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

You can read the just-filed Complaint in C.M. v. Davidson County Bd. of Ed.; here's my post on the incident from when it first hit the news.

[* * *]

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

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve always found the contours of Tinker in the classroom a bit tricky as implemented on the ground.

But bottom line, no, you should not suspend a student for failing to read the room even if the failure is really offensive to some.

(For instance, I use illegal here; there are other audiences where that word would never cross my lips)

[Lee Moore]

Have we yet been advised of what, if anything, happened to the student who threatened violence ?

That would seem to be a somewhat more interesting example of room-reading going astray.

[great Unknown]

the student who threatened violence is protected under the victim clause of the Constitution.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am assured by one poster here that all prosecution is selective, and hence disciplining a student based on his political persuasion, rather than his actions, is appropriate.

[Kazinski]

Glad you know your place.

[Sarcastr0]

Have we yet been advised of what, if anything, happened to the student who threatened violence?

It'd be irresponsible not to speculate!

[Brett Bellmore]

Or perhaps it was irresponsible for them not to reveal this?

[Sarcastr0]

Because it's a minor, Brett.

If they don't engage with the press, the school sure as fuck should not.

[Brett Bellmore]

They don't have to say who he was, you know. All they'd really have to say is that he's been disciplined. If they don't, he likely wasn't.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it is irresponsible for a school to share inside baseball about student discipline to prevent you from making assumptions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a public school, and the public is supposed to have a say in how it's run. The public can exercise that power by having the facts, or by making assumptions. It's not obvious that student privacy should trump the public's right to know how schools are run.

[Randal]

Yes it is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah? How should the public have confidence in whether or not public school students are being properly disciplined if there's no information about student discipline?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How about they read the student code of conduct and the school's policy on discipline?

You don't have a right to know what's going on with someone else's minor child.

Be quiet.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Reading the policy isn't going to tell them how it's being enforced.

You be quiet.

[Randal]

You can look at the policy, you can look at aggregate stats, and you can look at cases like this where the parents essentially waived their privacy by going public.

But also, you can trust parents to be ones paying attention to these issues. It’s not like parents are colluding with school officials on this.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Or you could just read the complaint, which reveals the answer to the question. (Yes, Sarcastr0 should have done this too.)

[bernard11]

Stop the conspiracy-mongering and read the damn complaint.

It answers your question. You don't like it, of course, so you are making up our own "facts."

From anyone else it would be stunning dishonesty. From you it's SOP.

[TTC]

He received an in-school suspension according to the Complaint.

[Darth Buckeye]

Not according to allegation #3 in the Complaint:

"3. The School punished C.M. for his question with three days out-of-school suspension—a punishment described by the administration as “harsh.” In issuing that punishment for his comment, the School baldly concluded that C.M.’s question was “racially insensitive” and a “racially motivated comment which disrupts class.”

[Noscitur a sociis]

C.M. [the plaintiff] later learned that R. received only a brief in-school suspension for his joking comment in Hill’s English class that he was going to “kick [C.M.]’s ass.”

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"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'"

The speech that disrupted classwork and involved disorder, you mean?

[Social Justice is neither]

The person that disrupted the classroom was the one that threatened the fight you dumb marxist bint. Asking a perfectly reasonable clarifying question isn't disruptive.

[Darth Buckeye]

Yes, saying "Kill the zionists!" or "Death to the Jews!" is perfectly alright and is protected speech.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are there a lot of high schools where students are saying "Death to the Jews!" in class without consequence? I haven't heard of any, but I can't claim an encyclopedic knowledge.

[Frank Drackman]

Columbia and all the others are essentially high priced High Schools, heck, I was Pre-Med at a Klinger SEC Screw-el (HT Revolting Arthur) but had to read some Yeats, some Plato, diaphragm some Roman battles, in addition to the Calculus/Differential Equations/Organic Chemistry/Physics you had to take for Med Screw-el, how many of these Ham-Ass poofs could count to 21 without taking off their pants?

Frank

[bernard11]

Have we yet been advised of what, if anything, happened to the student who threatened violence ?

He got a brief, in-school, suspension. See the quotes from the complaint below.

The actual comment, from P.7, paragraph 21:

C.M. raised his hand and asked Ms. Hill whether the reference to aliens referred to “space aliens or illegal aliens who need green cards.”

The “threat of violence,” as described in paragraph 22 of the complaint:

R., a Hispanic male student in C.M.’s class, joked that he was going to “kick [C.M.]’s ass.”

So the plaintiff himself described the so-called threat as a joke.

Plus, there is no ill feeling between the two students. Page 9, paragraph 32 of the complaint:

C.M. and R. have a good relationship. R. confided in C.M. that he was not “crying” in his meeting with Anderson, nor was he “upset” or “offended” by C.M.’s question. R. said, “If anyone is racist, it is [Mr. Anderson] since he asked me why my Spanish grade is so low”—an apparent reference to R.’s ethnicity.

It doesn't sound to me as if there was any danger of a riot breaking out. Note that after the incident "class otherwise proceeded as normal. (P.7, paragraph 23).

Per the complaint (page 10, paragraph 34) Here is your answer, Lee.

C.M. later learned that R. received only a brief in-school suspension for his joking comment in Hill’s English class that he was going to “kick [C.M.]’s ass.”4

Footnote 4, again on P. 10:

To be clear, C.M. is not advocating for punishment against R., nor did C.M. view R.’s comment as an actual threat. But this discrepancy in treatment of the two in-class comments underscore the obvious nature of the School’s decision to punish C.M. for its own incomprehensibly sensitive viewpoints about the phrase “illegal aliens.”

My take:

C.M. made a somewhat smartass comment, (the business about space aliens being, IMO, a bit smartass) as which of us never did in high school.

R. made what both he and C.M. regarded as a joking, non-serious threat.

Anderson, the Assistant Principal, is an individual of uncommonly poor judgment, who managed, possibly with help from the teacher, to take what was at worst an immature comment and generate a lawsuit against himself and the school board.

Anderson, or Hill (the teacher) or C.M.’s parents, might have taken a moment to explain that it is possible to be legally resident in the US without having a green card, that there are those who regard “illegal alien” as derogatory, and that it is wise to avoid making smartass comments unless one is quite confident that the will be taken in good humor.

And that should have been the end of it. C.M. and R. appear to be the most sensible people involved in the incident, though it’s not clear that C.M.’s parents did much wrong, given that they started with a simple approach to the board.

[Brett Bellmore]

This makes C.M. look better, and the school look much, much worse.

[bernard11]

That is more or less my opinion.

I was a wiseass a few times in class. I generally got a brief, informal, reprimand from the teacher, sometimes accompanied by a chuckle or a head shake, depending on the teacher.

That was the end of the matter, as it should it have been here.

[Brett Bellmore]

One idiot does not make a "room".

[Sarcastr0]

It can.

Something tells me this is not your talent set.

[Brett Bellmore]

Reading rooms is so not my talent set it amounts to an actual diagnosis. So I had to spend decades learning how to do it without any instinctual shortcut. Which is a pain, but it does let me be a bit more objective about it than people who do it subconsciously.

Which does not change the fact that one person is not "the room".

This is pretty critical. You really shouldn't have to concern yourself with isolated outlier reactions, like the lunatic kid who will assault you out of the blue if you use the term "illegal alien". How the hell are you supposed to anticipate that one person will happen to be a lunatic with self control issues?

Of course, you probably do want to be reading that kid if he's holding a gun. That's the issue here: The school gave him a 'gun'.

[Sarcastr0]

Reading a room is a functional exercise, not a descriptive one.

If one dude is gonna get mad enough to disrupt things, knowing that and moderating accordingly is generally a good idea.

Shouldn't has nothing to do with it. Getting what you want from the room is almost always more important than taking some righteous stand on semantics.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Don't wear that skirt!" is what you're saying.

No, a thousand times no.

One of the responsibilities of K-12 education is turn little savages with heads full of mush into functional adults.

So, do you do that by teaching the normies to self-censor to avoid triggering the short fused bomb in their midst, or else.? Or do you try to teach the short fused bomb that, no, he's not entitled to dictate other people's vocabularies, get over that idea right now, or else.?

Which way do you want civilization to go? Empowering violent maniacs by teaching the masses to tiptoe around them? Or reining in the violent maniacs, so we can have a free society?

That's what we're arguing about here, Sarcast0, even if you don't realize it.

[Randal]

God Brett, the first thing he said was that the kid shouldn’t have been punished. So he’s absolutely not arguing “self-censor or else.” He’s arguing the obviously true fact, as you apparently had to learn the hard way, that being able to self-censor is a good skill to have. You should still get to decide, in any given situation, whether or not to actually do it.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not self censorship to change what you say based on who you're talking to.

Most times I'm talking to a group, I will avoid picking a fight if I see on brewing. Even if the other person is wrong in my opinion.
Not worth it. You don't pick your battles you're always fighting and not doing.

Empowering maniacs? The downfall of civilization?
You really live in a very dramatic world. Where I'm sure you're very important. In the real world, I like to get things done and not make a righteous crusade over every vocab choice.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you're disciplining a kid for using a term like "illegal alien" because one of his classmates goes ballistic over it? Yeah, you're empowering maniacs.

[Sarcastr0]

You have lost my thesis in all your high horse drama:

"But bottom line, no, you should not suspend a student for failing to read the room even if the failure is really offensive to some."

[bernard11]

Nobody went ballistic.

Stop making shit up and lying, if that's even possible for you.

[Commenter_XY]

In the real world, the phrases 'government employee' and 'getting things done' don't generally appear together. 😉

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, anti-government cranks -- who hate modern America for several reasons -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[Don Nico]

There is a reason for that, XY.

[bernard11]

Not in your fantasy world, anyway.

I guess Interstate highways and state universities don't exist, and we never actually went to the moon.

Oh. And this Internet thingy was really put together by Elon Musk and Elizabeth Holmes.

Stop parroting BS.

[Absaroka]

In fairness, the people who built the interstates and the internet[1] weren't government employees. The government bought them from vendors like it buys toilet paper and pickup trucks.

Also note the trailing smiley face on C_XY's post.

[1]I will walk back the internet part some - many of the people who built the internet were university employees. Although, as a university computer nerd at the time ... they weren't exactly the traditional government employees.

[Rossami]

re: "It’s not self censorship to change what you say based on who you’re talking to."

Good lord, yes it is. That's the very definition of self-censorship.

Note, by the way, that the person he was talking to was the teacher and, assuming the reports are true, was used in a very precise way to get clarification on a school assignment. There is no plausible way to claim that this particular statement was "picking a fight".

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know about you, but I'm not 100% directive in the only way to say what I'm going to say. I change my tone, how colloquial I am, all sorts of things depending on the audience.

That is not self censorship.

One example among many:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/code-switching

[r]

This is obviously a tangent from the topic in the article, but yes it is self-censorship if you "change what you say based on who you’re talking to."

You changed the goal posts to say it's not self-censorship to change how you say something depending on who you are talking to.

Of course, self-censorship sounds much worse than it is - we all do it all the time. I will drastically change what I say as well as how I say it depending on whether I'm talking to my spouse, my boss, a friend, or a stranger. Self-censorship should never be required by government as a 1st Amendment issue, but is 100% required to have any type of successful social life.

[Sarcastr0]

r - the OP is about the phrase illegal alien. Lots of ways to say that.

It's not about some specific subject being avoided.

The goalposts were never anything but choosing how you say it.

That being said, I do also not bring up subjects depending on the audience. Some folks I don't talk politics to, others I don't doxx myself to.

[Darth Buckeye]

They should have punished the student who threatened to fight, not the student who said a non-profane word.

Things will keep getting worse. What do these crybullies want? The penalty for saying a word they don't like is DEATH!!!!

[bernard11]

They should have punished the student who threatened to fight,

You mean C.M.'s buddy, who did not in fact threaten anything?

[TwelveInchPianist]

That may or may not be true. That doesn't mean that one person should be punished because somebody else got mad and disrupted things.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, my OP says exactly that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Perhaps instead of reading the room you should invest some time into reading the complaint? Because the plaintiff says that the "lunatic kid" was joking, wasn't offender, and is his friend:

21. Upon his return to English class, the word “aliens” was used during class discussion. C.M. raised his hand and asked Ms. Hill whether the reference to aliens referred to “space aliens or illegal aliens who need green cards.” Hill responded and said, “Watch your mouth [C.M.].”

22. R., a Hispanic male student in C.M.’s class, joked that he was going to “kick [C.M.]’s ass.”
...
31. Then Anderson spoke to C.M. and said that R. was “upset,” “crying,” and “offended.” C.M. did not find these assertions believable because he could see that R. was not upset. But C.M. listened to Assistant Principal Anderson and told his side of the story. Mr. Anderson would later recall telling C.M. that it would have been more “respectful” for C.M. to phrase his question by referring to “those people” who “need a green card.”

32. C.M. and R. have a good relationship. R. confided in C.M. that he was not “crying” in his meeting with Anderson, nor was he “upset” or “offended” by C.M.’s question. R. said, “If anyone is racist, it is [Mr. Anderson] since he asked me why my Spanish grade is so low”—an apparent reference to R.’s ethnicity.

[bernard11]

Perhaps instead of reading the room you should invest some time into reading the complaint?

They are not going to it. It would ruin their fun.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Something tells me insults are your talent set.

Thanks for being honest and admitting you have nothing substantial.

[Sarcastr0]

Tone policing now?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, stay off Sarcastro's turf!

[Kazinski]

Ahh, the hecklers veto has become a room.

[Sarcastr0]

Reading a room is now doing a heckler's veto?

Are you just playing speech term mad libs?

[Brett Bellmore]

Being punished for not doing it certainly is.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's not a heckler's veto either.

[bernard11]

There was no idiot involved, at least not a student idiot.

C.M. and R. appear to have been friends, who regarded the "threat" as a joke.

[Brett Bellmore]

Schools are official humor free zones these days, you know. My son got a several day suspension last year in middle school for pointing through the window to a friend who was walking by outside, and saying, "Look, "X" has come out!" Didn't matter that his friend withdrew the joking complaint when he learned of the suspension. It was too late.

That was crazy, even the school counselor imposing the suspension agreed it was, but she claimed she had no discretion once somebody complained.

Well, discretion might make sense when you're trying to be reasonable, it is counter productive when you're actually trying to operant condition the little dears into being woke.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Whether or not one person counts as the room, Tinker (as interpreted by some) allows for a 1-person heckler's veto, where one student can justify the censorship of other students by threatening a disruption. Worse, the school has discretion of what speech to censor, they can make viewpoint based judgements about which speech to censor if a student chooses to be disruptive in response to speech.

Tinker should be clarified to say that a student being disruptive in response to speech doesn't make the speech disruptive.

[David Nieporent]

Tinker should be clarified to say that a student being disruptive in response to speech doesn’t make the speech disruptive.

That's not clarifying Tinker; that's overruling it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't see anything in Tinker that clearly suggests that schools can censor speech because other students might create a disruption, but if I'm missing it, then sure, Tinker should be overruled to the extent that it permits schools to censor speech because other students might create a disruption.

[Randal]

I know you like being dumb on purpose, although in this case, I don't get the point.

I don’t see anything in Tinker that clearly suggests that schools can censor speech because other students might create a disruption

That's the only thing it could possibly mean. You think it means they can censor speech but only if the speaker then goes on to create a disruption? Like, disruptive kids lose their right to free speech? That's ridiculous, you can't possibly think that.

Or do you think the speech itself has to be literally disruptive, like the kid screams so loud it shatters the windows?

If speech causes a disruption, of course that disruption is coming from the other kids. Wtf tiny pianist.

[mulched]

That's clearly not true. The speech itself could be disruptive. That would be the more appropriate case for school discipline.

Chants during study hall, for example.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is a particularly stupid comment in light of all the threads on disruptive expressive activity.

From Tinker:

As we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to "pure speech"
...
The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.

As I said, it's possible that there are some references to other students being disruptive that I missed, but Tinker is at least partly about disruption by the students engaging in the expression.

[Randal]

It's right there in the part you quoted:

collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone

Collisions result in disruptions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's all you've got? I'm starting to think it's less and less likely I missed anything in Tinker.

[Randal]

There's a whole line of cases that follow Tinker.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So?

[Randal]

So, if you want to know what Tinker means, they're a helpful resource. Much better than internet randos or your own uninformed speculation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Or I could read Tinker. I've read some of it, and thanks to my excerpt, now you have too.

But in any event, I don't particularly want to know what it means. As I said above, I want the court to clarify it so it means what I said that I think it should mean.

[Randal]

Just like I said originally. You like being dumb on purpose.

[Kazinski]

Collisions with the other students rights, but not with their feelings.

[Michael P]

If you read more than a few words, you would see that the Court was saying that a school must not rely on hypothetical or counterfactual collisions between rights.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Facts of the case -- Tinker was about a school in an Air Force town, and some of the students in the class had fathers currently serving (as pilots) in Vietnam. I forget the aircraft they flew, but the local unit WAS over there at the time.

It's EXACTLY applicable to this situation, the concern of the schools was that the armbands would offend children of servicemen and that would disrupt the school.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Tinker was about a school (actually, three different schools) in Des Moines, Iowa. (That's why the name of the case is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.) Des Moines is not generally considered "an Air Force town".

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I love all the subtext here.

It isn't the case that he committed no harm and the school and "victim" are overreacting in their wokeness.

It is the case that this kid just didn't "read the room" because if he did he would know he should self censor and not use No No words.

Political correctness has always been a form of exerting control.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fledgling bigots from can't-keep-up southern backwaters have rights, too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is a 16 year old, you are a purported "professional,"
And it is a legitimate question as the word "alien" had multiple definitions, including a biological/medical one.

But since when is the victim of a CRIME (assault) the one who gets punished? Methinks that the school district will be paying for his college, and then some...

[Dr. Ed 2]

This was my reply to GaslightO.

On the more basic level, THIS IS TERRORISM --- a textbook example of it. It's the use of the fear of violence to modify behavior.

And as the other student likely was Hispanic, this becomes a textbook hate crime as well.

Not that we are likely to see either prosecuted.

[Sarcastr0]

Your textbook is weird.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And as the other student likely was Hispanic, this becomes a textbook hate crime as well.

1. By the plaintiff's description of events, he was not the victim of a crime at all.

2. What?

[Kazinski]

Good God Ed, if you start rolling your eyes whenever a POC gets the vapors when they're confronted by a microaggression then please don't start claiming a hate crime, and screaming terrorism when two classmates verbally beef.

The villain here is the administrator, maybe the other kid shouldn't have made a threat even if in jest, but nobody threw a punch.

This should be settled by firing the administrator, and giving a year of his salary to the kid and calling it even.

[bernard11]

If you had troubled to read the complaint you would know that the other kid was in fact Hispanic, and the only thing he was upset about was that the Asst Principal asked him why his Spanish grade was so low.

He felt the A.P. was making an unfair assumption that kids named "Garcia" or "Hernandez" or whatever the kid's name was, should be fluent.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But bottom line, no, you should not suspend a student for failing to read the room even if the failure is really offensive to some.

Note that according to the complaint (which is all anyone is going off here), the other student wasn't offended, so the only one who "fail[ed] to read the room" would appear to be the teacher.

[bernard11]

Exactly, Nas. Though I disagree that people here are going off the complaint. I wonder how many have read it.

If they had, they would have noticed that the two students were on friendly terms, that both regarded the threat as a joke, and that there was no meaningful disruption.

This should have been a nothingburger.

[bernard11]

Haven't we heard this one before? I guess we're going to hear every detail of the case until it's over with, whenever that is.

Is there confirmation of the the NYP's story?

[John Rohan]

https://www.newsweek.com/teen-suspended-saying-illegal-alien-sparks-republican-outrage-1891021

https://www.foxnews.com/media/north-carolina-high-school-student-suspended-using-term-illegal-alien-report

[Rossami]

Yes, we've heard it before. It was first reported here at Reason on April 17th.

From what I can tell, the NYP article was based on a prior article by the Carolina Journal published on April 15th.

And, yes, we are going to hear every detail of this case until it's over - as we should because it's an important First Amendment case. Contrary to the claims above, Tinker does not support a heckler's veto. However, Dariano, et al v Morgan Hill Unified School District, et al pretty clearly does. SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal on that case but perhaps this one (assuming it gets that far) will provide an answer more respectful of the First Amendment.

[Voize]

The reports are consistent with the student asking an innocent question or with him deliberately provoking the other kid. Absent a video only someone in the room would have a hope of figuring out which it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, you can hypothesize that he knew in advance that one of the students was a lunatic on a short fuse, who'd blow up at any use of a common term.

If there's any evidence of that, I guess it will come out during the lawsuit.

[Voize]

It's not like this was a room full of strangers.

When I was in high school I knew troublemakers who might ask "Teacher, what does it mean when there's a chink in the wall?" while looking at the Chinese kid. That was before the Internet was invented so we could troll anonymously.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, I don't really care if he knew the kid had a bug up his rear about the term. It's objectively acceptable, and that's the kid's problem, not his, and it was the teacher's job to keep it that way.

[Estragon]

“It’s objectively acceptable”

This is just a rehashing of the excuses for “All lives matter”

Context matters.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A first grader got punished for saying a variant of that, she made a drawing captioned "black lives matter" and put "any life" under it. The judge sided with the school.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, context -- who raised the word "alien" in the first place?

Hint, not the "student."

[Estragon]

As the original comment points out, the utterance could be completely innocuous or churlishly disruptive— we don’t have enough information. But I don’t think a good faith inquiry into that begins and ends with declaring the words, devoid of context, to be “objectively reasonable” any more than we could determine whether the school’s reaction was “objectively reasonable”without examination of the context.

I’m unclear on how you think “who raised the word… first” informs this inquiry determinatively but I am unsure about many things regarding you and your mental processes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

On-the-spectrum clingers struggle with social norms, human interaction, and similar "context."

[Brett Bellmore]

While I can imagine a context under which the question he asked would be unreasonable, it involves a megaphone and close proximity to somebody's ear.

[Estragon]

It’s less than shocking to me that the vagueries of interpersonal dynamics are inscrutable to you

[Michael P]

Yes, we could tell you are a jerk, you don't need to get a megaphone to shout it in course proximity to someone's ear.

[Estragon]

“[The only way this could be offensive is if it were shouted into someone’s ear with a megaphone]”

… Is such a brain dead and myopic take that it makes me wonder if Bellmore has, in fact, ever given any thought to treating others with empathy. If I’m a jerk for pointing that out, so be it. I’m not a huge fan of yours either!

[Brett Bellmore]

I said, "unreasonable", not "offensive".

Literally ANYTHING is capable of being "offensive", if the person on the receiving end wants to take offense at it. I don't CARE if something is "offensive", I care if it was "reasonable", because I'm well aware that unreasonable people can chose to be offended by the most absurd things. I think you're aware of that, too. It's kind of a hard aspect of human relations to miss.

So we need a "reasonable person" standard, not an "Is there overly touchy crazy person present" standard. And this question does not fail the "reasonable person" standard, it clears it handily.

[Estragon]

The context informs whether the discipline was appropriate, which is what is being complained of.

Like I said at the beginning: it’s just a rehash of the “all lives matter” excuses.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it is. It is just exactly a rehash of the whole "Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter" fight.

The kid didn't genuflect to the teacher's ideology, he was guilty of WrongThink. Just like people who said "All lives matter" were.

That IS exactly what is going on here.

[Estragon]

Again. Even the most innocuous statement could be disruptive in a pedagogical setting. That’s why the context is key to determining if this discipline was warranted, or actionable. Simply reading the words and saying “objectively reasonable” could be the start of the inquiry, but not the end. And you may well be right about what is going on here— we just don’t know!

For you to sit at your computer hundreds or even thousands of miles away and assert, as a blanket matter, that no discipline could be warranted based on your interpretation of the words (without context, tone of voice, prior history between the two, if it in fact caused a disruption, etc etc) strikes me as unwarranted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you'd like to suggest a context in which, having been given a vocabulary assignment that included the word "alien", it would be unreasonable to ask if this meant illegal aliens or space aliens.

100% of the fuss is due to the teacher not simply answering the question. "Both, of course, and all the other meanings you can find."

[Estragon]

“Maybe you’d like to suggest a context”

Use your imagination. Try empathy— putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. See also my response above.

“100% of the fuss”

Again, I don’t see how you can assert that on these alleged facts alone (did you actually read the complaint? That’s only one side of the story!)

[bernard11]

Maybe you’d like to suggest a context in which, having been given a vocabulary assignment that included the word “alien”, it would be unreasonable to ask if this meant illegal aliens or space aliens.

As a matter of logic the question is always unreasonable, because there are aliens who are both legal and terrestrial.

Nor are your categories exclusive. Would you expect a space alien to have a visa? What about a passport? Wouldn't a space alien usually be here illegally?*

(*I suppose the S.A. could be here on a diplomatic mission from Mars, with suitable credentials, or that we could have so many such visitors that it Congress found it prudent to establish regular procedures and documents for those visiting from places where travel is governed by unearthly rules.)

However, making allowances, how about,

"A friend tells you she will return to Japan, her home country, next month because she is an alien whose student visa will expire soon. What is the meaning of the word "alien?"

[Brett Bellmore]

"100% of the fuss is due to the teacher not simply answering the question. “Both, of course, and all the other meanings you can find.”"

[bernard11]

Did you read my suggested question.

Someone tells you they are going back to Japan next month because they are an alien and their visa expires soon, and you think it's reasonable to ask whether they are a space alien or simply an illegally present foreigner? Should I have made it clearer?

The actual question, taken literally, is unreasonable on its face. The only proper responses are:

1. Sit down and quit being a smart alec.
2. Are there other kinds of aliens?
3. What do you mean by "illegal," and how could a space alien be here legally?

[bernard11]

you can hypothesize that he knew in advance that one of the students was a lunatic on a short fuse, who’d blow up at any use of a common term.

Again, again, again.

Read the fucking complaint.

R' was not "a lunatic on a short fuse," nor did he "blow up." (There's no evidence he even had a fuse of any length.) He and C.M. had a "good relationship," - maybe they were even friends.

They both regarded the the threat as a joke. After it happened class proceeded normally.

Am I in Wonderland? WTF is everyone talking about?

[bernard11]

The reports are consistent with…

But the complaint isn’t.

The Carolina Journal says,

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,

The complaint says, among other things:

R., a Hispanic male student in C.M.’s class, joked that he was going to “kick [C.M.]’s ass.”

and

C.M. and R. have a good relationship

and

C.M. is not advocating for punishment against R., nor did C.M. view R.’s comment as an actual threat.

[Voize]

Bernard, I don't agree.
Those two could be friends and still take potshots at one another.

If you like, three possibilities:
Innocent question
Serious provocation
Joke provocation, CM razzing his buddy

[bernard11]

Those two could be friends and still take potshots at one another.

But the evidence is otherwise. Both of them regarded the "threat" as a joke.

You might be right, but you've got a hell of a hill to climb, and you're not even one foot up.

[Randal]

I remember when the public schools tried to ban Simpson’s t-shirts during the great Political Correctness wave of the early 90s. It predictably served only to bring more attention to the Simpsons.

It’s obviously a mistake to apply a racial lens to everything that happens in schools. Doing so infuses everything that happens in schools with a racial component, amplifying racial sensitivities way out of proportion.

The DEI techniques of the last five years or so have largely failed by exacerbating the very problems they were intending to address. As a fan of the goals of DEI, I think it’s urgent to fix rhe problems of heavy-handed DEI programs and come up with a better-calibrated strategy before the goals of DEI get thrown out with the bathwater.

I would start by abandoning the ‘E’ which is hard to justify in most contexts which aren’t equipped to effect equity. Then eliminate all dedicated staff positions, which have the perverse incentive to turn all issues into racial issues.

[Brett Bellmore]

Alternatively DEI is typically run by racial grifters who need racial tensions to be high, and who have actually been successful at exacerbating those problems their continued employment depends on.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know anything about what's typical DEI. You just tell yourself stories.

[Randal]

That’s just a less charitable way of saying exactly what I just said. Of course, no one would confuse you with charity. To you, the world is full of evil Democrats who want nothing more than to oppress you. It’s like you have your own oppressor / oppressed framework that’s purely partisan. I guess you’re a fan of CPT (Critical Partisanship Theory)?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm quite charitable, actually. But I tend to confine my charity to things like putting people in third world countries through vocational school, or packing boxes at Harvest Hope, rather than excusing racial grifters who even Randal admits are exacerbating racial tensions.

[Sarcastr0]

Randal makes a substantive critique with suggestions for improvement.

You posit a typical person in a group you've really only read horror stories about, so that you can condemn them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Randal's suggestions were to stop trying to address "Equity" and getting rid of the dedicated staff positions.

I thought Brett's comment was pretty clearly endorsing those positions as well.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying he's right, but contrast to Brett's 'racial grifters who need racial tensions to be high.'

If you can't tell radical but substantive critique from just invective, you've lost a lot of perspective.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Meh. One man's radical but substantive critique is another man's invective.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's really not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I dunno. I find Brett's comments to be a substantive critique of DEI policies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty much. We mostly disagree about whether the negative effects are inadvertent or deliberate.

[Sarcastr0]

1. 'the problems of heavy-handed DEI programs' is not the broad swath you blithely condemn.

2. Unlike Randal, you have no suggestions, just broad telepathy-based accusations.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course I have a suggestion: Get rid of DEI programs.

[Commenter_XY]

The sum total of The Randal Plan: Fire staff, ditch equity. Hope for the best.

That ain't impressive.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're trying to put out a fire, getting rid of the guys pouring gasoline on it IS actually a pretty good start.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds good to me. I'd do more, though.

[Michael P]

Randal made an argument that rather blithely ignores that for decades we've had "DEI without the 'E'" in the form of equal opportunity pushes that end up violating civil rights laws because they privilege some identity groups over others, and those decades haven't seemed to help much except in the narrow sense of government going from occasional egregious cases of discrimination to widespread but small discrimination that is sometimes in the opposite direction.

[Sarcastr0]

You can come against the substance of Randal's comment, but don't pretend Brett's had any substance other than general hostility.

Your comment made an argument, but one that goes against caselaw to redefine civil rights laws as you think they should go, as well as reducing DEI to affirmative action.

If you need to redefine 2 things to make your criticism, it's not really a criticism of the real world, it's just telling everyone you really believe your partisan worldview.

Your redefinitions or Brett's empty hostility? Hard to say which is a worse argument.

First step for both of you is to learn what DEI is. But I've been asking that for years, even posting a digest of a discussion on CRT from Will Baude's other podcast.

As a wise men wrote, it was all lies and jest. The man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

[Longtobefree]

No, it is important to keep all three parts of the prime directive;
Discrimination
Exclusion
Insults

[Don Nico]

"I would start by abandoning the ‘E’ which is hard to justify in most contexts which aren’t equipped to effect equity. Then eliminate all dedicated staff positions, which have the perverse incentive to turn all issues into racial issues."
Excellent diagnosis and excellent suggestion

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wait a minute-- space aliens have green cards?

[Magister]

I wonder how many commenters here believe that the Biden administration is paying for the space aliens to travel here.

[Brett Bellmore]

The legal ones do, obviously.

[Krayt]

If space aliens arrive, pray they grant you pretty 3D holographic work cards for this galaxy.

[Bored Lawyer]

They don’t call them “little green men” for nothing.

(Although I guess today it would be “height -challenged, alternative- hued persons.”)

[bernard11]

Wait, B.L.

You are unfairly applying terrestrial body norms to those from a non-terrestrial culture and environment.

Perhaps chlorophyll-based intelligent life forms from a high-gravity planet would be preferable.

[Currentsitguy]

Of course. Matches their skin tone...

[ReaderY]

This topic has been posted on before.

Separately from the First Amendment question of when teachers can discipline for “objectionable” speech, Congress’ regular use of the term in statutes basically precludes its being designated an objectionable term. Children can’t be behaviorally punished for violating teacher idiosyncracies. In addition, the student had no notice and could not have any knowledge of the existence of any such rule.

Could a student be suspended FOR MISCONDUCT for a single instance, with no notice given, of splitting an infinitive or saying who instead of whom, on grounds the teacher finds this incredibly annoying? Without any prior notice that a behavioral rule against it exists?

[Randal]

I hate to agree with your racist ass, but not only that, lots of "illegal" things are common and positive. Illegal drugs, illegal parking, illegal raves, illegal reentry, illegal cable, illegal gambling... why not illegal immigrants and illegal aliens.

Saying "illegals" is a bit crass, but whatever.

[ReaderY]

The fact that you don’t like the law of the land doesn’t permit you, if you were a public schoolteacher, to prohibit children from mentioning it on pain of suspension.

You may personally think illegal parking, illegal drugs, speeding, illegal gambling, etc. are positive. You may not like the fact that they are illegal. But that doesn’t permit you, or any public schoolteacher, to suspend a child for truthfully noting that these “positive” things are in fact illegal, particularly if the child uses a statutory term Congress used.

It is simply not for a public schoolteacher to require children, on penalty of suspension, to conform to your or their personal view that Congress or what Congress enacts is hateful and disruptive.

Public schoolteachers live within the constraints of the society that pays them. They may think the law of the land horrific. But they can’t suspend schoolchildren simply for not sharing their opinion.

[Randal]

I was explaiming why it shouldn’t even be offensive, let alone punishable.

[Jonathansingletary]

He literally agreed with you. Good Lord.

[Frank Drackman]

President Parkinson's said "Illegal" in his State of the Onion speech and wasn't disciplined.

[John Rohan]

When he went off script, yes. And his fellow Democrats acted personally wounded, so he issued an apology.

[Scooter]

He also thinks 'poor kids' are just as talented as 'White kids'.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But apparently white kids know what computers are.

[Krayt]

People did raise a stink though. But like that governor in blackface, and senator Robert Byrd, people looked into his soul and saw he had changed. That they didn’t have to give up a person with power is purely coincidental.

[Frank Drackman]

Has it been determined? was the Governor the one in Blackface or the one wearing the Klan Robe?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you believe people can change? If so, what would count as proof of that change?

Not going to speak to any of your specific examples, I just note your reflexive perma-condemnation seems baked in here.

[PeteRR]

As a kid, something valuable to learn early on is, all authority is bullshit.

[Darth Buckeye]

How long before the use of the English language is decreed to be a microaggression and banned from use in the classroom? Everyone will be prohibited from saying or writing or reading anything. Fortunately progressive grading and social promotion will be enforced so everyone will get straight As for just showing up.

[rloquitur]

First of all, why did the kid who threatened violence get less than the kid who said "illegal alien." And second, Tinker doesn't really sanction punishment in a case like this.

All involved in the decision should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 18 USC 242

[bernard11]

The "kid who threatened violence" did not, in fact threaten violence.

RTFC.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he in fact jokingly threatened violence. Doesn't really matter under "zero tolerance" for humor.

[TK-421]

This part is particularly *chef’s kiss*:

“C.M. and R. [the ‘other student’ mentioned in the article] have a good relationship. R. confided in C.M. that he was not “crying” in his meeting with [Assistant Principal] Anderson, nor was he “upset” or “offended” by C.M.’s question. R. said, “If anyone is racist, it is [Mr. Anderson] since he asked me why my Spanish grade is so low”—an apparent reference to R.’s ethnicity.”

[bernard11]

I don't understand the "chef's kiss" analogy here, but thanks for your comment.

[ThePublius]

I had to google it. Two things:

1. noun. plural chef's kisses. : a gesture of satisfaction or approval made by kissing the fingertips of one hand and then spreading the fingers with an outward motion.

2. "The term has become popular on social media and message boards as a way to compliment someone's excellent post or comment, or to make fun of a stupendously off-base post or comment."

[TK-421]

In this case, just savoring the irony of the Assistant Principal suspending this kid for asking a simple question, despite having made an even more offensive comment himself (and to the same classmate, even). Maybe he should suspend himself!

[bernard11]

If one thing is clear here it's that the Assistant Principal is an idiot.

When I was in high school we had a Vice-Principal whose job was mostly student discipline. He wasn't any smarter than this guy. Maybe it's an occupational hazard, or requirement.

[Randal]

Yeah, there was an entire HBO show with that premise.

[Estragon]

Anyone else catch the shoutout to James Ho in the complaint?

[mulched]

Yo Ho!

[John F. Carr]

To answer a question we had in the earlier thread, it looks like the other student who threatened violence against the plaintiff suffered a minor punishement, "a brief in-school suspension". According to the complaint, the other student was not offended and was only joking when he threatened to kick the plaintiff's ass. The teacher and administrators escalated the situation.

[Darth Buckeye]

$10 million in damages will teach that school system to grow the filk up!

[Rossami]

Sadly, it will not. That cost will merely be passed on to the taxpayers.

[Jonathansingletary]

People who cheer on harsh punishments meted out by the state never seem to understand that they’re the ones who pay for it and still don’t end up with a more just society.

[NvEric]

The Davidson County Bd. of Ed. is involved in a criminal conspiracy against the Civil Rights of Christian McGhee.

The on going degeneracy of the legal system of the United States continues. This last defined barrier against lawlessness is itself lawless, thus reducing these united States into a loose group of independent entities at the county level, if even that. But, make no mistake as to the horrendous nature inflicted upon the People, that their own inherent Rights stand firmer than ever, and can be applied to secure their safety and happiness when employed Rightfully so to that end.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Genuinely curious: do you think this is helpful? Do you think a normal person trying to figure out what they make of this case is going to read this and be roused to righteous indignation? Or do you think maybe it's more likely they'll think you sound like a crazy person and feel a little more sympathetic to the other side out of reflex?

[ThePublius]

I think the person who should be punished here is the teacher. She could have just moved things along, and if she wanted to correct the student who said illegal, she could have taken him aside later. She made a federal case out of a big nothing, and caused a lot of pain and anguish, and subjected the school and municipality to civil liability - all for enforcing her politically correct views.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's the teacher who should be punished, but I wish to point out that there was nothing to correct for the student who said "illegal alien". All she had to do was answer the question.

[bernard11]

Actually, there was something to correct, though not what the teacher corrected.

C.M.'s categories were poorly chosen (Unless you think all non-citizen earthlings present in the US are here illegally.)

[Ed Grinberg]

"She made a federal case out of a big nothing, and caused a lot of pain and anguish, and subjected the school and municipality to civil liability – all for enforcing her politically correct views."
compare: https://web.archive.org/web/20150103035151/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324216004578479410300334682

[Sarcastr0]

I wish to point out that there was nothing to correct for the student who said “illegal alien”

Of course you do. You never give up a chance to be a dick if there's a partisan cause to champion in doing so.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what do you imagine there was to correct?

Literally, in a vocabulary exercise that included the word "alien", he had the nerve to utter "illegal alien". That's not an error in need of correction!

[Sarcastr0]

By your logic, if a slur fits the framework of the question, you gotta say the slur.

This is not how normal people think; we are a social beast.
You tend to want to die on the hill of being a jerk, because righteousness means never indulging someone else's sympathies if you disagree with them.

Be less attached.

[Brett Bellmore]

Slur. Really, "slur".

It's a LEGAL term. You find it in federal statutes! You know that. They're not called "illegal aliens" to insult them, they're called "illegal aliens" because they're "aliens", and their presence in the country is "illegal".

[ReaderY]

The federal courts might want to consider resolving this case on constitutional vagueness grounds.

The “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case made clear that schools have a good deal of discretion in determining disruptive speech, and can prohibt some speech that is clearly protected by the Constitution if done by adults.

Nonetheless, the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case came at a time when marijuana prohibition had much more support than today and perhaps the Court could reasonably assume that it is just generally understood that advocating something prohibited by Congress and universally considered a danger to children is a problem.

But this issue involves something that has no social consensus. There is no agreed danger to children angle. The student is conforming to Congress’ language, not advocating defying it. The whole issue has nothing to do with contributing to youth delinquency or morals, as sex and drug misbehavior has traditionally been regarded.

I think the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case can be distinguished. I think that precedent should only apply to issues where there is some historical social consensus the subject matter involves juvenile delinquency in some matter. I just don’t think that’s true of this case.

So I think that in this case, at the very least the student needs notice that this speech is considered disruptive. I also think the courts have to police the boundaries with some skepticism, so that “disruptive speech” doesn’t become the equivalent to “speech I disagree with” or “speech someone complained about.” That would make what was supposed to.be a narrow-ish exception, even if traditionally broader than First Amendment purists today might like, completely swallow the Tinker rule.

But because I think the school-discretion cases, which schools have tended to win, suggests it’s completely clear whether a school can prohibit something like this or not if adequate notice is given, courts might want to stop at the lack of notice issue and leave the underlying First Amendment issue to be decided some other day.

[ReaderY]

Not completely clear.

[ReaderY]

In addition, the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case suggests the school and teacher here might get qualified immunity. The limitation on the applicability of that case I proposed above is at this point just a proposal. It is far from clearly established. One could argue the case should be interpreted expansively and gives schools broad powers to determine for themselves what conduct they consider offensive.

[Randal]

The vice principal maybe, but I don't think school districts can get qualified immunity.

Anyway, the Bong Hits 4 Jesus decision: Egregiously Wrong! It's an outlier that I don't think you should read this much into.

[Rossami]

re: "I don’t think school districts can get qualified immunity"

That would be false. Under current precedents, any government agent can get qualified immunity. There are multiple cases so far where school bureaucrats explicitly have. It's unjust and completely divorced from the alleged justification for QI but it is nevertheless the case.

[Randal]

School bureaucrats, yes. But not school districts.

[Moderation4ever]

I cannot help but wonder if this is one of the effects of a "zero tolerance policies". I have seen cases of this happening in Madison where there is no nuance allowed and kids get suspended in really meritless cases.

School administrators don't want to be accused of favoritism, so they set no tolerance policies that end up like this case. The lesson for administrators is there is no escaping the responsibility to make decision and deal with the consequences.

[CharlieMack]

I wonder if the student who threatened to fight him was punished.