You can certainly point toward Newberg school district in Oregon. They banned all flags except the US and state flag to get politics out of the classroom. All media coverage specifically says they banned rainbow flags and BLM flags...but thats not what the rule says. Trump and NRA flags are just as banned...but that doesn't make a good liberal outrage story quite as much as saying BLM and LGBTQ flags are being banned...
Is it the case that the schools were also flying NRA flags or did this "fair" rule just happen to only affect rainbow flags?
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France
I think the initial cause was a BLM flag that a parent took issue with being in the classroom. Initially they were going to just ban BLM flags due to the highly contentious nature, but extended the ban to all flags except the US and state flag.
Similar to this book "ban"...is it unreasonable that teachers not bring their own personal political view points into the classroom and push them on to children? Is a political and judgment free classroom an unreasonable expectation?
How about if a teacher is a Trump supporter and wears a Trump hat to school...do we expect them to be fired because of it? This happened to someone I know...and I don't see any huge outrage in the media because of it.
> Is a political and judgment free classroom an unreasonable expectation?
Probably? It always comes down to history, with art and literature being a reflection of it.
An objective reading of all history, were there time, would still be disliked by any who place political allegiance above greater good. Add in the necessary summarization that must occur, to be able to fit a large amount of material in a smaller amount of class time, and it becomes even more fraught.
Fundamentally, whether to teach a part of history, and how much emphasis or context to put on various parts, is a politically-adjacent question.
He also was intentionally an instigator and I wasn't present to see what his educational process comprised, but I'm guessing not much. There's a "thing" about "owning the libs" which doesn't have any interest in building consensus or anything like it (in fact, the opposite -- it's literally the whole point of it). He played dickhead poker and lost. Whomp whomp.
re Trump vs BLM flags, the former refers to a specific person of a specific party and that flag is literally a representation of fealty to same.
In the latter, the words that comprise the phrase cannot be contested (but actually are, which only increases the validity and urgency of the phrase). If you want to throw in another color or flavor there then fine, because that statement comes from a position of inclusivity. Yes, all lives matter but we all know that life ain't fair and certain groups of people have it less fair than others.
For many, unfortunately, the phrase BLM matters too because they've been conditioned to associate that phrase with purely negative connotations. So for those individuals, seeing a BLM flag they see the flag of their enemy and that, of course, must not stand.
So to compare and contrast vis-à-vis Trump vs BLM, with the former you have "Hail to The King" and the latter being "let's end police abuse of power" that has been rebranded as evil by its opponents. They're coming from completely different intentions and intention matters a lot.
BTW, I wouldn't support Biden flags in the school either.
But putting up a flag that might comfort LGBQT youth in a world that is hostile to them? Or a flag that explicitly states that they matter? Your homework assignment is to compare and contrast those flags.
It's another zero tolerance fail, however I understand the conundrum and why they chose it.
But equivocating Trump and NRA flags w/ BLM and rainbow flags is a stretch -- they're coming from different places with drastically different intentions.
I loath the NRA but if they hewed to their stance in the previous century I'd even give them a pass.
> they're coming from different places with drastically different intentions
Are they or is that just your perception of the person who put them up?
If a person that puts up a LBTBQ flag is doing so just to show that they support equality but isn't actually LBTGQ themselves...is that different than putting up an NRA flag showing that they support the NRA organization (or at least parts of it...I don't think most people can get behind all of it)...or a BLM flag showing that they support a cause even though they don't agree with everything done in the name of BLM. Who makes that call...or should anyone be making that call? Is it easier to remove any possibility of politics or conflict from politics from classrooms as that is not why kids are going to school.
> If a person that puts up a LBTBQ flag is doing so just to show that they support equality but isn't actually LBTGQ themselves...is that different than putting up an NRA flag showing that they support the NRA organization
Depends: Does the person putting up the NRA flag belong to the NRA or not? Your alternatives aren't equivalent.
What? What does that have to do with anything, you ask? Yeah, that's what I was wondering, too. So why did you put "isn't actually LBTGQ themselves" in there?
Kids don't get harassed for not owning a gun. They do if they're not "normal".
You're looking at it in the context of "my team vs your team". My point is the context is "our team". If you can't see the difference your ignorance is willful.
Because I have several fundraising emails in a junk inbox that would indicate otherwise.