Boom, show me where the kid called liberals "baby killers". I can't find it.
Chomsky is a very left professor of linguistics at MIT who is very vocal in his criticism of American foreign policy. His opinions are no where near the middle, so they always spark debate.
"Generically speaking. I'm talking about the harm of attacking an opposing viewpoint with exaggeration and misinformation. You confirmed that is what he did."
I said he did it with exaggeration, not misinformation. There's a difference, not that it matters in the debate about free speech. Political cartoons exaggerate. Do they by definition misinform? And the so-called harm that can be done with misinformation can be countered with a debate! That's the point.
"I don't see that as productive. It might fall under free speech, but I don't see it as beneficial to promoting his viewpoint."
So what? Lots of speech isn't productive or beneficial. These aren't good reasons to tear down the posters or oppose his right to speak. This business about his viewpoint not being valid is b.s. He has an opinion and he has obviously been following world events. It seems to me that his teacher doesn't like having her opinions challenged.
He's a h.s. freshman. You're holding him to an awfully high standard for political debate, one that isn't reflected ANYWHERE in the real world. Give him some credit for giving a crap and standing by his convictions, even if you don't agree with those convictions.
27 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 23, 2004 at 3:21 pm
Boom, show me where the kid called liberals "baby killers". I can't find it.
He had a poster of iraqi children and insinuated that liberals don't want to save them because it costs too much money.
If I misrepresent and exaggerate and say that's the equivalent of calling us baby-killers, hey, it's a free country and it certainly didn't confuse you with a bunch of bs as to my point, did it?
28 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 23, 2004 at 3:26 pm
Ahh, thank you Ms. Tek, there's nothing like a nostalgic trip back to the time when we were in high school. It's nice to know we're still practicing the art of such conversation in this day and age. One always enjoys such conversation over a cup of tea. Helps to better humanity, don't you think?
Censorship is wrong when the Right or the Left does it. I said the same thing when the Dixie Chicks were lambasted for expressing a political opinion.
35 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 23, 2004 at 4:45 pm
okay, we can agree to disagree I guess.
I am against censorship, I am for - holding a person accountable for their words and encouraging them to speak fact rather than falsehood. To me, that is not censorship.
Just say emsevolsusej backwards and everything will be okay. Redrum? Daedsiluap? tihstaei? Whatever, just turn yourself around backwards (no sexual innuendo intended) and become good Ms. Tek. "If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you" (Nietzsche). Wonder Twin Powers deactivate! Form of Ms. Tek, blasphemer, spewer of vitriolic truth, condemner of all things inane--a take-shit-from-nobody prophet.
Great post RJ. I'm thinking this kid made a huge impact on his fellow students to open their minds and challenge authority. A lot of courage, that one. A big part of liberal indoctrination depends on the tractability and the yearn for acceptance that is inherent with adolescent victims. Another telling feature of this story is how he had to face down the shrieks of "racist", the most typical censoring mechanism liberals employ. Being a "racist" is the gravest sin one can commit; but only if you're white.
Bhw, good show of non-partisanship.
Boomcrash, you say "Homosexuality is a good topic for that, because it's impossible to oppose it without holding to the opinion that a homosexual is a lesser human being." I've heard some reasonable arguments against (also some for) the homosexual agenda, and never has the opinion holder expressed the idea that a homosexual is a lesser human being.
Thanks Dan. And thank you, bhw, for supporting free speech, even if you don't agree with it.
Boom states he opposes censorship, then makes a pro-censorship argument. Sort of funny, actually...
42 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 24, 2004 at 12:28 am
Boom states he opposes censorship, then makes a pro-censorship argument. Sort of funny, actually...
I must not be making myself clear then. I said numerous times that he shouldn't be censored.
What I did say is that he should be encouraged to do research (has anybody heard of a school library? They do have them, you know). He should do research and gather facts to promote his view. The school should be encouraging THAT. Encouraging one way, does not mean stifling another way.
I definitely need to homeschool my daughter. Apparently now in society, encouraging children to learn and/or how to properly debate is now the wrong thing to do.
Boom, you didn't really say that he should be encouraged to do research. You kept saying that you didn't think his way of expressing his ideas -- with exaggeration and, in your opinion, misinformation -- should be "allowed" as a valid viewpoint.
When you talk about allowing or not allowing viewpoints, that sounds like censorship.
But I agree, encouraging the kid to do more research is fine. But he's already pretty well-researched, I'd gather, particularly compared to his peers. He just doesn't use sources you or I would recommend.
44 -
Dan
Jun 24, 2004 at 12:45 am
Or another way you could look at it is that he did research and gathered facts and now has a valid point of view.
45 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 24, 2004 at 12:47 am
Boomcrash, you say "Homosexuality is a good topic for that, because it's impossible to oppose it without holding to the opinion that a homosexual is a lesser human being." I've heard some reasonable arguments against (also some for) the homosexual agenda, and never has the opinion holder expressed the idea that a homosexual is a lesser human being
Dan, as a homosexual who has been active in my community for many years, can you tell me what our agenda is? It's never been discussed by all those I have met in my life.
And of course, almost no one will ever express the opinion that a gay person is less than a human being. Most who hold that opinion, do not see it that way. They aren't aware they even feel it. It's my belief though, that a society should be built to ensure safety, survival and opportunity for all it's members. You know, humanity, a species working together and all that. So when an indvidual advocates or believes that some other individuals do not deserve what everyone else gets, I can only see it as the feeling that the individual 'deserves less' ergo, that individual IS less.
Unfortunately, no one is going to be able to convince me that denying my daughter the right to a stable household foundation, when others are assisted to have it, comes from a sound, logic and humane viewpoint. (by assisted, I mean allowing a spouse to have social security after one passes on, by filing jointly and saving money for running the house, etc. ad nauseum). Since I'm on the raw end of the deal, you won't be able to convince me that what is going on is the compassionate humane thing to do. Millions of families across America have to work harder to compensate for what other families are given to assist the household. There is no 'for' argument that can justify it.
Boom, I'm honestly not sure why any families get tax and other benefits. I'm not sure why I was more deserving of a bigger tax refund than some of my peers, just because I have kids.
That said, if the government is giving out breaks to families, ALL families should get them.
48 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 24, 2004 at 12:56 am
Oh, he's been reading and he has a valid viewpoint. Hmmm. Perhaps what I need to realize is that I'm not a liberal then. Because I do not put the dollar above the welfare of a child. But apparently, it's valid and accurate. Perhaps I should switch over to the Corporate Republican party. THAT'S where the compassion for humanity is. Okay then.
BTW, I was mistaken earlier when I said he was a freshman. He's an 18-year-old senior.
I thought I'd read in the essay that he had "4 more years" to look forward to. I guess maybe he was talking about college, and I assumed he was talking about h.s.
51 -
Dan
Jun 24, 2004 at 1:43 am
Boomcrash, didn't mean to offend by using the word "agenda". You can call it the quest for equal and humane treatment by society if you want. I'm not hostile to your viewpoint about "assisted" spousal rights either. I am saying that maybe my distance from the debate might give me a better insight into the motives of people who hold the opposite opinion, and I'm absolutely certain that hatred or thinking that gays deserve less is not a prime motivational factor. Not to say that that sentiment doesn't exist, it surely does, but to think that it is the driving motivation for the anti-homosexual agenda (how's that?) I think is off base.
It's not unlike the highschool boy being called a racist. If it can be established (by popular opinion) that his viewpoints are based on irrational emotions like hatred or fear, then he can be discarded. Almost invariably it is liberals who play this game, and it gets old.
52 -
Dan
Jun 24, 2004 at 2:02 am
"I should switch over to the Corporate Republican party. THAT'S where the compassion for humanity is. Okay then."
I wasn't offended. But that word keeps popping up, so I usually need to ask what it means, because the answer is usually different. (I've been told my agenda is to 'advocate' homosexuality to America's children or it's to get 'special' treatment, etc., so I like to know what it means to people who use the term.)
If it can be established (by popular opinion) that his viewpoints are based on irrational emotions like hatred or fear, then he can be discarded.
I've heard that claim many times before, so it's a viewpoint that exists I'm sure (on the liberal side), that it can be easy to discard something if you can classify it as irrational. That may be the case, I can only speak for myself when I say this:
Even if someone can come up with a 'sound, logical' reason to discriminate against my family, I am still going to discard it. And I have never heard of a sound logical reason to punish alternative families, and I've heard a lot of reasons. I'd be interested in hearing what you perceive to be a justifiable reason to assist two people who meet in Vegas and marry the next day, yet do not acknowledge another couple who has been struggling together for 50+ years.
I have to repeat: Even if someone can come up with a 'sound, logical' reason to discriminate against my family, I am still going to discard it.
What else am I supposed to do, Dan? Say 'oh, I see, you are right, my family doesn't deserve this or that, but the couple who marries for money or doesn't honor their vows or whatever, does?'
Tell me a rational reasoning, not based on hatred or fear, that justifies discrimination, and if you can get me to see it, I won't accuse anybody of it anymore. Until then don't tell me my complaining about not being treated equally is 'old'.
Your going to have an easier time though, convincing an African American that there are sound, logical justifications behind slavery.
55 -
Dan
Jun 24, 2004 at 2:31 am
good response Boom.
56 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 24, 2004 at 3:18 am
It's the only response there is.
As an aside, in comment 40, you imply, if not outright state, that the cries of 'racism' he endured was at the hands of self-serving liberals, however if you actually read his blog, you would see that it was muslim students who made the claim after being shown the posters by the girl who tore them down (and also made the claim). Muslim students, by the very definition of their faith, do not normally fall under the umbrella of 'liberal'.
57 -
Dan
Jun 24, 2004 at 9:25 pm
Boomcrash, OK, I went back and "actually read his blog". Under the sentence: " She then distributed them (the posters)to several Muslim students, and I heard her loudly explain to them how I was a racist, how awful the signs were, etc." is a picture of two apparantly Muslim students looking at posters with a seemingly dramatically traumatized girl in the background. The caption reads: "Sean John" (hulking badass Muslim on the left): "Wait... why are these posters bad?"
"Tie-Dye"(outraged trama victim):"Because Bryan's a racist!"
Sean John: "Oh."" They weren't bothered by them.
The only person described as a Muslim who called him racist was "an angry woman in her thirties" whom he was unfamiliar with. Apparantly, at this school, they allow adults to come in off of the street and assault those with dissenting opinions. All other nasty labelers were described as "students".
Anyway, I'm not sure that it matters, My point remains that liberals typically resort to the racist label to shut down debate. It certainly happens to me a lot at B.C. Not to mention the twisting and contextual Bedlam my words are subjected to. Case in point (perhaps not intentional): You say " don't tell me my complaining about not being treated equally is 'old'". I didn't say that.
No, I'm not going to debate same sex marriage with you. For one thing I'm a staunch 'fence sitter' on the issue. For another, You've closed the debate--"Even if someone can come up with a 'sound, logical' reason to discriminate against my family, I am still going to discard it".
"What else am I supposed to do, Dan"?
If my advice were worthy of respect, I would say stick to your guns but be fair. Knock off some of the emotional appeals and exaggerations you accused the high school boy of doing like: "denying my daughter the right to a stable household foundation" and "Your going to have an easier time though, convincing an African American that there are sound, logical justifications behind slavery". But then, I'm a hateful frightened little man. MD should have fun with that last.
58 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 25, 2004 at 4:00 am
No, I'm not going to debate same sex marriage with you. For one thing I'm a staunch 'fence sitter' on the issue.
That's alright, I wasn't looking for a debate. It was a comparison to the free speech issue which was the main topic of the thread. And anyway, when it comes to equality and fighting discrimination, when someone tells me they are a fence sitter on the issue, I already know they are sitting on one side of the fence. I've never heard of anybody having no opinion on discrimination.
I hope I don't seem like I'm picking on you or anything, just calling it like I see it.
Knock off some of the emotional appeals and exaggerations you accused the high school boy of doing
I was the only one who had a problem with him exaggerating. Is exaggeration okay if it comes from a viewpoint one agrees with? I'm working on my writing, I don't have any training, but truthfully I don't see what I said as an exaggeration. I''ve talked on different threads about the police brutality, hate crimes, attempted murder, and life on the streets that I had to go through, in my life. I really don't see that saying 'denying my daughter the right to a stable foundation' is all that much of an exaggeration. But then you're not in my world. It's unfortunate that it comes across as an exaggeration.
But then, I'm a hateful frightened little man.
I never called you that. All I said was that discrimination stems from hatred or fear. You said you were sitting on the fence. So it wouldn't apply to you unless you really were on one side of the fence.
You've closed the debate
call me silly, I'm of the thought that here in America, land of the free, equality shouldn't be open for debate.
The saga shows that we have teachers and school officials who are uninformed and timid enough to be intimidated by little neo-Nazis. The law of free expression in public schools is simple. Students are not allowed to engage in conduct that is disruptive or creates a hostile environment for other students, staff or faculty. The behavior the boy so proudly details here does both. Students and staff had work they should have been attending to that was interrupted by Henderson's antics. Muslim students may well have been insulted by Henderson's claim that their families in the Mideast should be driven from their homes and the land handed over to Jews. The principal would be completely justified in disciplining him. I would opt for expulsion. If any kid ever needed to be taught a lesson, this one does. And, school is a great place to learn.
Not only has his right to free speech not been infringed on, he has used a false claim of infringement to disrupt the school and abuse others. Bryan Henderson, with his utter contempt for the rights of other people and grandiose ego, is a Matt Hale in the making. Instead of waiting until he has followers who kill people, adults should hold him accountable now.
I doubt very much that you would feel the same way about a student with liberal views putting up posters in a conservative school, MD.
You teach nothing by kicking the kid out of school except that the majority can exercise its power at will and that minority voices will be silenced [or worse, that those who speak up will be punished].
He created no hostile environment. Nobody's safety was threatened. Nobody was bullied or prevented from attending class or participating in school activities. Nobody else's opinions were silenced. [Very few actual bullies EVER get expelled from school. The football team comes to mind.]
His behavior was disruptive, but only because the people around him acted like idiots. Should that be the litmus test for whether or not a kid should be able to voice an opinion, how quickly other people get hysterical over contrary ideas?
He challenged the prevailing attitudes of his peers and his teacher. They were upset because he voiced a strong opinion in a very overt way. That's their problem.
And it's a real shame that schools don't know how to channel stuff like this into REAL educational experiences.
I did not read the comments until after making my remarks above. I believe Steve (Boom) was on the right track. There is no evidence in an account biased in Henderson's favor (he wrote it) that the teacher promoted her political views. He says she said Noam Chomsky is articulate -- not that she expressed any political views. Then he goes on to refer to teachers and staff as socialists, Leftists and Communists. Ergo, Henderson is the one obsessed with politics, not the teacher.
Operation Tiger Claw was my first attempt at leading a protest against the apathy and leftism running rampant at my school. It all started on Friday, May 14th with a small act of conservative pride. My socialist history teacher was on another kick about how articulate Noam Chomsky was, when I finally reached my limit.
People are adopting Henderson's biases as true. That is a big mistake.
bhw wonders what Henderson says at the dinner table. I wonder what he says to women, people of color and Muslims that he walks past on the streets and at the mall. (Says something about our situations in society, I suspect.) Matt Hale's murderous follower, Benjamin Smith, did exactly the same things Henderson is doing. When he took his show to college, he got expelled for the behavior. If Brown had disciplined Henderson, his behavior would have at least been examined for the sociopathic tendencies it may represent.
A return to my main point: The disruption is the most important aspect of the situation. It is why Henderson is legally legless.
[This comment has been edited to remove violations of the house rules. The person posting the comment has been banned for one month. -Admin]
[Mac Diva], as usual, completely flips her lid in the comments section.
"The saga shows that we have teachers and school officials who are uninformed and timid enough to be intimidated by little neo-Nazis."
Immmediately we start with the name-calling. There is nothing to indicate this young man is a Nazi. But complete lack of evidence never once stopped MD from making personal attacks.
"The law of free expression in public schools is simple. Students are not allowed to engage in conduct that is disruptive or creates a hostile environment for other students, staff or faculty. The behavior the boy so proudly details here does both."
Actually, it does neither. The persons responsible for creating the "hostile envoronment" were the kooks chanting "racist" (MD's ideological peers). And, placing if placing a sign on a wall is somehow "disruptive", then every student organization who advertises their activities in such a manner (chorus, spanish club, etc.) should be immediately disbanded.
"Students and staff had work they should have been attending to that was interrupted by Henderson's antics."
No. Students and staff had work they should have been attending to, but instead they decided to squelch another person's free speech and engage in childish name-calling.
"Muslim students may well have been insulted by Henderson's claim that their families in the Mideast should be driven from their homes and the land handed over to Jews."
Tough shit. I'd be insulted by a professor telling her captive audience of students that the anti-American, disingenuous pinko Noam Chomsky is some kind of fucking political sage. But that's life in a free country.
"The principal would be completely justified in disciplining him. I would opt for expulsion."
Of course. If you were in charge, you'd censor everything you disagreed with and punish everyone who didn't parrot your twisted, left-wing fringe world-view. Why am I not surprised.
"If any kid ever needed to be taught a lesson, this one does. And, school is a great place to learn."
The lesson being: "Don't speak up and offer dissenting views in front of your betters, or you'll be called names, censored, and punished by the powers-that-be."
"Not only has his right to free speech not been infringed on, he has used a false claim of infringement to disrupt the school and abuse others."
Who was "abused" here Mac?
"Bryan Henderson, with his utter contempt for the rights of other people"
???
Isn't his freedom of speech an important right too?
"and grandiose ego, is a Matt Hale in the making. Instead of waiting until he has followers who kill people, adults should hold him accountable now."
And, of course, we end where we began, with baseless accusations that the young man, simply by expressing a conservative viewpoint, is a murderous bigot, and only "enlightened" folks who follow MD's advice will be able to set him straight and indoctrinate him into the Leftist ideology. Perhaps after he is expelled from his current school, he should apply at MD's special Angry Anonymous Blogger Re-Education Camp, as Mindless Automaton #478325.
We are going to have to agree to disagree about this one, bhw. Benjamin Smith would have driven past you and maybe waved and said 'Hi.' He would have shot and killed me. I cannot urge the development of more people like him and Matt Hale.
"There is no evidence in an account biased in Henderson's favor (he wrote it) that the teacher promoted her political views. He says she said Noam Chomsky is articulate -- not that she expressed any political views."
The kid wrote: My socialist history teacher was on another kick about how articulate Noam Chomsky was, when I finally reached my limit. "
Sounds like she's talked about Chomsky's merits more than once.
"Then he goes on to refer to teachers and staff as socialists, Leftists and Communists. Ergo, Henderson is the one obsessed with politics, not the teacher."
How do you know if you don't go to that school? The kid also said that the Vice Principal agreed that students didn't have free speech at the school.
"bhw wonders what Henderson says at the dinner table."
Yes I do. My guess is that his family talks politics.
"I wonder what he says to women, people of color and Muslims that he walks past on the streets and at the mall."
Why? Because he voiced a political opinion at school?
("Says something about our situations in society, I suspect.)"
I'm a white woman, for the record.
"Matt Hale's murderous follower, Benjamin Smith, did exactly the same things Henderson is doing."
Way, way off the mark. First, the kid hangs up posters and now he's a muderer-to-be?
Second, you're advocating the thought police, where unpopular ideas are silenced because they're unpopular and where people who express unpopular ideas are punished, under the premise that the ideas eventually and lead to criminal behavior.
"Benjamin Smith would have driven past you and maybe waved and said 'Hi.' He would have shot and killed me. I cannot urge the development of more people like him and Matt Hale."
I don't "urge" the development of racists and murderers. But I don't advocate limiting speech to only the stuff the majority likes.
The best thing you can do in this h.s. situation is to LET THE DEBATE HAPPEN. Ignorance is not bliss -- if you don't know the ideas are out there, how can you challenge them?
69 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 25, 2004 at 6:11 am
bhw, since you acknowledge that the kid exaggerates in his posters, how can we be certain that he isn't exaggerating about the teacher going on yet another 'kick'?
What I gather from the post, is that this kid is extreme in his views, prone to exaggeration. But then the girl who rips down the posters would be extreme in her anti-war views. So you have two extremists who suddenly go at it, and the faculty now finds themselves in the middle in having to resolve it. And I'm betting the faculty is uneducated on what to do. So their impulse would be to stifle a growing confrontation. Which fires up the boy even more. He obviously thrives on confrontation, not that that's a bad thing.
Next thing you know, the ACLU is mentioned, expulsion is mentioned and the wildfire has started.
And all because nobody is advocating preaching the facts, exaggeration is acceptable (except of course when it comes from little ole me). The wildfire has started. Look at the controversy around Farenheit 9/11 and how everybody is going on about the 'exaggerations' in it.
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round.....
Eric, Phillip, anyone with moderating ability: Something must be done about RJ Elliott. #63 is beyond the pale, wholly offensive, and completely against your stated rules.
"bhw, since you acknowledge that the kid exaggerates in his posters, how can we be certain that he isn't exaggerating about the teacher going on yet another 'kick'?"
I can't. But it's almost beside the point. It is relevant because, as I said earlier, the teacher gave her views about Chomsky, who is quite a polarized writer. We're not even sure they read his stuff in class. So if they didn't read his stuff, then the teacher was just voicing her political opinion in class. If they did read Chomsky, then the teacher introduced one side of the political spectrum. Did she introduce the other? We don't know. Maybe the kid just wanted to show his opposition to Chomsky's ideas.
I also know something about the region, since I'm originally from not too far from there. It's a liberal area -- Princeton, for pete's sake. The kid exists in a liberal community [and it's quite lovely in other ways, too].
Even if the teacher hadn't started the situation with Chomsky, should political debate amongst the student body not be allowed? I don't think teachers should be teaching their politics to students. But I think students should be able to discuss politics and state their personal views, even to the point of putting up posters.
"And I'm betting the faculty is uneducated on what to do. So their impulse would be to stifle a growing confrontation."
They don't sound very prone to stifle confrontation by me. Tearing down the kid's posters right in front of him sounds VERY confrontational [and melodramatic]. If a teacher doesn't know how to turn that situation into a positive one without tearing down the signs, then schools are in bigger trouble than I thought. The absolutely should be educated in how to handle it, especially if they're going to bring up Chomsky with their students.
People in authority often use the "we're just trying to keep everyone safe" excuse when they stifle unpopular speech. Instead of making it clear that abusive confrontation is not acceptable by people who disagree, they make it clear that certain political expressions are not acceptible. So people with unpopular ideas are silenced by authority and the hysterical ranters are not critized [or are even applauded] for their immature, irrational behavior.
"And all because nobody is advocating preaching the facts, exaggeration is acceptable (except of course when it comes from little ole me)."
Again, you are free to exaggerate. Did anyone here "tear down your posters" or did they discuss the exaggerations and other points with you in a civil manner? Who discussed the exaggerations with the h.s. kid? [Sounds like maybe the v.p. did, and then she conceded some of his points.]Did the teacher who took down his signs care about facts? Really, do you think that's what she cared about?
His posters were edgy and made people uncomfortable. That's why they tore them down. And in my opinion, that's wrong.
I think the boy was being disruptive when he put the posters up. Nor am I conceding the point about Chomsky. I think George Will is reasonably articulate. But, I rarely agree with his views. I need more than the teacher saying Chomsky is articulate to believe she was promoting her politics. I don't have it.
Furthermore, putting up posters goes beyond whatever dialogue was occurring because they are viewable by persons not involved in the conversation. In addition, the content of the posters matters. The putting up of the inflammatory posters was incitement, pure and simple. A right to speak and a right to incite are not synonymous.
The political name-calling I referred to is throughout Henderson's sophomoric screed. Everyone he disagrees with is a socialist, communist, etc. I don't see how anyone could have read the piece and not noticed that.
I believe bhw needs to go back and re-read Henderson's screed in its entirety. It does not reflect well on him. One sees a preening little egotist who will run the school or else. The nice little boy protesting bad, bad adults she wants to see is not there.
Nor do I agree with bhw that this thread is being conducted civilly by everyone. It features a white man referring to a woman of color as a 'cunt' and saying she is not worth a bullet. bhw seems to be suffering a rather convenient blindness that effects some white people sometimes. As long as the harm being done does not apply to people who look like her, no harm is occurring. Very convenient.
I need more than the teacher saying Chomsky is articulate to believe she was promoting her politics. I don't have it.
So you think the kid would have mentioned this teacher if she'd said, "Chomsky is articulate, but just in a literary way. He's a linguist, after all. I'm not commenting on his politics in any way." Not so much.
Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say the teacher had them read Chomsky and then proceded to point out why he was RIGHT. Now what about this kid or any other kid reacting with posters?
The putting up of the inflammatory posters was incitement, pure and simple. A right to speak and a right to incite are not synonymous.
Well, he incited something, alright. He incited poor behavior from other students, at least one parent, and at least one teacher. He was definitely trying to make a point and get people riled up. He succeeded, and unfortunately, the people who reacted badly merely reinforced his one-sided beliefs. Now, where did that stereotype about the left trying to squelch speech they don't like come from?
The political name-calling I referred to is throughout Henderson's sophomoric screed. Everyone he disagrees with is a socialist, communist, etc.
How's your irony detector working today?
I don't see how anyone could have read the piece and not noticed that.
I read it and noticed it. And it makes not an ounce of difference to the point about speech.
I believe bhw needs to go back and re-read Henderson's screed in its entirety....The nice little boy protesting bad, bad adults she wants to see is not there.
I read the whole thing before making comment #1 and have gone back to it from time to time during this discussion. I see a kid trying to stir the pot. I don't agree with his politics, but I don't have a problem with that, particularly since his peers usually doesn't think about anything besides pop culture and their next trip to the mall. We need more kids like this representing the entire political spectrum.
Nor do I agree with bhw that this thread is being conducted civilly by everyone.
Quote me. When did I say that? I was talking to a point Boom made about himself, in which he referred to other comments earlier in the thread.
You and RJ have a long history and can duke it out yourselves.
Soon after leaving the thread, serendipity intervened. I discovered this article about more 'conservative' white youths who some will say deserve our support. This is the next step for school kids interested in 'freedom of speech,' I guess.
Black School Bus Driver: Kids Dress As KKK
OCALA, Fla. (AP) - A black school bus driver filed a complaint with authorities after seeing two children dressed in Ku Klux Klan robes and carrying a cross at one of her stops.
Claudette Johnson told the Marion County Sheriff's Office that she spotted the pair Wednesday among a group of students waiting for the bus. Johnson made eye contact with the two as the other students boarded her bus, but said the robed students did not speak.
The children in robes then crossed the street and handed the cross to another child, who dragged the cross away, the complaint said. They stood between 5 and 5 1/2 feet tall and weighed about 100 pounds, according to Johnson.
Johnson, a 23-year employee of the Marion County school system, said she had also seen a child wearing a KKK outfit at the same bus stop about two weeks ago. Her route serves students attending summer camp at a school.
``I don't think this is funny,'' she said. ``I'm an employee for the public school system. I shouldn't have to deal with this.''
A detective is following the case and had identified one suspect, said Lt. Butch Gallion. To take further action, Gallion said authorities would have to prove the suspects intended to harass or intimidate Johnson.
bhw is, of course, free to invite these youths to dinner, or praise their 'feistiness.' I, on the other hand, hope they are held responsible for their abusive behavior. The adults behind this should also be held accountable.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - bhw
Boom, show me where the kid called liberals "baby killers". I can't find it.
Chomsky is a very left professor of linguistics at MIT who is very vocal in his criticism of American foreign policy. His opinions are no where near the middle, so they always spark debate.
"Generically speaking. I'm talking about the harm of attacking an opposing viewpoint with exaggeration and misinformation. You confirmed that is what he did."
I said he did it with exaggeration, not misinformation. There's a difference, not that it matters in the debate about free speech. Political cartoons exaggerate. Do they by definition misinform? And the so-called harm that can be done with misinformation can be countered with a debate! That's the point.
"I don't see that as productive. It might fall under free speech, but I don't see it as beneficial to promoting his viewpoint."
So what? Lots of speech isn't productive or beneficial. These aren't good reasons to tear down the posters or oppose his right to speak. This business about his viewpoint not being valid is b.s. He has an opinion and he has obviously been following world events. It seems to me that his teacher doesn't like having her opinions challenged.
He's a h.s. freshman. You're holding him to an awfully high standard for political debate, one that isn't reflected ANYWHERE in the real world. Give him some credit for giving a crap and standing by his convictions, even if you don't agree with those convictions.
27 - boomcrashbaby
Boom, show me where the kid called liberals "baby killers". I can't find it.
He had a poster of iraqi children and insinuated that liberals don't want to save them because it costs too much money.
If I misrepresent and exaggerate and say that's the equivalent of calling us baby-killers, hey, it's a free country and it certainly didn't confuse you with a bunch of bs as to my point, did it?
28 - boomcrashbaby
Ahh, thank you Ms. Tek, there's nothing like a nostalgic trip back to the time when we were in high school. It's nice to know we're still practicing the art of such conversation in this day and age. One always enjoys such conversation over a cup of tea. Helps to better humanity, don't you think?
29 - Evil Twin Ms. Tek
SHUT UP PINKO!!
TEA IS FOR FAGS!
REAL MEN DRINK COFFEE!
30 - Evil Twin Ms. Tek
FOUR MORE!!!
BUSH IN 2004!!!
DIE DIRTY BROWN PEOPLE!
31 - Dwaine AKA Hanton AKA D.J.
KERRY IN 2004!!!
YOU RACIST FUCK!!!
32 - bhw
It doesn't matter if you confused me or not, Boom. You can say whatever you want. And the h.s. kid should be afforded the same courtesy.
You won't "better humanity" by censoring ideas you don't like. And you definitely won't better schools that way, either.
33 - Evil Twin Ms. Tek
BUSH 2004
DOWN WITH BROWN!
THE MAN WITH A PLAN!!
SHUT UP YOU ANTI-AMERICAN COMMIE!!
34 - bhw
Censorship is wrong when the Right or the Left does it. I said the same thing when the Dixie Chicks were lambasted for expressing a political opinion.
35 - boomcrashbaby
okay, we can agree to disagree I guess.
I am against censorship, I am for - holding a person accountable for their words and encouraging them to speak fact rather than falsehood. To me, that is not censorship.
36 - Dirtgrain
Evil Twin Ms. Tek, are you an Ameri-can or an Ameri-can't?
37 - Evil Twin Ms. Tek
SHUT UP MALIGNANT COMMIE PINKO!
I will NOT be drawn into one of your LIBERAL INTELLECTUAL MIND GAMES>
SHUT UP! TERRORIST!
38 - Dirtgrain
Just say emsevolsusej backwards and everything will be okay. Redrum? Daedsiluap? tihstaei? Whatever, just turn yourself around backwards (no sexual innuendo intended) and become good Ms. Tek. "If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you" (Nietzsche). Wonder Twin Powers deactivate! Form of Ms. Tek, blasphemer, spewer of vitriolic truth, condemner of all things inane--a take-shit-from-nobody prophet.
39 - bhw
"okay, we can agree to disagree I guess."
Good enough, Boom. Thanks for the debate.
40 - Dan
Great post RJ. I'm thinking this kid made a huge impact on his fellow students to open their minds and challenge authority. A lot of courage, that one. A big part of liberal indoctrination depends on the tractability and the yearn for acceptance that is inherent with adolescent victims. Another telling feature of this story is how he had to face down the shrieks of "racist", the most typical censoring mechanism liberals employ. Being a "racist" is the gravest sin one can commit; but only if you're white.
Bhw, good show of non-partisanship.
Boomcrash, you say "Homosexuality is a good topic for that, because it's impossible to oppose it without holding to the opinion that a homosexual is a lesser human being." I've heard some reasonable arguments against (also some for) the homosexual agenda, and never has the opinion holder expressed the idea that a homosexual is a lesser human being.
41 - RJ Elliott
"Great post RJ."
Thanks Dan. And thank you, bhw, for supporting free speech, even if you don't agree with it.
Boom states he opposes censorship, then makes a pro-censorship argument. Sort of funny, actually...
42 - boomcrashbaby
Boom states he opposes censorship, then makes a pro-censorship argument. Sort of funny, actually...
I must not be making myself clear then. I said numerous times that he shouldn't be censored.
What I did say is that he should be encouraged to do research (has anybody heard of a school library? They do have them, you know). He should do research and gather facts to promote his view. The school should be encouraging THAT. Encouraging one way, does not mean stifling another way.
I definitely need to homeschool my daughter. Apparently now in society, encouraging children to learn and/or how to properly debate is now the wrong thing to do.
43 - bhw
Boom, you didn't really say that he should be encouraged to do research. You kept saying that you didn't think his way of expressing his ideas -- with exaggeration and, in your opinion, misinformation -- should be "allowed" as a valid viewpoint.
When you talk about allowing or not allowing viewpoints, that sounds like censorship.
But I agree, encouraging the kid to do more research is fine. But he's already pretty well-researched, I'd gather, particularly compared to his peers. He just doesn't use sources you or I would recommend.
44 - Dan
Or another way you could look at it is that he did research and gathered facts and now has a valid point of view.
45 - boomcrashbaby
Boomcrash, you say "Homosexuality is a good topic for that, because it's impossible to oppose it without holding to the opinion that a homosexual is a lesser human being." I've heard some reasonable arguments against (also some for) the homosexual agenda, and never has the opinion holder expressed the idea that a homosexual is a lesser human being
Dan, as a homosexual who has been active in my community for many years, can you tell me what our agenda is? It's never been discussed by all those I have met in my life.
And of course, almost no one will ever express the opinion that a gay person is less than a human being. Most who hold that opinion, do not see it that way. They aren't aware they even feel it. It's my belief though, that a society should be built to ensure safety, survival and opportunity for all it's members. You know, humanity, a species working together and all that. So when an indvidual advocates or believes that some other individuals do not deserve what everyone else gets, I can only see it as the feeling that the individual 'deserves less' ergo, that individual IS less.
Unfortunately, no one is going to be able to convince me that denying my daughter the right to a stable household foundation, when others are assisted to have it, comes from a sound, logic and humane viewpoint. (by assisted, I mean allowing a spouse to have social security after one passes on, by filing jointly and saving money for running the house, etc. ad nauseum). Since I'm on the raw end of the deal, you won't be able to convince me that what is going on is the compassionate humane thing to do. Millions of families across America have to work harder to compensate for what other families are given to assist the household. There is no 'for' argument that can justify it.
46 - bhw
I think the kid has done his research and has a valid viewpoint. I don't agree with his conclusions, but he's definitely been reading.
47 - bhw
Boom, I'm honestly not sure why any families get tax and other benefits. I'm not sure why I was more deserving of a bigger tax refund than some of my peers, just because I have kids.
That said, if the government is giving out breaks to families, ALL families should get them.
48 - boomcrashbaby
Oh, he's been reading and he has a valid viewpoint. Hmmm. Perhaps what I need to realize is that I'm not a liberal then. Because I do not put the dollar above the welfare of a child. But apparently, it's valid and accurate. Perhaps I should switch over to the Corporate Republican party. THAT'S where the compassion for humanity is. Okay then.
Sorry, gotta go, Rod Serling is at the door.
49 - bhw
A viewpoint is biased because it's colored by ... the point of view. It's basically his opinion, Boom. He is entitled to it.
And since *some* people have been making noise about the dollar cost of the war ....
Like I said, I don't agree with his conclusions, but he is entitled to his point of view.
50 - bhw
BTW, I was mistaken earlier when I said he was a freshman. He's an 18-year-old senior.
I thought I'd read in the essay that he had "4 more years" to look forward to. I guess maybe he was talking about college, and I assumed he was talking about h.s.
51 - Dan
Boomcrash, didn't mean to offend by using the word "agenda". You can call it the quest for equal and humane treatment by society if you want. I'm not hostile to your viewpoint about "assisted" spousal rights either. I am saying that maybe my distance from the debate might give me a better insight into the motives of people who hold the opposite opinion, and I'm absolutely certain that hatred or thinking that gays deserve less is not a prime motivational factor. Not to say that that sentiment doesn't exist, it surely does, but to think that it is the driving motivation for the anti-homosexual agenda (how's that?) I think is off base.
It's not unlike the highschool boy being called a racist. If it can be established (by popular opinion) that his viewpoints are based on irrational emotions like hatred or fear, then he can be discarded. Almost invariably it is liberals who play this game, and it gets old.
52 - Dan
"I should switch over to the Corporate Republican party. THAT'S where the compassion for humanity is. Okay then."
I think there is room in the "log cabin" :)
53 - Al Barger
Bryan Henderson is my new hero.
54 - boomcrashbaby
I wasn't offended. But that word keeps popping up, so I usually need to ask what it means, because the answer is usually different. (I've been told my agenda is to 'advocate' homosexuality to America's children or it's to get 'special' treatment, etc., so I like to know what it means to people who use the term.)
If it can be established (by popular opinion) that his viewpoints are based on irrational emotions like hatred or fear, then he can be discarded.
I've heard that claim many times before, so it's a viewpoint that exists I'm sure (on the liberal side), that it can be easy to discard something if you can classify it as irrational. That may be the case, I can only speak for myself when I say this:
Even if someone can come up with a 'sound, logical' reason to discriminate against my family, I am still going to discard it. And I have never heard of a sound logical reason to punish alternative families, and I've heard a lot of reasons. I'd be interested in hearing what you perceive to be a justifiable reason to assist two people who meet in Vegas and marry the next day, yet do not acknowledge another couple who has been struggling together for 50+ years.
I have to repeat: Even if someone can come up with a 'sound, logical' reason to discriminate against my family, I am still going to discard it.
What else am I supposed to do, Dan? Say 'oh, I see, you are right, my family doesn't deserve this or that, but the couple who marries for money or doesn't honor their vows or whatever, does?'
Tell me a rational reasoning, not based on hatred or fear, that justifies discrimination, and if you can get me to see it, I won't accuse anybody of it anymore. Until then don't tell me my complaining about not being treated equally is 'old'.
Your going to have an easier time though, convincing an African American that there are sound, logical justifications behind slavery.
55 - Dan
good response Boom.
56 - boomcrashbaby
It's the only response there is.
As an aside, in comment 40, you imply, if not outright state, that the cries of 'racism' he endured was at the hands of self-serving liberals, however if you actually read his blog, you would see that it was muslim students who made the claim after being shown the posters by the girl who tore them down (and also made the claim). Muslim students, by the very definition of their faith, do not normally fall under the umbrella of 'liberal'.
57 - Dan
Boomcrash, OK, I went back and "actually read his blog". Under the sentence: " She then distributed them (the posters)to several Muslim students, and I heard her loudly explain to them how I was a racist, how awful the signs were, etc." is a picture of two apparantly Muslim students looking at posters with a seemingly dramatically traumatized girl in the background. The caption reads: "Sean John" (hulking badass Muslim on the left): "Wait... why are these posters bad?"
"Tie-Dye"(outraged trama victim):"Because Bryan's a racist!"
Sean John: "Oh."" They weren't bothered by them.
The only person described as a Muslim who called him racist was "an angry woman in her thirties" whom he was unfamiliar with. Apparantly, at this school, they allow adults to come in off of the street and assault those with dissenting opinions. All other nasty labelers were described as "students".
Anyway, I'm not sure that it matters, My point remains that liberals typically resort to the racist label to shut down debate. It certainly happens to me a lot at B.C. Not to mention the twisting and contextual Bedlam my words are subjected to. Case in point (perhaps not intentional): You say " don't tell me my complaining about not being treated equally is 'old'". I didn't say that.
No, I'm not going to debate same sex marriage with you. For one thing I'm a staunch 'fence sitter' on the issue. For another, You've closed the debate--"Even if someone can come up with a 'sound, logical' reason to discriminate against my family, I am still going to discard it".
"What else am I supposed to do, Dan"?
If my advice were worthy of respect, I would say stick to your guns but be fair. Knock off some of the emotional appeals and exaggerations you accused the high school boy of doing like: "denying my daughter the right to a stable household foundation" and "Your going to have an easier time though, convincing an African American that there are sound, logical justifications behind slavery". But then, I'm a hateful frightened little man. MD should have fun with that last.
58 - boomcrashbaby
No, I'm not going to debate same sex marriage with you. For one thing I'm a staunch 'fence sitter' on the issue.
That's alright, I wasn't looking for a debate. It was a comparison to the free speech issue which was the main topic of the thread. And anyway, when it comes to equality and fighting discrimination, when someone tells me they are a fence sitter on the issue, I already know they are sitting on one side of the fence. I've never heard of anybody having no opinion on discrimination.
I hope I don't seem like I'm picking on you or anything, just calling it like I see it.
Knock off some of the emotional appeals and exaggerations you accused the high school boy of doing
I was the only one who had a problem with him exaggerating. Is exaggeration okay if it comes from a viewpoint one agrees with? I'm working on my writing, I don't have any training, but truthfully I don't see what I said as an exaggeration. I''ve talked on different threads about the police brutality, hate crimes, attempted murder, and life on the streets that I had to go through, in my life. I really don't see that saying 'denying my daughter the right to a stable foundation' is all that much of an exaggeration. But then you're not in my world. It's unfortunate that it comes across as an exaggeration.
But then, I'm a hateful frightened little man.
I never called you that. All I said was that discrimination stems from hatred or fear. You said you were sitting on the fence. So it wouldn't apply to you unless you really were on one side of the fence.
You've closed the debate
call me silly, I'm of the thought that here in America, land of the free, equality shouldn't be open for debate.
Thanks for the conversation.
59 - Mac Diva
The saga shows that we have teachers and school officials who are uninformed and timid enough to be intimidated by little neo-Nazis. The law of free expression in public schools is simple. Students are not allowed to engage in conduct that is disruptive or creates a hostile environment for other students, staff or faculty. The behavior the boy so proudly details here does both. Students and staff had work they should have been attending to that was interrupted by Henderson's antics. Muslim students may well have been insulted by Henderson's claim that their families in the Mideast should be driven from their homes and the land handed over to Jews. The principal would be completely justified in disciplining him. I would opt for expulsion. If any kid ever needed to be taught a lesson, this one does. And, school is a great place to learn.
Not only has his right to free speech not been infringed on, he has used a false claim of infringement to disrupt the school and abuse others. Bryan Henderson, with his utter contempt for the rights of other people and grandiose ego, is a Matt Hale in the making. Instead of waiting until he has followers who kill people, adults should hold him accountable now.
60 - bhw
I doubt very much that you would feel the same way about a student with liberal views putting up posters in a conservative school, MD.
You teach nothing by kicking the kid out of school except that the majority can exercise its power at will and that minority voices will be silenced [or worse, that those who speak up will be punished].
He created no hostile environment. Nobody's safety was threatened. Nobody was bullied or prevented from attending class or participating in school activities. Nobody else's opinions were silenced. [Very few actual bullies EVER get expelled from school. The football team comes to mind.]
His behavior was disruptive, but only because the people around him acted like idiots. Should that be the litmus test for whether or not a kid should be able to voice an opinion, how quickly other people get hysterical over contrary ideas?
He challenged the prevailing attitudes of his peers and his teacher. They were upset because he voiced a strong opinion in a very overt way. That's their problem.
And it's a real shame that schools don't know how to channel stuff like this into REAL educational experiences.
61 - bhw
"His behavior was disruptive, but only because the people around him acted like idiots."
I need to change that. HIS behavior wasn't disruptive. The students, teacher, and that abusive parent were the ones disrupting school.
62 - Mac Diva
I did not read the comments until after making my remarks above. I believe Steve (Boom) was on the right track. There is no evidence in an account biased in Henderson's favor (he wrote it) that the teacher promoted her political views. He says she said Noam Chomsky is articulate -- not that she expressed any political views. Then he goes on to refer to teachers and staff as socialists, Leftists and Communists. Ergo, Henderson is the one obsessed with politics, not the teacher.
Operation Tiger Claw was my first attempt at leading a protest against the apathy and leftism running rampant at my school. It all started on Friday, May 14th with a small act of conservative pride. My socialist history teacher was on another kick about how articulate Noam Chomsky was, when I finally reached my limit.
People are adopting Henderson's biases as true. That is a big mistake.
bhw wonders what Henderson says at the dinner table. I wonder what he says to women, people of color and Muslims that he walks past on the streets and at the mall. (Says something about our situations in society, I suspect.) Matt Hale's murderous follower, Benjamin Smith, did exactly the same things Henderson is doing. When he took his show to college, he got expelled for the behavior. If Brown had disciplined Henderson, his behavior would have at least been examined for the sociopathic tendencies it may represent.
A return to my main point: The disruption is the most important aspect of the situation. It is why Henderson is legally legless.
63 - RJ Elliott
[This comment has been edited to remove violations of the house rules. The person posting the comment has been banned for one month. -Admin]
[Mac Diva], as usual, completely flips her lid in the comments section.
"The saga shows that we have teachers and school officials who are uninformed and timid enough to be intimidated by little neo-Nazis."
Immmediately we start with the name-calling. There is nothing to indicate this young man is a Nazi. But complete lack of evidence never once stopped MD from making personal attacks.
"The law of free expression in public schools is simple. Students are not allowed to engage in conduct that is disruptive or creates a hostile environment for other students, staff or faculty. The behavior the boy so proudly details here does both."
Actually, it does neither. The persons responsible for creating the "hostile envoronment" were the kooks chanting "racist" (MD's ideological peers). And, placing if placing a sign on a wall is somehow "disruptive", then every student organization who advertises their activities in such a manner (chorus, spanish club, etc.) should be immediately disbanded.
"Students and staff had work they should have been attending to that was interrupted by Henderson's antics."
No. Students and staff had work they should have been attending to, but instead they decided to squelch another person's free speech and engage in childish name-calling.
"Muslim students may well have been insulted by Henderson's claim that their families in the Mideast should be driven from their homes and the land handed over to Jews."
Tough shit. I'd be insulted by a professor telling her captive audience of students that the anti-American, disingenuous pinko Noam Chomsky is some kind of fucking political sage. But that's life in a free country.
"The principal would be completely justified in disciplining him. I would opt for expulsion."
Of course. If you were in charge, you'd censor everything you disagreed with and punish everyone who didn't parrot your twisted, left-wing fringe world-view. Why am I not surprised.
"If any kid ever needed to be taught a lesson, this one does. And, school is a great place to learn."
The lesson being: "Don't speak up and offer dissenting views in front of your betters, or you'll be called names, censored, and punished by the powers-that-be."
"Not only has his right to free speech not been infringed on, he has used a false claim of infringement to disrupt the school and abuse others."
Who was "abused" here Mac?
"Bryan Henderson, with his utter contempt for the rights of other people"
???
Isn't his freedom of speech an important right too?
"and grandiose ego, is a Matt Hale in the making. Instead of waiting until he has followers who kill people, adults should hold him accountable now."
And, of course, we end where we began, with baseless accusations that the young man, simply by expressing a conservative viewpoint, is a murderous bigot, and only "enlightened" folks who follow MD's advice will be able to set him straight and indoctrinate him into the Leftist ideology. Perhaps after he is expelled from his current school, he should apply at MD's special Angry Anonymous Blogger Re-Education Camp, as Mindless Automaton #478325.
[Personal insult deleted.]
64 - Mac Diva
We are going to have to agree to disagree about this one, bhw. Benjamin Smith would have driven past you and maybe waved and said 'Hi.' He would have shot and killed me. I cannot urge the development of more people like him and Matt Hale.
65 - Mac Diva
And, RJ Elliott.
66 - RJ Elliott
[Personal attack deleted. -Admin]
67 - bhw
"There is no evidence in an account biased in Henderson's favor (he wrote it) that the teacher promoted her political views. He says she said Noam Chomsky is articulate -- not that she expressed any political views."
The kid wrote: My socialist history teacher was on another kick about how articulate Noam Chomsky was, when I finally reached my limit. "
Sounds like she's talked about Chomsky's merits more than once.
"Then he goes on to refer to teachers and staff as socialists, Leftists and Communists. Ergo, Henderson is the one obsessed with politics, not the teacher."
How do you know if you don't go to that school? The kid also said that the Vice Principal agreed that students didn't have free speech at the school.
"bhw wonders what Henderson says at the dinner table."
Yes I do. My guess is that his family talks politics.
"I wonder what he says to women, people of color and Muslims that he walks past on the streets and at the mall."
Why? Because he voiced a political opinion at school?
("Says something about our situations in society, I suspect.)"
I'm a white woman, for the record.
"Matt Hale's murderous follower, Benjamin Smith, did exactly the same things Henderson is doing."
Way, way off the mark. First, the kid hangs up posters and now he's a muderer-to-be?
Second, you're advocating the thought police, where unpopular ideas are silenced because they're unpopular and where people who express unpopular ideas are punished, under the premise that the ideas eventually and lead to criminal behavior.
Is that really the society you want to live in?
68 - bhw
"Benjamin Smith would have driven past you and maybe waved and said 'Hi.' He would have shot and killed me. I cannot urge the development of more people like him and Matt Hale."
I don't "urge" the development of racists and murderers. But I don't advocate limiting speech to only the stuff the majority likes.
The best thing you can do in this h.s. situation is to LET THE DEBATE HAPPEN. Ignorance is not bliss -- if you don't know the ideas are out there, how can you challenge them?
69 - boomcrashbaby
bhw, since you acknowledge that the kid exaggerates in his posters, how can we be certain that he isn't exaggerating about the teacher going on yet another 'kick'?
What I gather from the post, is that this kid is extreme in his views, prone to exaggeration. But then the girl who rips down the posters would be extreme in her anti-war views. So you have two extremists who suddenly go at it, and the faculty now finds themselves in the middle in having to resolve it. And I'm betting the faculty is uneducated on what to do. So their impulse would be to stifle a growing confrontation. Which fires up the boy even more. He obviously thrives on confrontation, not that that's a bad thing.
Next thing you know, the ACLU is mentioned, expulsion is mentioned and the wildfire has started.
And all because nobody is advocating preaching the facts, exaggeration is acceptable (except of course when it comes from little ole me). The wildfire has started. Look at the controversy around Farenheit 9/11 and how everybody is going on about the 'exaggerations' in it.
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round.....
70 - Natalie Davis
Eric, Phillip, anyone with moderating ability: Something must be done about RJ Elliott. #63 is beyond the pale, wholly offensive, and completely against your stated rules.
71 - bhw
"bhw, since you acknowledge that the kid exaggerates in his posters, how can we be certain that he isn't exaggerating about the teacher going on yet another 'kick'?"
I can't. But it's almost beside the point. It is relevant because, as I said earlier, the teacher gave her views about Chomsky, who is quite a polarized writer. We're not even sure they read his stuff in class. So if they didn't read his stuff, then the teacher was just voicing her political opinion in class. If they did read Chomsky, then the teacher introduced one side of the political spectrum. Did she introduce the other? We don't know. Maybe the kid just wanted to show his opposition to Chomsky's ideas.
I also know something about the region, since I'm originally from not too far from there. It's a liberal area -- Princeton, for pete's sake. The kid exists in a liberal community [and it's quite lovely in other ways, too].
Even if the teacher hadn't started the situation with Chomsky, should political debate amongst the student body not be allowed? I don't think teachers should be teaching their politics to students. But I think students should be able to discuss politics and state their personal views, even to the point of putting up posters.
"And I'm betting the faculty is uneducated on what to do. So their impulse would be to stifle a growing confrontation."
They don't sound very prone to stifle confrontation by me. Tearing down the kid's posters right in front of him sounds VERY confrontational [and melodramatic]. If a teacher doesn't know how to turn that situation into a positive one without tearing down the signs, then schools are in bigger trouble than I thought. The absolutely should be educated in how to handle it, especially if they're going to bring up Chomsky with their students.
People in authority often use the "we're just trying to keep everyone safe" excuse when they stifle unpopular speech. Instead of making it clear that abusive confrontation is not acceptable by people who disagree, they make it clear that certain political expressions are not acceptible. So people with unpopular ideas are silenced by authority and the hysterical ranters are not critized [or are even applauded] for their immature, irrational behavior.
"And all because nobody is advocating preaching the facts, exaggeration is acceptable (except of course when it comes from little ole me)."
Again, you are free to exaggerate. Did anyone here "tear down your posters" or did they discuss the exaggerations and other points with you in a civil manner? Who discussed the exaggerations with the h.s. kid? [Sounds like maybe the v.p. did, and then she conceded some of his points.]Did the teacher who took down his signs care about facts? Really, do you think that's what she cared about?
His posters were edgy and made people uncomfortable. That's why they tore them down. And in my opinion, that's wrong.
72 - Mac Diva
I think the boy was being disruptive when he put the posters up. Nor am I conceding the point about Chomsky. I think George Will is reasonably articulate. But, I rarely agree with his views. I need more than the teacher saying Chomsky is articulate to believe she was promoting her politics. I don't have it.
Furthermore, putting up posters goes beyond whatever dialogue was occurring because they are viewable by persons not involved in the conversation. In addition, the content of the posters matters. The putting up of the inflammatory posters was incitement, pure and simple. A right to speak and a right to incite are not synonymous.
The political name-calling I referred to is throughout Henderson's sophomoric screed. Everyone he disagrees with is a socialist, communist, etc. I don't see how anyone could have read the piece and not noticed that.
I believe bhw needs to go back and re-read Henderson's screed in its entirety. It does not reflect well on him. One sees a preening little egotist who will run the school or else. The nice little boy protesting bad, bad adults she wants to see is not there.
Nor do I agree with bhw that this thread is being conducted civilly by everyone. It features a white man referring to a woman of color as a 'cunt' and saying she is not worth a bullet. bhw seems to be suffering a rather convenient blindness that effects some white people sometimes. As long as the harm being done does not apply to people who look like her, no harm is occurring. Very convenient.
73 - bhw
I need more than the teacher saying Chomsky is articulate to believe she was promoting her politics. I don't have it.
So you think the kid would have mentioned this teacher if she'd said, "Chomsky is articulate, but just in a literary way. He's a linguist, after all. I'm not commenting on his politics in any way." Not so much.
Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say the teacher had them read Chomsky and then proceded to point out why he was RIGHT. Now what about this kid or any other kid reacting with posters?
The putting up of the inflammatory posters was incitement, pure and simple. A right to speak and a right to incite are not synonymous.
Well, he incited something, alright. He incited poor behavior from other students, at least one parent, and at least one teacher. He was definitely trying to make a point and get people riled up. He succeeded, and unfortunately, the people who reacted badly merely reinforced his one-sided beliefs. Now, where did that stereotype about the left trying to squelch speech they don't like come from?
The political name-calling I referred to is throughout Henderson's sophomoric screed. Everyone he disagrees with is a socialist, communist, etc.
How's your irony detector working today?
I don't see how anyone could have read the piece and not noticed that.
I read it and noticed it. And it makes not an ounce of difference to the point about speech.
I believe bhw needs to go back and re-read Henderson's screed in its entirety....The nice little boy protesting bad, bad adults she wants to see is not there.
I read the whole thing before making comment #1 and have gone back to it from time to time during this discussion. I see a kid trying to stir the pot. I don't agree with his politics, but I don't have a problem with that, particularly since his peers usually doesn't think about anything besides pop culture and their next trip to the mall. We need more kids like this representing the entire political spectrum.
Nor do I agree with bhw that this thread is being conducted civilly by everyone.
Quote me. When did I say that? I was talking to a point Boom made about himself, in which he referred to other comments earlier in the thread.
You and RJ have a long history and can duke it out yourselves.
74 - bhw
"particularly since his peers usually doesn't think about"
Uh, make that "don't think about".
75 - Mac Diva
Soon after leaving the thread, serendipity intervened. I discovered this article about more 'conservative' white youths who some will say deserve our support. This is the next step for school kids interested in 'freedom of speech,' I guess.
Read the rest of the story here.
bhw is, of course, free to invite these youths to dinner, or praise their 'feistiness.' I, on the other hand, hope they are held responsible for their abusive behavior. The adults behind this should also be held accountable.