PC ZT - Expel the racists!
Threatening Racial Graffiti Found Inside High School
Principal Recommending Expulsion For Student
Jeff Cassell, Principal at Butler High School in the Vandalia-Butler School District wants to throw the book at a 17 year-old vandal. He has suspended the student for 10 days and is recommending expulsion as punishment for vandalizing a bathroom.
Authorities said two African-American students were the targets. According to a police report, the racial graffiti was painted on a stall inside the boys restroom.
…
Investigators said the student could face ethnic intimidation charges. The superintendent said if the student is found guilty, the student may be expelled.
If you intimidate somebody because they are a nerd, that’s okay. If you do it because they are a different race you’ll get expelled.
Superintendent Christy L. Donnelly will now rule on the expulsion.
Watts riots of 1965.
New York City Nerd Riots of 1997.
One of these is more real than the other and one is still a deep undercurrent in society today. One has hate crime legislation on almost every state’s lawbooks, too. Race can be a powerkeg and, as you well know there are individuals who make a living playing the race card, i.e.: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
It is 100% unacceptable to have race-related violence in the school. Should they be tougher on nerd-related violence? Probably. Send them an e-mail and complain. But surely you can’t bitch about this.
If you intimidate somebody because they are a nerd, that’s okay.
Jim–this is a bit of non-sequitur, isn’t it? What makes you think the principal thinks intimidating nerds is okay?
If the principal also expelled nerd-intimidators, what that make this okay?
Good point, Bill. That was a poor argument on my part.
The point I was trying to make is that policies that create a protected class are inherently racist in and of themselves. There should be no difference between graffiti on a wall showing two students with glasses and pocket protectors and the same image with black students. But because this graffiti was racially motivated it is considered a “higher crime” than the same intimidation against a non-protected class. What difference is there between hating somebody because of their color or hating somebody because they are smarter than you?
That’s where the grey area of “hate crime” come into play. (And I’m not sure where I stand on the issue, to be honest.)
If you beat up a person of a different race because you don’t like people of that race, should that really be a “higher crime” than beating up the same person because they called your sister a bad name?
Is beating up a person of a different race because they looked at you “funny”, a “higher crime” than doing the exact same thing to someone of your own race?
Can’t you “hate” nerds (or redheads, or tall people, or…) just as much as you can “hate” any other group? Why should only certain groups be protected from hate?
On a side note, my high school had a different term than “nerd” for smart kids. An “Elroy” (as in Elroy Jetson) was a smart kid who wasn’t nerdy. Brains, without the negative connotations of “nerd”.
Well, Jim and Ken, isn’t this a ‘crime’ anyhow? I mean the kid vandalized the bathroom, didn’t he? Regardless of his racial problems, he can still be punished. And knowing high school, most likely he will suffer somewhat because of his beliefs.
[Edited by site owner]
Things are getting heated up a bit again. Please refrain from launching attacks at other commenters and concentrate on refuting their arguments.
Sorry, let me clarify. ‘Nerds’ have done things to strike back at injustice as much as any opressed group. Your riot analogy seemed to miss the problems associated with allowing oppression of any group of people.
Garret, if someone says something I don’t like, should I then start a riot so the First Amendment will be suspended to protect my feelings as well?
I think it’s pretty clear here that the issue is the possibility that vandalism without a racist slant to it will not be met with the same harsh punishment. That may be merely speculation on our part, but if that speculation is accurate then this is a SERIOUS problem, as is all hate crime legislation. Hate crime laws punish not the act, but the perpetrator’s beliefs. Hate crime is thought crime. For anyone who doesn’t shiver when they hear that term, your homework assignment is to go read “1984″
> I think it’s pretty clear here that the
> issue is the possibility that vandalism
> without a racist slant to it will not be
> met with the same harsh punishment.
That’s the way I read it.
First let me address the point about ‘nerds strike back’. Columbine and Minnesota aren’t riots and those were incidents involving individuals who were more misfits than ‘nerds’. This is something aimed at a group of individuals. Those particular incidents, and those like them fall under the ‘ultimate anti-bully measure’ and should be treated as such. That is a seperate problem and should not be confused with racism.
Second, not everything is about the first ammendment, dweeb. I’m not defending hate-crime legislation. It exists. Our government gets its moral authority by the consent of the governed, and we live by the rule of law (federalist papers). You can agree or disagree with the law on a personal basis all you like, but that does not change the fact that it exists. Nor is this forum’s primary focus debate about legislation like hate crimes or affirmative action or abortion or seat belts or smoking in bars, etc.
If you truly beleive that hate crime legislation is unconstitutional, I issue you a challenge: take it up in state and/or federal court and challenge the constitutionality of the laws. If, as you put forth, are correct, the laws will be struck down and a great victory will be had for you and all will rejoice.
I’ve read 1984 and Animal Farm, for what it is worth. Not much, I don’t think in this case. I don’t really believe we can equate thought crime with intent. After all, what is the difference between murder-one and murder-two? Intent… surely that is not also thought crime. It seems to me that often charges are reduced to simple manslaughter based on intent, or what you were thinking about, or how you felt about someone at the time of a killing.
Quite the loyal statist. In this case, and in most of the ones here where you’ve defended authoritarian excess, Garret, it is about the First Amendment. In some cases it’s been speech, others conscience/religion (as in this one) and other association. While the focus of this forum is not legislation, it is about excesses on the part of the public schools, which, being an arm of the state, are constrained similarly, and this is about a violation of those constraints that happens to be ongoing at the legislative level as well.
As for it being the law currently, the same could once be said for slavery, back of the bus, and for subservience to the Crown of England.
There is a difference between intent and belief/motive. The difference between manslaughter and murder is whether one intended to end life, not a question of one’s motivating beliefs. Hate crime laws absolutely establish thought crime. They mete out additional punishment, not for the act, but for the beliefs of the actor, beliefs the First Amendment guarantees him the right to hold. Like it or not, in a free country, people have the right to hate all they want. More and more I’m getting the impression that you really don’t value these liberties as much as you value the security of things being orderly, and you know what Ben Franklin said about that. I have friends who lived in the USSR - they said it was very safe and orderly. Freedom is messy, but we like it anyway.
More to the point, if someone kills you, you’re no less dead if they didn’t hate you.
Perhaps the issue is the expulsion. You can argue about the true significance of “hate crimes” until the cows come home, but graffiti is graffiti.
Let’s change the example altogether: Suppose someone is writing “For a good time Call “______” at “_______”. That’s not just vandalism / graffiti, as in defacing school property, that’s downright mean.
Should the person who did that be punished the same as someone who spray paints a “tag” on school walls?
Of course not.
The issue is the appropriate punishment. I don’t believe that students who have done something — no matter how terrible — that isn’t dangerous, should be expelled. That’s almost like a reward.
I like things like coming to school on Saturday, or staying after school a few hours, writing essays relevant to your offense. And if they don’t write a good one, they can keep coming back until they do.
I agree, Frank, with the caveat that the punishment should be the same for any graffiti act. Be content neutral, and punish vandalism, not ideas.
Yeah — is “Maria is a slut” less serious grafitti than “Juan is a wetback”? What about “Bobby is a fag”? And the ever popular “John is a geek”. Do they deserve identical punishment, or is the content of the speech grounds for differentiating? Shall we prioritize the level of hurt feelings by labeling some of the grafitti as hate speech meritting expulsion while letting the rest ride as mere child’s play meritting just a couple of detentions?
Are not all people with hurt feelings created equal?
Graffiti is vandalism - it’s a property crime.
Punish it as such. The only differentiator between offenses should be the number of square feet of wall defaced, and how easily it can be removed. The severity should be media, not message, based.
By the way Garret, it’s impossible for me to accept your challenge. The only way to challenge a law is to commit an ironclad legitimate violation of it, so the case can
strictly be about the law’s legitimacy, rather than my guilt in violating it. That would require me to act out of a motivation I don’t possess.
Dweeb,
Your arguments are valid. You also didn’t end with a mean spirited attack. Usually you do.
I know this stuff is heated.
I’ll concede the point on the challenge. You are correct. You can’t challenge the law.
I value freedoms very much. Probably as much as you do, although you can’t tell from the stances I take on this forum.
In this case, I have to agree with the principal. If the student did vandalize property, it was right to expel him.
The question, however, is whether or not they expel those who write non-racist graffiti.
Wouldn’t expelling him for a little graffitti be like killing a cockroach with a bazooka?
Garret, what you see as mean spirited, I see merely as spirited. I think people are far too sensitive these days.
My point was that I could not challenge the law unless I was a racist, and that’s not a personal change I’m willing to make.
I guess the question is, why are your stances here not better aligned with your values? Defending freedom means you have to take the good with the bad, and accept that sometimes, you might have to defend the freedom of someone else to do something you think is morally and ethically reprehensible, or that you think is downright stupid. Don’t doubt for a minute that sometimes, when I speak up for someone’s liberty, I have to hold my nose while doing it. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.
Oh, and Ted, if you’ve never killed a cockroach with a bazooka, you have no idea what you’re missing. Most fun you can have with your clothes on.
Dweeb,
I value freedoms and I beleive in the whole defend your right to say it even though I hate it, deal. I really do. Lately, I’ve been thinking that there is room for sway in the area of personal liberty as far as minors go in the areas of school.
It seems to me that if we do everything we can to protect everyone’s personal liberty (a noble thing at that) and fail at the objective of providing a decent education to the masses, then we have failed. If curtailing some of the freedoms granted to of-age adults acheives the goal, then perhaps there is some room for sway.
I’m pretty sure we don’t see eye to eye on that score.
That’s okay, though. Good debate.
The problem comes when two rights clash.
Is it one’s “right” to not be offended? Is it one’s “right” to say something that might offend someone? Can you be punished for saying something that one person found offensive?
If you have a “right” to smoke, and I have a “right” to clean air, whose right “wins”?
And as far as cockroaches go, at my college dorm we used to take the front plate off of the water fountain in the hallway, drop it on top of the roach, and have someone jump on it.
Garret, I agree that minors don’t get all the liberties of adults, but I differ on who does the limiting. That is the responsibility and authority of parents, not the state. That’s why I advocate home schooling and vouchers. The line is drawn where government is involved, because that’s when it’s no longer possible to opt out. You can refuse to support a private school, but you can’t refuse to pay taxes. The government has a monopoly on the means of coersion, and that makes all the difference. You want a school that indoctrinates kids not to be racist, and not to offend each other? Sounds great - where can one enroll/invest? How can I help? You want the government to provide schools that teach this? Not unless you’re also willing to have the government provide schools that teach kids they need Jesus. See the issue?
Ken, if you really want to have a fun cockroach hunt, get a can of WD-40 and a Bic lighter. I think you can figure out how to proceed from there.
im sorry for that comment but coming from a jock it is a cave man urge to have conltrol over nerds so you can feel better about your self
pro solution pill