-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2024 Smog Awards!
Fascism in your schools
- Thread starter Bleach
- Start date
I'm pretty sure I've never met a Nazi in all of my junior high, high school, and college career.
Though I hail from a racist town, so I've met plenty of people whose parents were in the KKK. Most of them also realized how fucking stupid that was and were friends with the token asians and token black in the school anyway, so yeah.
Though I hail from a racist town, so I've met plenty of people whose parents were in the KKK. Most of them also realized how fucking stupid that was and were friends with the token asians and token black in the school anyway, so yeah.
In my previous school there were certain groups of kids that thought they were pretty damn cool by acting like a nazi. They used to greet each other with the hitler greeting and they had racist symbols drawn on their backpacks. The thing I find most worrying in all of it is that the school staff didn´t do anything about it at all.
One of my best friends was that kind of kid, then after him went many others painting the symbols on the walls and stuff but now everything turned good. There are no more left. Though still some stupid children try acting like them.
Well if it was public school, that's a little more understandable that the staff/administration did nothing about it. Is it a public school?
Do you guys even know what fascism is? It's a doctrine defined by unwavering support for the government, usually along the lines of nationalism or culture. Nazism is slightly different in that it is usually a race-based ideology.
I kind of wish the topic creator were a bit more specific - I mean, my assumption is that he just means that his school has dumb and arbitrary rules, not that there is any real fascism going on lol
I kind of wish the topic creator were a bit more specific - I mean, my assumption is that he just means that his school has dumb and arbitrary rules, not that there is any real fascism going on lol
yeah, im fairly certain this is just about things like WELL MY MOM WOULDNT LET ME GO SKATEBOARDING LAST NIGHT SO I WAS LIKE FUCK YOU HITLER AND I WENT ANYWAYS
remember, teen angst =/= being oppressed by fascism
"Kill capitalism before it kills the planet" seems to be a common phase, I see on one of our side walks.
I think it's more on the lines of communism, but capitalism is one of facism's enemies, so who the hell knows.
I think it's more on the lines of communism, but capitalism is one of facism's enemies, so who the hell knows.
I live in the Netherlands and the difference between public and private schools is very small here. I guess that you can state that most schools here are like the public schools are in America. Nevertheless there are a lot of schools in the Netherlands that have taken actions against expressions of racism. i.e. prohibit students from wearing lonsdale clothes on school ground. (clothes of the lonsdale brand are often associated with racism here.)
To clarify, Misty is an absolute genius. At my high school, which i haven't seen in two years, there are some very 1984ish things happening. The school is searching student's facebook, myspace, and even youtube accounts and punishing them for their behavior outside of. The students all have to wear lanyards now and the school is even considering phone taps. One student was expeled because the school found a video he made on youtube where he was in the shower with a knife and fake blood. I will post more later if people agree that this is a complete breach of people's civil liberties.
What rule was the person breaking when they got expelled for a youtube video?
BTW schools (or at least ones in the US) can't punish for things outside of the school unless those things will disrupt the function of the school.
I don't think he's talking about neo-nazis, so much as he is talking about school policies.
This is an extremely hot-button issue for me, and I've actually gotten suspended for pointing out the blatant idiocy of the system. We have security cameras, obviously, but TBH i think that's fine. The problem starts with what the schoolboard has dubbed "Zero Tolerance".
This theory is very much similar to the "Broken Window" theory. Those vaguely familiar with US history should know what this is, and those slightly more familiar with US history should know how much of a travesty it turned out to be in practice. For those of you who know nothing about it, I'll explain:
The broken window theory can basically be surmised as such:
When someone sees a building with broken windows, graffiti all over, etc., they are more inclined to break more windows and vandalize it further. This much, at least, is a pretty commonly accepted psychological concept, as far as I know. If you fix all the windows when they're broken, people will be less inclined to break more windows. Sure, seems to make sense. The problem is when you apply this to law enforcement.
If we crack down on small crimes, people will be less inclined to commit bigger crimes. This is the policy that was instituted by Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 1993, and though this decision is often praised, and glossed over with statistics, there is enough anecdotal evidence to cause one to truly question the theory's validity in a free country. I am, of course, referring to the various graffiti writers, drug users, etc. who were beaten to death by police officers, all in the name of the "Broken Window Theory".
The reason I cite this is because it is essentially the same principle as the school's "Zero Tolerance". Small offenses are met with hugely disproportionate punishments. However, this isn't even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the school can do whatever they want to students! Unlike any valid Justice system, they don't need evidence or proper procedure. One man, quite literally, acts as judge, jury and executioner; and you can not say that this is just. This particular example is a little bit fucked, but it illustrates my point perfectly:
Okay, so there's John and Sally, and Me. I'm a mutual friend of John and Sally, and they get into a casual relationship. Actually, I'm a friend of John and more of just an acquaintance of Sally, but whatever. John doesn't really talk much about it, but, much to my chagrin, Sally does. She tells me in vivid detail what they are doing in bed, etc. etc. The reason I state this will become clear shortly. John gets a girlfriend, and for obvious reasons, no longer wants to be in a sexual relationship with Sally. They get into a big argument, and now the whole thing is really awkward. I'm still chill with John, so I don't talk to Sally much anymore.
One day, John comes up to me and tells me that Sally has told the school's Vice Principal that John raped her, and he is now in deep shit. There's a big ordeal, and John brings me, and several other friends with whom Sally had shared the details of their sexual encounters. We all testify basically the same thing: they were in a casual relationship and were having consensual sex.
Vice Principal doesn't give a shit. Tells John that if he doesn't leave the school of his own free will, he will be expelled and criminally charged. Me and several of my friends are suspended for a day, for no apparent reason.
Of course, there's no way of proving conclusively whether or not Sally was, in fact, violated, but if you knew John and Sally, I'm fairly sure you'd come to the same conclusion I did. Of course, that's entirely irrelevant. The point is that one kid was kicked out of school, and several more were suspended because of one person's testimony, weighed against the matching alibis of the rest of us. This is the type of problem that comes up when you have a system like the TDSB's. They're honestly not concerned with punishing people for what they've done, just punishing people in general.
Another example is much simpler, and a bit stupider, but whatever.
My friend and I want to test the system to confirm our hypothesis of "mutually assured destruction". Basically, if someone doesn't like you, they can get you suspended, no matter what you do. So we did as follows. My friend went into the office, and claimed that I had beaten him over lunch. I insist that I didn't touch him, and there's a little bit of a dispute. In the end, we are both suspended for one day. He provoked me, and I attacked him, apparently.
It just... I dunno. It angers me. It honestly does.
This is an extremely hot-button issue for me, and I've actually gotten suspended for pointing out the blatant idiocy of the system. We have security cameras, obviously, but TBH i think that's fine. The problem starts with what the schoolboard has dubbed "Zero Tolerance".
This theory is very much similar to the "Broken Window" theory. Those vaguely familiar with US history should know what this is, and those slightly more familiar with US history should know how much of a travesty it turned out to be in practice. For those of you who know nothing about it, I'll explain:
The broken window theory can basically be surmised as such:
When someone sees a building with broken windows, graffiti all over, etc., they are more inclined to break more windows and vandalize it further. This much, at least, is a pretty commonly accepted psychological concept, as far as I know. If you fix all the windows when they're broken, people will be less inclined to break more windows. Sure, seems to make sense. The problem is when you apply this to law enforcement.
If we crack down on small crimes, people will be less inclined to commit bigger crimes. This is the policy that was instituted by Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 1993, and though this decision is often praised, and glossed over with statistics, there is enough anecdotal evidence to cause one to truly question the theory's validity in a free country. I am, of course, referring to the various graffiti writers, drug users, etc. who were beaten to death by police officers, all in the name of the "Broken Window Theory".
The reason I cite this is because it is essentially the same principle as the school's "Zero Tolerance". Small offenses are met with hugely disproportionate punishments. However, this isn't even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the school can do whatever they want to students! Unlike any valid Justice system, they don't need evidence or proper procedure. One man, quite literally, acts as judge, jury and executioner; and you can not say that this is just. This particular example is a little bit fucked, but it illustrates my point perfectly:
Okay, so there's John and Sally, and Me. I'm a mutual friend of John and Sally, and they get into a casual relationship. Actually, I'm a friend of John and more of just an acquaintance of Sally, but whatever. John doesn't really talk much about it, but, much to my chagrin, Sally does. She tells me in vivid detail what they are doing in bed, etc. etc. The reason I state this will become clear shortly. John gets a girlfriend, and for obvious reasons, no longer wants to be in a sexual relationship with Sally. They get into a big argument, and now the whole thing is really awkward. I'm still chill with John, so I don't talk to Sally much anymore.
One day, John comes up to me and tells me that Sally has told the school's Vice Principal that John raped her, and he is now in deep shit. There's a big ordeal, and John brings me, and several other friends with whom Sally had shared the details of their sexual encounters. We all testify basically the same thing: they were in a casual relationship and were having consensual sex.
Vice Principal doesn't give a shit. Tells John that if he doesn't leave the school of his own free will, he will be expelled and criminally charged. Me and several of my friends are suspended for a day, for no apparent reason.
Of course, there's no way of proving conclusively whether or not Sally was, in fact, violated, but if you knew John and Sally, I'm fairly sure you'd come to the same conclusion I did. Of course, that's entirely irrelevant. The point is that one kid was kicked out of school, and several more were suspended because of one person's testimony, weighed against the matching alibis of the rest of us. This is the type of problem that comes up when you have a system like the TDSB's. They're honestly not concerned with punishing people for what they've done, just punishing people in general.
Another example is much simpler, and a bit stupider, but whatever.
My friend and I want to test the system to confirm our hypothesis of "mutually assured destruction". Basically, if someone doesn't like you, they can get you suspended, no matter what you do. So we did as follows. My friend went into the office, and claimed that I had beaten him over lunch. I insist that I didn't touch him, and there's a little bit of a dispute. In the end, we are both suspended for one day. He provoked me, and I attacked him, apparently.
It just... I dunno. It angers me. It honestly does.
Well I have seen stuff similar to that. Although the school cannot punish the student directly so they usually try and get the parents to punish the child. Some kid on his face book wrote that he hated the school and was told to take it down. However the parents thought that it was his right to say it outside of school and the school couldn't do jack about it.
However this isnt the case at work. Now every workplace in the U.S. scans all your youtube videos, facebooks, and myspaces. Which in my opinion does violate civil liberties.
Also in the U.S. schools would never be allowed to phone tap.
Also to Basics: Your example was very similar to the Duke lacrosse players. Look it up online and you will see that your example is identical. However several millions of dollars later and hours in court and the Duke lacrosse players got off innocent and the prosecutor was arrested for withholding evidence that would have proved the players unarguably innocent.
I can speak a bit here on this as well as Zero Tolerance is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen(not on the par with whoever thought up to detonate a nuke inside the eye of a hurricane). But there were times it needs to be used as they have an interest in making schools a safe place to learn.
That said, I graduated over 8 years ago so I don't care what is going in the schools anymore. I care what is going on out here.
That said, I graduated over 8 years ago so I don't care what is going in the schools anymore. I care what is going on out here.
Justice Fortas in Tinker v. Des Moines School District 1969.
"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in opinions by Mr. Justice McReynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents States from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. Statutes to this effect, the Court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. [note 2] See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [507] (1925); West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (concurring opinion); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, ante, p. 97 (1968)."
Tl;dr? Because of the 14th Amendment and its equal protection clause, students have 1st Amendment Rights. I also don't see why they wouldn't stretch it to 4th in limited circumstances (concerning drug testing for non-athletes because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy).
"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in opinions by Mr. Justice McReynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents States from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. Statutes to this effect, the Court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. [note 2] See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [507] (1925); West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (concurring opinion); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, ante, p. 97 (1968)."
Tl;dr? Because of the 14th Amendment and its equal protection clause, students have 1st Amendment Rights. I also don't see why they wouldn't stretch it to 4th in limited circumstances (concerning drug testing for non-athletes because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy).
You're citing a 30-year-old court ruling? Tinker has been altered since then. One of the most notable case is Hazelwood, where the school could prohibit things that they paid for. So the school newspaper (the bone of contention), they could order the students to not publish so-and-so because they were paying for it.
Tinker was all I could remember when SCOTUS gave a definitive stance that schools shouldn't limit all civil rights of students and teachers.
Let's remember though, if things got egregious, they'd cite Tinker for precedent because Fortas' comment is widely considered one of the historic statements of the court.
Any rate, it would be better for schools to not do these things because the vested interest in controlling every aspect of student life does not in my view trump the interest of teaching students their constitutional rights.
Well my school is pretty strict. It all started last year when two of my friends were in the gym locker room, when these four other kids start grillin them and started saying shit. Well my friends didn't feel like taking it and my two friends beat the shit out of the 4 other kids. So you know not a big deal what ever its a fight. And one of the 4 kids had a knife on him, but luckly he was the first one they knocked out. But here is the catch, the 4 kids that my two friends beat up all were Mexican. So then the Mexican's go right away hate crime. They did it because of my ethnic background. They take the kids word who got their asses kicked when they were the ones who started the fight. My two friends were fucked and both kicked out of school for a year. Oh and here is the best part about one this "hate crime" one of my friends in the fight is half mexican. So after this fight my school goes into lock down and every little thing done wrong would be punished. Teachers were forced to lock the doors once class started and students would be swept up waiting outside their doors and all get refferals. Students were also not allowed to wear backpacks which only added to the number of students late to class.
Now things have lightened up a bit. But they are soon doing something similar to bleach's school with the lanyards that will be scanned before you can enter the lunch room or the gym locker rooms. And if your schedule does not match up your not allowed in. But lucky for me i won't be in the school when the implement this next year.
Now things have lightened up a bit. But they are soon doing something similar to bleach's school with the lanyards that will be scanned before you can enter the lunch room or the gym locker rooms. And if your schedule does not match up your not allowed in. But lucky for me i won't be in the school when the implement this next year.
your a chav if you want to wear lonsdale anyway. also explain how its related with racism?
yeah a kid in our school was suspended for editing his profile on facebook to say that he had a realtionship with a teacher at school. perhaps this is a good exception?
Well that I can understand. People have been sued over spreading malicious lies over the internet, so a suspension was actually not that bad.
Especially in today's world nobody should joke about having sex with their teacher.
I mean there have been a few court cases over it and it never ends well. Except in that one case where the teacher divorced her current husband and then married the student when she got out of prison.
Especially in today's world nobody should joke about having sex with their teacher.
I mean there have been a few court cases over it and it never ends well. Except in that one case where the teacher divorced her current husband and then married the student when she got out of prison.
yeah that is rough, but another thing is that the school actually warned us in an assembly not to post stuff about other people online...perhaps this is going to far idk.