High School Student Allegedly Suspended for Saying "Illegal Alien" in Class Discussion

The New York Post (Yaron Steinbuch) reports:

A 16-year-old North Carolina high school student says he was suspended just for saying "illegal alien" while discussing word meaning in English class — possibly ruining his chances of landing a college sports scholarship.

Christian McGhee, a student at Central Davidson High School in Lexington, received a three-day suspension last week after he used the term in English class, the Carolina Journal reported.

His mother, Leah McGhee, said his teacher had given an assignment that used the word "alien," and Christian asked: "Like space aliens or illegal aliens without green cards?"

Another student reportedly took offense and threatened to fight Christian, so the teacher took the matter to the assistant principal, according to the Carolina Journal….

The Carolina Journal (Briana Kraemer) reports:

According to an email describing the incident, sent to local officials and shared with Carolina Journal, a young man in class took offense to his question and reportedly threatened to fight him, prompting the teacher to call in the assistant principal. Ultimately, his words were deemed by administrative staff to be offensive and disrespectful to classmates who are Hispanic.

"I didn't make a statement directed towards anyone; I asked a question," said the student in response to his suspension. "I wasn't speaking of Hispanics because everyone from other countries needs green cards, and the term "illegal alien" is an actual term that I hear on the news and can find in the dictionary." …

Hans Bader (Liberty Unyielding) has more. If the facts are as described in the press coverage, this would likely be a violation of the First Amendment; and even apart from the First Amendment, it strikes me as an improper attempt to enforce a particular ideological orthodoxy.

Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. School Dist. (1969), does allow speech to be restricted when it "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others," and this has in effect been read to allow a "heckler's veto" when enough people threaten the speaker. But I doubt that one such threat should qualify (especially as a basis for a suspension), or else virtually any kind of controversial statement on any topic—abortion, war, affirmative action, the police, or a vast range of other topics—could be punished simply because one person sufficiently dislikes it. (After all, if speech can be punished because someone threatens to fight someone over the official legal term "illegal alien," it could equally be punished whenever someone threats to fight someone over a substantive policy position, e.g., "immigration law should be enforced, by deporting people who are not legally allowed to be in the country.")

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Note how threatening violent assault is permissible.

[John F. Carr]

If the school has a policy not to discuss student discipline the other student may already have a black mark in his permanent record. I wouldn't bet on it. Can we be sure it didn't happen?

[JesseAz]

School would suspend you for saying black mark.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Good point -- I got lazy and forgot that this wasn't Massachusetts.

It's not a policy, it's FERPA -- and the 1998 Amendments stated that a school *may* disclose "the final results of any disciplinary proceeding in which a student has been found responsible for a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense." This was the amendment that pushed the feminists off the deep end because they neglected to actually read the definition of a "crime of violence" which included "forcable sexual offenses" as well as "assault offenses." See: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-99/subpart-D/section-99.39

I successfully used this against UMass, requiring them to tell me that they hadn't done anything to various persons who had assaulted me, and in Massachusetts there is the related Sunshine Law that makes records public unless they aren't. and hence the "may" became a "must."

I'm not sure about North Carolina. Nor how NC defines "assault" -- as I'm sure you know, MA uses "imminent realistic fear of battery" or something like that.

The other thing -- and this is where I say "I am not a lawyer" although I doubt many lawyers could answer this because ED itself is not clear on it -- does this exception apply to K-12 or ONLY Higher Ed? The regs say Higher Ed while the ED guidance says "school" which means *both* and with ED one tends to put greater reliability on what their explanations say than what their regs say. I know that it is supposed to be the opposite, but this is ED.

Sad thing with ED is that it also depends on which region (think Circuit Court) you are in -- I can see Region 1 and Region 2 coming out with completely different interpretations -- they do that on everything else. It's only 50 miles from UMass to UConn and you might as well be in a different country because Connecticut is in Region 2.

On a more realistic level, did anyone see the other kid not in school for a few days? And as to the VP coming into the classroom, that could get interesting if this kid's attorneys wanted to push it because all the other students are third party outsiders.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This fucking guy.

[John F. Carr]

The law is more protective of minor high school students than legally adult college students. I can think of some incidents in a local high school where administrators would have loved to announce to the world that the responsible party had been severely punished. No such announcement was made. The public comment was only an overly dramatic email about how awful the offense by the unnamed student was.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bear in mind that these are all amendments to the initial ban on saying anything that have been introduced in response to specific things like you mention. With K-12 you also have a LOT of state regs, for example, a K-12 school in MA can not *have* a conduct rule unless it is on file with DESE -- an amazing number of principals don't know that...

After the teacher in Danvers (?) was raped & murdered, DESE changed the rules on what teachers can be told about a student who transfers from a different school, as this perp had done.

I'd need to know both the facts and backstory in the situation you reference, but there usually are allowable ways of letting parents know that -- well -- they don't need to worry about the situation being repeated...

Kinda like what the cops say when a death is an overdose or suicide and they can't say that --- the vague "no danger to the public" and such.

[M L]

Have they identified the ghoulish teacher or administrator responsible for this yet?

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is K-12 so the union contract likely prohibits doing that.

[Frank Drackman]

are "People Saying" that?

[cjcoats]

The administrator involved was the assistant principal (according to the radio story’s interview with his mom), so that should uniquely identify him as an individual. The principal (also an unique identification) refused to hear appeal of the suspension…
And the school board's policy says there are no appeals for durations less than 10 days: isn't this a violation of due process?

[John F. Carr]

Due process says you are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. The student apparently got that. Due process does not in general guarantee the final decision is correct.

In Massachusetts, sometimes bad cops get a five day suspension when they ought to be terminated and sent to prison. A five day suspension can be imposed by the police chief on his own. Termination would be reversed by an abitrator with an order requiring back pay and seniority.

[Sonja T]

Is that what you call due process?

The person gets threatened and the victim gets punished, but not the agressor?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would depend on (a) the state law, (b) the school’s suspension policy and (c) assuming the latter is in compliance with the former.
(I’m leaving out SPED students with an IEP, that gets way more complicated…)

North Carolina law appears to state:

“The principal of a school, or his delegate, shall have authority to suspend for a period of 10 days or less any student who willfully violates policies of conduct established by the local board of education: Provided, that a student suspended pursuant to this subsection shall be provided an opportunity to take any quarterly, semester or grading period examinations missed during the suspension period.

The principal of a school, with the prior approval of the superintendent, shall have the authority to suspend for periods of times in excess of 10 school days but not exceeding the time remaining in the school year, any pupil who willfully violates the policies of conduct established by the local board of education. The pupil or his parents may appeal the decision of the principal to the local board of education.[emphasis added]

The principal can delegate to the vice principal, but I don’t see how he gets out of having to talk to the kid’s parents. And this policy is far more liberal than most — usually there is an intermediate level where you can appeal to the superintendent but do not need his prior approval.

The big thing here is “violates policies of conduct established by the local board of education” and I’d like to see them meet that standard because the kid threatening violence is the one who was disrupting the classroom...

[Longtobefree]

"Another student reportedly took offense and threatened to fight Christian . . . "

So what happened to this advocate of violence?

[jimc5499]

Well since he was defending Liberal ideals it wasn't violence, it was a mostly peaceful threat.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably has a great political future as our current Demented POTUS said he would have done the same thing to "45" (and (in his mind anyway) did to "Corn-Pop"(who was a Bad Dude)

Frank

[myself]

His mother, Leah McGhee, said his teacher had given an assignment that used the word "alien," and Christian asked: "Like space aliens or illegal aliens without green cards?"

Another student reportedly took offense and threatened to fight Christian, so the teacher took the matter to the assistant principal, according to the Carolina Journal….

This could mean anything from the McGhee asking an innocent question and getting threatened and disciplined as a result. Or it could mean that McGhee had a history of trying to troll Hispanic students and his remarks were a deliberate attempt to provoke them.

I'm sure interpretations will be based solely on the facts and will not be impacted by the political beliefs of the commenters at all...

[Absaroka]

" Or it could mean that McGhee had a history of trying to troll Hispanic students and his remarks were a deliberate attempt to provoke them."

Even if true, should not the school district should wait for him to say something that was not protected by the First Amendment, rather than pick some anodyne remark as their justification for discipline?

[Magister]

So it can't be trolling if every single statement enjoys First Amendment protection? Either the student who threatened to fight him was way out of line, or there was a long history of offensive comments that drew that reaction (some of which may not have been protected by the First Amendment, but were made where the school district was not aware of them); there is not sufficient information to rule either possibility out.

[Absaroka]

"So it can’t be trolling if every single statement enjoys First Amendment protection?"

Indeed not; you can say as many 1A protected things as you like. There isn't a quota on how much free speech you are allowed before the government can suppress it.

[Magister]

Not the point at all. If he goes "illegal alien" or related "innocent" phrases at every opportunity, he is clearly trying to cause disruption, which is pretty much the definition of trolling.

[Absaroka]

1)And so? You can say something I don't like ('I don't support free speech') as often as you like. I don't get to go to the government and say 'Magister engaged in 1A protected activity 10 times, arrest him!'.

2)If I am making a time/place/manner claim ('Magister has been shouting that he hates free speech outside my bedroom window since 2AM'), then I need to specify that. The claim you said it once isn't enough to have you punished.

3)In the case at hand, the kid was answering a teacher's question. That, shall we say, rather undercuts any time/place/manner claim.

[Magister]

If it results in a near fight in your classroom, then you might get suspended.

[jooko]

If someone saying "the sky is blue" results in a near fight in your classroom, the one nearly starting the fight needs to be suspended, not the blasphemer.

Similarly in this case, it's not the alien questioner, but rather the brainwashed aggressive kid.

[Magister]

"The sky is blue" is different from "illegal aliens without green cards"; I cannot imagine a context in which previous statements by that speaker would provoke someone, but I can imagine cases where the latter would. (I suppose it is possible that "the sky is blue" could become code for a racial or ethnic slur in the same way that "Let's Go Brandon" became code for "Fuck Joe Biden".)

[Magister]

myself below has a good response, but I would like to add that in the case at hand, we have very little information, so both (2) and (3) are possible but not certain.

[Kazinski]

The solution is to suspend students threatening violence, with the possible exception of actual unprotected fighting words

Is the kid going to get in a fight on the way.home over a bumper sticker he doesn't like? He doesn't have to learn to like others opinions, but he does have to learn to tolerate them, because he can't assault everyone he disagrees with.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Either the student who threatened to fight him was way out of line...

Threatening physical violence over constitutionally protected speech you dislike is out of line.

[myself]

Even if true, should not the school district should wait for him to say something that was not protected by the First Amendment, rather than pick some anodyne remark as their justification for discipline?

You mean they should invent a pretext to discipline him rather than respond to the specific act that caused an incident?

Speech is about context. What we don't know is the full context of this incident.

[Absaroka]

"You mean they should invent a pretext to discipline him"

No; they shouldn't discipline him until he does something wrong.

"rather than respond to the specific act that caused an incident?"

They should absolutely talk to, and possibly discipline the student making threats of violence.

"Speech is about context. What we don’t know is the full context of this incident."

Indeed, all we know is what is alleged: that Student A threatened Student B for a germane answer to a teacher's question, and Student B was suspended. We are discussing whether that action by the school is reasonable given the alleged facts.

If it turns out that the actual facts are that Student B stabbed Student A, then we could have a discussion about those facts.

[myself]

In other words, you've made a bunch of unsupported assumptions based on your political priors.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You mean they should invent a pretext to discipline him rather than respond to the specific act that caused an incident?

How is punishing him when he does something wrong "invent(ing) a pretext" to do so? As for the specific act that caused the incident, that was the other student making the decision that threats of physical violence are justified by protected speech that he/she doesn't like.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or the political beliefs of the school district.

I know of an incident (Amherst, MA, documented on the blog of the late Larry Kelly (Only In The Republic of Amherst) -- go look it up yourself). And as this is from memory, go to the primary source for the exact quotes.

Black high school kid Alpha made a particularly good basketball play in a high school game, and Black high school kid Bravo wrote (on some social media) "Great play, Nigga." White high school kid Charlie concurred, writing something to that effect and also using the word "Nigga."

Charlie's defense was that "Nigga" was a friendly affirmation while "Nigger" was a racial slur, and from what I observed of the Black male teenagers in that town, he was correct. They were using the word in that matter, although as we don't pronounce our "r"s in Massachusetts, it's really hard to tell which version was being said.

School suspended Charlie and would not let him attend graduation -- trespassed him from an event actually held on UMass property. School did NOTHING to Bravo because he was Black, nor to Delta, Echo, Foxtrot & Gulf who were also Black males using the word "Nigga."

So much for the 14th Amendment, let alone the First....

[Kazinski]

Well, it was the teacher that brought up the word alien, and let's remember before the 50's alien almost exclusively meant someone from another country, not little green men.

Up until just a year ago, my wife had an Alien registration number, so would the kid also been suspended if he asked a question about green card holders (legal aliens) alien registration numbers? Is that "trolling" too?

[ConservativeProfessor]

The schools themselves cultivate this fragility in students. "Illegal alien" is descriptively accurate, just like "juvenile delinquent," "mentally insane," and "whore."

[M L]

"If we imagine a bunch of additional facts made up out of whole cloth, then the disciplined student isn't so sympathetic, and the crazy leftists who align with my political beliefs don't seem quite so bad."

Wow, brilliant point myself.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fledgling bigots and aspiring culture war roadkill have rights, too.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how a young boy got your (critical, of course) attention so quickly, almost like you have a pre-erection for that type.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh was on this one quicker . . . maybe there was a trans angle that didn't survive editing?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here is one that seems to have evaded Prof. Volokh's attention. Probably because it happened in . . . Los Angeles.

Or maybe it just didn't strike his polemical, partisan fancy.

Carry on, clingers.

[Krayt]

I think I complained about that one in a Today in SC thread already, as pseudo open thread, failure of government to secure rights, just falling right into heckler's veto.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here is another that doesn't seem to interest Prof. Volokh (or any of the Conspiracy's clingers).

If only USC's valedictorian or OAN's liars had thought to use a vile racial slur . . .

[GKHoff]

She was one of dozens of students who qualified to give the valedictory address. The fact that a Palestinian activist was chosen above all others to speak says more about governance at USC that does cancellation of her diatribe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OVER 200 who were qualified.

Which also says something about gradeflation...

And the fact that only 100 of these students were even considered speaks to what you are referring to.

[Krayt]

From CNN: “To be clear: this decision has nothing to do with freedom of speech,” said the provost, Guzman. “There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement. The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period.”

I think this guy's picture is in the dictionary next to "craven" and "useless".

[ReaderY]

I would take a middle position. A validictorian is an invited speaker. A graduation is not a public forum. I think a school can limit the topics the validictorian speaks on and in particular not to have it turned into a political rally.

But the school should have provided her a police escort if necessary if it thought her talk might be disrupted.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would take more than a police escort if she were to stand up there and shout "Kill The Jews" -- USC would be liable for any Jewish student (or audience member) who was injured. Trump has flirted with this line at some of his rallies, but he's smart enough not to cross it, she likely would.

And "Valedictorian" is singular, not "one of the top 200" and this is USC -- you kinda know that at least one of those 200 is a blonde surfer babe...

[Brett Bellmore]

He's flirted with "Kill my daughter"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I posted the provost's letter elsewhere -- it makes specific reference to "expectations of federal regulators" (or something like that) and I'm thinking that's what's really behind this.

But didn't Harvard revoke admission to a student because of his on line postings? How's that different?

[ReaderY]

The term “illegal alien” is a legal term mentioned in multiple federal statutes.

If a legal term could be a public educational disciplinary matter, there could be no lawyers educated in public schools. .

Here’s an example statutory mention picked at random:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1365

[#FFFFFFPride]

Remember how they changed the politically correct term to "undocumented immigrants". Now it's just "migrant". As if there is no difference between lawful migration and illegal migration. Since surely calling these people "migrants" has stigma and is harmful, they'll move on to calling them "paperless non-citizens". Then just "non-citizens". Then "citizen".

Once everyone on the planet is called a "citizen", then Left will circle back to the original definition and say you're crazy for denying citizen's their constitutional rights as citizens.

Just like they did with "woman".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Something like the way right-wing bigots, after better Americans made clingers' bigotry less welcome in mainstream society, began hiding behind euphemisms such as "conservative values," "traditional values," "religious values," "colorblind," "family values," "real Americans," and the like, attempting to make their right-wing racism, superstitious gay-bashing, white nationalism, conservative transphobia, Republican misogyny, Islamophobia, antisemitism, hatred of immigrants, white supremacy, and Christian dominionism more palatable?

[Davy C]

No.

[Frank Drackman]

Our DPOTUS (Demented POTUS) used it in his "State of the Onion" Address, albeit in a Demented way,
“Lincoln (sic) Riley,” Biden said, appearing to mispronounce the victim’s first name, “an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal – that’s right. But how many of thousands of people are being killed by legals?"

Frank "Never killed anyone*"

[ReaderY]

If the children of KKK members feel violently offended at the mention of the words “Martin Luther King,” can the school suspend someone who mentions the name? The words “integration?”

Our country has a long history of people being violently offended by things other people say and do. One remembers for example young Emett Till, the boy from Chicago and who may as well have been from Mars; who, probably as innocently as this young boy, also caused such violent offense.

[Bwaaah]

"people being violently offended"

I'd do an LOL, but no, you're serious.

[ReaderY]

Completely serious. Everyone agrees fighting words can be banned. But if some kid threatening to fight over something could turn it into fighting words, then Tinker could have easily been decided in favor of the school, and a great deal of what the left protested about a generation or two ago could have been shut down completely as well.

Fighting words require a general social consensus on the significance of a term. They’re not an invitation to let an isolated heckler’s veto shut down anything the authorities disagree with.

Hence my reference to statutes. If Congress uses a term in a statute, I think courts have to regard it as representing a Congressional determination that the term is acceptable in general society and does not represent fighting words.

[DaveM]

Slow news day? Actually, this is a pretty good example of right-wing cancel culture. Just look at how all the conservative influencers are whipping this story.

Obviously, a teachable moment in not letting our emotions rule our heads passed this teacher by. Too bad.

[Michael P]

Only one person has been canceled so far, troll, and that was the student who said "illegal alien".

[DaveM]

I’m not referring to the student, I am referring to the right-wing media response. Typical example of how this story is being framed on the right: “It is no secret that public education is little more than indoctrination at this point. The goal is to brainwash as many young skulls full of mush as possible, and that includes the approved words in the leftist vocabulary.”

Just do a quick search of conservative web sites, you’ll see what I mean.

The point here is this is a nothing-burger of a story. The teacher should have handled it right then and there, but didn’t. The Assistant Principal should have handled it better, but didn’t. So, yes, this is something worth complaining about in that local community.

What I object to is turning this kind of thing into a red meat feeding frenzy, and using it as yet another opportunity to shut people on the left down.

[Bwaaah]

The kid has been suspended. This, you call, "yet another opportunity to shut people on the left down." What people on the left have been shut down where as a result of this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not just that -- his concern is the scholarship a few years from now. And a question to the lawyers -- without politically judging the merits, would he have a legitimate Section 1983 lawsuit against the school over that (should he not get it) or would he be bound by the 11th Amendment and whatever the State Tort Claims Act is or isn't?

Assume for the sake of argument that he gets a letter stating that "but for your 3 day suspension in 2024, you would have received this scholarship."

[Brett Bellmore]

So, your basic position is that, when anything that offends your side happens, it's a national story, when anything that offends our side happens, nobody but those directly involved should ever hear of it?

Sorry, no.

[Bwaaah]

If there were a lot of cases like this around the country, and they were reported widely as they happened, many people might be led to believe that impermissibility of speech like this is widespread in schools throughout the U.S.

Impermissibility of speech like this is widespread in schools throughout the U.S.

Most kids already know and avoid (read: "self-sensor") Leftist trigger words. Indications are that punishments like this are rare. As I've seen in my child's schools, the incorrect-speaking students get a swift serious talking-to about "you know what you did" and "you know how problematic it is, and can become, if you don't walk it back."

What most makes this squelching of speech a totalitarian movement is not that the state implements punishments (as through schools, which it doesn't do much), but that most of the population becomes complicit in the enforcement of the culture of censorship by simply looking at their shoes while people are told to shut up and apologize. Inside their heads, they think, "Why couldn't he just shut up in the first place so we don't have to go through this?"

Say hello to the passively totalitarian ant-speech culture of the contemporary U.S. left.

[Nige]

'Now look, we're going to go batshit over a minor disciplinary matter in a school because we have a lot of real issues to avoid.'

[MatthewSlyfield]

The only one who should have been punished is the kid that threatened violence.

[Frank Drackman]

He's a Spick, so he’s off-limits, not as off-limits as an N-word, but same Ballpark (“Es-Stadio” in the “Es-Span-Yawl”)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agreed (that the kid who threatened violence should be punished) but NoBama imposed racial quotas on suspension and you are not going to use up one of your allowed Hispanic suspensions for something like this because you’ve got a lot more pressing candidates for the slot.

Think peremptory challenges to jurors — you don’t want to use them all up on minor stuff and then not have any left for the serious stuff.

Now before people call me a racist, I could actually live with a racial suspension quota if it were normed for single parent household status. In other words, almost twice as many Black kids are being raised by single mothers as White kids — memory is that the respective illegitimacy rates are 76% and 43% but that doesn’t mean that Daddy’s still there 16 years later…

So you wind up with almost twice as many Black suspensions as White suspensions — which is what we had….

I did my student teaching in an all-white high school which (for a variety of reasons) would issue (to staff) a daily detention list of those students who would be in the detention hall at the end of the day. The list arrived one afternoon and my supervising teacher took his red pencil and went down it “broken home:, “broken home”, “broken home” and almost every kid on it got checked off.

The nice thing about this is that it was an all-White population and hence there was no possibility of racism. The variable was “broken home” and I argue the same thing is true with Black & Hispanic kids as well, particularly young males.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Just do a quick search of conservative web sites, you’ll see what I mean. "

Hardly.
A quick search with Duck Duck go turns up the NY Post first, Daily Wire second, some local NC outlets next, MSN and this article at number 11.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"“It is no secret that public education is little more than indoctrination at this point."

I'm in public education (under deep deep cover) and the statement is more true than most conservatives can even imagine. It's truly a gulag.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"I’m in public education (under deep deep cover)"
Clouseau, is that you with the fake beard?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Only one person has been canceled so far, troll,

That might be the view in the deplorable clingerverse, or in the partisan fantasy world depicted by the Volokh Conspirators and their delusional fans, but inhabitants of the reality-based world call bullshit.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your superstitious delusions, multifaceted and disgusting bigotry, and antisocial ignorance could carry anyone in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, every time I unmute you on the presumption that you might have something worthwhile to say -- not that I'd agree with but would be worthwhile -- you write crap like this:

"Carry on, clingers. So far as your superstitious delusions, multifaceted and disgusting bigotry, and antisocial ignorance could carry anyone in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America."

May I suggest you read the Turner Diaries?

They are clearly dated -- no one has strung solid copper wire for at least 60 years and the current aluminum strands around a center steel core "wire" would be useless for lynchings, but remember that someone actually wrote that. Reflect on history, including the Know Nothing Movement.

If it gets as ugly as you seem to want it to get, I assure you that you will not be on the winning side....

And your're back to being muted...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Dr. Ed and Prof. Volokh seem to believe conservatives are going to slow the tide of . . . no, stop the tide of . . . no, reverse the tide of the culture war after a half-century of progress shaped by better Americans against the efforts and preferences of right-wing bigots.

Being on the wrong side of history, the weaker side at the modern marketplace of ideas, and the losing side of the culture war will continue to impose consequences on America's remaining clingers. Dr. Ed, the Volokh Conspirators, the MAGA losers, the QAnon dopes, and the other constituents of the conservative coalition -- anti-abortion absolutists, racists, gun nuts, Israel's right-wing belligerents and their supporters -- deserve everything that is coming to them.

[mulched]

I don't remember him ever being unmuted. The first day that feature came out, my first mute improved the post quality 100%.

[mulched]

I hear his gray box speaking to me in the Charlie Brown teacher voice. "WAH wah wah WAH WAH wah."

[BrotherMovesOn]

You are missing out by muting Dr. Ed, in my humble opinion.
For me, DMN's takedowns (among others) of Dr. Ed's umm, "thoughts'" of the moment are worth the price of admission here, but then I'm easily amused.
Of course, mental challenges are not an issue to be casually joked about but he certainly shows some Eric Rudolph-ish tendencies in his recent posts.
Freely, apparently.
A decade ago he might have been, in DMN's words, 'generally good natured'.
Posting maritime exploits plagiarized from Edward Rowe Snow, bashing his employer for failing to continue his employ, railing against Massachusetts. Saul Goodman
Now?

[Harvey Mosley]

Having the good doctor muted makes the DMN takedowns even more amusing in my opinion.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Alrighty then.

[Bwaaah]

Is the right wing-part where they publish a story about it? Is it the part where the school suspends the student for saying "illegal alien"? Is it the part where Rev Kirkland (or you) react by posting to this discussion?

What is your definition of "right-wing cancel culture"?

I think this is about a likely example of unwarranted punishment for speech that offends left-wing political speech orthodoxy. Indeed, it is uncommon to see public acknowledgement of the wrongfulness of such punishments by people on the left.

DaveM: "This is right-wing cancel culture."

[Michael P]

Talking about the left cancelling a student for saying “illegal alien” is right-wing cancel culture.

Criticizing the school for punishing a student for seeking clarification on an assignment, but not another student for offering affray, is right-wing cancel culture.

Pointing out that the First Amendment exists is right-wing cancel culture.

It’s all very simple(-minded).

[Bwaaah]

It's as if "right-wing cancel culture" is a creation, and cudgel, of the left.

[Scooter]

See "Republicans Pounce!".

LOL

[DaveM]

.

[Scooter]

It's just another version of "Republicans Pounce!".

If a Republican/Conservative screws up, the story is the Republican/Conservative screwing up.

If a Democrat/Liberal is caught humping the family dog on main street during the 4th of July town parade, the story is that the Right noticed and commented on it.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

[Jumaira]

This is why liberals belong in concentration camps.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No!

I'm more afraid of my side than I am of them -- I know what we could accomplish if we aren't careful and it should scare you.

[Jumaira]

Don't you think accomplishing the extermination of America's enemies is a good thing? Why would that scare you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And that comment makes you part of the Volokh Conspiracy's target audience.

[Estragon]

Tiresome. Get some new material

[bernard11]

Well, AFAICT, much of the information here comes from what McGhee told his mother was the reason for the suspension.

Apparently that’s enough to get the right howling, because no kid in that position ever gave his mother a selective, biased, or downright false story.

I trust that if the facts turn out not to be as described we will hear appropriate retractions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do know that FERPA permits the school to tell his mother THEIR side of the story, don't you? And that they (a) have to tell HER that he is suspended, and (b) why.

I'm not going to guess about the NC Dept of ED's regs, but in these parts they absolutely have to give the parents a REASON for a suspension, they can't just do it.

She may not believe them, but they get a chance to present their side in as best a light as they can.

[bernard11]

OK, but she is free, I presume, to tell the press only her son's side of the story. And she is also free to ignore the school's version.

I mean, maybe it all happened as described, but it's often a good idea to wait for more information before going ballistic over the whole thing.

[Bwaaah]

You wouldn't want to pass judgement without knowing all the details, would you? That's very prudent of you. You're a very prudent person.

[Absaroka]

"I trust that if the facts turn out not to be as described we will hear appropriate retractions."

Indeed so! The Jussie Smolletts of the world deserve condemnation.

[Krychek_2]

I just want to point out that if this student were to sue and lose, conservatives would have Clarence Thomas and bong hits for Jesus to thank for it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do you figure?

[Krychek_2]

Have you read the bong hits case? It essentially gutted any free speech rights for students and explicitly permits schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination.

[Michael P]

It sounds like you are the one who hasn’t read the case. It’s fairly restricted to speech that could “be understood as advocating or promoting illegal drug use”.

[Krychek_2]

The facts of that case involved speech that could be understood as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, but the underlying principle is that speech that undermines whatever the government considers important is now up for grabs. And if you don't think that school administrators, and courts, are likely to consider diversity as important as drug policy, you need to get out more.

[Michael P]

Which specific part of the holding in Morse v. Frederick means “whatever the government considers important is now up for grabs”, even in the context of speech by public-school students during school activities? The more recent Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. says the opposite for out-of-school conduct.

[Krychek_2]

I just re-read the case to be sure I was right. And I am.

The court held that deterring drug use is an "important -- indeed, perhaps compelling" interest (citing Veronia School District v. Acton). It stated that drug use damages children, and the effects of a drug-infested school are visited upon the entire student body. Drug use is a "serious problem" and Congress has declared that part of a school's job is educating students about the dangers of drug use. Suppressing pro-drug speech encourages peer pressure for students not to use drugs. And, because the *content* of the speech is permissible viewpoint discrimination in light of the school setting.

Now, apply those same principles to diversity. Might a court not determine that fostering diversity is an important, if not compelling, interest? Congress seems to think so. Is racism and its side effects not a serious problem? Might not part of the school's job be to encourage multi-culturalism since we all have to live together? Isn't it a proper function of the school to encourage tolerance? (I know, *you* may not think so, but I'm betting the courts would.)

Your problem is that you're limiting Morse to its facts, rather than examining the general principles that underpin it. Well, that's not the way it works. "This is a brown cow, that's a black cow" is not a persuasive argument if cow-ness rather than color is the central feature of the case. And the central feature of Morse is that schools may engage in viewpoint discrimination if it deems the issue important enough, which it likely would with diversity.

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Volokh did a good job summarizing the Carolina Journal article; but I think it is worthwhile to read that article because it made clear the student asked in what sense was the world ‘alien’ to be used (albeit, very awkwardly)? The word alien does have multiple meanings. This 16-yr old teenage student did not exercise lawyerly adult level judgment in asking his clarifying question (Like space aliens or illegal aliens without green cards?); something short of a permanent note on the students record (or the public notoriety) sounds warranted. Now it is a PR mess.

One caveat: I don’t believe we don’t know the full story yet. How many times have we seen the initial story that looks horrible, and then the fuller context becomes known and it is something else entirely? Answer: Too many

[Social Justice is neither]

Right, the NASCAR noose, Jussie Smollett, the UVA Rape on campus back to the Duke lacrosse team all started looking bad then the truth was it was all a Leftist lie. I assume this one will get worse in the exact same direction.

[Bwaaah]

I don't think they're "leftist lies." I think they're just lies that comport with leftist beliefs, and therefore go unchallenged by the left, destroying the lives of nameless people while calling attention to demons. DEMONS!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, we don't know the full story, including why the student felt a need to clarify. Is this a teacher who would penalize him for writing about the "wrong" alien? She sounds like she just might be.

It's like the math teacher who wouldn't accept a mathematically correct method of solving a math problem because it wasn't the method she wanted to see.

[DaveM]

This is really important for libertarians and conservatives to understand, because they believe that only the left engages in cancel culture.

Cancel culture is just a modern form of a public shaming. Back in Colonial times they used stocks to shame people. Today’s cancel culture originates from exactly the same impulse: the desire to hold people up for ridicule and chastisement.

Essential to the shaming of someone online is the pile-on, the chorus of me-too, me-too back-slappers who all chime in at the same time to condemn the miscreant. This is the modern equivalent of people throwing rotted vegetables at the poor sinners locked in the stocks of Williamsburg’s town square.

The right does this constantly. I am as conservative as they come, and even I am disgusted by how blatant and hypocritical this is. In this specific example, we have a really trivial event of the kind that happens surely thousands of times A DAY in classrooms across the land. But it’s meat for the cancel culture grinder on the right.

I object to this. I think it demeans conservatives and libertarians, both. It shows we have no sense of proportion, to say nothing of jumping the gun and opining before we've heard both sides of a story.

[Bored Lawyer]

Sorry, I completely disagree with you.

Cancel culture is an attempt silence unpopular views. Not only through shaming but through other retaliation, such as firing the person. Its modern manifestation is an attempt to shut down debate. And generally on one side.

Now who in this story is being shamed? Administrators who abuse their power. That’s the key difference between this and cancelling someone for unpopular views. If the principal or assistant principal had Tweeted that using the term “illegal aliens” is bad or insulting, that would be his view, and I would oppose cancelling them (although not disagreement). Here, in contrast, they used their power, granted them by a public institution, in a heavy handed way to shut down a view.

For that, they should be shamed.

And the reason it’s a national story is that this repeats itself many times across the country, and almost always in one ideological direction. As the old saying goes, “the plural of anecdote is data.”

[M L]

This is gibberish to me.

If people object to someone being wrongfully suspended from school, that is “cancelling” the school? And that’s a bad thing somehow?

If people object to someone being wrongfully imprisoned by the police, is that “canceling” the police?

If someone is wrongfully fired, arrested, persecuted etc?

I’m not on Twitter and don’t watch TV news or listen to politics radio/podcasts. So maybe I’m just “missing out” on whatever it is you are complaining about, people blowing things out of proportion or something? Focusing too much on the latest buzzworthy outrage item? You know you can just turn off your TV and all that other garbage, right?

[Darth Buckeye]

Sue the school system. Get a seven figure judgment. That will show them. Get a judgment so high that they have to close a few schools...so much the better. The school system will close schools before it fires any administrators.

[CJColucci]

Kids in K-12 don't have the right to say whatever they damn please in school and have never had that right. On the basis of the sparse facts here, I'd say that suspension was disproportionate unless there was some kind of relevant history. But if the school authorities don't want that language used in their school they should take the student aside and tell him (or her) so, not suspend the student out of the blue.

[Bored Lawyer]

The TEACHER used the word alien. When someone in authority uses a word, it is fair to infer that the word is not verboten.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But if the school authorities don’t want that language used in their school they should take the TEACHER aside and tell him (or her) so

FIFY.

[CJColucci]

I just re-read the original story. I suggest you do the same.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I just re-read the original story. I suggest you do the same.

So after a 2nd reading you still missed the part where the teacher used the word "alien" in a vocabulary discussion and the student asked for clarification on which meaning she was referring to? Or by "that language" are you referring to the "illegal" modifier?