Arrested For Refusing The Pledge?

[ok doser]

that's what the headline reads at Vox:

A Florida boy was arrested after refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in class


The 11-year-old’s arrest is an example of the school-to-prison pipeline in action.


An 11-year-old boy in Florida was arrested after he refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in class and allegedly refused to listen to orders from school officials and a resource officer.

According to Bay News 9, the boy got into an argument with his substitute teacher earlier this month at Lawton Chiles Middle Academy in Lakeland, Florida, after he refused to stand with his classmates for the pledge.

After the boy told his substitute teacher that the American flag is racist, she asked him, according to her report to the school, “Why if it was so bad here, he did not go to another place to live.” The boy reportedly responded, “They brought me here.” The teacher then said, “Well, you can always go back, because I came here from Cuba, and the day I feel I’m not welcome here anymore, I would find another place to live.”

The teacher said she then called the office because she “did not want to continue dealing with him.”

The school resource officer eventually arrested the boy.

it would be understandable at this point in the story if you thought the child was arrested for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance, right?

The arrest affidavit claims the boy was disruptive, didn’t follow commands, called school staff racist, and threatened to get the school resource officer and principal fired and to beat the teacher

oh, how about that - not a single thing in there about refusing to say the pledge of allegiance

oh well, not as eye-catching a headline if it reads "Student arrested for disruptive and threatening behavior"

and Vox has a larger moral message with this story to bother with facts:

according to Bay News 9. The boy told the news station that he did not threaten the teacher with violence.

The student was taken to a juvenile detention center and charged with disrupting a school function and resisting arrest without violence. He was also suspended for three days.

A school spokesperson told Yahoo Lifestyle that students aren’t required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in class, but the substitute teacher “was not aware of this” and that the teacher “will no longer be allowed to substitute at any of our schools.”

Dhakira Talbot, the boy’s mother, said she was disappointed with how the situation was handled — and that her son should not have been arrested.

“My son has never been through anything like this,” she said. “I feel like this should’ve been handled differently. If any disciplinary action should’ve been taken, it should’ve been with the school. He shouldn’t have been arrested.”

To Talbot’s point,

the situation is emblematic of what criminal justice reform advocates have called the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

i guess that justifies the dishonest headline

Discipline that in the past would have likely involved just a school, the student, and the student’s parents increasingly also involves law enforcement — leading to consequences not just within the school but with the criminal justice system as well.

i've worked in this environment - the teachers are not allowed to touch the children or to speak harshly to them

the administrators are not allowed to touch the children or speak harshly to them

the school security staff are not allowed to touch the children or speak harshly to them - unless they are causing harm to themselves or others

the system is set up so that a child who refuses direction has to be dealt with by SROs - law enforcement

This can lead to lasting damage, not just through a juvenile or criminal record but by also taking students out of school (which can heighten the risk of criminal activity).

In this case, the student was charged with what amounts to disrupting a class. Maybe the kid was out of line. But should he have been arrested and charged for being disruptive, or would school discipline — maybe even just detention or a reprimand — have been enough (if discipline was really necessary)?

For critics of the school-to-prison pipeline, it’s the increasing reliance on the criminal justice system that’s troubling. They claim the growing use of law enforcement in these situations causes far more harm than good.
There’s evidence of a growing, racially disparate school-to-prison pipeline

Over the past few decades, as lawmakers passed “tough on crime” policies, that mentality has trickled down to schools across the nation. As a result, schools began to outsource more and more discipline to law enforcement. School disturbance laws like Florida’s, which more than 20 states have, reflect that: Whereas a teacher would have had to find a way to deal with a disturbance on her own before, she can now call on police or the criminal justice system to do the job.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...36/pledge-of-allegiance-arrest-florida-school

 

[ok doser]

what is ironic about this story is that i happened across it while looking at another story, in which the following point was made:

(Jussie Smollett hoax story)

...the story has activated virtually every lightning rod issue dividing America today, from racism and homophobia to distrust in the media and politically motivated attacks...

...Then, as now, the ensuing backlash to the initial news reports also ignited anti-media sentiment among conservatives. Even though most coverage of the actor’s attack directly reflected police statements, and it was clear the investigation was ongoing, the developing narrative is being taken as a sign that journalists blindly accept any stories with a careless disregard for the facts — particularly those stories that support liberal ideals. ...

...No matter how the facts shake out — for all the speculation, police are still not calling Smollet a “suspect” — the case now hits at the core identity that Trump shares with his supporters, perpetuating a dangerous worldview that the media is corrupt and the stories of racism and bigotry are better off not being believed. ...


https://www.vox.com/2019/2/17/18228444/jussie-smollett-hoax-hate-crime-claims-explained

 

[glorydaz]

that's what the headline reads at Vox:



it would be understandable at this point in the story if you thought the child was arrested for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance, right?




oh, how about that - not a single thing in there about refusing to say the pledge of allegiance

oh well, not as eye-catching a headline if it reads "Student arrested for disruptive and threatening behavior"

and Vox has a larger moral message with this story to bother with facts:



i guess that justifies the dishonest headline





i've worked in this environment - the teachers are not allowed to touch the children or to speak harshly to them

the administrators are not allowed to touch the children or speak harshly to them

the school security staff are not allowed to touch the children or speak harshly to them - unless they are causing harm to themselves or others

the system is set up so that a child who refuses direction has to be dealt with by SROs - law enforcement

Excellent catch, Doser. I thought the same thing myself. A little Lib tard in the making.

 

[ok doser]

Excellent catch, Doser. I thought the same thing myself. A little Lib tard in the making.

obviously he's been watching the attention Kaepernick has been getting - in other stories, he not only called the flag racist, but the pledge as well, along with the teachers and school officials

and did you catch the “They brought me here” crap?

unless he was talking about his parents dropping him off in the morning (and i see no mention of a father in this story - what a surprise), clearly a reference to the fact that white people enslaved his ancestors

 

[glorydaz]

obviously he's been watching the attention Kaepernick has been getting - in other stories, he not only called the flag racist, but the pledge as well, along with the teachers and school officials

and did you catch the “They brought me here” crap?

unless he was talking about his parents dropping him off in the morning (and i see no mention of a father in this story - what a surprise), clearly a reference to the fact that white people enslaved his ancestors

Ha...I'd missed that. :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

The boy reportedly responded, “They brought me here.” The teacher then said, “Well, you can always go back...

can you imagine if a white teacher had said that?

i'm sure the left are tying themselves in knots trying to deal with the fact that she was a Latino (Latina?) and walking on eggshells afraid to pop the AOC bubble

 

[glorydaz]

can you imagine if a white teacher had said that?

i'm sure the left are tying themselves in knots trying to deal with the fact that she was a Latino (Latina?) and walking on eggshells afraid to pop the AOC bubble

Seems to me the left is having to do a lot of back walking. Seems like they'd learn to shut up...but nope...they just keep moving right along.

 

[ok doser]

By the way - in the little bit of researching i did for this story i didn't see a single story that wasn't headlined "Arrested for refusing the pledge" or similiar

 

[The Barbarian]

The substitute teacher (which the district has since decided will never teach there again) broke the law as soon as she began to berate the kid for not standing during the pledge. That's none of her business, and apparently, the school policies reflected that; she just chose to ignore them.

The kid, on being bullied by the sub, became belligerent. He was entirely within his rights to make an accusation of racism and to say he'd report the people he thought were guilty. He broke the law if he threatened to beat up someone over it.

The school probably overreacted; a competent administrator would have gotten him out of the classroom and dealt with it by in-school suspension or expulsion, depending on what the kid said. Apprently, he denies threatening to beat up anyone, so unless there's video, good luck on that.

The issue was the sub provoking conflict in the first place. I notice the district has announced that it is going to review and make changes to, the substitute program. That's probably the best news out of this.

 

[The Barbarian]

If the media had tried to cover up the cause of the conflict, they probably would have gotten a lot of justified criticism for that.

Some days, you can't win.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The substitute teacher (which the district has since decided will never teach there again) broke the law as soon as she began to berate the kid for not standing during the pledge. That's none of her business, and apparently, the school policies reflected that; she just chose to ignore them...

I agree that the incident could have been handled differently.

For instance, when the student refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, the sub teacher should have said:

"In this day and age of political correctness, it's proper etiquette to take a knee during the National Anthem or in this case the Pledge of Allegiance like all of those black professional athletes that own multi million dollar homes and drive cars that are worth over $100,000 do.

When the student brought up the racist issue the sub teacher should have said:

"Were the African tribes that sold black Africans from other tribes to white slave traders and often times kept them enslaved for their own purposes "racist"? I don't believe that they were, I would call them barbarians.

Cannibalism in the Congo: A New Take on an Ancient Practice
https://katsafrica.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/cannibalism-in-the-congo-a-new-take-on-an-old-practice/

The sub teacher should have continued with:

"Was the very first slave holder on American soil, who was black, a "racist"?

America’s first slave owner was a black man.
http://conservative-headlines.com/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

On that note the sub teacher should have stated:

"Your failure to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance is nothing new here in America. Several years ago the children of some atheists refused to stand for the Pledge because of the mention of God. We accommodated the students by allowing them to attend a class showing what great things atheism and Marxism has brought to the world. We have a classroom down the hall to accommodate your needs, but first, we'll need you to take your lunch money out of your pocket and distribute it equally to all of the students in the class.

After all:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

 

[jgarden]

Arrested For Refusing The Pledge?

1) 11 year olds don't refuse to take the Pledge of Allegiance unless they've been exposed to adults in their lives planting the "seeds" with inflammatory comments

2) the comments made by the substitute teacher were inappropriate, but they don't rise to the level of being refused future employment - the responsibility for informing her of the school policy concerning standing resides with the office

3) the boy could have been given the option of leaving the room or tasked with delivering the list of absences to the office during the pledge - that's standard practice when parents cite religious beliefs to exempt their children from participating in the pledge and anthem

4) the substitute teacher did the right thing by attempting to defuse the situation by sending the student to the office - experienced teachers, however, know enough to do this before they do or say something in the heat of the moment that they'll regret later

5) its the student's behaviour at the office, not the classroom, that triggered the punishments which were reported by the media

6) the substitute teacher is being made the "scapegoat," the principal, or the designate, is ultimately responsible for discipline in the school and only they have the authority to sent the student to a juvenile detention center, charge him with disrupting a school function, resisting arrest without violence and suspending him for 3 days

 

[ok doser]

The substitute teacher (which the district has since decided will never teach there again) broke the law

which law, specifically?

cite the florida statute that you're referring to

as soon as she began to berate the kid

you must be thinking of some other story

for not standing during the pledge. That's none of her business, and apparently, the school policies reflected that; she just chose to ignore them.

The kid, on being bullied by the sub,

again, you must be thinking of some other story

became belligerent.

iow, disruptive

can't have that in the classroom

He was entirely within his rights to make an accusation of racism and to say he'd report the people he thought were guilty.

not if he's doing it in the classroom in a disruptive manner

He broke the law if he threatened to beat up someone over it.

The school probably overreacted; a competent administrator would have gotten him out of the classroom and dealt with it by in-school suspension or expulsion, depending on what the kid said. Apprently, he denies threatening to beat up anyone, so unless there's video, good luck on that.

because an eleven year old's denial should always be believed over the testimony of an adult teacher?

The issue was the sub provoking conflict in the first place.

i disagree - unless the child has had a history of refusing to stand for the pledge and for making statements about the flag being racist, it looks to me like a case of an eleven year old kid seeing how much they can get away with when there's a sub in the classroom - if that's the case, she was right to remove him from the classroom so the other kids could learn

 

[ok doser]

Arrested For Refusing The Pledge?

1) 11 year olds don't refuse to take the Pledge of Allegiance unless they've been exposed to adults in their lives planting the "seeds" with inflammatory comments

2) the comments made by the substitute teacher were inappropriate, but they don't rise to the level of being refused future employment - the responsibility for informing her of the school policy concerning standing resides with the office

3) the boy could have been given the option of leaving the room or tasked with delivering the list of absences to the office during the pledge - that's standard practice when parents cite religious beliefs to exempt their children from participating in the pledge and anthem

4) the substitute teacher did the right thing by attempting to defuse the situation by sending the student to the office - experienced teachers, however, know enough to do this before the do or say something in the heat of the moment that they'll regret later

5) its the student's behaviour at the office, not the classroom, that triggered the punishments which were reported by the media

6) the substitute teacher is being made the "scapegoat," the principal, or the designate, is ultimately responsible for discipline in the school and only they have the authority to sent the student to a juvenile detention center, charge him with disrupting a school function, resisting arrest without violence and suspending him for 3 days

:thumb:

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Are any parents anywhere to be found?

 

[ok doser]

Are any parents anywhere to be found?

mom got a lot of press attention - no mention of dad

 

[The Barbarian]

which law, specifically?

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.


He has the right to refuse to stand for the pledge.

iow, disruptive

Nope. Supreme Court ruled that you can't abridge a Constitutional right if someone else doesn't like it. The teacher broke the law, and violated district policy. She shouldn't have caused the disturbance. If she had obeyed the law, and followed her employer's policy, she wouldn't be out of a job now.

(Barbarian notes that in the absence of camera, the disputed claim of the sub is unlikely to matter)

because an eleven year old's denial should always be believed over the testimony of an adult teacher?

Because the sub didn't follow policy or the law, it does harm her credibility, yes.

The issue was the sub provoking conflict in the first place.

i disagree

Doesn't matter. If she hadn't violated the law and district policy, there wouldn't have been a problem, and she'd still have a job.

it looks to me like a case of an eleven year old kid seeing how much they can get away with when there's a sub in the classroom

Could have been. That's why subs are supposed to be the adults and not let kids sucker them into doing something that will get them in trouble.

She was out of line, no matter what the kid's motive was. And the law protects him, regardless of why he chose to sit.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree that the incident could have been handled differently.

For instance, when the student refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, the sub teacher should have said:

"In this day and age of political correctness, it's proper etiquette to take a knee during the National Anthem or in this case the Pledge of Allegiance like all of those black professional athletes that own multi million dollar homes and drive cars that are worth over $100,000 do.

When the student brought up the racist issue the sub teacher should have said:

"Were the African tribes that sold black Africans from other tribes to white slave traders and often times kept them enslaved for their own purposes "racist"? I don't believe that they were, I would call them barbarians.

Cannibalism in the Congo: A New Take on an Ancient Practice
https://katsafrica.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/cannibalism-in-the-congo-a-new-take-on-an-old-practice/

The sub teacher should have continued with:

"Was the very first slave holder on American soil, who was black, a "racist"?

America’s first slave owner was a black man.
http://conservative-headlines.com/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

On that note the sub teacher should have stated:

"Your failure to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance is nothing new here in America. Several years ago the children of some atheists refused to stand for the Pledge because of the mention of God. We accommodated the students by allowing them to attend a class showing what great things atheism and Marxism has brought to the world. We have a classroom down the hall to accommodate your needs, but first, we'll need you to take your lunch money out of your pocket and distribute it equally to all of the students in the class.

After all:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Normally, districts prohibit substitutes and teachers from peddling their particular political views in class.

So there is that.

 

[ok doser]

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.

ok, you must be talking about some other story then because the one i posted in the OP doesn't indicate that the teacher forced the student to do either of those things

He has the right to refuse to stand for the pledge.

nobody is disputing that

Nope.

well, yes - belligerence is disruptive in a sixth grade classroom

Supreme Court ruled that you can't abridge a Constitutional right if someone else doesn't like it. The teacher broke the law

again, you must be thinking of some other story

perhaps you should go read the OP again

, and violated district policy.

maybe, maybe not - i haven't seen the district policy in writing

have you?

She shouldn't have caused the disturbance.

specifically, and based on the information in the OP, what is it that you think she should not have done?

If she had obeyed the law,

read the OP

and followed her employer's policy

show me the policy she didn't follow

Because the sub didn't follow policy or the law, it does harm her credibility, yes.

show me the policy

we've already addressed your confusion about the law

The issue was the sub provoking conflict in the first place.

specifically, and based on the information in the OP, what is it that you think she should not have done?

And the law protects him, regardless of why he chose to sit.

read the OP - he wasn't disciplined for sitting

 

[The Barbarian]

ok, you must be talking about some other story then because the one i posted in the OP doesn't indicate that the teacher forced the student to do either of those things

She just tried. Which is an offense in itself. The fact that she failed, is not an excuse. Which is why she's out of a job. She was disrespectful and belligerent with the student.

well, yes - belligerence is disruptive in a sixth grade classroom

That's why she's not working for them anymore. Telling an 11 year old boy that if he doesn't like it here, he should move, is not a smart move. It's pretty much guaranteed to escalate the situation, and it did.

I notice that the student asked to call his mother, and was not allowed to do it. In most states, that's a violation of the law, if the police are involved.

Mostly, this is a principal issue. The woman made some mistakes; that's not unknown for substitutes. There's a way to get an angry kid down, and it looks like it didn't happen.

Sometimes, a new teacher would have a problem like that, and I'd cross the hall to see what I could do. If the kid refused to leave the room, I'd say something like:

"I'd just like to hear what happened without anyone cutting in. Can we talk outside the door?"

That almost always worked. Once they're out of the situation, they usually calm down.

I don't think the sub was necessarily being racist; the kid heard "go somewhere else", and went off from there. He's 11 years old. Most high school kids would have jumped to the same conclusion.

As I said, the only good thing here, is that the district is about to revise their procedures; hopefully it won't get another kid in trouble, and end up costing another sub her job.

I've noticed, BTW, you've been respectful and focused on the issues here. It's appreciated.