Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Majestyk · 03-13-2003, 12:40 PM

Close, SM, but not quite.

There are a number of issues that could not be used by the school to justify a student being denied inclusion on the basketball team. I will not classify every possible scenario which qualifies but as example; ideology, religion, race, and sexual orientation are not issues that the school can take into consideration in determining who may or may not be included in extra-curricular activities.

Sorry if, I'm not clear here but, trying to prepare a post whille at work can affect my flow of thought.

ybnormal · 03-13-2003, 12:43 PM

She has the right to do anything she has the balls to do. This forced conformity by the majority exposes the hypocrisy of a ban on cloning. In large groups, individual humans are a sad lot.

Majestyk · 03-13-2003, 12:52 PM

So during the playing of the National Anthem, she has the right to walk to the middle of the court, urinate on the floor, and wipe herself with an American flag?

*btw* this is a good example as to why I am sometimes "verbose"

Philosoft · 03-13-2003, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Majestyk
Basketball is an extra-curricular activity, not considered to be a part of the education that is mandated by law for the school to provide or the student to acquire. Hence it is not subject to the same rules of inclusion that govern the school�s primary function.

Not entirely true. At least in our county, registered home-school children are entitled to try out for, and participate on, any sports team fielded by the school that represents their district. This was decided by some case or other not too long ago. I can look it up if you wish.

Quote:

Although there are a number of exceptions to the team administrator�s right of exclusion, willful disruption of or refusal to participate in a legitimate pre-game activity is not amongst them.

Are you certain of this? Is there any case law that supports your assertion.

03-13-2003, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Basketball is an extra-curricular activity, not considered to be a part of the education that is mandated by law for the school to provide or the student to acquire. Hence it is not subject to the same rules of inclusion that govern the school�s primary function. The exclusionary nature of the activity has been established and accepted to include denial of participation for reasons other than the ability to perform in the actual event. Although there are a number of exceptions to the team administrator�s right of exclusion, willful disruption of or refusal to participate in a legitimate pre-game activity is not amongst them.

Furthermore, the refusal to participate in the pre-event activity would reasonably include refusal to participate in the activity to which the event was associated. The school being an extension of the government that is being protested, the National Anthem is recognition of that association. It would not seem reasonable that one could protest thru refusal to recognize one portion of the event and expect to participate in the other. Such desire to participate in an activity, that was sponsored by the entity under protest, would at the very least indicate a rather shallow commitment to the issue being protested.

Smith has every right to protest. She should also protest the education she has received so far for its failure to teach her the difference between the current government administration and the American flag, as she seems to be able to separate the pre-game activities from the game itself.

Firstly, lets establish the fact that the school supports her. I won't even go into that because it totally invalidates your argument, when I want to refute it anyway, because its dangerous.

Ok, now, assuming the school doesn't like her, can you provide any supreme court case precdent for what you just said?

Lets take Tinker vs. Des Moines School District for example. Des Moines warned and then suspended, if the students refuse to remove it, any students wearing the anti-war politcal armband to school, on the grounds that it may cause controversy and distract from the educational atmosphere of the school. So right there we have precedent that free speech still aplies to minors in school.

Now, West Virginia State Board vs. Barnette said that the government cannot force standing for the pledge of allegiance.

Two cases, both establishing unquestionable precedent that this girl has the right to not stand up for the national anthem.

Majestyk · 03-14-2003, 08:45 AM

Does the school choosing not to exercise its right, negate that right? No. Nor does it invalidate my argument. It does however, enforce my statement that the school is failing to teach her the difference between an administraion and a government.

Your use of the term "unquestionable" is questionable.

In Tinker v. Des Moines, the issue was suspension. A student may be prohibited from extra-currilular activities without suffering suspension. Therefore, the case does not set a direct precedent.

In WV v. Barnette, is not relevant for the same reason as Tinker with the added difference of the distinction between the "Pledge" and the "Anthem".

So unless there is wording in the decisions of these cases that extends their precedent beyond the circumstances of the individual cases then, their application in this situation is null.

Just to throw a little variance on the perspective, what kind of support do we suspect the school would show if, Smith's actions had been taking in protest to the governments's war on drugs?

Bumble Bee Tuna · 03-14-2003, 09:03 PM

I interpreted your argument as saying that the player did not have the right to freely make her protest because of all the people who "paid to see the game" that disagreed with her. It seemed to me like you were saying that she should be kicked out if people disagree with her and complain. It seemed to ignore the fact that everyone else is making a political statement, and people who disagree with that statement also paid to see the game.

I honestly can't tell what you're arguing, though, looking back.

-B

Feather · 03-15-2003, 08:28 AM

I can see why, as I haven't been totally clear, I suppose.

When I read the linked article and some few posts into the thread, my general impression was that just the opposite argument you have attributed to me was being made. That is, my impression was that certain persons were arguing that the crowd, coach, teammates, and certain others had no right to disagree with Smith and that in fact they had no right to actively disagree with here by complaining to the coach (for example).

The sentiment I was picking up was that Smith is courageous and noble for "daring" to show her political views in such an open manner, but that the others who may happen to have disagreed with here were craven sheep, conforming to the status quo as dictated by public sentiment. It seemed outrageously hypocritical to hold one person up as a paragon of political protest virtue whilst singling others out as spineless, mean spiritied hypocrites when both parties were doing exactly the same thing--namely expressing their political views.

What really got me riled was the suggestion (perhaps merely perceived by me) that the people disagreeing with Smith had no right to object to her protest. My opposition stems from the same source your posts seem to come from--I don't believe either party is "more right" than the other, and to me to suggest one is smacks of blind hypocrisy.

Hopefully that's not terribly more confusing than earlier posts by yours truly.

Shadowy Man · 03-15-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather

What really got me riled was the suggestion (perhaps merely perceived by me) that the people disagreeing with Smith had no right to object to her protest. My opposition stems from the same source your posts seem to come from--I don't believe either party is "more right" than the other, and to me to suggest one is smacks of blind hypocrisy.

I certainly believe that the others have the right to object to her protest. But I don't agree that they have the right to kick her off the team.

Majestyk · 03-15-2003, 10:38 AM

So, why do "they" have a right to kick her off the team if, she refuses to submit a urine sample upon demand?

03-14-2003, 09:03 PM	#77
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	Feather- I interpreted your argument as saying that the player did not have the right to freely make her protest because of all the people who "paid to see the game" that disagreed with her. It seemed to me like you were saying that she should be kicked out if people disagree with her and complain. It seemed to ignore the fact that everyone else is making a political statement, and people who disagree with that statement also paid to see the game. I honestly can't tell what you're arguing, though, looking back. -B

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-13-2003, 12:40 PM	#71
Majestyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 2,846	Close, SM, but not quite. There are a number of issues that could not be used by the school to justify a student being denied inclusion on the basketball team. I will not classify every possible scenario which qualifies but as example; ideology, religion, race, and sexual orientation are not issues that the school can take into consideration in determining who may or may not be included in extra-curricular activities. Sorry if, I'm not clear here but, trying to prepare a post whille at work can affect my flow of thought.

03-13-2003, 12:43 PM	#72
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	She has the right to do anything she has the balls to do. This forced conformity by the majority exposes the hypocrisy of a ban on cloning. In large groups, individual humans are a sad lot.

03-13-2003, 12:52 PM	#73
Majestyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 2,846	So during the playing of the National Anthem, she has the right to walk to the middle of the court, urinate on the floor, and wipe herself with an American flag? btw this is a good example as to why I am sometimes "verbose"

03-14-2003, 08:45 AM	#76
Majestyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 2,846	Does the school choosing not to exercise its right, negate that right? No. Nor does it invalidate my argument. It does however, enforce my statement that the school is failing to teach her the difference between an administraion and a government. Your use of the term "unquestionable" is questionable. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the issue was suspension. A student may be prohibited from extra-currilular activities without suffering suspension. Therefore, the case does not set a direct precedent. In WV v. Barnette, is not relevant for the same reason as Tinker with the added difference of the distinction between the "Pledge" and the "Anthem". So unless there is wording in the decisions of these cases that extends their precedent beyond the circumstances of the individual cases then, their application in this situation is null. Just to throw a little variance on the perspective, what kind of support do we suspect the school would show if, Smith's actions had been taking in protest to the governments's war on drugs?

03-15-2003, 08:28 AM	#78
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	I can see why, as I haven't been totally clear, I suppose. When I read the linked article and some few posts into the thread, my general impression was that just the opposite argument you have attributed to me was being made. That is, my impression was that certain persons were arguing that the crowd, coach, teammates, and certain others had no right to disagree with Smith and that in fact they had no right to actively disagree with here by complaining to the coach (for example). The sentiment I was picking up was that Smith is courageous and noble for "daring" to show her political views in such an open manner, but that the others who may happen to have disagreed with here were craven sheep, conforming to the status quo as dictated by public sentiment. It seemed outrageously hypocritical to hold one person up as a paragon of political protest virtue whilst singling others out as spineless, mean spiritied hypocrites when both parties were doing exactly the same thing--namely expressing their political views. What really got me riled was the suggestion (perhaps merely perceived by me) that the people disagreeing with Smith had no right to object to her protest. My opposition stems from the same source your posts seem to come from--I don't believe either party is "more right" than the other, and to me to suggest one is smacks of blind hypocrisy. Hopefully that's not terribly more confusing than earlier posts by yours truly.

03-15-2003, 10:38 AM	#80
Majestyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 2,846	So, why do "they" have a right to kick her off the team if, she refuses to submit a urine sample upon demand?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.