Bloomington, Ind., superintendent bans Confederate flag

To me, the difference is harmful intent or a legitimate reason to be offended by the symbol or speech. Of course, this is subjective. My point is that saying it is simply something someone does not like is dismissive and unfair.

The larger issue is your unsupported claim that they are doing this for the sake of banning expression they don't like. You don't know that and it is more likely that they are banning expression that is disruptive.

 

And who gets to decide that?

 

The principal.

This really is not nearly the conundrum you're making it out to be.

 

Should schools be allowed to differentiate between kids causing a disruption for political ends and kids causing disruptions to be assholes?

 

I don't think that's true, though. Technically, the principal doesn't get to decide what's offensive. He/she gets to decide what's disruptive.

 

I can't figure out what the difference is as it relates to this discussion and whether the flags can be banned.

 

Expression that offends or hurts someone's feelings is protected.

Unless it elicits or is intended to elicit a more dramatic response, and that is where the slippery slope begins.

 

The difference, at least in theory, is that offensiveness is a subjective measure while disruption is an objective one.

If a school can put on evidence that when Student A expressed himself in X way, Y disruption occurred, and it was substantial, then the school is likely going to be OK banning X expression. That appears to me to be what happened here.

Where it gets murky is when you get into the theoretical or preemptive ban and then the school has to prove that Y disruption is both likely and substantial. For example a school that has never had a kid show up wearing a Klan t-shirt would have to show that it is in fact likely to cause a substantial disruption. That might not be too difficult, but you start opening the door to other subjective value judgments and so it gets fuzzy.

 

and that becomes the drop-off point to distinguish intent.
We're asking school boards and administrators to determine ahead whether an expression is likely to elicit a disruptive response and whether it is intended to elicit a disruptive repsonse.

 

Yeah. I'm fine with that. When it comes to schools, I don't need to see the disruptions to believe they would happen.

 

And that is where you went off the rails a bit in this discussion, insisting that the ban was done because the administration simply didn't like the expression when it was more likely they were doing it to avoid disruption in the school.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that school boards and administrators should take action to avoid disruptions rather than to censor offensive speech or expression. I'm saying that you were making assumptions in this case.

On a separate point, I disagree with your dismissing the Confederate flag as speech people don't like. I believe it qualifies as offensive speech and I freely admit that is subjective. I'm not saying that distinction should impact the decision in this case. I'm just disagreeing with your rhetorical choice.

 

I don't recall the Rainbow flag being a symbol of slavery, other than in the BDSM sense.

I damn sure have not seen it used by people who lynched other people.


It is legitimately different. Some may object to what it stands for, but what it stands for isn't the same sort of hatred and violence.