• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boston teen banned from cheerleading after tweet about immigrants [W:39]

What I might have missed is why are we worried if some are offended over the term illegal, or is it more?
 
What I might have missed is why are we worried if some are offended over the term illegal, or is it more?

For one, if it was a political point, it was an ignorant one. 10% voter turnout refers to eligible voters so illegals do not qualify in the calculation.

For two, she may have refused to apologize knowing that she genuinely offended her peers by calling their parents criminals. She may have doubled down on her behavior. She may have been engaged in a pattern of behavior that she was instructed to stop. We just don't know. The school is not allowed to explain its justifications.

For three, no matter how unintentional, multiple students complained and some allegedly threatened her. Ignorance is not always a legitimate excuse for disruptive behavior. Further, her punishment is that of revoking her position as a representative of the school. The school has an obligation to all of its students to create an atmosphere of inclusion and safety- the maintenance of her privileged status in light of these allegations would be tacit approval of her statement.

They did not want to discipline her for the statement. They felt they had no choice after the backlash.
 
"If you're going to stand up and say something that other people will find offensive, then you need to be prepare to deal with the ramifications of that,"

"She added that the school district believes in freedom of speech, but will not tolerate ‘insensitive language’.
‘If you’re going to stand up and say something that other people will find offensive or hateful, then you need to be prepared to deal with the ramifications of that.’


Read more: Caley Godino banned from cheerleading team after tweeting about illegal immigrants | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"



Dianne Kelley is full of **** it was over the tweet and the tweet alone.

If it was something else, one of the offended would have come forward with the whole story.

In other words, you cannot logically back your conclusion because you are making assumptions in your premises.
 
Perhaps one of our open borders posters can explain why her tweet was offensive or what the hell the district super is talking about here.

I don't see a reason to be offended, and even if that was so, it's within her rights... :shrug:
 
Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
When the first case you state is one I've already proven MULTIPLE times to A) not prove your point and B) not apply here, I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of them, as it is clear you don't have the first clue as to what you are talking about.

Why do you keep posting a case which has already been proven not applicable in this situation?
And remember this happened OUTSIDE of school.
And remember, I've already proven that fact to be completely irrelevant. Have you not read anything in this thread?

*drops mic, walks off stage*
Yes, if I kept reposting something already have been proven not applicable, I'd walk off the stage in embarrassment as well. Why do you keep posting a court case which has nothing to do with this situation, especially when I posted numerous court cases which did?

Are you just that afraid of being wrong you'll stoop to knowingly posting lies? Should I go ahead and whip out Brown vs. Board of Education, just so you'll understand the absurdity of you posting Tinker?
Except no one here has taken that position.
Yes, they have. Just because you don't keep up with the thread, it doesn't make your statement any less false.

The school has the authority to discipline, but only for behaviors on school grounds or events within school control.
100% false, as I've already proven.

Why do people keep posting things which have been shown to be wrong? Why can you simply not pay attention?

Your argument here shows zero understanding of the source of the real problems for teachers and administrators.
:lamo

You have no idea how utterly ridiculous your statement is here. Allow me to re-post something from about three months ago:

My grandfather was a teacher, principal and superintendent. My grandmother was a teacher. My dad was a teacher. His wife was a teacher. My mom's husband was a teacher. My mom was a teacher, principal and superintendent. I'm a teacher. My sister just graduated college and is currently working as a teacher's assistant.

But, no, seriously, go ahead and tell me again about how much more you know of the real problems for teachers and administrators. :lol:

You're wrong. I will await your apology.
 
Back
Top Bottom