I understand his point in stomping on it to illustrate the freedom to deface symbols, even if it might have been the wrong thing to do in such a
delicate time (and state).
Honors English teacher Scott Compton, at Chapin High School, was reportedly trying to illustrate that students had the freedom to deface symbols
I could definitely see a lawsuit.
Teacher was in a public school. Even though students legally lose some of their rights when they enter school (and not being adults), that teacher,
unless there was some kind of contract he signed where he relinquished certain rights, he is in a public place and what he did was constitutionally
protected, even if tasteless, especially since (or because) he was using it as a lesson-plan (or even if he was just sick of nationalism). In the
former some might argue it's tasteless (and they might be right), and in the latter some might argue it's an inappropriate forum (and they might be
So, how does the suspension of rights apply to TEACHERS in a public school (since we know students lose some of theirs)?
“Our superintendent served in the military, I served in the military for 20 years, our flag is a symbol of our freedom, and so many people have
fought and died for that liberty, and so we take this action very seriously,” a spokesperson for the school told WISTV 10.
Sounds to me like the old "how dare you disrespect the flag i fought for" ego-nationalism kicked in rather than a sound reaction.
reply to post by goou111
I hope he never gets to teach again and im glad the students told on him
You're glad the students told
How old are you, 12, or just really immature?
You do realize we are supposed to TEACH our children? Not blindly indoctrinate them with our own opinions and viewpoints (even though we do). The
teacher had a point, a legally sound, constitutionally protected point that he was using--and trying to TEACH the students, and you hope he never gets
to teach just because you don't like what he did and how he did it???
It's thinking like this that aims to take away the constitutional rights of others simply because one doesn't agree with it (see pornography
edit on 10-1-2013 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)