No American Flags on Cinco de Mayo

[Smittie61984]

[Trip]

Originally Posted by shmike

You guys claiming that unifroms solve problems don't have a clue.

What if the whiteys wanted to wear a lapel pin on May 5th? We're right back at the same issue.

Homeslice has it right:
Mexican wears Mexican flag 7-4 = no issue.

White kid wears American flag 5-5 = issue.

Modifying the uniform aka "adding flare" (if you want to go officespace) is usually not permitted. Lapel pins or any other thing to spice up the uniform are generally not allowed.

There are a lot of public schools that have gone uniforms. It doesn't solve all problems, but schools that I know that use it don't have the old standard issues about clothing.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Based on this, I agree with ruling.
Not saying I agree with the way the school handled things or any of the students actions. I just agree with the ruling.

Why? Because those who were 'in danger' were 'punished', while those who were THE danger, were left alone?

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Why? Because those who were 'in danger' were 'punished', while those who were THE danger, were left alone?

an assistant principal asked them to remove the shirts or turn them inside out, and ordered them to his office when they refused. After a 90-minute session with the students, two others wearing similar shirts and one parent, the principal sent two of the youths home for the day.

They were asked to do something by the school. There was a volatile situation at the school, partially fed by the actions of the students in question.
All agreed that this action created risk to the students (If they had not worn the t-shirts and antagonized the other students, there would have been no danger)

The students refused to remove the t-shirts.
90 minutes of discussion between students and parents.
They were sent home.

Are you saying that it is unreasonable for staff to send students home when they refuse to honor requests by the staff?

Is sending them home punishment if the purpose of sending them home is to remove them from imminent (from the staffs perspective) danger?

Was it reasonable to assume that there was imminent danger"

Ware cited past clashes between Mexican-American and Anglo students over clothing on the holiday,

History of altercations between Mexican-American and Anglo students on this day

Ware also rejected the students’ claim of discrimination. The judge wrote that while the students wearing the shirts with American flags had told a school official that they knew they might be in danger but wanted to keep the shirts on anyway, there was no evidence that youths who wore clothing with Mexican flag colors were in danger.

“All students whose safety was in jeopardy were treated equally,” the judge wrote.

School administrators say they feared the shirts would incite violence and were worn specifically to provoke Hispanic students.

Student were sent home to remove them from danger.

[pauldun170]

more

Ware said officials at Live Oak High School reasonably believed the students' American flag clothing -- worn on the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo -- could spark violence on campus. [11] A federal judge ruled that administrators at Live Oak High School were correct in forbidding students from wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo. [10]

Vice-Principal Rodriguez removed the minor from the area. When Plaintiff M.D. wore an American flag shirt to school on Cinco de Mayo 2009, he was approached by a male student who shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at Plaintiffs' clothing. On the morning of Cinco de Mayo 2010, a female student approached Plaintiff M.D., motioned to his shirt, and said "why are you wearing that, do you not like Mexicans?" Plaintiffs D.G. and D.M. were also confronted about their clothing by female students before break. Defendant Rodriguez was leaving his office before brunch break on May 5, 2010, a Caucasian student approached him and said, "You may want to go out to the quad area. [12] To the contrary, the undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiffs were the only students on campus whose safety was threatened that day, at least to the knowledge of Defendants. Defendant Rodriguez has testified that he did not see any students wearing the Mexican flag on their clothing during the day. He also testified that he did not see any students with Mexican flags displayed on their person until he saw photos in the newspaper in the days following Cinco de Mayo. [12]

On Cinco De Mayo in 2009, racial tensions exploded when a fight broke out between a large group of white students and a large group of Mexican students at Live Oak High, the ruling states. On that day, Mexican students were walking around the high school's campus with Mexican flags. [5] A student at Live Oak overheard a group of male students saying that some gang members would come down from San Jose to "take care of" Plaintiffs. Based on these threats, Plaintiffs did not go to school on May 7. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed evidence shows that they were treated differently than students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag, and that this distinction was based on the unpopularity of their viewpoint. Defendants respond that Plaintiffs have offered no evidence demonstrating that students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag were likely to be targeted for violence, and that officials treated all students for whose safety they feared in the same manner. When the government infringes upon protected speech in a discriminatory manner, such conduct may constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as well as the First Amendment. [12] There might be some -- there might be some issues." During brunch break on May 5, 2010, another student called Vice-Principal Rodriguez over to a group of Mexican students and said that she was concerned about a group of students wearing the American flag and said that "there might be problems." Vice-Principal Rodriguez took her statement to mean that there might be some sort of physical altercation. A group of Mexican students also asked Defendant Rodriguez "why do they get to wear their flag when we don't get to wear our flag?". While meeting with Plaintiffs about their attire, Defendant Rodriguez explained that he was concerned for their safety. Plaintiffs did not dispute that their attire put them at risk of violence. Plaintiff D.M. stated that he was "willing to take on that responsibility" in order to continue wearing his shirt. Following Plaintiffs' departure from school they received numerous threats from other students. [12]

[shmike]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

more

So...

Mexican kids threaten violence and American kids get sent home?

American kids do not threaten violence, so Mexican kids are not in jeopardy therefore there is no discrimination?

Also, nobody asked American kids WHY the shirts were worn, so administrators fears are taken as fact.

Do I have that right?

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by shmike

So...

Mexican kids threaten violence and American kids get sent home?

American kids do not threaten violence, so Mexican kids are not in jeopardy therefore there is no discrimination?

Also, nobody asked American kids WHY the shirts were worn, so administrators fears are taken as fact.

Do I have that right?

WHICH Mexican kids?

Was the assistant principal supposed to wait until the altercation had already begun?
If there is a history of incidents, does the assistant principal have the authority to act preemptively if the evidence shows that danger\disruption is imminent?

Are you saying that the Assistant principal should not have acted on the first indicators and should have instead waited for direct altercations between students?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

They were asked to do something by the school. There was a volatile situation at the school, partially fed by the actions of the students in question.
All agreed that this action created risk to the students (If they had not worn the t-shirts and antagonized the other students, there would have been no danger)

The students refused to remove the t-shirts.
90 minutes of discussion between students and parents.
They were sent home.

Are you saying that it is unreasonable for staff to send students home when they refuse to honor requests by the staff?

Is sending them home punishment if the purpose of sending them home is to remove them from imminent (from the staffs perspective) danger?

Was it reasonable to assume that there was imminent danger"

History of altercations between Mexican-American and Anglo students on this day


Student were sent home to remove them from danger.

I'm saying that such requests must be reasonable and, whatever the motivation behind it, wearing a shirt sporting the US flag isn't what I would consider to be provocation. More than just those students needed to be talked to.

[Smittie61984]

Did I mention school uniforms are the answer???


If you have that walking around, who's gonna have time for violence or noticing what some other guy is wearing???

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I'm saying that such requests must be reasonable and, whatever the motivation behind it, wearing a shirt sporting the US flag isn't what I would consider to be provocation. More than just those students needed to be talked to.

Wearing the t-shirt by itself is not a provocation, but placed in the context of the situation it can be seen as a provocation.
The altercation that occurred the prior year backs that up.
The evidence provided to the AP (testimony from other students) backs that up.
The actions and testimony of the plaintiff can be seen as backing that up.

Plaintiffs did not dispute that their attire put them at risk of violence. Plaintiff D.M. stated that he was "willing to take on that responsibility" in order to continue wearing his shirt.

The issue is whether the students constitutional rights were violated.
Legal precedent establishes that students rights are limited and that officials have some legal ability to restrict those rights to prevent disruption.


Students do not enjoy the same constitutional rights as adults on school property.
The evidence backed up the assertion a disruption was likely.
Legal precedent gives the school administration the ability to take take action.

Was there a better way to handle the situation?
Perhaps
From a legal standpoint, the situation was handled appropriately and I agree with the ruling unless someone else has the actual court documents that I can review.
I'm only working with what has been posted and what information I've seen from google searches.
I have not found court records nor have I the case number.

If anyone has the case number (pardon me if I overlooked it in the thread) or official docs I sure appreciate the link.