|
Ham + Muslim Students -> School Discipline -> Satire -> Serious Repetition on National TV -> Libel Lawsuit -> First Circuit Opinion:
Check out Levesque v. Doocy, decided today: On April 11, 2007, a student at Lewiston Middle School placed a bag containing leftover ham on the cafeteria table where Somali Muslim students were sitting for lunch. The Somali students reported the incident to Bill Brochu, a Lewiston police officer stationed at the school. After an investigation of the incident, the middle school's assistant principal suspended the offending student for ten school days, a decision in which the principal concurred. The assistant principal classified the incident as "Hate Crime/Bias" in the school's computer system, and Brochu filed a police report under the direction of his superior officer, characterizing the incident as "Crime: Harassment/Hate Bias." Levesque was informed of the suspension and endorsed the decision.
The following week, while the Lewiston schools were closed for April vacation, Bonnie Washuk, a reporter for the Lewiston Sun Journal, contacted Superintendent Levesque to discuss an article she intended to write about the incident. Published on April 19, 2007, the Washuk article included quotations from both Levesque and Stephen Wessler, the executive director of the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence ("the Center") which was working with the Lewiston Middle School to develop an appropriate response to the incident. Washuk quoted Levesque as describing the offending student's conduct as "a hate incident" and acknowledging, "We've got some work to do to turn this around and bring the school community back together ... All our students should feel welcome and safe in our schools." Wessler described the incident as "extraordinarily hurtful and degrading" and warned that without a response, "more degrading acts will follow, until at some point we'll end up having violence." Somali students reflected that the event reminded them of an incident earlier that year when the head of a pig was rolled into a Lewiston mosque during a prayer session that many Somalis attended.
On April 23, four days after the Sun Journal ran Washuk's article, Nicholas Plagman uploaded a piece he had written about the April 11 incident to Associated Content, a website platform that permits registered users to publish content on topics of their choosing. [I suspect this is the piece. -EV] While the Plagman article purported to describe the incident as a news story, it mischaracterized some facts, such as reporting that the students left a ham sandwich, rather than ham steak, on the cafeteria table. Similarly, where Washuk reported that the Center was working with the school to create a response plan, Plagman described it as "an anti-ham 'response plan.'" Plagman also included fictitious quotations which generally built upon those accurately used in Washuk's article. For example, according to Plagman, Levesque stated, "We've got work to do to turn this around and bring the school community back together again. These children have got to learn that ham is not a toy." Plagman also quoted Wessler as stating, "It's extraordinarily hurtful and degrading. They probably felt like they were back in Mogadishu starving and being shot at." Finally, Plagman falsely listed the Associated Press ("AP") as a source. Because Plagman indicated that his story should be housed under Associated Content's "humor" and "news" categories, the article was retrievable through Google News, a computer-generated website that aggregates headlines from news sources worldwide.
Around 3:30 a.m. on April 24, a line producer for FNC's morning news talk show "Fox & Friends" discovered the Plagman article. "Fox & Friends" runs each weekday from 6 a.m. until 9 a.m., its hosts discussing current events, interviewing guests, and reporting the weather. Producers for the show search for compelling stories for the hosts to discuss. The line producer sent the Plagman article to the Fox News Research Department for additional research. An information specialist was able to confirm some of the facts presented in the article including the identities and professional positions of Levesque and Wessler and the existence of the Center, Lewiston Middle School, and the Lewiston Police Department. He also discovered the Washuk article, confirmed that the Lewiston Sun Journal was a legitimate newspaper, and found two articles related to the incident at the Lewiston mosque.
By 4:15 a.m., the Plagman article and research materials were delivered to three of the show's four co-hosts, including Doocy and Kilmeade. Doocy used Google News to conduct additional research and also found the Plagman article, the Washuk article, and a brief article on the Boston Globe's website which both corroborated the general story of the incident and confirmed that the Center was working with the school on a response plan. The defendants agreed to include the story in that morning's show.
During the three-hour cablecast, the defendants repeatedly raised and discussed the April 11 incident, frequently ridiculing Levesque, ascribing the handling of the incident largely to him. They reported as true several of the fabricated quotations that Plagman attributed to Levesque including the "ham is not a toy" statement and also cited Levesque for the phony statement comparing the incident to Mogadishu, a comment that had been falsely attributed to Wessler in the Plagman article. Throughout the cablecast, the hosts repeated these two falsified quotations and used the incident as the basis for the "Question of the Day," inviting viewers to call or email the show to share their thoughts. Doocy and Kilmeade at times made statements that arguably called into question the veracity of the story. For example, Doocy on a number of occasions stated, "I am not making this up," once asserting that "I've looked it up on a couple of different websites up there from local papers," and at various times, Kilmeade stated "I hope we're not being duped," "I thought this was a joke," and "I thought this was almost from The Onion. I didn't think that was actually true." The show's producers attempted to contact Levesque for comment, leaving a message at his office around 8 a.m., two hours into the cablecast. Levesque did not return the calls.
Some time after the cablecast, Levesque contacted FNC to complain about the show's inaccuracies. Footnote On May 16, 2007, "Fox & Friends" issued a retraction and apology, agreeing that various statements attributed to Levesque were fictitious and noting that had the show realized the Plagman article was not legitimate, it would not have repeated the fabricated statements.
The following month, Levesque filed a complaint asserting libel, libel per se, false light invasion of privacy, and punitive damages, claiming that five statements made by the defendants during the cablecast were defamatory. Footnote First, he took issue with the defendants' claim that he classified the incident as a hate crime. He next objected to the defendants' references to an "anti-ham response plan." Third, Levesque asserted that the repeated mentions of "a ham sandwich" were defamatory. Fourth, he challenged the statement "Leon Levesque - he says, 'These children have got to learn that ham is not a toy.'" Finally, Levesque disputed the defendants' assertion that "the superintendent ... says it's akin to making these kids feel like they're being shot at back in Mogadishu and being starved to death." ...
[T]he defendants' repeated references to a ham sandwich and two fabricated statements attributed to Levesque [could be defamatory].... [But] "A public official advancing a defamation claim must show "that the [challenged] statement was made with a high degree of awareness of ... probable falsity." In other words, the defendant must act either with actual knowledge of the falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Actual malice [the legal misnomer for this test -EV] then is measured neither by reasonably prudent conduct, nor an industry's professional standards; rather, it is wholly subjective. Levesque does not suggest that the defendants actually knew the Plagman article provided false information. Thus, he must show "sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant[s] in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of" the Plagman article and the statements it attributed to Levesque.
The defendants were negligent in their failure to question adequately the reliability of the Plagman article and conduct further research before attributing the outrageous quotations to Levesque, and like the district court, we hope that this conduct was "an extreme departure from professional standards." That the negligence was accompanied by derisive contempt and ridicule directed at Levesque makes all the more distasteful the defendants' carelessness. But while the defendants reported as true false statements, they did so after verifying the underlying facts of the April 11 incident. Their vetting process was perhaps too cursory and perfunctory, but no facts indicate that the defendants purposefully avoided the truth, and we think the substantial truth of the story which they reported obviates a finding of actual malice....
The libel case was therefore thrown out.
|
|
OAP, Philisophical Questions:
Does the 14th Amendment allow states to pass "hate" crimes
laws that provide special protections to particular
group(s)?
Does not "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" disallow making ANY kind of subgroup at the state level?
Dominus providebit!
There are things that Americans (and Somalis) eat that I find offensive, I don't expect them to be charged with hate crimes.
And I say that as a practicing, kasruth-observing Jew.
Really? Pork?,
An important difference between Judaism and Islam is that in Judaism restrictions like that on pork apply only to Jews whereas Islam seeks to impose such restrictions on everyone. If non-Jews wish to eat pork, that is alright as far as Judaism is concerned. You don't find Jewish taxi drivers asking if their passengers have any pork products on them and refusing to carry them if they do.
It doesn't bother me if others eat pork, regardless of where they do it. Which I say also as a practicing, kashrut-observant Jew.
YES!
Really? Why else would this have been done? Was the student dressed up as the Pork Fairy and innocently dropping off snacks?
Not that the kid should get away with taunting another kid with a ham steak (and it seems implicit that that's what he was doing). Let that go, and the bullying just multiplies. If the muslim kid doesn't try to change the cafeteria menu, I think he should be allowed to eat in peace in there. Don't you?
"anti-ham response plan"....... STOP IT VOLOKH YOU'RE KILLING ME !!!
Ignorences are strength.
Cutlets are violence.
Could be defamatory but probably weren't. To even begin to make that case, the defendant would have to argue that, while leaving a ham steak on a table was grounds for severe punishment, leaving a ham sandwich on the table would have been just fine. Meh. I don't see it.
All in all, a pretty stupid case to bring. This is the kind of case where even if you win, and get $1 in damages.
The story seems to imply there was some kind of history of harrassment here, maybe serious religious/racial tension within the wider community. If this were a standalone incident I would of course agree with you, but who knows. Normally I'd think a visit to the principal's office should suffice.
From a legal perspective, however, this reminds me of Sinead O'Connor (or, as Phil Hartman's Frank Sinatra observed, the bald chick who evokes "cue ball, side pocket") tearing a picture of the Pope, or a protest group burning an American flag, or an artist immersing a cross in a container of urine. No crime, no tort.
If a pattern of harrassment by this student that disrupts the school is established, regardless of whether the taunts involve religion, the student should be punished, perhaps severely.
From the opinion: "Somali students reflected that the event reminded them of an incident earlier that year when the head of a pig was rolled into a Lewiston mosque during a prayer session that many Somalis attended."
I found it somewhat surprising that there was no discussion in the opinion about whether the principal was a public figure. I haven't looked at the briefs; perhaps that was not appealed. That seemed to me to be the win-or-lose issue for the plaintiff.
1. Why is use of "ham sandwich" possibly defamatory? Does it really matter legally that it was a ham steak instead of a sandwich? Would using "pork chop" be ok to use without libel consequence? Or "side of bacon"?
2. The writer of "These children have got to learn that ham is not a toy." has a great future in comedy.
The rise of "hate" crimes in particular and "thin skin" in general has resulted in a serious erosion of our liberties. The PROPER response to the Muslim kids would have been for the Vice-Principal to tell them to "grow the hell up". That WOULD have been the response at any time from the founding of our republic right up until about the 1960's. And yes, I apply the same rules to myself. Mock my beliefs and I'll argue with you, but I do NOT want the State sticking its nose in.
Yet another example of why the US should not admit Muslims as immigrants. There is no benefit to us and many problems as this incident reveals. It's time to stop playing the multiculturalism game.
Just like we should have stopped admitting eastern and southern Europeans as immigrants a century ago! Bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists if you ask me!
Oh, someone was being a jerk to me! Arrest them!
Now THAT's funny!
Do you think it is perfectly acceptable when someone mocks Christians, etc.? It doesn't sound like you do. It also doesn't sound like you are ok with what Sarandon and Penn say, either. So how does that make what happened here ok?
That is true. It ignores, however, the fascinating debate on whether, if one is trapped and starving with only a dead pig and a human corpse, one should eat the pig or the corpse (and yes, incidentally, this is a continuing machloket).
Brilliant!!!
As a libel decision, I think it is probably correct, given the high standard of proving actual malice under NY Times v Sullivan.
Nick
"Just like we should have stopped admitting eastern and southern Europeans as immigrants a century ago! Bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists if you ask me!"
1. A century ago European immigrants were actually better educated and more skilled than Americans.
2. According to the 1900 census America's population was about 76.2 million as opposed to the 300.6 million we have have today.
3. The immigrants from eastern and southern Europe were Christian and Jewish and more compatible with the US population.
4. Islam, and I'm not just talking about radical Islam, must be viewed more as a political movement than a religion. But Geert Wilders says it best.5. This report from World Public Opinion/University of Maryland provides survey data that reveals the attitudes of the average (not radical) Muslim from Egypt and Indonesia.6. Of course the Muslims who choose to immigrate to the US might not share the views of their home country as this is not a survey of immigrants, but inhabitants. Nevertheless why should we risk taking immigrants from places that have negative attitudes towards the US? There is a potential downside and little or no upside. We don't need more immigrants as the US is no longer a sparsely populated and rapidly developing country. We can and should be choose carefully who we let in. As the school example shows, we are buying trouble.
7. The European experience with Islamic immigration is profoundly negative. Look at events over the last 10 years in the UK, France, Sweden, Holland-- constant trouble. They provide us with a test case. Lean from others mistakes.
I think it's pretty small potatos. It's one of the things you must accept in a civilized society.
The fact that a Police Incident with the potential for criminal chaarges, was made out of religious mocking, makes us less civilized.
From the face of things, a 10 day suspension does look harsh; I reserve judgment on that because I don't know whether there has been a history of harassment either in the school or in the community.
Josh, can you give me a source? Lichora, why wouldn't the answer be eat the pig because of kavod ha'mes? What is the hava mina for eating the corpse?
I don't think that the child should have been suspended under most circumstances. But when the wider community finds it acceptable to roll the head of a dead pig into a mosque, I believe it is acceptable for the school administration to send a message to children: this behavior is not acceptable.
Only one poster addressed the dead pig head. How many others find that, in light of that, the school still overreacted?
Is it fair to make an example of someone in order to get a message across?
Is it legal?
Is it done frequently?
Unless the kid rolled the pig head, there should be no connection.
The pigheadrollerperson should be the one hammered for rolling pig heads. Not the kid.
I don't think a 10 day suspension is particularly harsh at all- a school administrator should be very very concerned about rising tensions over religion- insulting other people's religion and core beliefs is a very dangerous game.
I don't know if I could actually use a ham steak as these kids did. What a tragic waste.
To make it funnier? He posted it as "humor" as well as news and his article was actually funny.
Or maybe just a mistake?
When I was growing up, we had bacon, pork chops, chip chop ham for sandwiches and whole hams. A "ham steak" is just a slice of ham, right. I've never bought or seen a "steak" of ham in a store, perhaps I just don't look in the right place.
I guess I don't see the legal significance of the presence or absence of bread.
[As for the merits of the suspension, 10 days might be a bit harsh but not horribly so. Certainly within the ballpark though. Though to be sure, you have to see what other things also get 10 days.]
Let's keep this one in mind next time atheists start proselytizing for their religion on this blog. Maybe the "Conspirators" could make this part of the comment policy.
Note: I'm being sarcastic. "Insulting people's religion and core beliefs" is constitutionally protected speech, as long as it's not done in a "fighting words" context.
After I read the first paragraph, I assumed that the student had sued the superintendent and the "fighting words" exception had somehow come into play in the opinion.
The child was not an innocent victim. He placed a ham steak on a table where the Muslim children were sitting. He was most likely involved in a scheme set up by his parents. Clearly I'm making an assumption, but it seems to me to be the most likely explanation, unless he just grew up with a natural hatred towards Muslims and a knowledge of what would upset them.
And yes, we punish one person to send a message in many cases. It's called general deterrence.
Who said the kid was an innocent victim?
And the question was not about punishment as a deterrent, but about making an example of someone by excessively harsh punishment in order to send a message to others.
You missed two points, which is pretty good for a post with two points.
I suppose I could come up with something which is supposed to offend Christians, as a thought experiment, and see what people would say. They'd probably lie about how they think it should/would be treated equally.
If it really happened, say with a stolen Communion wafer or something, I think we'd see some equivocating.
There is a belief among ethnic minority parens that the British schooling does not adequatly address their cultural needs. Failing to meet this need could result in feeling resentment among a group who already feel excluded. Setting up Muslim school is a defensive response.
State schools with monolingual teachers are not capable to teach English to bilingual Muslim children. Bilingual teachers are needed to teach English to such children along with their mother tongue. According to a number of studies, a child will not learn a second language if his first language is ignored.
Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslims
have the right to educate their children in an environment that suits their culture. This notion of "integration", actually means "assimilation", by
which people generally really mean "be more like me". That is not multiculturalism. In Sydney, Muslims were refused to build a Muslim school,
because of a protest by the residents. Yet a year later, permission was given for the building of a Catholic school and no protests from the
residents. This clrearly shows the blatant hypocrisy, double standards and racism. Christians oppose Muslim schools in western countries yet build
their own religious schools.
British schooling and the British society is the home of institutional racism. The result is that Muslim children are unable to develop self-confidence and self-esteem, therefore, majority of them leave schools with low grades. Racism is deeply rooted in British society. Every native child is born with a gene or virus of racism, therefore, no law could change the attitudes of racism towards those who are different. It is not only the common man, even member of the royal family is involved in racism. The father of a Pakistani office cadet who was called a "Paki" by Prince Harry has profoundly condemned his actions. He had felt proud when he met the
Queen and the Prince of Wales at his son's passing out parade at Sandhurst in 2006 but now felt upset after learning about the Prince's comments. Queen Victoria invited an Imam from India to teach her Urdu language. He was highly respected by the Queen but other members of the royal family had no respect for him. He was forced to go back to India. His protrait is still in
one of the royal places.
There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools with bilingual Muslim teachers. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
Iftikhar Ahmad
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
"Is it fair to make an example of someone in order to get a message across?"
Maybe. I believe that it is.
"Is it legal?"
Yes.
"Is it done frequently?"
Absolutely. It is one of the major foundations of our criminal justice system.
"Unless the kid rolled the pig head, there should be no connection."
The child should not be punished for what the adults did, I agree. That is where the issue of "how much should he have been punished" comes in. That is not the same issue as should he have been punished.
I think the school administration was excessive in their punishment. Maybe they shouldn't have punished the child at all. But, I believe that this is more than a simple issue of a liberal principal punishing the poor Christian kid for expressing his opinion about Muslims, which is where many posters naturally gravitated.
That is the point that you missed.
Obviously. Kids are so flaming stupid nowadays they can't even come up with a good insult without the help of Mommy and Daddy. /s
Just wow. Do you basically say that the British government has duty to promote religious segregation in school? In name of a religion that 30 years ago was absolutely marginal in Britain?
And what about the Muslim parents and children who actually wish to socialize with "kuffar" or be taught by them?
Ah, I forgot, Quran verse[5:51] applies.
Iftikhar Ahmad: "Racism is deeply rooted in British society."
vs
Iftikhar Ahmad: "There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school."
I'll bypass the usual snark and ask a simple quesiton. If non-muslims have no place in Muslim culture, and if western society is so bad... then why does western society have an obligation to fund muslim schools?
According to the newspaper, the middle school boy did this on a dare from his friends. His parents agreed with the school punishment. It's springtime and the sun is shining. Don't you have better things to do with your time than slander people you don't know on the internet?
I don't know. Was there space on the table for non-Somalis? Would it be a hate crime to sit at their table and eat pork? Do Muslims and/or Jews have a right to monopolize public space in this manner?
Or suppose someone sits at another table and points the soles of one's shoes at the Somalis? Given that this is EXTREMELY offensive in Muslim countries but not at all here, whose responsibility is it? Now obviously throwing shoes at the Somalis' table would be different and probably a bit worse than throwing shoes at Bush....
Or suppose I offend the more mainstream in other ways? Suppose I send my kid to school with curried cow feet for lunch and durien for dessert. If other people find the appearance or smell of the food undesirable to what extent is it their problem?
Sure, I think the libel claim was correctly decided. I also think that people (of all walks of life) need to be a little more thick-skinned about things which are offensive. Also ideas of public space need to be considered. If the school is going to reserve a no-pork table, I think they need to CLEARLY mark it. Otherwise, I think the individual has received insufficient notice to suspend him from school.
Suppose sitting with one's soles pointed at the Muslim students was the behavior in question, or suppose the student, on a dare, SAT DOWN at the table and ATE a ham steak.
Are both of these hate crimes?
Here we have the essence of what makes modern Islam so dangerous. Many of its leading figures, including the one who decided to spout off on this thread, have a deep and abiding ethno-religious bigotry, whereby they consider nonMuslims inferior and demand separation from them. This ideology, when it gets political power in a nation, results in an apartheid nation (at best) or Final Solution attempt (at worst).
Nick
Nick
This is the face of fascism.
No, because neither are crimes in the first place. The legislature designates certain types of crimes (usually those involving harassment or violence) as hate crimes when their commission is motivated by a specified categorical bias, usually race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. A hate crime is punished more severely. Note that the legislature cannot define a hate crime by a subgroup of those categories, e.g., Muslims, Latinos, homosexuals etc.
It may appear that the legislature has proscribed harsher penalties for crimes motivated by bias against these subgroups but that's only because crimes are rarely committed, for example, out of a hatred for heterosexuals. If such a crime occurred and the motive of bias were proved, it would be punishable as a hate crime.
The issue in this school isn't whether a student placed pork on a table filled with Muslim students. It's whether he did so because he intended to offend or upset the students. This is the distinction between harassment and simply eating a ham sandwich, although determining whether the latter situation was harassment requires more facts than are given in the excerpt.
Finally, note that although the assistant principal filed the incident as a hate crime, I doubt he is trained in law enforcement. The police report classified the incident as "Harassment/Hate Bias," i.e., harassment motivated by a one of the constitutionally permissible categories of violence. FYI, I am not in any way addressing the propriety of the classification or the filing of the police report.
I didn't slander anybody. I clearly said I was making an assumption. I'm not any more guilty of libel than was the FOX News morning show host, although, apparently, just as foolish ;)
If the student, on a dare, ate a ham steak at that table would that be harrasment?
Suppose it developed a different way? Suppose the student first did so unwittingly, and then when people made a big deal about it decided to come back and do so as a way of saying "hey, you can't say I can't eat pork at a public table in the cafeteria!"
Really, though, this is SO minor (really) that it should not have been a big deal, and I think it sends the wrong message to the Somali kids too. One implication of the First Amendment in adult society (note that this is not in the school, but the school should be preparing kids for adult society, right?) is that people have the right to say offensive things in the public square. If you encourage people to make big deals out of little things, then we will end up with bigger questions tomorrow, like whether content-specific restrictions should be allowed in public spaces on the basis that some people might be offended. Hello heckler's veto.....
The heckler's veto has been effective in education for some time now.
On another note I am half way through Infidel and you know what offends me? The Somali Muslim practice of cutting off a girl's genitalia when they are 5. I should go over there and be offended and see where that gets me. But by all means come here and get your Ham on.
This is a distinction without a difference. The Muslim can always ask the kid not to point his feet at him, or whatever; when the kid fails to stop, he is now doing it in knowledge that the Muslim was offended, and therefore must have intended that offense.
The Muslim still gets the same heckler's veto, he just needs to take the extra step of getting the kid to "voluntarily" stop before he can get the authorities to make him stop.
Or suppose you deal with what actually occurred.
The "it doesn't mean anything at all unless the minority wants it to mean something" argument has been tried before, and the Supreme Court didn't buy it.
Things might be different on a blank slate, without considering the existing state of precedent.
But given that the Supreme Court has upheld greater punishment for erecting a burning cross (on the yard of a newly moved-in African American family in a white neighborhood) than for other types of trespass and vandalism, what makes this case, what makes this case different?
Could it be that a burning cross is a warning that's always accompanied by a threat of violence, whereas a sandwich is sustenance which is banned from usage for a minority in most, but not all, circumstances?
In other words, the substance from which the food is made is not threatening -- as opposed to a symbol of death which is also torched -- and pork is only unclean to the extent of nutrition and animal husbandry decisions -- as opposed to the physical harm that assault offers.
I haven't read enough to know whether the assault-by-sandwich was intentional. The worst punishment I could forsee is the equivalent of "sensitivity training," which I would take issue with for other reasons.
Wouldn't be just as plausible to argue that what the Ku Klux Klan does is also unintentional? One could equally well argue that a cross is a symbol of salvation and fire a symbol of warmth, and only in the minority's mind is there any association between a burning cross and violence. No harm or threat intended.
No, but I'd like to read you try.
Okay, here's what happened. A white kid engaged in constitutionally protected speech that insulted a minority group with Special Privileges. Putting the torch to the First Amendment, the school handed out what was probably the harshest punishment it has handed out for anything in a decade. (Seriously; kids who threaten to kill teachers get a week at worst.) Lesson learned: if you aren't part of a group with Special Privileges, the Constitution just doesn't apply to you.
Seriously, that kid's parents should sue the snot out of that school district. And if they don't, the kid should get his own lawyer, get himself emancipated, and then sue them himself.
It's not my intention to try: we both know that neither the Ku Klux Klan people involved, nor we, are that naive.
My point is I think it highly unlikely that these students were that naive either.
Suppose I decide to exercise my constitutionally protected right to protest anti-smoking laws by walking up to your table and grinding my cigar out in your meal? Suppose I wait until you are done eating? Or if I grind it out on the table top and not in your food?
Sorry, but your right to swing (or deposit) your trash ends at my lunch table.
That the punishment sounds unduly harsh I agree, although that would depend in part on facts that I do not have. From one of the posts above, it sounds as though the kid's parents agreed with the punishment.
Zero tolerance for violence must be working, though. The high school I went to (class of 1968) was by no means a tough school and I did not run with a tough crowd, but all things being equal, one or more of the offended kids would have gotten physical with this stifled oppressed white kid; running to the principal would have been seen as shameful and potentially dangerous.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.