younghoss3165 replies18 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 3,183Senior Member
edited May 2016
sseamom gives a good example of a mob crossing the line and lynching blacks. A sad, real-life example of people going outside the law. It was a very real threat, that really did sometimes happen.
The threat, in this case wasn't real.The first hurdle for the threat to be real is that, it was dependent on Trump's winning the presidency. Like him or not, don't we all agree his winning is no certainty? But if he's elected, the high school boy feels Trump will enforce current immigration laws to deport those here illegally, including the Op's daughter. Since we know she isn't here illegally, but in fact is an American citizen, that is why enforcing current illegal immigrant laws against her are no real threat.
And no, a rapist does not have to rape more than once to be a rapist. But he would have to rape more than once to be a serial rapist. That is a part of the definition of serial rapist, committing repeated rapes. A number of links have been given here, including by carolinamom that define bullying as repeated behavior. One link did not, but the big majority did require it to be repeated behavior.
sseamom4880 replies25 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 4,905Senior Member
@younghoss,so you're saying that making racist comments are ok as long as the speaker doesn't do it more than once to the same person and/or that there is no actual harmful threat behind it? OP's D should just shrug off the comment because she's here legally so she's "safe"? There's a long list of socially unacceptable racial slurs out there, but one can use them without being considered a bully as long as they don't repeat themselves? Hogwash!
Whether or not OP's D has any chance at all of being deported ever, the comment was directed at her because of her race and the perception that she is "other" and not equal. It was very clearly across the line of social acceptability, intended to hurt her. But you contend that it was not actionable because he only said it once and she is not in danger of being deported. I don't think I could disagree more.
younghoss3165 replies18 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 3,183Senior Member
edited May 2016
Are you kidding, sseamom?
Never have I said a racist comment is OK. Never have I said this kid's statement was ok. Where in the world do you come up with the query that maybe I think his statement was ok?
It is preposterous of you to think or imply that I think it is ok.
But I have read definitions of bullying, one graciously provided by carolinamom, and as a result I do not consider this bullying. Please try to see the distinction I see between ok and bullying. There is in-between. I urge you to look up the link she provided to read that definition.
Careful readers know throughout this thread, more than once I have stated I thought his statement was wrong and inappropriate. But I also think this one-time insult to her does not rise to the level of being called bullying her. Anytime, anyone, is EVER insulted is NOT the definition of bullying. I have looked up the definition of bullying from multiple sources and found multiple definitions that say bullying is "repeated behavior". And yes, bullying is also defined as intended to convey a real or perceived threat. I'm not bending the definition of bullying to suit my fancy; I'm going by the definition of multiple sources, including Merriam-Webster.
cobrat12207 replies78 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 12,285Senior Member
edited June 2016
If this is a public high school , then no. I believe that would be a First Amendment violation. A code of conduct does not trump (pardon the expression) the Constitution. It's AMAZING how many people don't understand that.
I disagree with the Supreme Court here as they IMO fail to balance the need for providing a safe conducive educational environment and in prior cases which did narrow K-12 student first amendment rights....uphold the school's ability to foster an educational environment where "consciously or otherwise, teachers—and indeed the older students—demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class."
This ruling effectively undermines the school's ability to do precisely the latter.
But if he's elected, the high school boy feels Trump will enforce current immigration laws to deport those here illegally, including the Op's daughter. Since we know she isn't here illegally, but in fact is an American citizen, that is why enforcing current illegal immigrant laws against her are no real threat.
Unfortunately, there has been several examples of US citizens including those born in the US being deported or bigoted US officials attempting to deport them.
One famous example was Wong Kim Ark who was born in San Francisco in the early 1870's to non-citizen Chinese parents because the prevailing citizenship laws precluded them from getting citizenship.
Though he was considered a US citizen and had made trips to China to visit relatives a few times without incident by officials, that changed in August 1895 when he was denied entry to the port of San Francisco as the immigration official in charge argued he wasn't an citizen despite having been born in the US. It didn't help that this took place in the midst of anti-Chinese/Yellow Peril hysteria in the US public* and a little more than a decade after the passage of the racist anti-Chinese immigration act of 1882.
However, despite the prevailing anti-Chinese hysteria of the era among many "real murikans"...including many within the government of that era, the Supreme Court ended up upholding and confirming the concept of birthright citizenship....even if the parents are non-citizens with the exception of children of ambassadors, heads of state, etc.
So for those of us who are aware of US history, telling someone who "looks foreign" that he/she should be deported is echoing the very mentality and sentiments which lead to the actual attempted/actual deportation of bona-fide US citizens.
* I see some disturbing parallels with some discussions threads here on CC regarding the wholesale stereotyping of all Chinese students based on the actions of some.
OHMomof212464 replies231 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 12,695Senior Member
@younghoss It doesn't really matter what Trump said or didn't say, what the kid said was:
"XX just told me that he hopes that Trump will deport me and I should go back to my country"
Even if you only take the second part - "you should go back to your country", it's a racial insult.
carolinamom2boys6897 replies223 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 7,120Senior Member
Clearly people have all different interpretations of bullying . I think way too much emphasis is being placed on the political statement regarding deportation . That was not the only statement this boy made , including a social media post. Because no one on this thread works at the school involved , it is not our job to be " convinced" that no bullying took place. That's the job of the school administration , so it doesn't really matter what we think. I still stand by my opinion that it should be investigated by the school .
cobrat12207 replies78 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 12,285Senior Member
edited May 2016
going back about 150 yrs to bring up an example is not very convincing that in today's modern times Trump would try to deport American citizens, and that is the basis of the comment in question- that Trump, if elected, desires to deport those here illegally. To my knowledge, Trump has never campaigned on the idea of deporting American citizens.
That little more than century old case is still cited as one which established the concept of birthright citizenship Trump and his supporters have been campaigning to eliminate to avoid the supposed problem of the pejoratively named "anchor babies"...which in the context it has been used by them and hangerons is racist as it's often applied mainly to "foreign looking" folks.
Interestingly, I was having a heated online debate with a friend of a friend who is a Trump supporter who was ignorant enough to believe there's no established precedent regarding birthright citizenship and assumed it was a "made up". My citation and explanation of the US vs Wong Kim Ark(1898) ruling effectively showed him up on his ignorance on that score.
Haven't seen any examples of that term applied to illegal immigrants of White European descent. Maybe you can find a few examples.
Here's a few more examples of US citizens being deported due to xenophobic hysteria:
Also, here's one recent disturbing case of Trump supporters in the form of Sheriff Arapaio's unsavory department* attempting to single out a Latino US citizen for detainment with US immigration authorities with the dangerous possibility of mistaken deportation:
Funny enough...none of the other protesters she was protesting with who happened to be White were similarly turned over to the ICE.
* They've been known to racially profile Latinos as the following articles which illustrate Federal court rulings for them to cease such practices and finding him and his department in contempt for failing to comply with those rulings:
HarvestMoon16200 replies28 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 6,228Senior Member
edited May 2016
I agree that in public schools the threshold is much higher but there are also exceptions carved out of the "substantial disruption" standard. In Fraser the Court held schools may regulate "patently offensive" speech that occurs on campus to teach students the value of civil habits and "the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior." Also I am pretty sure the J.C. v Beverly Hills case dealt with speech that occurred off campus.
Whether the speech that is the subject of this thread rises to the standards articulated in any of the First Amendment cases is another question. Most likely not. But I don't think the OP is looking to litigate this matter in any event. I think she is focused on another avenue.
How about the teacher that was fired last year from a Texas elementary school for making what some perceived as a racist comment on her own FB page? Off school property and on her own social media account. So setting aside the legalities there are also social or professional ramifications for these sort of things which perhaps the OP is more focused on.
cobrat12207 replies78 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 12,285Senior Member
edited May 2016
I think way too much emphasis is being placed on the political statement regarding deportation .
I would only agree with that if our nation's history wasn't filled with multiple instances of actual US citizens being deported during periods of heightened xenophobia.
A google search which took only a minute only underscored this as the widespread profiling/anti-Latino rhetoric...especially from a certain presidential candidate* and many of his supporters which has lead to deliberate and mistaken deportation of US citizens is not only past history....but still happening in very current times as shown by news links I made in my previous post. Scary how history seems to be repeating itself....
* Last I checked, openly accusing an entire race/ethnic group of negative characteristics such as being "rapists, murderers, etc" as a certain presidential candidate is on record as having said is a textbook example of racism. And those who support him are at best, condoning such remarks even if they try to minimize it by saying "it's words/rhetoric".
sseamom4880 replies25 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 4,905Senior Member
Insisting on the legal definition of bullying, insisting that since there is no "real" threat what was said isn't bullying, etc. says to me that that one thinks it's "ok" on some level. Why should someone being singled out because of their race make sure she is "really" threatened or that the instigator has a history of making such remarks before deciding if she was "really" bullied or not? If the *person being targeted* feels attacked, they do, whether or not it meets a legal definition. I'm not talking about "hurt fee-fees" the way some here are portraying racial name-calling. But as the parent of a biracial child, I can tell you that that old saying "Sticks and stone will break my bones but names will never harm me" is patently false. Words can and do have lasting consequences. They don't have to meet some random legal definition to cause damage, believe me.
carolinamom2boys6897 replies223 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 7,120Senior Member
@cobrat I in no means meant to diminish the importance of the statement, I just meant that was where all of the focus was being placed and there were other things being overlooked by placing all the emphasis on one statement.
cobrat12207 replies78 discussionsRegistered UserPosts: 12,285Senior Member
I just meant that was where all of the focus was being placed and there were other things being overlooked by placing all the emphasis on one statement.
From my perspective, the deportation statement is one piece among others which establishes this kid has an established pattern of troubling behavior far more serious than being "one-off" as some posters here have argued.
Moreover, minimizing it as school drama or saying victims should ignore it effectively sends the troubling message that the school and larger society condones and even approves of his troubling behavior in ways very much like how the educrats and parents of the bullies at my middle school effectively condoned the bullies' bad violent behavior by turning the onus on the bullied by saying we need to be more understanding as they are "misunderstood".
That is...until their feeling they've gotten away with prior violent bad behavior encouraged them to do more of the same until the educrats/parents could no longer protect them from negative consequences from the society at large and law enforcement. Some will be continuing to serve their prison sentences for another 15-20 years.
Replies to: Racist comments from a male senior, what should we do?
The threat, in this case wasn't real.The first hurdle for the threat to be real is that, it was dependent on Trump's winning the presidency. Like him or not, don't we all agree his winning is no certainty? But if he's elected, the high school boy feels Trump will enforce current immigration laws to deport those here illegally, including the Op's daughter. Since we know she isn't here illegally, but in fact is an American citizen, that is why enforcing current illegal immigrant laws against her are no real threat.
And no, a rapist does not have to rape more than once to be a rapist. But he would have to rape more than once to be a serial rapist. That is a part of the definition of serial rapist, committing repeated rapes. A number of links have been given here, including by carolinamom that define bullying as repeated behavior. One link did not, but the big majority did require it to be repeated behavior.
Whether or not OP's D has any chance at all of being deported ever, the comment was directed at her because of her race and the perception that she is "other" and not equal. It was very clearly across the line of social acceptability, intended to hurt her. But you contend that it was not actionable because he only said it once and she is not in danger of being deported. I don't think I could disagree more.
Never have I said a racist comment is OK. Never have I said this kid's statement was ok. Where in the world do you come up with the query that maybe I think his statement was ok?
It is preposterous of you to think or imply that I think it is ok.
But I have read definitions of bullying, one graciously provided by carolinamom, and as a result I do not consider this bullying. Please try to see the distinction I see between ok and bullying. There is in-between. I urge you to look up the link she provided to read that definition.
Careful readers know throughout this thread, more than once I have stated I thought his statement was wrong and inappropriate. But I also think this one-time insult to her does not rise to the level of being called bullying her. Anytime, anyone, is EVER insulted is NOT the definition of bullying. I have looked up the definition of bullying from multiple sources and found multiple definitions that say bullying is "repeated behavior". And yes, bullying is also defined as intended to convey a real or perceived threat. I'm not bending the definition of bullying to suit my fancy; I'm going by the definition of multiple sources, including Merriam-Webster.
I disagree with the Supreme Court here as they IMO fail to balance the need for providing a safe conducive educational environment and in prior cases which did narrow K-12 student first amendment rights....uphold the school's ability to foster an educational environment where "consciously or otherwise, teachers—and indeed the older students—demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class."
This ruling effectively undermines the school's ability to do precisely the latter.
Unfortunately, there has been several examples of US citizens including those born in the US being deported or bigoted US officials attempting to deport them.
One famous example was Wong Kim Ark who was born in San Francisco in the early 1870's to non-citizen Chinese parents because the prevailing citizenship laws precluded them from getting citizenship.
Though he was considered a US citizen and had made trips to China to visit relatives a few times without incident by officials, that changed in August 1895 when he was denied entry to the port of San Francisco as the immigration official in charge argued he wasn't an citizen despite having been born in the US. It didn't help that this took place in the midst of anti-Chinese/Yellow Peril hysteria in the US public* and a little more than a decade after the passage of the racist anti-Chinese immigration act of 1882.
However, despite the prevailing anti-Chinese hysteria of the era among many "real murikans"...including many within the government of that era, the Supreme Court ended up upholding and confirming the concept of birthright citizenship....even if the parents are non-citizens with the exception of children of ambassadors, heads of state, etc.
So for those of us who are aware of US history, telling someone who "looks foreign" that he/she should be deported is echoing the very mentality and sentiments which lead to the actual attempted/actual deportation of bona-fide US citizens.
* I see some disturbing parallels with some discussions threads here on CC regarding the wholesale stereotyping of all Chinese students based on the actions of some.
"XX just told me that he hopes that Trump will deport me and I should go back to my country"
Even if you only take the second part - "you should go back to your country", it's a racial insult.
That little more than century old case is still cited as one which established the concept of birthright citizenship Trump and his supporters have been campaigning to eliminate to avoid the supposed problem of the pejoratively named "anchor babies"...which in the context it has been used by them and hangerons is racist as it's often applied mainly to "foreign looking" folks.
Interestingly, I was having a heated online debate with a friend of a friend who is a Trump supporter who was ignorant enough to believe there's no established precedent regarding birthright citizenship and assumed it was a "made up". My citation and explanation of the US vs Wong Kim Ark(1898) ruling effectively showed him up on his ignorance on that score.
Haven't seen any examples of that term applied to illegal immigrants of White European descent. Maybe you can find a few examples.
Here's a few more examples of US citizens being deported due to xenophobic hysteria:
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/09/08/437579834/mass-deportation-may-sound-unlikely-but-its-happened-before (1940's)
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens
Also, here's one recent disturbing case of Trump supporters in the form of Sheriff Arapaio's unsavory department* attempting to single out a Latino US citizen for detainment with US immigration authorities with the dangerous possibility of mistaken deportation:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/21/3761978/trump-arizona-protest/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-iowa/
Funny enough...none of the other protesters she was protesting with who happened to be White were similarly turned over to the ICE.
* They've been known to racially profile Latinos as the following articles which illustrate Federal court rulings for them to cease such practices and finding him and his department in contempt for failing to comply with those rulings:
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/13/386085277/arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-facing-more-legal-troubles
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/sheriff-joe-arpaio-found-in-contempt-court-in-racial-profiling-case.html
A troubling pattern of behavior by a LEO and his department....and a prominent Trump supporter.
Whether the speech that is the subject of this thread rises to the standards articulated in any of the First Amendment cases is another question. Most likely not. But I don't think the OP is looking to litigate this matter in any event. I think she is focused on another avenue.
How about the teacher that was fired last year from a Texas elementary school for making what some perceived as a racist comment on her own FB page? Off school property and on her own social media account. So setting aside the legalities there are also social or professional ramifications for these sort of things which perhaps the OP is more focused on.
I would only agree with that if our nation's history wasn't filled with multiple instances of actual US citizens being deported during periods of heightened xenophobia.
A google search which took only a minute only underscored this as the widespread profiling/anti-Latino rhetoric...especially from a certain presidential candidate* and many of his supporters which has lead to deliberate and mistaken deportation of US citizens is not only past history....but still happening in very current times as shown by news links I made in my previous post. Scary how history seems to be repeating itself....
* Last I checked, openly accusing an entire race/ethnic group of negative characteristics such as being "rapists, murderers, etc" as a certain presidential candidate is on record as having said is a textbook example of racism. And those who support him are at best, condoning such remarks even if they try to minimize it by saying "it's words/rhetoric".
From my perspective, the deportation statement is one piece among others which establishes this kid has an established pattern of troubling behavior far more serious than being "one-off" as some posters here have argued.
Moreover, minimizing it as school drama or saying victims should ignore it effectively sends the troubling message that the school and larger society condones and even approves of his troubling behavior in ways very much like how the educrats and parents of the bullies at my middle school effectively condoned the bullies' bad violent behavior by turning the onus on the bullied by saying we need to be more understanding as they are "misunderstood".
That is...until their feeling they've gotten away with prior violent bad behavior encouraged them to do more of the same until the educrats/parents could no longer protect them from negative consequences from the society at large and law enforcement. Some will be continuing to serve their prison sentences for another 15-20 years.