NY teen banned for flouting an UNWRITTEN rule??
I don't have much sympathy for this kid. Rosary beads are not normally used for personal adornment and some gangs do use beads as a gang sign. But how can he be punished for a rule that exists only in somebody's mind?
"The parents of a high school student from Rockland County are demanding answers after their ninth grader was suspended for wearing rosary beads to school. He was suspended even though the school doesn't even have a policy banning them.
Jason Laguna is a former altar boy and proud Catholic. He got his rosary beads as a gift, thinks they look cool and sometimes wears them under his shirt at school. But last Friday, right before dismissal, he pulled them out on his way out.
He was given a one-day suspension from Fieldstone Secondary School. His mother calls the punishment extreme, considering the 14-year-old is a member of student government and, according to his last report card, "is a pleasure to have in class."
Laguna says she was told the school has an unwritten policy regarding beads because they could be used to show gang affiliation. The principal claims it was insubordination, saying Laguna's actions, "endangered the safety, health, morals or welfare of himself or others."
Source
I guess a warning to the kid might have been OK but anything beyond that is very poor judgment. Anyway, the principal now has the ACLU on his tail. Serve him right.
24 comments:
Sorry, but in this age, "unwritten rules" hold absolutely no legal grounds. In this case, the principal is engaging in nothing short of bigotry against Catholics.
For once I'm pleased to see the ACLU in action. If this kid is legitimately proud of his Christian/Catholic beliefs, we also have to look at the fact that this is an example of Christians being persecuted because of their beliefs/actions. I seriously doubt a Muslim would have been punished for wearing a religous article.
Rosary beads are not responsible for what others do with them. Has anyone been suspended for showing a Star of David? After all, it's used by the Crips. Are students suspended for giving a thumbs up sign? Maybe they should, because that's the sign of a bishop in a gang.
"Unwritten policy"? Gee, how very Gestapo-ish. I wonder what other rules they make up as they go along? Let's just hope the impending lawsuit puts this PC indoctrination camp out of business.
Another case of punishment before thinking.
Another variation of "thought crime", normally considered to be the crime of thinking something unacceptable, even if you don't act on it. In this case it is a crime of doing something that someone else thinks is unacceptable, even if they don't tell you about it!
If someone wrote a book on unwritten rules then they wouldn't exist anymore.
Where to begin?
First, rosary beads are a gang symbol. A simple Google search will tell you that.
In this case, a kid wears what can be considered a gang symbol to school under his shirt.
According to the kid, he pulls them out near the end of the day.
An assistant principal stops him and tells him to put them back inside his shirt. He says he is leaving. The assistant principal tells him again to put the beads under his shirt.
He refuses and walks away.
That is the kid's side of the story.
The parents and some people here have said "an unwritten policy cannot be enforced." That would certainly imply that a written policy can be enforced. The school's handbook found here: http://tinyurl.com/yjf46ny says:
The Board prohibits any attire bearing an expression or insignia which is obscene or libelous, which is inordinately revealing of private parts, advocates racial, religious or gender prejudice, advocates or encourages violence or
violent conduct, is intended to communicate or signal any gang, fraternity or sorority affiliation or involvement, or promotes the use of drugs, alcohol or tobacco.
There may not be a rule against "rosary beads," but there is a rule against gang symbols being worn in school. Courts have given schools wide discretion when dealing with actions that may interfere with the school and no one can say that a gang in a school is not within the school's scope of control.
After being told to put the beads back under his shirt, the kid refuses. His walking away is both insubordinate and disrespectful. The school suspends him. Once again, according to the school handbook, "The Building
Principal or designee shall have the authority to compel a student to change his or her attire
should it be deemed inappropriate under the above guidelines. A student who refuses to comply with a principal’s or designee’s directive may be suspended from attendance and shall be subject to disciplinary action."
In review, a kid is wearing something that the school prohibits as stated in their handbook. An assistant principal stops the kid and makes a reasonable and legal request to put the beads back under his shirt. Not only does the kid not comply, he is disrespectful to the assistant principal.
The school, well within their written policy, suspends the kid.
The mother, instead of punishing the kid for not complying with the assistant principal's request and being disrespectful, calls the media who proceed to write what is clearly a biased article that is contradicted by the video.
The mother wants to blame the school for her little darling being suspended. Instead, she should be blaming the kid.
The kid should have told the Principal they weren't rosary beads.
That they were Islamic "worry-beads", and proudly announced: Allah Akbar!
Then he would have gotten a Liberal P.C. pass.
Anon 3:41 - although your response is well written and well argued I fundamentally disagree.
Let me use your own quotes:
The clothing restriction states;
"...is INTENDED to communicate or signal any gang, fraternity or sorority affiliation or involvement..."
This imports a subjective element - intent. It seems pretty clear that this kid did not intend these particular beads to communicate a gang affiliation (we can argue about the wisdom of the drafting of the policy some other time).
The next rule - the obedience rule - is itself qualified;
"...should it be deemed inappropriate under the above guidelines. A student who refuses to comply with a principal’s or designee’s directive may be suspended from attendance and shall be subject to disciplinary action."
If the characterisation of the clothing is incorrect and impermissable, the authority to compel change is not enlivened. An action that is ultra vires does not become intra vires because someone in authority says it.
And then we get to the real guts of it - does the school have the power to make such a policy in light of the First Amendment...???
This imports a subjective element - intent. It seems pretty clear that this kid did not intend these particular beads to communicate a gang affiliation
I would agree with that to some extent. That is why the assistant principal's response of "put them back under the shirt" instead of banning them altogether is more than appropriate.
If the characterisation of the clothing is incorrect and impermissable, the authority to compel change is not enlivened. An action that is ultra vires does not become intra vires because someone in authority says it.
I would agree with this if the clothing were unilaterally permitted. We don't know the school's side of the issue and the kid's side supports the idea that he knew the beads were outlawed and his actions were that simply of a 8th grader who decided that the assistant principal was "not the boss of him."
And then we get to the real guts of it - does the school have the power to make such a policy in light of the First Amendment...???
The answer is an unqualified "yes." The first amendment rights of students are not unlimited and the school has an obligation to create a safe haven for students. That would include the banning of gang symbols.
You are missing the point!
They are Rosary Beads, a Catholic symbol, whose meaning has been stolen by gangs. Why should someone be punished because someone else (in this case, gangs) commandeered a globally recognized symbol for their nefarious use? It's no different from gays stealing the rainbow, a specifically Jewish (and by extension, Christian) symbol.
Instead of the school pandering to gangs, it should promote the original intent of such symbols instead of the twisted use to be perpetuated. Catholics should speak out about this, because it is infringing on their freedom of expression.
Why should someone be punished because someone else (in this case, gangs) commandeered a globally recognized symbol for their nefarious use?
The kid wasn't punished for the beads. He was suspended for being insubordinate and disrespectful.
Instead of the school pandering to gangs,
I don't agree with the idea that trying to prevent violence in a school is "pandering to gangs."
Catholics should speak out about this, because it is infringing on their freedom of expression.
Fair enough. Speak out and change the policy. However, if you want to say that the original intent and symbolism of the beads must be taught and honored, the kid is wrong there as well as Rosary beads were never intended to be worn as jewelry as the kid was doing. (Remember, he stated that he was wearing them because he thought they looked "cool," and not for any veneration, prayer or religious reasons.)
There is a balance that needs to be struck here. We can argue that the school was wrong in imposing such a harsh penalty on the kid. I can accept that. However, what is troubling to me is the parent's attitude that the son, who admitted to being disrespectful and insubordinate, did nothing wrong.
I think a resolution of this is that the kid and parent sit down with the school. The school can learn and acknowledge that emotions got the better of it and the punishment was too harsh. The kid learns that talking back, being insubordinate and disrespectful to teachers / school staff is not acceptable. If he can learn that lesson - if he can learn that there are ways and methods to show that you disagree with what you are being told - then we have a situation where everyone wins.
(This is assuming that the kid's story is accurate. Remember that we haven't heard from the school other than a statement on the punishment and not the specifics of what led to the suspension.)
I would be very interested in knowing how many other (non-gang affiliated) students have been singled out for this "violation". I'd bet not very many at all. This institution obviously has a gang problem, and in their feeble and weak-minded attempt to deal with it, punish all students rather than the blacks and illegal Mexicans (et al) who are truly responsible.
If nothing else, this is a clear case of the school denying someone their "right" to freely practice their religion. "No govt body" has the right or authority to authorize the school, or anyone else, to do that.
A deeper look into this situation would most likely show it's the schools weakness and addiction to political correctness that is the cause of their gang problem, not people practicing their religion.
When the authority is being unreasonable, then I think insubordination is a legitimate response. The real trick is to do in such a way that when you tell them to "Go To Hell", they actually look forward to the trip.
What's the big deal of showing gang affiliation anyway? Most gang members already know each other and its not like someone is going to get shot for wearing a red jacket inside the school.
It's true that the student was disrespectful for walking away, and he could have been sent to detention or suspended for that reason. But for wearing rosary beads? What's next? School uniforms? I had to wear a school uniform as a kid and I HATED the experience, wearing blue jeans with a blue shirt makes you feel like you're in the film "Escape from Alcatraz." Not to mention the horrible fences surrounding the school, honestly, it felt like a concentration camp.
If nothing else, this is a clear case of the school denying someone their "right" to freely practice their religion.
The wearing of the rosary is not a part of the Catholic faith when the rosary is worn as a decorative piece of jewelry.
It's like muslims who claim the form of dress they choose to wear whatever the situation, or any practice they indulge in, or don't want to undertake, is part of their religion and thus must be respected.
Anon 1:27 and 5:54 (I assume you are one and the same person).
Good response @ 1:27 - I agree, except for the last bit.
The school must demonstrate that the policy is necessary and proportionate. If they are going to curtail the First Amendment rights of this student in this way it is the school who needs to demonstrate that it is necessary for the proper/safe etc functioning of the school. While I agree I do not know all the facts I would lean toward this policy being over-broad.
As for 5:54 - while I am not Catholic I would think it a stretch for the school and its staff to determine when the use and/or display of a religious symbol - which is clearly not gang-affiliated IN THIS INSTANCE - is within the bounds of the Catholic (or any other) faith and when it is not.
The school must demonstrate that the policy is necessary and proportionate. If they are going to curtail the First Amendment rights of this student in this way it is the school who needs to demonstrate that it is necessary for the proper/safe etc functioning of the school.
Certainly prohibiting the wearing of gang colors and symbols in a school is reasonable considering the amount of violence gangs cause. Asking a kid to remove, hide or not wear a gang symbol is reasonable as well.
As for 5:54 - while I am not Catholic I would think it a stretch for the school and its staff to determine when the use and/or display of a religious symbol - which is clearly not gang-affiliated IN THIS INSTANCE - is within the bounds of the Catholic (or any other) faith and when it is not.
I think you are missing the point. There are those here who are claiming that having the kid remove the beads is a violation of his freedom of religion. In that the Catholic faith does not allow the beads to be worn for the purpose the kid himself stated, it cannot be a part of the religion. Therefore the idea that this was some sort of "suppression of the kid's religion" doesn't float.
So you are left with the idea that this is an freedom of speech issue.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that speech in schools may be curtailed when the speech or expression may disrupt the good order in the school. A gang symbol in a school can certainly be characterized as something that prevents good order in the school.
You are correct in that we don't know all that happened here because the school hasn't issued their side of the incident. Even so, given the kid's version of the events, he is clearly out of gas.
He wore something to school that was not a part of his religion. He was trying to look cool and in doing so, wore something that could impact the good order in the school. A person with direct authority over him told him to hide it. The kid was disrespectful to the person and was suspended.
The mom, believing her little son could do no wrong, calls the media who goes into a frenzy because, just as we have seen here, the fact that it is rosary beads brings out all sorts of false claims of freedom of religion.
Anon 3:28 AM said, "The kid wasn't punished for the beads. He was suspended for being insubordinate and disrespectful."
It's a matter of semantics. The fact is that he was punished because he was displaying the beads. His being insubordinate or disrespectful only came as a reaction (maybe an over reaction, or maybe a misinterpretation by the school) to an unreasonable and unconstitutional request by the school--a request that was a violation of the student's right to freedom of religious expression.
The student's reaction, though maybe overboard, was perfectly warranted.
It's a matter of semantics. The fact is that he was punished because he was displaying the beads.
No, he wasn't. According to the kid, he was asked to place the beads under his shirt. There was no punishment given at that time.
His being insubordinate or disrespectful only came as a reaction (maybe an over reaction, or maybe a misinterpretation by the school) to an unreasonable and unconstitutional request by the school--a request that was a violation of the student's right to freedom of religious expression.
I really don't know how else to say this. The kid wasn't wearing the beads as expression of his religious beliefs. In fact, wearing them as he did is contrary to the teachings of the church he says he subscribes to.
He wore them because they were "cool looking" to him.
That has nothing to do with "freedom of religion."
The student's reaction, though maybe overboard, was perfectly warranted.
The school's actions, though maybe overboard, were perfectly warranted as well.
The truth of the matter is the kid was already on 'double secret probation'. This was just the icing on the cake.
The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.
Post a Comment