Perhaps brainwashed was what was intended, but it didn’t sound that way to me. I don’t agree with the proposal the students in the student government made, and have said so from the outset. But at least these are students willing to participate in student government, whether their proposals were right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable. Plenty of legislation in other areas of government is ridiculous too . And again, IIRC, their proposal was to ban all flags so it was felt to be a welcoming area to all. It wasn’t just a proposal to ban the US flag.
For sure if some have all rights to declare that American Flag is a Hate Speach, than I also have full rights to declare them “brainwashed” - which is NOT my opinion, but fact proven by their actions. I also have all rights to state that their statement about the American Flag is a Hate Speech. Or the freedom of spech works only on one side and not on another? Well, this fact is also a proof of being brainwashed. All of these types do not see beyond their own nose, they are the only ones with all rights, but no, no, nobody else have the same rights. As one very smart person said, all people are created equal, but some are created more equal than the others. I love this book, sooo true!.
First, you didn’t say brainwashed, but apparently that is what you meant. But have you read the thread or read the proposal or the responses, all of which have been presented several times, or have you just read the thread title, which can be misleading. No clue by whom or why you think that their proposing stupid legislation is proof of being “brainwashed”. It is not a fact, it is your opinion. And for the umpteenth time is was about all flags, not just one. If you are going to opine, please, for a change, read the thread. Many legislators propose stupid legislation. So what else is new. But it has nothing to do with being “brainwashed”.
Here, READ the legislation. Like most, I didn’t agree with it. That’s not the issue. It is not about any one country’s flag. http://www.asuci.uci.edu/legislative/legislations/R50-70.html
jym,
As I understand it, the controversy was specifically about the American flag. Read the resolution, and what the student reps say the American flag means; its somewhere in this thread. They may have banned all flags, but the purpose was to stop the American flag from being hung in the lobby.
Here is the legislation that was proposed (I just added it to the previous post but will re-link as you posted while I was looking for it) http://www.asuci.uci.edu/legislative/legislations/R50-70.html
And for some amusement, a list of stupid laws in other venues http://www.stupidlaws.com/
“They may have banned all flags, but the purpose was to stop the American flag from being hung in the lobby.”
-And this going against right of those who wants to have the American Flag being hung in the lobby. So, the actions of the Associated Students council is definitely a Hate Speech targeted against the rights of others.
I come from a military family. I, personally, did not serve but I have nothing but respect for people that do.
IMO, it is down right unpatriotic NOT to question the US government. There were laws on the books until the 90s that essentially made it illegal for my people (Roma) to live in certain states. My Roma grandfather gave several decades of his life to the US military.
I work with some of the darkest parts of US history. My work revolves around the forced institutionalization and sterilization of US citizens because they didn’t conform to white middle class norms- paid for and sanctioned by state and federal governments. Luckily, people challenged the system and it was, in some ways, fixed.
The American flag is NOT always a pure symbol. It is, in part, a symbol of colonization, the slaughter of many, many people, and the wiping out of whole cultures. To deny that is to whitewash history. We need to remember history in order to not repeat it.
My military family has never understood the flag fetishism that many Americans have (perhaps it was from my grandfather being raised in a culture that didn’t have a flag). My grandfather used to say (in broken English and I am paraphrasing)- “I didn’t serve a f-ing flag. I served so that my children could have a better life and so that they wouldn’t have to grow up in fear, like we did.”
Whether I agree with what these students did is irrelevant. I’m just thankful that we live in a country where it’s possible without fear of being shot.
Mmm, preach!
Almost. America still has some gaping holes to work on.
What??? That makes no sense.
Yes of course- which I realized after I submitted. Sometimes I get too stuck in the past and forget about our modern issues.
And in my opinion those who served didn’t die for “the flag”. They died for our country, which is quite different. If we all decided to change our flag to something else, would that change the ideals we hold dear? I would hope not. I wish we would “pledge allegiance to the constitution” rather than the flag.
IMHO, the flag is meant to be a symbol of a country that provides the better life . . .
The American flag is a symbol. It is a visual reminder that we are all of one nation. It is not only a symbol of all the good that America is but also a symbol of the struggles we have overcome to continue to be a united people. We are always struggling to be better.
There is no better recent example of the importance of the flag as a symbol of our unity as a nation than the months after 9/11. The country rallied around our flag.
I am a flag lover, I come from a military family, I honor and take pride in our flag as a symbol of our country. It is extremely important to me. I do not agree with many of the actions of my country but I am proud to fly my flag as a symbol of my country and the ideals that it stands for.
My Dad loved our flag and our country. So what if it means different things to different people. No one is denying that it does. The issue is whether the student government representatives at a public university ought to ban the American flag from being displayed in the lobby. Why should six people get to decide what it means and to ban it? They shouldn’t.
And they didn’t. It got vetoed.
MY DH was military. Still very active in veterans activities. Puts flags at the cemetery every veterans/memorial day and participates in veterans activities and fundraisers and holds office in his war veterans organization. We are all patriotic. But as much as I disagree with the proposal, some college students, and others may have a different idea. Which is fine.
And FWIW, there was a post after #147 that made no sense that prompted post # 148, but it seems to not be there… Weird.
It got vetoed due to the firestorm of publicity that erupted. The Chancellor overruled it regardless, because it was such a stupid idea.
Setting aside any controversy over what the flag symbolizes, the action was a ban on the free exercise of speech: flying a flag. Who in the world would support a public university taking such an action while at the same time holding itself out as a legitimate public institution of higher education and free exchange of ideas?
It doesnt matter why it got vetoed. It got vetoed. You dont know whether the SG president would or would not have signed off on it even if it didnt go viral. And if stupid legislation proposed like this leads to open discussions like this, thats a good thing too. Just felt the namecalling was uncalled for. Still do. We are all sharing opinions here. Its all good.
What bothered me most about the incident was the apparent lack of intelligence or education on the part of the student reps who voted to ban it. Did they even understand what they were doing? I.e., banning speech and imposing their own values vis-a-vis our flag on the entire student body? It appeared that all they cared about was their own personal hurt feelings and gave no thought to the larger student body, the university, the taxpayers or the citizens of this country. It came across to me as very self-centered and selfish. If our flag offends you, look away.
To be clear, the “public university” took no such action. It was a vote by a handful of student government ‘leaders’, one of which happened to be an international, about the student govt office space.
btw: As anyone who has been around a college knows, no one takes so-called student government seriously (except themselves) unless they are throwing a party with free booze.
I agree with you in general, but in this case the Chancellor stepped in and overruled the action, so he must have figured it was serious and reflected poorly on the university.