They describe the flying of flags (plural) in the student government center (or whatever it is called). No one thinks its about any other flag. People are reading the information, though apparently there seems to continually be misinformation put out there. If you have a link to a photograph of the flags in the student center, post it. Or any link to anything that describes “a little flag that is movable” .Where is that coming from?
This is probably the most accurate detailed story from the student paper and a photo of the flag in question.
There is no flying.
The flag is described as having been hung on the walls of the student center. Don’t
see any photo (that twitter link is just to the multiple tweets from some news station- canty find any specific one about UCI) or description of its size. The photo in the article is of yard flags stuck in the ground in front of the building (I happen to be familiar with the size of those- have a whole box full of them in my garage and they get put out every veterans and memorial days at the cemeterys)
Yes the legislation was vetoed by the executive council, and so would not go into effect, just as a presidential veto would have the same effect on a bill passed by the house/senate.
They voted to take it down and then they took it down. It’s like taking a picture off a wall. We are not talking about a big fancy flag here. Then it became a big brou-ha-ha and was vetoed and the flag was put back up. Sorry you couldn’t find the photo but it is there and it is nothing special, just a flag on a wall in a student center. That’s about it. Here is a photo of the formerly flag free space.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/flag-653323-students-ban.html
Interesting. Some places described it as hanging on a wall in the lobby of the student government building. Then they talked about an area near the student government offices. That looks like an internal space with the offices around it (sort of like the inside of a small square), where probably very few would see it. Sure seems to have blown way out of proportion. Maybe not quite much ado about nothing, but close.
It was the 6 who blew out of proportion what a trigger threat the sight of flags might induce.
I agree with GMT on this one. The bottom line is that six elected students took it upon themselves to inflict their own oversensitivities upon an entire university full of students who overwhelmingly did not agree with them. It mirrors what goes on in government at all levels: the elected few misusing their power to make bad legislation that few people want. Aren’t there issues of real concern these kids could’ve spent their time on? If you don’t think that this little, silly piece of legislation did not affect the student body, think again. It made the school and its students look ridiculous, until it was properly ridiculed and vetoed.
And perhaps it pulled a student body that was described as somewhat apathetic towards student government issues together to address what might otherwise have been a small issue. That isn’t a bad thing.
SCOTUS turned away a 1st Amendment case testing whether school officials in California violated the free speech rights of three high school students who were told they could not wear American flag T-shirts at a Cinco de Mayo school event, because it might incite students of Mexican heritage.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0330/Does-wearing-American-flag-incite-violence-Supreme-Court-lets-stand-ruling
What I see here is something I’ve seen in other documents written by students, especially activist students, which is including too much detail for their own good.
If they had written that in order for the lobby in question to remain a neutral space, all signs, placards, and flags should be removed other than those relating to the specific activities of student government, there would likely be no controversy. But instead, they included a lot of (to me, stupid) verbiage that could be used to make them look really bad.
I’ve seen the same thing when students release lists of demands–instead of just making a limited number of really specific defensible demands, they include all kinds of crazy stuff and the whole thing ends up looking bad.
GMTplus7 posted the quotation, "“[T]he American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism”
I think this is true. Do other people doubt it? I also think that the flag has been flown in a number of other circumstances that run counter to American ideals. This refers to actions, both official and unofficial, that dishonor the country and by association, dishonor the flag.
My solution to this is not to ban the display of the flag, but to attempt to associate it more strongly with the positive aspects of American action and American ideals.
The Associated Students of UC Irvine should be Expelled them for hating their country.
Rotund 55 year old bikers in belly shirts trigger me. Can those be banned also?
UC Irvine Associated Students - Why so edgy?
“Rotund 55 year old bikers in belly shirts trigger me. Can those be banned also?” - if you want to ban everybody who “trigger you”
Nothing “tirgger me”. We have a freedom of expression in this country. Hating American flag is NOT a freedom of expression, traitors hate American flag because it stands for freedom (so far it has been standing for freedom, maybe it is changing now? Then, maybe this “change” has to be addressed).
Actually it is. That is part and parcel of our freedoms for which I served 20+ years in the military.
It’s your prerogative to hate the American flag. Just don’t presume to preemptively remove it so other people cannot exercise their freedom of expression to love or hate it.
Oh, but if we could only really “ban everyone who trigger you”…
UC Irvine is out for me. The American Flag should be flown with pride & dignity.
No over reaction here. People gave lives for the freedom & liberties our flag represents. Fly it.