse than a heckler’s veto; the heckler with an ax to grind is now the official with the power to suppress.
May 6, 2010, 8:03 pmOctavian says:
I wouldn’t be surprised if Maureen Downey is the type of person who thinks that the only proper way to spell “Christmas” in public is “X-mas.”
May 6, 2010, 8:03 pmCaptain Carrot says:
I quite agree that it is conceivable that these youth sought to make a political statement and intended no disrespect. However, my experience as a youth suggests to me it is more likely that an action like this is an attempt at being provocative. It is akin to taking your Mexican flag to a 4th of July gathering, wearing a U.S. Cavalry uniform to a pow-wow, eating a hot dog at a vegan club meeting, etc. It is no great secret that youth enjoy pushing boundaries, often with the goal of provoking a reaction.
I won’t speculate as to what *these* students had in mind, but I don’t think Downey’s conjecture – that the aim was simple discourtesy – is unreasonable. EV seems to assume a nobler purpose at work here; a cogent principle the students sought to convey. Perhaps, but I must confess that not all my actions as a young man were pursuant to considered (or even *gulp* well-meaning) ideas.
All that said, the response by school officials strikes me as inappropriate. It would have been a terrific “teachable moment,” to discuss the fact that in a free society, you’ll encounter provocative ideas and the appropriate way to respond to them is to engage those holding the ideas, not expel them from view. If these students were seeking to be provocative, this would be precisely what they wanted and no one will have learned a thing.
May 6, 2010, 8:04 pmdee nile says:
Is it “discourteous” to beat up people (or threaten same) up on account of their clothing?
May 6, 2010, 8:10 pmShelbyC says:
Is it discourteous for folks to do something that offends people if they don’t intend the offense? People have different opinions on that. Up until about 20 years ago, it was pretty common for people to display the Confederate flag with absolutely no intent at conveying an offensive message (of course, it was also common to display the symbol with different intentions). I’m not sure such displays were “discourteous”. Of course, recently it’s become impossible to display such a symbol without expecting to convey a problematic message.
May 6, 2010, 8:15 pmEugene Volokh says:
ChrisTS: There’s nothing at all rude when students who see some expressing Israeli independence day express an anti-Israel viewpoint. That’s disagreement, but disagreement does not equal discourtesy. Nor does the fact that the disagreement comes in response to others’ celebration make the disagreement discourteous, at least when the celebration is in a public place. If some people want to celebrate an event in a public place, others who share the place are entitled to express the view that the event doesn’t merit celebration. (Swastikas on Holocaust Remembrance Day are a completely different matter, both because of the solemnity of the occasion and because swastikas represent evil.)
Captain Carrot: It may well be that the students were trying to provoke a reaction, but that too isn’t discourteous. Provoking a reaction through insults is discourteous. Provoking a reaction through expression of a viewpoint by wearing a rival symbol (setting aside symbols of evil) is not.
May 6, 2010, 8:18 pmCaptain Carrot says:
Isn’t this a bit much? You assume from an individual’s Latino-sounding first name a particular worldview and motive? Such unthinking stereotypes are apt to get one in trouble.
May 6, 2010, 8:19 pmMichael B says:
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of NYC, was, at least ostensibly, seeking to provoke a reaction as well, and not merely via inference, it was overt. Bloomberg, as with many among the DL/LEM.
Then again, the contrast between politically correct alleged provocations vs. non-PC alleged provocations.
Ergo, this is not about alleged insults or provocations most fundamentally, it is about PC vs. non-PC bases for those allegations.
And now, Captain Carrot lecturing about stereotypes, cliches, as applied to this pervasively and fundamentally PC case.
“The cliché organizes life; it expropriates people’s identity; it becomes ruler, defense lawyer, judge, and the law.” Václav Havel
May 6, 2010, 8:23 pmNick056 says:
Eugene, you overlook what makes this gesture discourteous.
Events celebrating a fundamentally non-controversial association or fact — Mexican heritage — ought to be presumed innocuous. Mexican Americans celebrating Cinco de Mayo are not associating with an infamous group, nor are they necessarily rejecting pride in their American experience. St. Patrick’s day is roughly analogous.
Of course, anybody is free to suggest — and it can be done politely — that celebrating such a holiday does cheapens the American experience. But since, for reasons stated above, celebrating the event is presumably innocuous, people should take some care in how they object to it, lest they seem, yes, discourteous. They should, for example, articulate their position, rather than just expressing blunt hostility towards someone else’s day of celebration. Explaining your challenge to something fairly innocuous is a courteous, adult thing to do. Refraining from doing, while maintaining the challenge, so might be viewed as impolite.
Further, and less pressing, the objectors would do well to engage people on an individual level, rather than as a group. It’s a mark of respect to assume that the people with whom you disagree are reasonable and deserve some individual attention, if you’re going to publically express how wrongheaded they’re being. Not doing so can be taken for disrespect.
I think if these people had taken my advice, they probably still would have been in trouble. I don’t agree with that. But it also would have made a difference to talk reasonanly and personally about the underlying issue, instead of just showing up in an outfit intended to provoke and challenge.
May 6, 2010, 8:27 pmDavid McCourt says:
“You assume from an individual’s Latino-sounding first name a particular worldview and motive?”
I’m assuming nothing. I have the fact of his high-handed and one-sided actions.
May 6, 2010, 8:27 pmA. Zarkov says:
EV has provided excellent and temperate commentary here, getting it exactly right. If some students wore obviously orange clothing on St. Patrick’s day that would be both provocative and disrespectful although legal. However if wearing an American flag image on Cinco de Mayo is disrespectful, then by implication, Mexican immigrants are necessarily in conflict with the dominant American culture. How else can we interpret “disrespect” in this context? Suppose some students wore an American flag image on Yom Ha’atzmaut. Should the Jews take offense? Of course not. If Jews were to go around with the image of an Israel flag on the Fourth of July, would that be an insult? Of course not. Very few Americans, except possibly for Obama, see any conflict between the symbol of Israel and the symbol of America.
May 6, 2010, 8:29 pmKatahdin says:
Honoring the flag of your own country, while inside that country, is one of those things that can never be discourteous. I can hardly visit England on July 4th and complain if I see British flags. What next – will it be considered rude to wear a Yale shirt at Yale if people from Harvard are visiting?
May 6, 2010, 8:29 pm1040 says:
common sense would indicate that the intent of these students was about as benign as the french soldiers singing la marseille in rick’s cafe. that said, the school was plain dumb to insist on a heavy handed approach.
May 6, 2010, 8:31 pmZackS says:
This post about “courtesy” almost seems designed to inject controversy into a fairly noncontroversial situation (i.e. I doubt there will be much controversy in labeling this action by the school as inappropriate). Still, from the facts as they appear in this post, I would have to agree that the students’ sartorial decisions seem designed to be confrontational (and in my opinion, discourteous).
That an action is discourteous, though, does not make it illegal (see e.g. Skip Gates). In fact, in many cases, rudeness is preferable silence. I doubt the Freedom Riders were overly concerned with how discourteous their actions would be received by southern whites (and rightly so).
Accordingly, it seems a stretch to label these students’ actions as polite. I think their actions were in bad taste, much like I would consider an atheistic speech on Christmas to be in bad taste. There’s a time and place for polite disagreement, and it seems poor form to inject argument into a celebration. Constitutionally protected poor form, but poor form nonetheless.
May 6, 2010, 8:32 pmBen Franklin says:
If these students really wanted to offend their fellow Mexican-American classmates, they should’ve worn T-shirts with the French flag emlazoned on them, and not the good ‘ole Stars and Stripes.
It’s immaterial whether they wore the American flag to offend. The school’s response was totally inappropriate. Political Correctness in this country’s gone out of control.
May 6, 2010, 8:37 pmZackS says:
If the same could be said about “the symbol of Mexico,” this would be a stronger point. As it is, many people do seem to see a conflict between the US and Mexico (or at least Mexicans).
May 6, 2010, 8:38 pmray_g says:
Does anyone realize how insane this is? What is a pseudo-holiday even in Mexico, promoted in the U.S. by beer companies to sell beer (therefore making it a truly American idea), which, in California at least, has been basically an excuse to have a good time, is now some giant brouhaha about immigration, national identity and whatever? Involving children? I feel like I’m living in a South Park episode. Stan, Kyle, help me!!!!
May 6, 2010, 8:42 pmcaliforniamom says:
Courtesy in this situation takes on the connotation that someone is the host and someone is the guest. It’s as though the flag-wearing students were impolite ‘guests’ at the Mexican students Cinco de Mayo party.
In a non host-guest situation such as a public school, courtesy demands that each tolerate the others T-shirts.
The flag wearing students may have been resentful. There is no “American” day during the public school calendar. Nor is there any other ‘day’ for any other ethnic group besides the Irish for St. Patrick’s Day.
What if there were a Scotch-Irish day? There are probably more Scotch-Irish than any other group in this country. People would likely balk at that being exclusionary. Frankly any ethnic holiday celebrated in a public school is rather exclusionary of someone by definition. And exclusionary is not exactly courteous. So in MY public school (assuming I ran the school system), there wouldn’t be any ethnic days at all and everyday would be American day.
May 6, 2010, 8:42 pmuburoisc says:
The administration believed (rightly) that for the students to wear the American flag on Cinco de Mayo would likely incite the students of Mexican decent to react violently. So rather than take the hard road and make it clear that minority students are not permitted to use violence when they feel slighted or have some minor grievance, the authorities simply capitulated by removing the problem in the easiest manner possible. Mexicans will throw a big fit, the guerros will do what they are told with little fanfare. The cowardly administrators (is there any other kind?) just kicked the can down the low road; they didn’t do the right thing, they simply did what was easiest. Grievance theater works; one more minority gang that has the majority trembling every time it pretends to be indignant. Maureen Downey is exactly that type of go-along, hey bro’, chill out, don’t make a scene, coward who hides their yellow streak behind a phony posture of good manners. Wear the stars and stripes in America, and if the Mexicans flip out, then kick their asses; better a good fight than to tip-toe around in your own land.
BTW, the message the Mexicans rightly understood, while laughing over a few cans of Tecate was: the guerro is still a conejo, screw all of them.
May 6, 2010, 8:45 pmA. Zarkov says:
I don’t agree. Or should I say I don’t agree without more information. I think we should give more credit to the Mexican students. While they might feel offended, I don’t see a high probability of violence. The administrators were really showing us their solidarity with the Mexican students.
May 6, 2010, 8:58 pmBen Franklin says:
californiamom says: “…So in MY public school (assuming I ran the school system), there wouldn’t be any ethnic days at all and everyday would be American day.”
Amen to that! Or is saying “amen” offensive to some of you out there?
May 6, 2010, 9:02 pmKatahdin says:
Is it rude to wear an American flag, in America, on St. Patrick’s day? St. Olaf’s day? With all the various worldwide holidays, on how many days a year is it not offensive to display the American flag in America?
May 6, 2010, 9:15 pmAnderson says:
It is akin to taking your Mexican flag to a 4th of July gathering
Yes, if Mexican kids at a California (summer?) school did *that* — or all came to school on July 4 with Mexican-flag t-shirts on — Fox would be all over that like flies on manure.
May 6, 2010, 9:18 pmNick056 says:
Do you think these kids would wear an American flag on St. Patrick’s Day with the intent of expressing the impropriety of the occassion? Do you think they would see it as a moment to affirm their preference for a purely American affilitation, per Eugene? The students aren’t just wearing the American flag in America — they’re expressing an objection to the holiday. As I said, I think when you express an objection to an innocuous event, it helps to do it in a certain way. It might also matter if the same people don’t express the same objection to similar days: can we infer anything about which holidays they find worth commenting on?
This isn’t about the students’ rights. Let me emphasize that because the American flag in America (and everywhere) is also an innocent symbol, I really don’t think the kids should be punished for this.
But I also think their actions were discourteous for the reasons I’ve outlined above. And for the record, if people wear the American flag on St. Patricks Day with the intent of challenging celebrants by indicating that their actions are incompatible with American values, then yes, unless they go about that in the right way, they’re going to seem discourteous to me. If your going to question whether somebody is essentially American because he celebrates an ethnic holiday that is really not contrary to his American identity, and you do so in the wrong way, you might get called rude. That’s the risk of speaking your mind.
But I wouldn’t do anything to stop you.
May 6, 2010, 9:54 pmIP98 says:
These students should have paraphrased what Ezra Levant told the Human Rights Commission in Canada about his intent when he published the Danish cartoons.
But the only thing we have to say to the government…is it’s our bloody right to do so. And it is our right to do so for reasonable intentions and it’s our right to do so for extremely unreasonable intentions. We refuse to concede to you what our political thoughts in our minds are, in our hearts are, will determine whether an artifact is legal or illegal. Our clothes speak for themselves. We wear these shirts for the maximum freedom allowed without reservation. Whatever offends you, we reserve the right to wear these shirts to offend for whatever reason we want. We reserve the right to wear these shirts for exactly what students are complaining about. We have the right to wear these shirts even if informed by racism.
Unfortunately I doubt the students know who Ezra Levant is and the vice-principal probably never gave them a chance to defend their shirts.
May 6, 2010, 9:59 pmAnderson says:
N.b I don’t think the students should’ve been punished for being rude. At most, the principal should’ve used it as a “teaching moment.” Alas, we have more administrators than educators.
May 6, 2010, 10:08 pmSean O'Hara says:
I always wear orange on Saint Patrick’s Day to show my disapproval of the papacy, but nobody realizes I’m being offensive. Stupid public school system.
May 6, 2010, 10:33 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Perhaps those who wish to celebrate Cinco de Mayo on American soil should announce that they will celebrate Cinco de Mayo by wearing the American flag to demonstrate that they are American and intend to honor their Hispanic heritage through exercise of American.
They could also declare an intention to wear the American flag on the fifth of every month to signal their support of comprehensive immigration reform.
If everyone wears an American flag, who can complain? (Other than people offended when car salesmen, politicians and yahoos use the flag as a prop in contravention of law, but that’s a different issue).
May 6, 2010, 11:02 pmptt says:
I don’t see the need to speculate. These kids will be on cable news in the next day or so, I’m sure.
I’ll just wait for them to tell us why they wore the t-shirts before commenting much…
May 6, 2010, 11:55 pmDan Hamilton says:
Why do people assume the American Flag wearers had the intent of expressing the impropriety of the occassion.
I would like you to find ANYONE that would think wearing an American flag on St Patrick’s Day had the intent of expressing the impropriety of the occassion.
Cinco de Mayo = Mexican-American = Mexican Flag and American Flag
St Patrick’s Day = Irish-American = Irish Flag and American Flag
There is no more reason to get mad at an American Flag on Cinco de Mayo then there is on St Patrick’s Day. And NO ONE objects to an American Flag on St Patrick’s Day.
May 7, 2010, 12:00 amDesiderius says:
Anderson,
“Yes, if Mexican kids at a California (summer?) school did *that* — or all came to school on July 4 with Mexican-flag t-shirts on — Fox would be all over that like flies on manure.”
Which should indicate that this is not the field you want to die on. Better to stress that this is only one isolated incident, being played up specifically since it is such a disadvantageous story for the pro-immigration side. Don’t fall into that trap.
May 7, 2010, 12:23 amDougInSanDiego says:
‘Rude’ or ‘discourteous’, as an example, is when the students at Montecito high School pulled down the American flag, snapped in the Mexican flag, then placed below it – upside down – the American flag.
Now when THAT happens, most people are incensed but, for some reason, feel they should simmer in silence – not confront the rudemakers.
Given this one example of ‘rude’, I find it a stretch that students wearing a US flag – on US soil – in a US school grounds – are tagged as “rude” because they did so on 5-May.
Of course – the logical question to ask is why so many feel the need to simmer silently and not confront what they perceive as wrong.
May 7, 2010, 2:58 amMark E. Horning says:
Motives are irrelevant.
If they want to wear black armbands protesting the draft, that is their right. Flag t-shirts – same. Even if it could be somehow be stretched to construe protest over a Mexican holiday rather than support of America that is not relevant.
Besides, it they were protesting cinco de mayo shouldn’t they have been wearing french flags?
May 7, 2010, 4:40 amFedya says:
I have to disagree here. St. Patrick’s Day here in the US seems to be celebrated with the implication that we’re all Southern Irish, for a day at least. I for one find this notion offensive, and refuse to wear anything green on March 17 precisely as a form of protest.
If I really wanted to offend the Southern Irish-Americans, I’d make a T-shirt with the slogan “26 [in green] + 6 [in orange] = 1 [in the Union Jack color scheme]“
May 7, 2010, 9:13 amsardonic_sob says:
That is precisely the problem. They are supposed to show their solidarity with ALL the students.
Actually, strike that. They are not supposed to show any solidarity with the students. They are supposed to educate them. If they can do that in a cordial manner, that is all to the good. But like your parents, teachers have a much more important job than being your friend, and if being your friend gets in the way of it, they should consider the friend thing optional.
May 7, 2010, 10:00 amGerard Harbison says:
In general I agree with Mr. Zarkov, but please note that Irish Protestants/Unionists also celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, and would in no way cede St. Patrick to Catholics/Nationalists.
After all, one of the two Protestant cathedrals in Dublin is St. Patrick’s.
Personally, I fly the tricolor on St. Patrick’s Day (under the American flag, of course); it’s one third green, one third white, and one third orange.
May 7, 2010, 11:10 amCJColucci says:
Now under certain circumstances, otherwise polite symbols might acquire rude meanings; to take the clearest example, if someone says one day “I’ll wear American flag images on Cinco de Mayo to show what a bunch of idiots you are,” that’s itself rude, and it imbues the later wearing of the flag images with a rude meaning. Likewise, one can imagine events or contexts where even otherwise politely expressed disagreement is considered rude because of the solemnity of the event: It would almost always be rude to express condemnation of the deceased at a funeral, or even prominently express disagreement with a religious belief system when a guest at a religious service associated with that belief system.
But the article didn’t point to any such special circumstances: It just pointed to circumstances that suggest that the students might have been trying to express their preference for a purely American affiliation on a day when many of their classmates where expressing their Mexican heritage.
You want “special circumstances”? How about this: It’s an American high school. Most of us here are all-too familiar with that institution and its typical inmates. While the logic-chopping about possible inoffensive meanings is all very well, the odds that that was what students in an American high school were up to are vanishingly small. Got to get out more, Eugene.
May 7, 2010, 11:51 amwhit says:
i realize that july 4 and cinco de mayo are not that analogous. but…
would it be “discourteous” for schoolkids in mexico to wear a mexican flag on their shirts on july 4th?
May 7, 2010, 12:10 pmEmsl says:
Based on the number of comments that focus on whether it was discourteous or not, there appears some consensus that the students had a right to wear the shirts and that the school was wrong to send them home. Is there anyone who believes either that (i) this is not an exercise of free speech or (ii) the school was correct in sending them home?
I also must disagree with some assumptions that seem to be built into a number of comments. First, honoring the American Flag is, in my view, never inappropriate or discourteous in the United States regardless of the context or what other people are doing or how they might react. Even the most rabid multiculturalist must acknowledge that Americans in America have the right to display their support for/allegiance to the flag. Second, one of the tasks of school administrators is to understand, support, and explain the constitutional rights that we all have. They do not get to pick one task — avoidance of disruption — to the exclusion of others. Finally, as noted above, it was the French that lost the Battle of Puebla, not the US. Thus, to take offense at wearing a US flag would not only be inappropriate, it would seem to spring from ignorance, another problem that schools should attend to.
May 7, 2010, 12:13 pmtomf says:
This topic cracks me up.
First isn’t one of the primary reasons that public schools do not have “uniforms” is so the students can show the individuality and independence? Here we have students showing their independence and they get sent home because they are not conforming.
Secondly, My son has a shirt with an US flag design on it. Sometimes he wears it, sometimes he doesn’t wear it. If he happens to wear it on May 5 he’s a bad person? If he wears it on any other day he’s a good person?
Thirdly, if someone wears something that offends me then that person is a bad person but only on certain days of the year.
Finally, is it bad form, at a school’s homecoming football game to wear attire supporting the opposing team? I’m offended that at this celebration of my school’s team that there are actually people who would be crass enough to deliberately try and undermine my team’s morale. Not only my wearing the opposing teams colors but also by yelling support for their team. Such people should be required to turn there shirts inside out or expelled from the event.
The reasoning contortions people go through justifying the principals actions are amazing to behold. Like I said this whole topic cracks me up.
May 7, 2010, 12:27 pmPatriotism at the Schoolhouse Gate - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine says:
[...] Volokh, who knows more about the legality of this than you do, responds to the discourteous charge here and [...]
May 7, 2010, 12:51 pmtomf says:
The administrators said that the primary reason for their actions was to prevent violence. Why is it that the provocation only goes in one direction? Why are only the US flag wearers doing the provoking? Suppose a student wearing neutral colors smacks a student wearing Mexican colors. Then because he is an equal opportunity offendee smacks a student wearing US colors. Which group has done the most provocation? The group that has hundreds members or the group that has 5 members. Now the administration must ban the Mexican and US colors because it is known there is at least one person who is offended and provoked to violence because of those wearing US or Mexican nationalistic colors.
May 7, 2010, 12:56 pmfwb says:
America – Land of the slave and home of the wuss.
When one gives a damn what others think about one, one gives up control to the other. No one can make me feel bad, upset, or hurt my feelings by what they say or do. No one is in control of me except me. I need to please no man (or woman).
People need to get control of themselves and quit whining. Real men don’t GAF.
May 7, 2010, 1:06 pmRMM says:
The Mexicans who come to this country don’t really want to become Americans. There is a strange, exploitative quality to their immigration. They drain money out of system, but demand to have all the benefits of America: freedom, education, health and welfare. If they didn’t have such a blatantly terrible, offensive attitude toward America, they might be better looked upon by the people who live here and love this country.
May 7, 2010, 2:22 pmBut they treat the US like a whore. Mexicans send back so much money to their homeland that it is the 2nd largest source of revenue, right behind oil. That is why the Mexican government is so concerned about the US actually enforcing immigration laws. They want our money.
Mexicans have no right to tell Americans how to act – or what to wear – in America. They should remember that an American passport is a a precious privilege.
I immigrated to this country at age four from a Hispanic country – so please call me a racist.
brewtal1 says:
Live Oak High school is located in the U.S.
Live Oak’s administrators salaries are paid by tax revenues of hard working Americans.
My understanding is that two of the kids are 1/2 Hispanic.
Live Oak administrators missed a golden opputunity to teach their students fundamental things like: Freedom of Speech, Equality and tollerance of others.
Administrators instead looked to push their own agenda instead of what they were hired to do, TEACH!
I would urge the citizens of Morgan Hill to hold the school administrators accountable to the values you hold as a community, as you pay their salaries.
A lot of eyes are looking upon your community to see what those values are. Good luck.
May 7, 2010, 4:55 pmDavid G. says:
I assume that like most high schools in America, this one had a flagpole out front with an American flag flying high. Unless the vice principal also took down that flag and removed the many U.S. flags that adorned the school’s classrooms, I see no logic behind the argument that these five students would cause a disruption. I doubt if any Mexican-American kids were out front at 7 am, ready to brawl with the janitor who was raising the flag. It smacks as simply the principal projecting his own beliefs upon the students.
Further, the televised interviews with the kids showed that one of them simply wore red, white and blue Nike’s while another had an ‘Old Navy’ shirt with a US flag. (Maybe the more stylish Ed Hardy-wearing students were offended by the Old Navy logo.) Bottom line, there was nothing about their clothing that was “Anti-Cinco De Mayo”. Besides, the kid who was 1/2 Hispanic said he wore his shirt to help celebrate the holiday, one I might add, is virtually ignored in Mexico proper.
May 7, 2010, 8:04 pmAnonymous says:
I’d like to provide pictorial evidence that American flags at a Cinco de Mayo celebration are not inherently discourteous.
Here are a couple from the Denver Cinco de Mayo parade of 2007.
The flag is also on display at the Columbus Day and St. Patrick’s Day parades on 5th Ave in Manhattan.
May 7, 2010, 8:16 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Discourteous to Wear American Flag Images on Cinco de Mayo? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Volokh Conspirac. The Volokh Conspirac said: Discourteous to Wear American Flag Images on Cinco de Mayo?: (Eugene Volokh) Maureen Downey… http://goo.gl/fb/inGOR [...]
May 7, 2010, 9:16 pmKev says:
This is precisely why every school administrator should be required to teach one class per day. Dismantle the ivory tower once and for all!
See above. Sadly, administrators are hired to not teach. If they were required to continue teaching in addition to whatever else it is they do up there, they might not be so clueless or make such idiotic decisions (like the one made by Rodriguez) so often.
May 7, 2010, 9:51 pmJohann Amadeus Metesky says:
If an American flag offends the Mexican students at that high school, I wonder how they’d react to a shirt that said:
La Raza
Es Nada
Who could object to “race is nothing”? It’s a completely anti-racist statement.
May 8, 2010, 1:57 amwhit says:
i would apply the same reasoning to police dept’s. imo, every cop-o-crat iow police administrator should be required to work one or two patrol shifts a week
it would imo make them MUCH better at what they do
May 8, 2010, 2:31 amUS government endorses Mexican violence « Jim’s Blog says:
[...] blogs have objected: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, [...]
May 8, 2010, 8:42 pmDennis N says:
I believe the international courtesy is to fly other nations’ flags at the same height as your own. Flying one flag over the other indicates conquest.
As far as the students are concerned, it can never be improper to display the US flag in the United States of America.
May 10, 2010, 1:04 amBob says:
A question to ask a person of Mexican descent living in the US: are you a Mexican or an American?
If he/she answers Mexican or Mexican-American, inform him/her to return to Mexico at once and don’t come back. If he/she may have Mexican roots but if he/she is living in the United States and wanted to become a participating citizen in the country, that he/she must do away any association with Mexico for good.
Having a dual citizenship or being a world citizen is crazy enough: either your allegiance is totally screwed up or you think every country is entitled to you.
May 10, 2010, 8:34 pmBouldery says:
There is nothing wrong with drawing an American flag, but in all fairness, we are not reviewing the entire story. Timing is the real issue here. Students, who have never worn a flag on Independence Day decided to wear one on the day that Mexican Americans celebrated their heritage – Cinco de Mayo. Why did they suddenly decide on this particular day to show their patriotism? It is reasonable to believe that these students used our flag as a tool to protest a minority celebrating their heritage. It would be like me wearing an American flag and going to an Irish bar on St. Patrick Day in protest of the St. Patrick Day celebration. I seriously doubt that I could get my fan*y out of that bar in one piece. The school reacted quickly to defuse the situation and tensions were high. On this day, as well, Terrin Hathaway decided to draw the American flag in her classroom. Did she suddenly feel an urge to be patriotic? Or did she decide to defy and protest the school’s decision regarding flag wearing by drawing the flag. The student had to have known that in an art class, whatever you draw; it is visible to the entire class. I personally believe that people have the right to celebrate their heritage in peace without being frowned upon as if what you are doing is a threat to our country. I love the diversity of this country. I like being able to go to an Italian festival, a Greek festival, Irish festival… the more the merrier.
May 12, 2010, 10:37 pmPaul Ruddy says:
It took me 2 days to read all the comments, I’m a slow reader. When I was in high school I didn’t like History. Then, when I went to college (Chapman 1981-1985) I fell in love with History. I got involved with various underground subversive groups and re-evaluated ‘party-line, propagandized’ History through a world view. Does anybody remember the History of Germany right after the signing of the Treaty at Versailles? France forced upon Germany an Anarchy similar to the Jim Crow laws in the South following the War Between the States. Germany underwent a confounding of languages and cultures by the hordes of immigrants France flooded Germany with. That was what provided the fiber of Hitler’s pre-Beer Hall Putsch speeches and their success. Now we see the same thing happening all over again in America. Who will take to the pulpit and rally the people into a fervor to re-take our country from the immigrant hordes our gutless leaders have foisted upon us? Have you heard Meg Whitman’s latest: It would be easier to give the 12-1/2 million illegal aliens in this country amnesty than to follow the law of the land as voiced by “WE THE PEOPLE!” Why do we even have a Legislature if the so-called leaders are going to abrogate the laws WE THE PEOPLE vote for?! Do you have any idea how many Sanctuary Cities have been established in America? For those who don’t know, Sanctuary Cities (such as San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco (3 of 29 in California alone)) are SAFE zones where immigration laws that WE THE PEOPLE voted for don’t apply. I love Live Oak High School, and most of all Miguel Rodriguez. America needs to be seriously bitch-slapped awake by more content anti-Americans like Rodriguez to get the people to WAKE UP!!! First order of business: Recall of all elected representatives who have allowed their cities to become designated as Sanctuary Cities. Then prosecute the recalled representatives (and all employers who financed this scheme against the American people) pursuant to the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act. Then round-up the 12-1/2 million illegal aliens Meg Whitman wants to grant amnesty to, the 12-1/2 million responsible for displacing 12-1/2 million jobs to eligible American citizens, and ship their sorry asses across the border so they can enjoy their Cinco de Mayo’s without offending anybody. I mean, if they REALLY are that patriotic what, other than the exploitation of American generosity, keeps them here? I hate to sound like Hitler all over again but I say: America for Americans!
May 19, 2010, 4:02 amBouldery says:
@ Paul Ruddy — Paul, you forgot an important fact about Germany. They fought hard for what they believed was right… AND THEY LOST!!! Your “world view” seems to elude the fact that though Germany had a problem with immigrants, they sought to resolve it by burning men, women and children in ovens. This was not an acceptable solution by any standard and I support the bravery of American soldiers who fought against Germany’s atrocities.
May 19, 2010, 9:49 pmPaul Ruddy says:
Have you ever heard the story that the pre-WWI Germans were throwing Belgium babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets?, it was the primary piece of propaganda that got us in the Great War. How about the so-called ‘sneak-attack’ on Pearl Harbor that got us in WWII. I’m sure you know by now that we provoked that attack with our Aug. 1, 1941 oil (and later everything else) embargo against Japan – and, of course, the use of our naval war ships to sink unarmed Japanese merchant sea vessels after picking up shipments from countries not in line with the embargo in international waters. Hey! and don’t forget the party-line used to sacrifice over 52,000 American soldiers in Viet Nam: to stop the spread of Communism. Since we lost the war, it stands to reason that Communism must have continued to spread. It’s now a hot vacation spot. Take this link to see for yourself: http://www.easyvietnamvacations.com. Isn’t that a slap in the face to the families of the fallen heroes. Trust this, I support our armed forces 1000% What I don’t support are cowards like FDR (who had the unmitigated audacity to pose with Joseph Stalin – his ally! not ours! by far, the worst butcher human history has ever had the misfortune to have been faced with. A sociopath who murdered anywhere between 20 and 80 million human beings – makes Hitler look like a freaken choirboy!) And, for your information, we have crematoriums too, and we use them for the same purpose they were used during WWII: To cremate corpses. A little reported fact about Life Magazine’s first photographs of the concentration camps immediately following the German surrender, not only were all the remaining live prisoners starved practically to death, so too, were the German civilians in all of the neighboring villages surrounding the camps. Rather than play ’20 Questions’ I’ll simply tell you it was because of the successes of our allied bombing runs on all rail lines. In order to stop the supply of arms, food, medicine, etc., to the battle front, our bombing runs also prevented food and medicine from getting to the concentration camps and all of the civilian populations. Yes, there were ovens in all the camps, and yes, they were running 24/7 to keep up with the collateral damage of the success our the Allied bombing runs. Have any valid documents ever been discovered where Hitler articulated specifically that his “final solution” was the extermination of the Jew? Ask any History professor about the Third Reich and they will tell you that Hitler was so confident that he was doing the right thing that he used every bit of technology available to him to chronicle for posterity everything he did. Hitler’s “final solution was “emigration.” Go through the KCET (public broadcasting) archives and find the numerous programs that they have run on the Jews that continued to work openly in Germany directly for the Third Reich. Hitler only hated the ‘international Jew.’ All Hitler cared about was Germany for Germans. And that gets us back to the piece I wrote in response to the Live Oak High School debacle. All I care about is America for Americans. And I respect the hell out of the 2 Mexican-American kids who were proudly wearing their patriotic T-shirts. My piece wasn’t about race or culture it was about America for Americans. I don’t care what color you are or what your religion is or what your nationality used to be. All I care about is: Are you proud to be an American. If your pride runs stronger for a different country then, as far as I’m concerned, you need to get the hell out of my country. My country’s got a lot of problems now and we need to get the ‘internationalists’ out of here, stop sending aid to every Tom, Dick, and Harry and fix up our own back yard before we go out trying to fix everybody else’s problems. First order of business is to get back to basics – the law. The first 5 books of the Bible are THE LAW! The fabric that makes our country strong is our law, but we must believe in the value of it’s intrinsic integrity for it to have any force or effect. As any high school civics class will teach, the law is the codification of the will of the people. The law keeps order from the simplest things like which side of the road we drive on to our laws against murder, sedition or robbery. People who abrogate these laws because they get in the way of what they want to do can be put in prison or even executed in the most extreme cases. Our laws regarding illegal immigration are no less different. To abrogate them, as the leaders of 66 Sanctuary Cities in the U.S. have done, without legal repercussions causes a lack of confidence in the viability of the law. How can we tell our children that their vote counts when laws, promulgated by a vote of the people, concerning illegal immigration are simply swept aside for economic convenience by our elected representatives? The laws are still on the books, the people haven’t changed their minds, but the elected representatives are doing exactly the same thing the robber does. It’s easier money to simply abrogate the law and take what they want. The elected representatives get their money indirectly from the profits generated by the special interest groups with business interests involving the labor of illegal aliens. Upon reflection, it appears the primary problem is not the establishment of Sanctuary Cities but, rather, that so many elected representatives have no compunction whatsoever about violating the trust of the majority of the voting people of this great country by abrogating WITHOUT a vote the laws they voted for! These actions demonstrate a complete disrespect for our democratic process and must be challenged.
May 23, 2010, 6:55 am