Text of the Speech that Got DHS Student Suspended

Share:
The following is the text of the speech that got the student suspended for three days. Remember this was approved. Judge for yourself…

Most of the time when people talk about discrimination at school it usually involves students harassing another student, which I too have faced, but these incidents don’t just happen to students. When I was asked to tell a story about being pointed out for my religion, Islam, the first thing that came to me was what a teacher on our own campus had done.

Earlier this year one of my teachers agreed with our class that we could bring posters if they were appropriate. I decided to bring in a Malcolm X poster with the quote, “We declare our right on this earth to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.”

I hung up the poster with her agreement and everything was fine. The next day I came into class and found the poster was gone. I went to my teacher and asked for the poster back. Instead she wanted me to sit down and said she was going to make an announcement to the class.

So class began and she told us that she had been thinking all night about the poster and the quote. She told us that that quote represents terrorism. That terrorists who kill, rape and shoot everyday stand by that quote and will do anything to see that come to existence.

I was in shock. I was angry. I was even hurt. I couldn’t believe the lack of judgment, poor choice of words and frankly the ignorance.

How could one of our own DHS teachers believe in this? It was not necessary for her to call me out in front of the whole class, and single me out. She was telling us that the poster I brought in represents terrorism.

I am not calling that teacher a bigot or anything, but what I’m saying is that we must watch what we say. We stand by our words. Our words express ourselves and show what we believe and think. So if you go up to an Arab and call him a terrorist, or a black man and call him the N-word, you’re expressing your beliefs even if it’s a joke.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

92 thoughts on “Text of the Speech that Got DHS Student Suspended”

  1. Dave Hart

    Truly jaw-dropping stuff in the city of all things right and relevant and the home of a prominent University dedicated to knowledge and discovery.

    (1) A young, inexperienced (white) female teacher naively opens the door for students to respectfully express what they think is important regarding human rights during a week devoted to this issue.

    (2) The teacher initially displays a poster from student “Joe” referencing quotes from Malcolm X, then for reasons we don’t yet know (pressure from other students or teachers?) has second thoughts and removes the poster before school the next day presumably over the phrase “by any means necessary” that she judged to be a “terrorist” reference. An experienced teacher would seize on this as an opportunity for a teaching moment. Anyone who had read the “Autobiography of Malcolm X” would certainly understand this part of the phrase as specifically NOT a terrorist expression.

    (3) The teacher makes the issue “public” in class the next day in front of all the students, not only missing the opportunity to discuss what this quote means, but negating the underlying and positive message of the student. She thus singles out the student, if not by name, and thereby denies the legitimacy of the message of his poster and, by extension his opinions and feelings. She made it personal. No other posters were removed. The message delivered to the class: “I’m O.K, and everyone else is O.K., but you’re not O.K”.

    (4) Several weeks later, speeches are to be given at a school wide assembly. “Joe” submits his speech which is approved based on content that is factually altered to draw attention away from the earlier classroom event at DHS and the classroom teacher described above.

    (5) In conformance with the teachings of the Koran and the Bible about not bearing false witness, he proceeded to tell the truth at the assembly while not specifically naming the teacher.

    (6) Everyone at DHS knows who “Joe” is and everyone knows who the teacher is.

    (7) The teacher left the assembly in tears. Knowing several experienced teachers, I can say that none of the teachers I know would be brought to tears because they were criticized for doing what they think is right in the classroom. What this teacher did was wrong and she is probably sorry for it…that should make any decent person cry. Her only crime is inexperience.

    (8) DHS Administration should have helped this teacher out several weeks back during the poster incident, but they didn’t.

    (9) One other student was suspended for deviating from her speech during the assembly. However, she was suspended only for the rest of the day for using the word “hot ass” instead of the scripted “hottie”.

    (10) “Joe” was suspended for three days. Not for use of language but for telling the truth about how he felt his rights were violated. Equal time for equal crime?

    “Joe” has guts and courage. He has the ability to see the big picture and I think students like him give me hope. I wish the DHS administration and the School Board would look to him for leadership on this kind of issue.

    For Rich’s reference, my source is a white, non-Islamic, female high school senior not involved in any fights with the authorities who was at the assembly and knows all the parties involved. She is also unimpressed with the DHS administration.

  2. Dave Hart

    Truly jaw-dropping stuff in the city of all things right and relevant and the home of a prominent University dedicated to knowledge and discovery.

    (1) A young, inexperienced (white) female teacher naively opens the door for students to respectfully express what they think is important regarding human rights during a week devoted to this issue.

    (2) The teacher initially displays a poster from student “Joe” referencing quotes from Malcolm X, then for reasons we don’t yet know (pressure from other students or teachers?) has second thoughts and removes the poster before school the next day presumably over the phrase “by any means necessary” that she judged to be a “terrorist” reference. An experienced teacher would seize on this as an opportunity for a teaching moment. Anyone who had read the “Autobiography of Malcolm X” would certainly understand this part of the phrase as specifically NOT a terrorist expression.

    (3) The teacher makes the issue “public” in class the next day in front of all the students, not only missing the opportunity to discuss what this quote means, but negating the underlying and positive message of the student. She thus singles out the student, if not by name, and thereby denies the legitimacy of the message of his poster and, by extension his opinions and feelings. She made it personal. No other posters were removed. The message delivered to the class: “I’m O.K, and everyone else is O.K., but you’re not O.K”.

    (4) Several weeks later, speeches are to be given at a school wide assembly. “Joe” submits his speech which is approved based on content that is factually altered to draw attention away from the earlier classroom event at DHS and the classroom teacher described above.

    (5) In conformance with the teachings of the Koran and the Bible about not bearing false witness, he proceeded to tell the truth at the assembly while not specifically naming the teacher.

    (6) Everyone at DHS knows who “Joe” is and everyone knows who the teacher is.

    (7) The teacher left the assembly in tears. Knowing several experienced teachers, I can say that none of the teachers I know would be brought to tears because they were criticized for doing what they think is right in the classroom. What this teacher did was wrong and she is probably sorry for it…that should make any decent person cry. Her only crime is inexperience.

    (8) DHS Administration should have helped this teacher out several weeks back during the poster incident, but they didn’t.

    (9) One other student was suspended for deviating from her speech during the assembly. However, she was suspended only for the rest of the day for using the word “hot ass” instead of the scripted “hottie”.

    (10) “Joe” was suspended for three days. Not for use of language but for telling the truth about how he felt his rights were violated. Equal time for equal crime?

    “Joe” has guts and courage. He has the ability to see the big picture and I think students like him give me hope. I wish the DHS administration and the School Board would look to him for leadership on this kind of issue.

    For Rich’s reference, my source is a white, non-Islamic, female high school senior not involved in any fights with the authorities who was at the assembly and knows all the parties involved. She is also unimpressed with the DHS administration.

  3. Dave Hart

    Truly jaw-dropping stuff in the city of all things right and relevant and the home of a prominent University dedicated to knowledge and discovery.

    (1) A young, inexperienced (white) female teacher naively opens the door for students to respectfully express what they think is important regarding human rights during a week devoted to this issue.

    (2) The teacher initially displays a poster from student “Joe” referencing quotes from Malcolm X, then for reasons we don’t yet know (pressure from other students or teachers?) has second thoughts and removes the poster before school the next day presumably over the phrase “by any means necessary” that she judged to be a “terrorist” reference. An experienced teacher would seize on this as an opportunity for a teaching moment. Anyone who had read the “Autobiography of Malcolm X” would certainly understand this part of the phrase as specifically NOT a terrorist expression.

    (3) The teacher makes the issue “public” in class the next day in front of all the students, not only missing the opportunity to discuss what this quote means, but negating the underlying and positive message of the student. She thus singles out the student, if not by name, and thereby denies the legitimacy of the message of his poster and, by extension his opinions and feelings. She made it personal. No other posters were removed. The message delivered to the class: “I’m O.K, and everyone else is O.K., but you’re not O.K”.

    (4) Several weeks later, speeches are to be given at a school wide assembly. “Joe” submits his speech which is approved based on content that is factually altered to draw attention away from the earlier classroom event at DHS and the classroom teacher described above.

    (5) In conformance with the teachings of the Koran and the Bible about not bearing false witness, he proceeded to tell the truth at the assembly while not specifically naming the teacher.

    (6) Everyone at DHS knows who “Joe” is and everyone knows who the teacher is.

    (7) The teacher left the assembly in tears. Knowing several experienced teachers, I can say that none of the teachers I know would be brought to tears because they were criticized for doing what they think is right in the classroom. What this teacher did was wrong and she is probably sorry for it…that should make any decent person cry. Her only crime is inexperience.

    (8) DHS Administration should have helped this teacher out several weeks back during the poster incident, but they didn’t.

    (9) One other student was suspended for deviating from her speech during the assembly. However, she was suspended only for the rest of the day for using the word “hot ass” instead of the scripted “hottie”.

    (10) “Joe” was suspended for three days. Not for use of language but for telling the truth about how he felt his rights were violated. Equal time for equal crime?

    “Joe” has guts and courage. He has the ability to see the big picture and I think students like him give me hope. I wish the DHS administration and the School Board would look to him for leadership on this kind of issue.

    For Rich’s reference, my source is a white, non-Islamic, female high school senior not involved in any fights with the authorities who was at the assembly and knows all the parties involved. She is also unimpressed with the DHS administration.

  4. Dave Hart

    Truly jaw-dropping stuff in the city of all things right and relevant and the home of a prominent University dedicated to knowledge and discovery.

    (1) A young, inexperienced (white) female teacher naively opens the door for students to respectfully express what they think is important regarding human rights during a week devoted to this issue.

    (2) The teacher initially displays a poster from student “Joe” referencing quotes from Malcolm X, then for reasons we don’t yet know (pressure from other students or teachers?) has second thoughts and removes the poster before school the next day presumably over the phrase “by any means necessary” that she judged to be a “terrorist” reference. An experienced teacher would seize on this as an opportunity for a teaching moment. Anyone who had read the “Autobiography of Malcolm X” would certainly understand this part of the phrase as specifically NOT a terrorist expression.

    (3) The teacher makes the issue “public” in class the next day in front of all the students, not only missing the opportunity to discuss what this quote means, but negating the underlying and positive message of the student. She thus singles out the student, if not by name, and thereby denies the legitimacy of the message of his poster and, by extension his opinions and feelings. She made it personal. No other posters were removed. The message delivered to the class: “I’m O.K, and everyone else is O.K., but you’re not O.K”.

    (4) Several weeks later, speeches are to be given at a school wide assembly. “Joe” submits his speech which is approved based on content that is factually altered to draw attention away from the earlier classroom event at DHS and the classroom teacher described above.

    (5) In conformance with the teachings of the Koran and the Bible about not bearing false witness, he proceeded to tell the truth at the assembly while not specifically naming the teacher.

    (6) Everyone at DHS knows who “Joe” is and everyone knows who the teacher is.

    (7) The teacher left the assembly in tears. Knowing several experienced teachers, I can say that none of the teachers I know would be brought to tears because they were criticized for doing what they think is right in the classroom. What this teacher did was wrong and she is probably sorry for it…that should make any decent person cry. Her only crime is inexperience.

    (8) DHS Administration should have helped this teacher out several weeks back during the poster incident, but they didn’t.

    (9) One other student was suspended for deviating from her speech during the assembly. However, she was suspended only for the rest of the day for using the word “hot ass” instead of the scripted “hottie”.

    (10) “Joe” was suspended for three days. Not for use of language but for telling the truth about how he felt his rights were violated. Equal time for equal crime?

    “Joe” has guts and courage. He has the ability to see the big picture and I think students like him give me hope. I wish the DHS administration and the School Board would look to him for leadership on this kind of issue.

    For Rich’s reference, my source is a white, non-Islamic, female high school senior not involved in any fights with the authorities who was at the assembly and knows all the parties involved. She is also unimpressed with the DHS administration.

  5. Anonymous

    Let me get this straight:

    A DHS student is invited to bring a poster to his class and does so. The student brings in a Malcolm X poster which is hung up in the classroom with his teacher’s approval. But by the next day the teacher is having second thoughts, removes the poster and asserts publicly to the class that the Malcolm X poster the student brought in represents terrorism.

    Several weeks later, the same DHS student is invited to give a talk at a school assembly during the high school’s Human Relations Week and he does so. His speech is pre-approved by school administrators, but in the course of giving his talk he changes his speech discussing the incident mentioned above.

    The context of the student’s speech addresses his own experience and feelings about being the victim of discrimination based upon his political views as well as possibly his ethnicity and religion that he experienced at school and at the hands of his teacher. He does not mention his teacher by name.

    After delivering the speech, he is suspended for three days by the high school’s administration.

    What is going on here?

    Short of anyone truly threatening someone (either physically or verbally) or in some real way jeopardizing the function of the school, should not all topics and viewpoints be open for discussion and argument? Is that not what schools should in part be doing: i.e. creating critical thinkers who challenge one another’s beliefs and points of view

  6. Anonymous

    Let me get this straight:

    A DHS student is invited to bring a poster to his class and does so. The student brings in a Malcolm X poster which is hung up in the classroom with his teacher’s approval. But by the next day the teacher is having second thoughts, removes the poster and asserts publicly to the class that the Malcolm X poster the student brought in represents terrorism.

    Several weeks later, the same DHS student is invited to give a talk at a school assembly during the high school’s Human Relations Week and he does so. His speech is pre-approved by school administrators, but in the course of giving his talk he changes his speech discussing the incident mentioned above.

    The context of the student’s speech addresses his own experience and feelings about being the victim of discrimination based upon his political views as well as possibly his ethnicity and religion that he experienced at school and at the hands of his teacher. He does not mention his teacher by name.

    After delivering the speech, he is suspended for three days by the high school’s administration.

    What is going on here?

    Short of anyone truly threatening someone (either physically or verbally) or in some real way jeopardizing the function of the school, should not all topics and viewpoints be open for discussion and argument? Is that not what schools should in part be doing: i.e. creating critical thinkers who challenge one another’s beliefs and points of view

  7. Anonymous

    Let me get this straight:

    A DHS student is invited to bring a poster to his class and does so. The student brings in a Malcolm X poster which is hung up in the classroom with his teacher’s approval. But by the next day the teacher is having second thoughts, removes the poster and asserts publicly to the class that the Malcolm X poster the student brought in represents terrorism.

    Several weeks later, the same DHS student is invited to give a talk at a school assembly during the high school’s Human Relations Week and he does so. His speech is pre-approved by school administrators, but in the course of giving his talk he changes his speech discussing the incident mentioned above.

    The context of the student’s speech addresses his own experience and feelings about being the victim of discrimination based upon his political views as well as possibly his ethnicity and religion that he experienced at school and at the hands of his teacher. He does not mention his teacher by name.

    After delivering the speech, he is suspended for three days by the high school’s administration.

    What is going on here?

    Short of anyone truly threatening someone (either physically or verbally) or in some real way jeopardizing the function of the school, should not all topics and viewpoints be open for discussion and argument? Is that not what schools should in part be doing: i.e. creating critical thinkers who challenge one another’s beliefs and points of view

  8. Anonymous

    Let me get this straight:

    A DHS student is invited to bring a poster to his class and does so. The student brings in a Malcolm X poster which is hung up in the classroom with his teacher’s approval. But by the next day the teacher is having second thoughts, removes the poster and asserts publicly to the class that the Malcolm X poster the student brought in represents terrorism.

    Several weeks later, the same DHS student is invited to give a talk at a school assembly during the high school’s Human Relations Week and he does so. His speech is pre-approved by school administrators, but in the course of giving his talk he changes his speech discussing the incident mentioned above.

    The context of the student’s speech addresses his own experience and feelings about being the victim of discrimination based upon his political views as well as possibly his ethnicity and religion that he experienced at school and at the hands of his teacher. He does not mention his teacher by name.

    After delivering the speech, he is suspended for three days by the high school’s administration.

    What is going on here?

    Short of anyone truly threatening someone (either physically or verbally) or in some real way jeopardizing the function of the school, should not all topics and viewpoints be open for discussion and argument? Is that not what schools should in part be doing: i.e. creating critical thinkers who challenge one another’s beliefs and points of view

  9. davisite

    Remember the Wheels of Justice(young people invited to discuss their experiences while “bearing witness” in the Occupied Territories) incident at the HS several years ago?
    Censoring thought and discussion appears to be Davis HS’s method of shaping our future citizens. Presidential candidate Kucinich describes a resurgence of student political interest and activism on campuses he is visiting.. it’s long overdo and no thanks to those who now run our educational institutions.

  10. davisite

    Remember the Wheels of Justice(young people invited to discuss their experiences while “bearing witness” in the Occupied Territories) incident at the HS several years ago?
    Censoring thought and discussion appears to be Davis HS’s method of shaping our future citizens. Presidential candidate Kucinich describes a resurgence of student political interest and activism on campuses he is visiting.. it’s long overdo and no thanks to those who now run our educational institutions.

  11. davisite

    Remember the Wheels of Justice(young people invited to discuss their experiences while “bearing witness” in the Occupied Territories) incident at the HS several years ago?
    Censoring thought and discussion appears to be Davis HS’s method of shaping our future citizens. Presidential candidate Kucinich describes a resurgence of student political interest and activism on campuses he is visiting.. it’s long overdo and no thanks to those who now run our educational institutions.

  12. davisite

    Remember the Wheels of Justice(young people invited to discuss their experiences while “bearing witness” in the Occupied Territories) incident at the HS several years ago?
    Censoring thought and discussion appears to be Davis HS’s method of shaping our future citizens. Presidential candidate Kucinich describes a resurgence of student political interest and activism on campuses he is visiting.. it’s long overdo and no thanks to those who now run our educational institutions.

  13. Anonymous

    To the last Anonymous Commenter listed at 1:04 and Davisite: Your rendition of the facts is correct as I understand them. I have a daughter at DHS and I’ve spoken to the father of the suspended student. Breaking the story down to this elementary form exposes the absurdity of the situation. I couldn’t agree more with your conclusion.

    I think that the core issue here goes back to the Wheels of Justice incident at DHS years ago and the issues involving censorship, controversial issues, and the rights of students to academic freedom. Davis has attempted desperately to silence any form of descent. The Human Relations Commission was silenced and eventually gutted by the City Council for attempting to open a public discourse. I commend this blog for providing some small measure of the transparency Davis lacks.

  14. Anonymous

    To the last Anonymous Commenter listed at 1:04 and Davisite: Your rendition of the facts is correct as I understand them. I have a daughter at DHS and I’ve spoken to the father of the suspended student. Breaking the story down to this elementary form exposes the absurdity of the situation. I couldn’t agree more with your conclusion.

    I think that the core issue here goes back to the Wheels of Justice incident at DHS years ago and the issues involving censorship, controversial issues, and the rights of students to academic freedom. Davis has attempted desperately to silence any form of descent. The Human Relations Commission was silenced and eventually gutted by the City Council for attempting to open a public discourse. I commend this blog for providing some small measure of the transparency Davis lacks.

  15. Anonymous

    To the last Anonymous Commenter listed at 1:04 and Davisite: Your rendition of the facts is correct as I understand them. I have a daughter at DHS and I’ve spoken to the father of the suspended student. Breaking the story down to this elementary form exposes the absurdity of the situation. I couldn’t agree more with your conclusion.

    I think that the core issue here goes back to the Wheels of Justice incident at DHS years ago and the issues involving censorship, controversial issues, and the rights of students to academic freedom. Davis has attempted desperately to silence any form of descent. The Human Relations Commission was silenced and eventually gutted by the City Council for attempting to open a public discourse. I commend this blog for providing some small measure of the transparency Davis lacks.

  16. Anonymous

    To the last Anonymous Commenter listed at 1:04 and Davisite: Your rendition of the facts is correct as I understand them. I have a daughter at DHS and I’ve spoken to the father of the suspended student. Breaking the story down to this elementary form exposes the absurdity of the situation. I couldn’t agree more with your conclusion.

    I think that the core issue here goes back to the Wheels of Justice incident at DHS years ago and the issues involving censorship, controversial issues, and the rights of students to academic freedom. Davis has attempted desperately to silence any form of descent. The Human Relations Commission was silenced and eventually gutted by the City Council for attempting to open a public discourse. I commend this blog for providing some small measure of the transparency Davis lacks.

  17. Anonymous

    I must say,based on the theme of the speech it hard to understand why there was any punishment. Of course the student might have strayed from the text, but that is the risk the school takes when it asks a young person to speak before the student body.

    After all this was human relations week when diversity of opinion and discussion about different points of view should be promoted. It is absurd to ask students to speak about human relations issues then turn around an punish two of them because of disagreement over a few words.SAH

  18. Anonymous

    I must say,based on the theme of the speech it hard to understand why there was any punishment. Of course the student might have strayed from the text, but that is the risk the school takes when it asks a young person to speak before the student body.

    After all this was human relations week when diversity of opinion and discussion about different points of view should be promoted. It is absurd to ask students to speak about human relations issues then turn around an punish two of them because of disagreement over a few words.SAH

  19. Anonymous

    I must say,based on the theme of the speech it hard to understand why there was any punishment. Of course the student might have strayed from the text, but that is the risk the school takes when it asks a young person to speak before the student body.

    After all this was human relations week when diversity of opinion and discussion about different points of view should be promoted. It is absurd to ask students to speak about human relations issues then turn around an punish two of them because of disagreement over a few words.SAH

  20. Anonymous

    I must say,based on the theme of the speech it hard to understand why there was any punishment. Of course the student might have strayed from the text, but that is the risk the school takes when it asks a young person to speak before the student body.

    After all this was human relations week when diversity of opinion and discussion about different points of view should be promoted. It is absurd to ask students to speak about human relations issues then turn around an punish two of them because of disagreement over a few words.SAH

  21. Rich Rifkin

    “For Rich’s reference, my source is a white, non-Islamic, female high school senior not involved in any fights with the authorities who was at the assembly and knows all the parties involved.”

    Dave,

    What you report here sounds credible and fills in some of the gaps.

    I’m still reserving judgment, but your report causes me to lean in favor of the student a bit.

    If there is more to the story, I’d like to hear it from the teacher’s and the administration’s perspectives.

    I should add that the specific quote from Malcolm X that originated this episode should not be viewed as too controversial. While Malcolm was controversial, not all of his sayings or thoughts were.

    I don’t see “by any means necessary” as a call for violence, even though a small number of black nationalists in those days talked about using violence to get their way.

    I think the poster and statement ought to have been allowed to let stand. If Malcolm X himself became the focus of a discussion or a lesson, then just what the Nation of Islam was (and is) all about should have been explored, and why El-Shabbazz ultimately renounced their hate-mongering and what happened to him when he did.

    I should add, though, that “free speech” is a difficult problem at the high school level. While I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist for adults, I understand the concerns of administrators in some circumstances in public schools. What is free expression (or even a joke) to some is highly offensive or even threatening to others. Hence, you really don’t want high school kids wearing Nazi uniforms or KKK outfits to school, even though that is clearly protected speech for adults. So the question becomes, at what point does speech in a school cross the line?

    I recall, for example, when I was the editor of The Hub at Davis High School, I was writing a review of a Richard Pryor record that had an offensive term (the N-word) in its title, “That *****’s Crazy.” I could review the record — which I absolutely loved by the way, though Pryor had other records that were even better — but I couldn’t refer to the title.

  22. Rich Rifkin

    “For Rich’s reference, my source is a white, non-Islamic, female high school senior not involved in any fights with the authorities who was at the assembly and knows all the parties involved.”

    Dave,

    What you report here sounds credible and fills in some of the gaps.

    I’m still reserving judgment, but your report causes me to lean in favor of the student a bit.

    If there is more to the story, I’d like to hear it from the teacher’s and the administration’s perspectives.

    I should add that the specific quote from Malcolm X that originated this episode should not be viewed as too controversial. While Malcolm was controversial, not all of his sayings or thoughts were.

    I don’t see “by any means necessary” as a call for violence, even though a small number of black nationalists in those days talked about using violence to get their way.

    I think the poster and statement ought to have been allowed to let stand. If Malcolm X himself became the focus of a discussion or a lesson, then just what the Nation of Islam was (and is) all about should have been explored, and why El-Shabbazz ultimately renounced their hate-mongering and what happened to him when he did.

    I should add, though, that “free speech” is a difficult problem at the high school level. While I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist for adults, I understand the concerns of administrators in some circumstances in public schools. What is free expression (or even a joke) to some is highly offensive or even threatening to others. Hence, you really don’t want high school kids wearing Nazi uniforms or KKK outfits to school, even though that is clearly protected speech for adults. So the question becomes, at what point does speech in a school cross the line?

    I recall, for example, when I was the editor of The Hub at Davis High School, I was writing a review of a Richard Pryor record that had an offensive term (the N-word) in its title, “That *****’s Crazy.” I could review the record — which I absolutely loved by the way, though Pryor had other records that were even better — but I couldn’t refer to the title.

  23. Rich Rifkin

    “For Rich’s reference, my source is a white, non-Islamic, female high school senior not involved in any fights with the authorities who was at the assembly and knows all the parties involved.”

    Dave,

    What you report here sounds credible and fills in some of the gaps.

    I’m still reserving judgment, but your report causes me to lean in favor of the student a bit.

    If there is more to the story, I’d like to hear it from the teacher’s and the administration’s perspectives.

    I should add that the specific quote from Malcolm X that originated this episode should not be viewed as too controversial. While Malcolm was controversial, not all of his sayings or thoughts were.

    I don’t see “by any means necessary” as a call for violence, even though a small number of black nationalists in those days talked about using violence to get their way.

    I think the poster and statement ought to have been allowed to let stand. If Malcolm X himself became the focus of a discussion or a lesson, then just what the Nation of Islam was (and is) all about should have been explored, and why El-Shabbazz ultimately renounced their hate-mongering and what happened to him when he did.

    I should add, though, that “free speech” is a difficult problem at the high school level. While I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist for adults, I understand the concerns of administrators in some circumstances in public schools. What is free expression (or even a joke) to some is highly offensive or even threatening to others. Hence, you really don’t want high school kids wearing Nazi uniforms or KKK outfits to school, even though that is clearly protected speech for adults. So the question becomes, at what point does speech in a school cross the line?

    I recall, for example, when I was the editor of The Hub at Davis High School, I was writing a review of a Richard Pryor record that had an offensive term (the N-word) in its title, “That *****’s Crazy.” I could review the record — which I absolutely loved by the way, though Pryor had other records that were even better — but I couldn’t refer to the title.

  24. Rich Rifkin

    “For Rich’s reference, my source is a white, non-Islamic, female high school senior not involved in any fights with the authorities who was at the assembly and knows all the parties involved.”

    Dave,

    What you report here sounds credible and fills in some of the gaps.

    I’m still reserving judgment, but your report causes me to lean in favor of the student a bit.

    If there is more to the story, I’d like to hear it from the teacher’s and the administration’s perspectives.

    I should add that the specific quote from Malcolm X that originated this episode should not be viewed as too controversial. While Malcolm was controversial, not all of his sayings or thoughts were.

    I don’t see “by any means necessary” as a call for violence, even though a small number of black nationalists in those days talked about using violence to get their way.

    I think the poster and statement ought to have been allowed to let stand. If Malcolm X himself became the focus of a discussion or a lesson, then just what the Nation of Islam was (and is) all about should have been explored, and why El-Shabbazz ultimately renounced their hate-mongering and what happened to him when he did.

    I should add, though, that “free speech” is a difficult problem at the high school level. While I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist for adults, I understand the concerns of administrators in some circumstances in public schools. What is free expression (or even a joke) to some is highly offensive or even threatening to others. Hence, you really don’t want high school kids wearing Nazi uniforms or KKK outfits to school, even though that is clearly protected speech for adults. So the question becomes, at what point does speech in a school cross the line?

    I recall, for example, when I was the editor of The Hub at Davis High School, I was writing a review of a Richard Pryor record that had an offensive term (the N-word) in its title, “That *****’s Crazy.” I could review the record — which I absolutely loved by the way, though Pryor had other records that were even better — but I couldn’t refer to the title.

  25. Rich Rifkin

    “Remember the Wheels of Justice(young people invited to discuss their experiences while “bearing witness” in the Occupied Territories) incident at the HS several years ago?
    Censoring thought and discussion appears to be Davis HS’s method of shaping our future citizens.”

    The Wheels of Justice fiasco is not analogous. Don Winters mistakenly invited in an extremist group, the WOJ, to his class in order to give their very radical perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the last moment, under pressure, he thought it might make sense “to give the other side a chance” to air its side of the debate. He asked Rabbi Wolfe, a moderate man, to debate these WOJ people. Principal Cawley saw what a ridiculous decision Winters had made and rightly kept them off campus.

    The mistake in the first place by Winters was to invite in an extremist group, one that calls for the end of Israel’s existence. There are nutty Jewish groups (such as the JDL) that call for the removal of all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. They ought not be invited in to Don Winters’ class either.

    Debate is good and healthy. And there are obviously two sides with different perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So have some mainstream representatives from each side come in. And give each the same amount of time to prepare and to speak. Alas, that is not what Mr. Winters did when this issue arose.

  26. Rich Rifkin

    “Remember the Wheels of Justice(young people invited to discuss their experiences while “bearing witness” in the Occupied Territories) incident at the HS several years ago?
    Censoring thought and discussion appears to be Davis HS’s method of shaping our future citizens.”

    The Wheels of Justice fiasco is not analogous. Don Winters mistakenly invited in an extremist group, the WOJ, to his class in order to give their very radical perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the last moment, under pressure, he thought it might make sense “to give the other side a chance” to air its side of the debate. He asked Rabbi Wolfe, a moderate man, to debate these WOJ people. Principal Cawley saw what a ridiculous decision Winters had made and rightly kept them off campus.

    The mistake in the first place by Winters was to invite in an extremist group, one that calls for the end of Israel’s existence. There are nutty Jewish groups (such as the JDL) that call for the removal of all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. They ought not be invited in to Don Winters’ class either.

    Debate is good and healthy. And there are obviously two sides with different perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So have some mainstream representatives from each side come in. And give each the same amount of time to prepare and to speak. Alas, that is not what Mr. Winters did when this issue arose.

  27. Rich Rifkin

    “Remember the Wheels of Justice(young people invited to discuss their experiences while “bearing witness” in the Occupied Territories) incident at the HS several years ago?
    Censoring thought and discussion appears to be Davis HS’s method of shaping our future citizens.”

    The Wheels of Justice fiasco is not analogous. Don Winters mistakenly invited in an extremist group, the WOJ, to his class in order to give their very radical perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the last moment, under pressure, he thought it might make sense “to give the other side a chance” to air its side of the debate. He asked Rabbi Wolfe, a moderate man, to debate these WOJ people. Principal Cawley saw what a ridiculous decision Winters had made and rightly kept them off campus.

    The mistake in the first place by Winters was to invite in an extremist group, one that calls for the end of Israel’s existence. There are nutty Jewish groups (such as the JDL) that call for the removal of all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. They ought not be invited in to Don Winters’ class either.

    Debate is good and healthy. And there are obviously two sides with different perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So have some mainstream representatives from each side come in. And give each the same amount of time to prepare and to speak. Alas, that is not what Mr. Winters did when this issue arose.

  28. Rich Rifkin

    “Remember the Wheels of Justice(young people invited to discuss their experiences while “bearing witness” in the Occupied Territories) incident at the HS several years ago?
    Censoring thought and discussion appears to be Davis HS’s method of shaping our future citizens.”

    The Wheels of Justice fiasco is not analogous. Don Winters mistakenly invited in an extremist group, the WOJ, to his class in order to give their very radical perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the last moment, under pressure, he thought it might make sense “to give the other side a chance” to air its side of the debate. He asked Rabbi Wolfe, a moderate man, to debate these WOJ people. Principal Cawley saw what a ridiculous decision Winters had made and rightly kept them off campus.

    The mistake in the first place by Winters was to invite in an extremist group, one that calls for the end of Israel’s existence. There are nutty Jewish groups (such as the JDL) that call for the removal of all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. They ought not be invited in to Don Winters’ class either.

    Debate is good and healthy. And there are obviously two sides with different perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So have some mainstream representatives from each side come in. And give each the same amount of time to prepare and to speak. Alas, that is not what Mr. Winters did when this issue arose.

  29. davisite

    I will not belabor this discussion further other than to say that Rich Rifkin’s narrative can be most charitably described as a “whitewash”. I was in close communication with the parties involved in the cancellation of the Wheels of Justice program.

  30. davisite

    I will not belabor this discussion further other than to say that Rich Rifkin’s narrative can be most charitably described as a “whitewash”. I was in close communication with the parties involved in the cancellation of the Wheels of Justice program.

  31. davisite

    I will not belabor this discussion further other than to say that Rich Rifkin’s narrative can be most charitably described as a “whitewash”. I was in close communication with the parties involved in the cancellation of the Wheels of Justice program.

  32. davisite

    I will not belabor this discussion further other than to say that Rich Rifkin’s narrative can be most charitably described as a “whitewash”. I was in close communication with the parties involved in the cancellation of the Wheels of Justice program.

  33. Don Shor

    The web site is justicewheels.org.
    Suffice to say they provide a very one-sided view of the Israel/Palestine conflict. They are endorsed by a grand total of ten peace organizations, mostly pretty obscure.
    Here’s a sample quote:
    To speak honestly and openly about Palestine/Israel, one must recognize that the Israeli military occupation continues a legacy that began in 1947 with the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to make room for the State of Israel.
    It pretty much goes downhill from there.
    It would have taken a substantial effort with advance preparation by the school district to provide a balance counterpoint to this very anti-Israel organization.

  34. Don Shor

    The web site is justicewheels.org.
    Suffice to say they provide a very one-sided view of the Israel/Palestine conflict. They are endorsed by a grand total of ten peace organizations, mostly pretty obscure.
    Here’s a sample quote:
    To speak honestly and openly about Palestine/Israel, one must recognize that the Israeli military occupation continues a legacy that began in 1947 with the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to make room for the State of Israel.
    It pretty much goes downhill from there.
    It would have taken a substantial effort with advance preparation by the school district to provide a balance counterpoint to this very anti-Israel organization.

  35. Don Shor

    The web site is justicewheels.org.
    Suffice to say they provide a very one-sided view of the Israel/Palestine conflict. They are endorsed by a grand total of ten peace organizations, mostly pretty obscure.
    Here’s a sample quote:
    To speak honestly and openly about Palestine/Israel, one must recognize that the Israeli military occupation continues a legacy that began in 1947 with the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to make room for the State of Israel.
    It pretty much goes downhill from there.
    It would have taken a substantial effort with advance preparation by the school district to provide a balance counterpoint to this very anti-Israel organization.

  36. Don Shor

    The web site is justicewheels.org.
    Suffice to say they provide a very one-sided view of the Israel/Palestine conflict. They are endorsed by a grand total of ten peace organizations, mostly pretty obscure.
    Here’s a sample quote:
    To speak honestly and openly about Palestine/Israel, one must recognize that the Israeli military occupation continues a legacy that began in 1947 with the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to make room for the State of Israel.
    It pretty much goes downhill from there.
    It would have taken a substantial effort with advance preparation by the school district to provide a balance counterpoint to this very anti-Israel organization.

  37. Don Shor

    This whole story is baffling, at least based on what we’re hearing here. We’ve been presented with what sounds like a serious over-reaction by the teacher, compounded by the administration for some reason.
    It’s hard to believe that a suspension would result from what we’ve heard here. Was there some further interaction between the student and the teacher, or the student and the administration? Having read the student code of conduct in detail several times when my kid was in school, I can’t remember anything that has been described here that would lead to suspension.
    So I’m just guessing here, but perhaps someone, um, mouthed off? Perhaps discussion got a little heated? We’re missing some key part of this story, IMO.

  38. Don Shor

    This whole story is baffling, at least based on what we’re hearing here. We’ve been presented with what sounds like a serious over-reaction by the teacher, compounded by the administration for some reason.
    It’s hard to believe that a suspension would result from what we’ve heard here. Was there some further interaction between the student and the teacher, or the student and the administration? Having read the student code of conduct in detail several times when my kid was in school, I can’t remember anything that has been described here that would lead to suspension.
    So I’m just guessing here, but perhaps someone, um, mouthed off? Perhaps discussion got a little heated? We’re missing some key part of this story, IMO.

  39. Don Shor

    This whole story is baffling, at least based on what we’re hearing here. We’ve been presented with what sounds like a serious over-reaction by the teacher, compounded by the administration for some reason.
    It’s hard to believe that a suspension would result from what we’ve heard here. Was there some further interaction between the student and the teacher, or the student and the administration? Having read the student code of conduct in detail several times when my kid was in school, I can’t remember anything that has been described here that would lead to suspension.
    So I’m just guessing here, but perhaps someone, um, mouthed off? Perhaps discussion got a little heated? We’re missing some key part of this story, IMO.

  40. Don Shor

    This whole story is baffling, at least based on what we’re hearing here. We’ve been presented with what sounds like a serious over-reaction by the teacher, compounded by the administration for some reason.
    It’s hard to believe that a suspension would result from what we’ve heard here. Was there some further interaction between the student and the teacher, or the student and the administration? Having read the student code of conduct in detail several times when my kid was in school, I can’t remember anything that has been described here that would lead to suspension.
    So I’m just guessing here, but perhaps someone, um, mouthed off? Perhaps discussion got a little heated? We’re missing some key part of this story, IMO.

  41. davisite

    Don.. thanks for correcting my website “reversal” error. I was responding to Rifkin’s characterization of Wheels of Justice as a “extremist group”. My understanding is that this group developed out of the non-violent Quaker Friends Society. The logic of your posting would have Americans who spoke out against the government policies of the Vietnam era be labelled as anti-American.

  42. davisite

    Don.. thanks for correcting my website “reversal” error. I was responding to Rifkin’s characterization of Wheels of Justice as a “extremist group”. My understanding is that this group developed out of the non-violent Quaker Friends Society. The logic of your posting would have Americans who spoke out against the government policies of the Vietnam era be labelled as anti-American.

  43. davisite

    Don.. thanks for correcting my website “reversal” error. I was responding to Rifkin’s characterization of Wheels of Justice as a “extremist group”. My understanding is that this group developed out of the non-violent Quaker Friends Society. The logic of your posting would have Americans who spoke out against the government policies of the Vietnam era be labelled as anti-American.

  44. davisite

    Don.. thanks for correcting my website “reversal” error. I was responding to Rifkin’s characterization of Wheels of Justice as a “extremist group”. My understanding is that this group developed out of the non-violent Quaker Friends Society. The logic of your posting would have Americans who spoke out against the government policies of the Vietnam era be labelled as anti-American.

  45. Don Shor

    Now, I actually have no problem with a group like this appearing on a high school campus, providing that the administration and teacher have the presentation balanced with an equally organized rebuttal. There is plenty to say on both sides of this issue, and high school students are capable of evaluating when they have the information presented correctly — as has, apparently, been done at other high schools.
    For that matter, I have no problem with military recruiters coming on campus, either. High school kids can think for themselves. But context is important.

  46. Don Shor

    Now, I actually have no problem with a group like this appearing on a high school campus, providing that the administration and teacher have the presentation balanced with an equally organized rebuttal. There is plenty to say on both sides of this issue, and high school students are capable of evaluating when they have the information presented correctly — as has, apparently, been done at other high schools.
    For that matter, I have no problem with military recruiters coming on campus, either. High school kids can think for themselves. But context is important.

  47. Don Shor

    Now, I actually have no problem with a group like this appearing on a high school campus, providing that the administration and teacher have the presentation balanced with an equally organized rebuttal. There is plenty to say on both sides of this issue, and high school students are capable of evaluating when they have the information presented correctly — as has, apparently, been done at other high schools.
    For that matter, I have no problem with military recruiters coming on campus, either. High school kids can think for themselves. But context is important.

  48. Don Shor

    Now, I actually have no problem with a group like this appearing on a high school campus, providing that the administration and teacher have the presentation balanced with an equally organized rebuttal. There is plenty to say on both sides of this issue, and high school students are capable of evaluating when they have the information presented correctly — as has, apparently, been done at other high schools.
    For that matter, I have no problem with military recruiters coming on campus, either. High school kids can think for themselves. But context is important.

  49. Rich Rifkin

    “My understanding is that this group developed out of the non-violent Quaker Friends Society.”

    The Wheels of Justice is a non-violent group. I never said that they advocated violence. Rather, they advocate the elimination (by non-violent means) of the Jewish State. To me (and I think to the vast majority of Americans) that is an extremist and radical viewpoint that does not shed light on the dispute between the Jews and Arabs over Israel/Palestine.

    I am all in favor of inviting individuals from the pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli sides to high schools for a discussion, so long as those individuals at least recognize the rights of the other to exist.

    In most polls of the Palestinians that I have seen, the majority supports peace with Israel, recognition of Israel and a negotiated settlement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Most Israelis are amenable to this, as well.

    However, as long as groups like the Wheels of Justice are advocating the elimination of Israel from the map, and groups like Hamas are advocating violence and terrorism (both against Jews and Arabs), peace and a settlement are a long way off.

    For what it’s worth, I found this public opinion survey on-line. It is from March of 2006:

    “Under conditions of peace and given an independent Palestinian State, 66% of the Palestinians and 68% of the Israelis support a mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people. Similar levels of support among Israelis and Palestinians were obtained in September 2005 before Hamas rose to power in the PA.”

  50. Rich Rifkin

    “My understanding is that this group developed out of the non-violent Quaker Friends Society.”

    The Wheels of Justice is a non-violent group. I never said that they advocated violence. Rather, they advocate the elimination (by non-violent means) of the Jewish State. To me (and I think to the vast majority of Americans) that is an extremist and radical viewpoint that does not shed light on the dispute between the Jews and Arabs over Israel/Palestine.

    I am all in favor of inviting individuals from the pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli sides to high schools for a discussion, so long as those individuals at least recognize the rights of the other to exist.

    In most polls of the Palestinians that I have seen, the majority supports peace with Israel, recognition of Israel and a negotiated settlement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Most Israelis are amenable to this, as well.

    However, as long as groups like the Wheels of Justice are advocating the elimination of Israel from the map, and groups like Hamas are advocating violence and terrorism (both against Jews and Arabs), peace and a settlement are a long way off.

    For what it’s worth, I found this public opinion survey on-line. It is from March of 2006:

    “Under conditions of peace and given an independent Palestinian State, 66% of the Palestinians and 68% of the Israelis support a mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people. Similar levels of support among Israelis and Palestinians were obtained in September 2005 before Hamas rose to power in the PA.”

  51. Rich Rifkin

    “My understanding is that this group developed out of the non-violent Quaker Friends Society.”

    The Wheels of Justice is a non-violent group. I never said that they advocated violence. Rather, they advocate the elimination (by non-violent means) of the Jewish State. To me (and I think to the vast majority of Americans) that is an extremist and radical viewpoint that does not shed light on the dispute between the Jews and Arabs over Israel/Palestine.

    I am all in favor of inviting individuals from the pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli sides to high schools for a discussion, so long as those individuals at least recognize the rights of the other to exist.

    In most polls of the Palestinians that I have seen, the majority supports peace with Israel, recognition of Israel and a negotiated settlement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Most Israelis are amenable to this, as well.

    However, as long as groups like the Wheels of Justice are advocating the elimination of Israel from the map, and groups like Hamas are advocating violence and terrorism (both against Jews and Arabs), peace and a settlement are a long way off.

    For what it’s worth, I found this public opinion survey on-line. It is from March of 2006:

    “Under conditions of peace and given an independent Palestinian State, 66% of the Palestinians and 68% of the Israelis support a mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people. Similar levels of support among Israelis and Palestinians were obtained in September 2005 before Hamas rose to power in the PA.”

  52. Rich Rifkin

    “My understanding is that this group developed out of the non-violent Quaker Friends Society.”

    The Wheels of Justice is a non-violent group. I never said that they advocated violence. Rather, they advocate the elimination (by non-violent means) of the Jewish State. To me (and I think to the vast majority of Americans) that is an extremist and radical viewpoint that does not shed light on the dispute between the Jews and Arabs over Israel/Palestine.

    I am all in favor of inviting individuals from the pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli sides to high schools for a discussion, so long as those individuals at least recognize the rights of the other to exist.

    In most polls of the Palestinians that I have seen, the majority supports peace with Israel, recognition of Israel and a negotiated settlement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Most Israelis are amenable to this, as well.

    However, as long as groups like the Wheels of Justice are advocating the elimination of Israel from the map, and groups like Hamas are advocating violence and terrorism (both against Jews and Arabs), peace and a settlement are a long way off.

    For what it’s worth, I found this public opinion survey on-line. It is from March of 2006:

    “Under conditions of peace and given an independent Palestinian State, 66% of the Palestinians and 68% of the Israelis support a mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people. Similar levels of support among Israelis and Palestinians were obtained in September 2005 before Hamas rose to power in the PA.”

  53. Anonymous

    Remember the phrase “Stick and stones…but words will never hurt me?” Why should a young man’s speech be silenced with punitive measures? What a horrible lesson to teach our young people. In reading through the comments I see the same misguided thoughts expressed that are fueling the fictional “war on terrorism.” I could make the cheap argument that somehow I’m in a better position to speak than you so be silent. I have several children that attend DHS and I know the parties involved. I also was involved with the Wheels of Justice and heard their presentation unlike so many. Yes, I also lived in Israel saw some of what others can only talk about. The real issue is freedom of expression. “If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism; if our government is to function it must have dissent. “
    Henry Commager
    US historian (1902 – 1998)

  54. Anonymous

    Remember the phrase “Stick and stones…but words will never hurt me?” Why should a young man’s speech be silenced with punitive measures? What a horrible lesson to teach our young people. In reading through the comments I see the same misguided thoughts expressed that are fueling the fictional “war on terrorism.” I could make the cheap argument that somehow I’m in a better position to speak than you so be silent. I have several children that attend DHS and I know the parties involved. I also was involved with the Wheels of Justice and heard their presentation unlike so many. Yes, I also lived in Israel saw some of what others can only talk about. The real issue is freedom of expression. “If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism; if our government is to function it must have dissent. “
    Henry Commager
    US historian (1902 – 1998)

  55. Anonymous

    Remember the phrase “Stick and stones…but words will never hurt me?” Why should a young man’s speech be silenced with punitive measures? What a horrible lesson to teach our young people. In reading through the comments I see the same misguided thoughts expressed that are fueling the fictional “war on terrorism.” I could make the cheap argument that somehow I’m in a better position to speak than you so be silent. I have several children that attend DHS and I know the parties involved. I also was involved with the Wheels of Justice and heard their presentation unlike so many. Yes, I also lived in Israel saw some of what others can only talk about. The real issue is freedom of expression. “If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism; if our government is to function it must have dissent. “
    Henry Commager
    US historian (1902 – 1998)

  56. Anonymous

    Remember the phrase “Stick and stones…but words will never hurt me?” Why should a young man’s speech be silenced with punitive measures? What a horrible lesson to teach our young people. In reading through the comments I see the same misguided thoughts expressed that are fueling the fictional “war on terrorism.” I could make the cheap argument that somehow I’m in a better position to speak than you so be silent. I have several children that attend DHS and I know the parties involved. I also was involved with the Wheels of Justice and heard their presentation unlike so many. Yes, I also lived in Israel saw some of what others can only talk about. The real issue is freedom of expression. “If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism; if our government is to function it must have dissent. “
    Henry Commager
    US historian (1902 – 1998)

  57. Don Shor

    When I was in high school, during the late years of the Vietnam war, it was made very clear to us that we did not have a right to freedom of expression. Perhaps lawyers on this blog can provide us with updated information about what the exact rights of high school students are regarding freedom of speech.
    “Why should a young man’s speech be silenced with punitive measures? “ We have no evidence that was the case. It is hard to believe this student was suspended for giving a speech which had been pre-approved. Something is missing from this narrative. Perhaps, again, someone who is closer to the situation can tell us what the stated reason for his suspension was.
    “I have several children that attend DHS and I know the parties involved…”
    Wonderful. So why was he suspended?

  58. Don Shor

    When I was in high school, during the late years of the Vietnam war, it was made very clear to us that we did not have a right to freedom of expression. Perhaps lawyers on this blog can provide us with updated information about what the exact rights of high school students are regarding freedom of speech.
    “Why should a young man’s speech be silenced with punitive measures? “ We have no evidence that was the case. It is hard to believe this student was suspended for giving a speech which had been pre-approved. Something is missing from this narrative. Perhaps, again, someone who is closer to the situation can tell us what the stated reason for his suspension was.
    “I have several children that attend DHS and I know the parties involved…”
    Wonderful. So why was he suspended?

  59. Don Shor

    When I was in high school, during the late years of the Vietnam war, it was made very clear to us that we did not have a right to freedom of expression. Perhaps lawyers on this blog can provide us with updated information about what the exact rights of high school students are regarding freedom of speech.
    “Why should a young man’s speech be silenced with punitive measures? “ We have no evidence that was the case. It is hard to believe this student was suspended for giving a speech which had been pre-approved. Something is missing from this narrative. Perhaps, again, someone who is closer to the situation can tell us what the stated reason for his suspension was.
    “I have several children that attend DHS and I know the parties involved…”
    Wonderful. So why was he suspended?

  60. Don Shor

    When I was in high school, during the late years of the Vietnam war, it was made very clear to us that we did not have a right to freedom of expression. Perhaps lawyers on this blog can provide us with updated information about what the exact rights of high school students are regarding freedom of speech.
    “Why should a young man’s speech be silenced with punitive measures? “ We have no evidence that was the case. It is hard to believe this student was suspended for giving a speech which had been pre-approved. Something is missing from this narrative. Perhaps, again, someone who is closer to the situation can tell us what the stated reason for his suspension was.
    “I have several children that attend DHS and I know the parties involved…”
    Wonderful. So why was he suspended?

  61. davisite

    Don.. we appear to “see” things differently and rely on different sources. Are you aware that the Anti-defamation League(ADL),under the leadership of Abraham Foxman, has publicly accused President Carter of being ANTI-SEMETIC? Let’s return to the local issue of silencing dissent and censorship at Davis HS. I hope we can get more details on what transpired in the Davis HS principal’s office.

  62. davisite

    Don.. we appear to “see” things differently and rely on different sources. Are you aware that the Anti-defamation League(ADL),under the leadership of Abraham Foxman, has publicly accused President Carter of being ANTI-SEMETIC? Let’s return to the local issue of silencing dissent and censorship at Davis HS. I hope we can get more details on what transpired in the Davis HS principal’s office.

  63. davisite

    Don.. we appear to “see” things differently and rely on different sources. Are you aware that the Anti-defamation League(ADL),under the leadership of Abraham Foxman, has publicly accused President Carter of being ANTI-SEMETIC? Let’s return to the local issue of silencing dissent and censorship at Davis HS. I hope we can get more details on what transpired in the Davis HS principal’s office.

  64. davisite

    Don.. we appear to “see” things differently and rely on different sources. Are you aware that the Anti-defamation League(ADL),under the leadership of Abraham Foxman, has publicly accused President Carter of being ANTI-SEMETIC? Let’s return to the local issue of silencing dissent and censorship at Davis HS. I hope we can get more details on what transpired in the Davis HS principal’s office.

  65. Rich Rifkin

    “Are you aware that the Anti-defamation League(ADL),under the leadership of Abraham Foxman, has publicly accused President Carter of being ANTI-SEMETIC?”

    This has nothing to do whatsoever with the Wheels of Justice or anything on this thread. Nonetheless, Foxman’s judgment on Carter (which I will assume is true, for argument’s sake, as I don’t recall hearing that Foxman called Carter an anti-Semite) is joined by many others, including 14 members of The Carter Center’s Board of Councilors, all of whom resigned after they read Jimmy Carter’s recent book about Israel/Palestine. Again, these people who came to this judgment about Carter were friends and allies of the former president.

    But they were not alone in their disgust with Carter’s biased views on Israel and with Jimmy Carter’s error-filled and slanderous book about the subject. Kenneth Stein, who was the director of the Middle East project for the Carter Center also ended his association with Jimmy Carter over this issue.

    Here is what Stein said in his resignation letter:

    “President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often
    enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

    “The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center’s early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter’s book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

    “Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must be presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish
    it to be.”

  66. Rich Rifkin

    “Are you aware that the Anti-defamation League(ADL),under the leadership of Abraham Foxman, has publicly accused President Carter of being ANTI-SEMETIC?”

    This has nothing to do whatsoever with the Wheels of Justice or anything on this thread. Nonetheless, Foxman’s judgment on Carter (which I will assume is true, for argument’s sake, as I don’t recall hearing that Foxman called Carter an anti-Semite) is joined by many others, including 14 members of The Carter Center’s Board of Councilors, all of whom resigned after they read Jimmy Carter’s recent book about Israel/Palestine. Again, these people who came to this judgment about Carter were friends and allies of the former president.

    But they were not alone in their disgust with Carter’s biased views on Israel and with Jimmy Carter’s error-filled and slanderous book about the subject. Kenneth Stein, who was the director of the Middle East project for the Carter Center also ended his association with Jimmy Carter over this issue.

    Here is what Stein said in his resignation letter:

    “President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often
    enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

    “The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center’s early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter’s book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

    “Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must be presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish
    it to be.”

  67. Rich Rifkin

    “Are you aware that the Anti-defamation League(ADL),under the leadership of Abraham Foxman, has publicly accused President Carter of being ANTI-SEMETIC?”

    This has nothing to do whatsoever with the Wheels of Justice or anything on this thread. Nonetheless, Foxman’s judgment on Carter (which I will assume is true, for argument’s sake, as I don’t recall hearing that Foxman called Carter an anti-Semite) is joined by many others, including 14 members of The Carter Center’s Board of Councilors, all of whom resigned after they read Jimmy Carter’s recent book about Israel/Palestine. Again, these people who came to this judgment about Carter were friends and allies of the former president.

    But they were not alone in their disgust with Carter’s biased views on Israel and with Jimmy Carter’s error-filled and slanderous book about the subject. Kenneth Stein, who was the director of the Middle East project for the Carter Center also ended his association with Jimmy Carter over this issue.

    Here is what Stein said in his resignation letter:

    “President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often
    enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

    “The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center’s early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter’s book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

    “Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must be presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish
    it to be.”

  68. Rich Rifkin

    “Are you aware that the Anti-defamation League(ADL),under the leadership of Abraham Foxman, has publicly accused President Carter of being ANTI-SEMETIC?”

    This has nothing to do whatsoever with the Wheels of Justice or anything on this thread. Nonetheless, Foxman’s judgment on Carter (which I will assume is true, for argument’s sake, as I don’t recall hearing that Foxman called Carter an anti-Semite) is joined by many others, including 14 members of The Carter Center’s Board of Councilors, all of whom resigned after they read Jimmy Carter’s recent book about Israel/Palestine. Again, these people who came to this judgment about Carter were friends and allies of the former president.

    But they were not alone in their disgust with Carter’s biased views on Israel and with Jimmy Carter’s error-filled and slanderous book about the subject. Kenneth Stein, who was the director of the Middle East project for the Carter Center also ended his association with Jimmy Carter over this issue.

    Here is what Stein said in his resignation letter:

    “President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often
    enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

    “The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center’s early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter’s book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

    “Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must be presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish
    it to be.”

  69. Rich Rifkin

    Needless to add, Jimmy Carter has severely hurt his reputation as a decent human being and fair observer over his flawed and biased book. There really is no reason to trust Carter on this issue, and perhaps there is good reason to lose trust in Carter over other’s now.

  70. Rich Rifkin

    Needless to add, Jimmy Carter has severely hurt his reputation as a decent human being and fair observer over his flawed and biased book. There really is no reason to trust Carter on this issue, and perhaps there is good reason to lose trust in Carter over other’s now.

  71. Rich Rifkin

    Needless to add, Jimmy Carter has severely hurt his reputation as a decent human being and fair observer over his flawed and biased book. There really is no reason to trust Carter on this issue, and perhaps there is good reason to lose trust in Carter over other’s now.

  72. Rich Rifkin

    Needless to add, Jimmy Carter has severely hurt his reputation as a decent human being and fair observer over his flawed and biased book. There really is no reason to trust Carter on this issue, and perhaps there is good reason to lose trust in Carter over other’s now.

  73. Rich Rifkin

    I just Googled “Anti-Defamation League Jimmy Carter” and could find nothing that confirms what Davisite charges in his post, that the ADL as called Carter anti-Semitic.

    However, I did find this from the ADL, which seems quite reasonable and fair-minded:

    An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter

    New York, NY, December 20, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued an open letter to former President Jimmy Carter. The text of the letter follows:

    Dear President Carter:

    We have read your letter to American Jews. As much as the tone of this letter is different from that of your book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,” or your many public interviews, the damage to the good name of Israel and the American Jewish community from your unwarranted attacks remains. As does our outrage.

    No matter the distinction you articulate in your letter, using the incendiary word “Apartheid” to refer to Israel and its policies is unacceptable and shameful. Apartheid, that abhorrent and racist system in South Africa, has no bearing on Israeli policies. Not only are Israel’s policies not racist, but the situation in the territories does not arise from Israeli intentions to oppress or repress Palestinians, but is a product of Palestinian rejection of Israel and the use of terror and violence against the Jewish state. Nothing illustrates the stark difference better than Israel’s offer of withdrawal made at Camp David and its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

    Your efforts in the letter to minimize the impact of your charge that American Jews control US Middle East policy are simply unconvincing. In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.

    To belatedly claim that you were really talking all along about Christian support for Israel, which you disrespectfully call “bias,” neither repairs the damage of your accusations nor eases our concerns. Millions of American Christians support Israel because of their deeply felt religious beliefs and because they understand that Israel is a democracy, an ally of America, and on the front line to combat terror.

    We continue to be distressed about the role you have taken upon yourself with regard to Israel and American Jews. Indeed, we know that the rabbis with whom you met in Phoenix are similarly distressed.

    True sensitivity to Israel and American Jews would be demonstrated by ceasing these one-sided attacks and apologizing for damaging the good name of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

    We look forward to such a statement.

    Glen S. Lewy
    National Chairman

    Abraham H. Foxman
    National Director

    Anti-Defamation League

    “The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.”

  74. Rich Rifkin

    I just Googled “Anti-Defamation League Jimmy Carter” and could find nothing that confirms what Davisite charges in his post, that the ADL as called Carter anti-Semitic.

    However, I did find this from the ADL, which seems quite reasonable and fair-minded:

    An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter

    New York, NY, December 20, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued an open letter to former President Jimmy Carter. The text of the letter follows:

    Dear President Carter:

    We have read your letter to American Jews. As much as the tone of this letter is different from that of your book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,” or your many public interviews, the damage to the good name of Israel and the American Jewish community from your unwarranted attacks remains. As does our outrage.

    No matter the distinction you articulate in your letter, using the incendiary word “Apartheid” to refer to Israel and its policies is unacceptable and shameful. Apartheid, that abhorrent and racist system in South Africa, has no bearing on Israeli policies. Not only are Israel’s policies not racist, but the situation in the territories does not arise from Israeli intentions to oppress or repress Palestinians, but is a product of Palestinian rejection of Israel and the use of terror and violence against the Jewish state. Nothing illustrates the stark difference better than Israel’s offer of withdrawal made at Camp David and its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

    Your efforts in the letter to minimize the impact of your charge that American Jews control US Middle East policy are simply unconvincing. In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.

    To belatedly claim that you were really talking all along about Christian support for Israel, which you disrespectfully call “bias,” neither repairs the damage of your accusations nor eases our concerns. Millions of American Christians support Israel because of their deeply felt religious beliefs and because they understand that Israel is a democracy, an ally of America, and on the front line to combat terror.

    We continue to be distressed about the role you have taken upon yourself with regard to Israel and American Jews. Indeed, we know that the rabbis with whom you met in Phoenix are similarly distressed.

    True sensitivity to Israel and American Jews would be demonstrated by ceasing these one-sided attacks and apologizing for damaging the good name of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

    We look forward to such a statement.

    Glen S. Lewy
    National Chairman

    Abraham H. Foxman
    National Director

    Anti-Defamation League

    “The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.”

  75. Rich Rifkin

    I just Googled “Anti-Defamation League Jimmy Carter” and could find nothing that confirms what Davisite charges in his post, that the ADL as called Carter anti-Semitic.

    However, I did find this from the ADL, which seems quite reasonable and fair-minded:

    An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter

    New York, NY, December 20, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued an open letter to former President Jimmy Carter. The text of the letter follows:

    Dear President Carter:

    We have read your letter to American Jews. As much as the tone of this letter is different from that of your book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,” or your many public interviews, the damage to the good name of Israel and the American Jewish community from your unwarranted attacks remains. As does our outrage.

    No matter the distinction you articulate in your letter, using the incendiary word “Apartheid” to refer to Israel and its policies is unacceptable and shameful. Apartheid, that abhorrent and racist system in South Africa, has no bearing on Israeli policies. Not only are Israel’s policies not racist, but the situation in the territories does not arise from Israeli intentions to oppress or repress Palestinians, but is a product of Palestinian rejection of Israel and the use of terror and violence against the Jewish state. Nothing illustrates the stark difference better than Israel’s offer of withdrawal made at Camp David and its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

    Your efforts in the letter to minimize the impact of your charge that American Jews control US Middle East policy are simply unconvincing. In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.

    To belatedly claim that you were really talking all along about Christian support for Israel, which you disrespectfully call “bias,” neither repairs the damage of your accusations nor eases our concerns. Millions of American Christians support Israel because of their deeply felt religious beliefs and because they understand that Israel is a democracy, an ally of America, and on the front line to combat terror.

    We continue to be distressed about the role you have taken upon yourself with regard to Israel and American Jews. Indeed, we know that the rabbis with whom you met in Phoenix are similarly distressed.

    True sensitivity to Israel and American Jews would be demonstrated by ceasing these one-sided attacks and apologizing for damaging the good name of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

    We look forward to such a statement.

    Glen S. Lewy
    National Chairman

    Abraham H. Foxman
    National Director

    Anti-Defamation League

    “The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.”

  76. Rich Rifkin

    I just Googled “Anti-Defamation League Jimmy Carter” and could find nothing that confirms what Davisite charges in his post, that the ADL as called Carter anti-Semitic.

    However, I did find this from the ADL, which seems quite reasonable and fair-minded:

    An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter

    New York, NY, December 20, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued an open letter to former President Jimmy Carter. The text of the letter follows:

    Dear President Carter:

    We have read your letter to American Jews. As much as the tone of this letter is different from that of your book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,” or your many public interviews, the damage to the good name of Israel and the American Jewish community from your unwarranted attacks remains. As does our outrage.

    No matter the distinction you articulate in your letter, using the incendiary word “Apartheid” to refer to Israel and its policies is unacceptable and shameful. Apartheid, that abhorrent and racist system in South Africa, has no bearing on Israeli policies. Not only are Israel’s policies not racist, but the situation in the territories does not arise from Israeli intentions to oppress or repress Palestinians, but is a product of Palestinian rejection of Israel and the use of terror and violence against the Jewish state. Nothing illustrates the stark difference better than Israel’s offer of withdrawal made at Camp David and its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

    Your efforts in the letter to minimize the impact of your charge that American Jews control US Middle East policy are simply unconvincing. In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.

    To belatedly claim that you were really talking all along about Christian support for Israel, which you disrespectfully call “bias,” neither repairs the damage of your accusations nor eases our concerns. Millions of American Christians support Israel because of their deeply felt religious beliefs and because they understand that Israel is a democracy, an ally of America, and on the front line to combat terror.

    We continue to be distressed about the role you have taken upon yourself with regard to Israel and American Jews. Indeed, we know that the rabbis with whom you met in Phoenix are similarly distressed.

    True sensitivity to Israel and American Jews would be demonstrated by ceasing these one-sided attacks and apologizing for damaging the good name of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

    We look forward to such a statement.

    Glen S. Lewy
    National Chairman

    Abraham H. Foxman
    National Director

    Anti-Defamation League

    “The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.”

  77. Richard

    I could say a lot about the Isreali/Palestinian situation, but I will limit myself to the subject at hand.

    If the text of the student’s remarks was approved, and the teacher involved intervened to persuade the principal to take action (or a group of teachers, or, even, conceivably, the DTA), then they are in serious trouble, because there is a federal law known as 42 U.S.C., sec. 1983, which involves deprivations of civil rights.

    A teacher, or group of them, that persuades a school administrator to take an unlawful action, such as, possibly, the suspension in this case, is, and this is an important point, NOT acting within the scope of their employment, and can be sued INDIVIDUALLY for their actions.

    The parents of this student should seek legal counsel immediately for the purpose of issuing a demand letter to all involved for immediate rescission of the suspension, action against the teacher who provoked it.

  78. Richard

    I could say a lot about the Isreali/Palestinian situation, but I will limit myself to the subject at hand.

    If the text of the student’s remarks was approved, and the teacher involved intervened to persuade the principal to take action (or a group of teachers, or, even, conceivably, the DTA), then they are in serious trouble, because there is a federal law known as 42 U.S.C., sec. 1983, which involves deprivations of civil rights.

    A teacher, or group of them, that persuades a school administrator to take an unlawful action, such as, possibly, the suspension in this case, is, and this is an important point, NOT acting within the scope of their employment, and can be sued INDIVIDUALLY for their actions.

    The parents of this student should seek legal counsel immediately for the purpose of issuing a demand letter to all involved for immediate rescission of the suspension, action against the teacher who provoked it.

  79. Richard

    I could say a lot about the Isreali/Palestinian situation, but I will limit myself to the subject at hand.

    If the text of the student’s remarks was approved, and the teacher involved intervened to persuade the principal to take action (or a group of teachers, or, even, conceivably, the DTA), then they are in serious trouble, because there is a federal law known as 42 U.S.C., sec. 1983, which involves deprivations of civil rights.

    A teacher, or group of them, that persuades a school administrator to take an unlawful action, such as, possibly, the suspension in this case, is, and this is an important point, NOT acting within the scope of their employment, and can be sued INDIVIDUALLY for their actions.

    The parents of this student should seek legal counsel immediately for the purpose of issuing a demand letter to all involved for immediate rescission of the suspension, action against the teacher who provoked it.

  80. Richard

    I could say a lot about the Isreali/Palestinian situation, but I will limit myself to the subject at hand.

    If the text of the student’s remarks was approved, and the teacher involved intervened to persuade the principal to take action (or a group of teachers, or, even, conceivably, the DTA), then they are in serious trouble, because there is a federal law known as 42 U.S.C., sec. 1983, which involves deprivations of civil rights.

    A teacher, or group of them, that persuades a school administrator to take an unlawful action, such as, possibly, the suspension in this case, is, and this is an important point, NOT acting within the scope of their employment, and can be sued INDIVIDUALLY for their actions.

    The parents of this student should seek legal counsel immediately for the purpose of issuing a demand letter to all involved for immediate rescission of the suspension, action against the teacher who provoked it.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for