It’s time for a brief respite from the lunacy and treasonous intentions of those who are doing their best to destroy liberty via unconstitutional gun bans. There will be more than enough time–and material–for that topic in the near future. For the moment, let’s turn to the Eric Owens at The Daily Caller:
Credit: htmlgiant.com
A high school teacher in South Carolina is under investigation and has been placed on long-term administrative leave after he allegedly threw an American flag on the floor and stomped on it in front of his students.
Scott Compton, an English teacher at Chapin High school in Chapin, S.C., reprised the unpatriotic deed in three classes over the course of one day…
As is often the case in these matters, a student reported Compton’s actions to a parent who complained, and explained:
He drew a couple of symbols, like one of them was a cross, and he said, ‘What does this represent,’ and everybody said, ‘Christianity…’
Then he proceeds to take down the American flag, and said, ‘This is a symbol, but it’s only a piece of cloth. It doesn’t mean anything,’ and then he throws it down on the floor and then stomps on it, repeatedly…’
‘I asked what was he trying to get, the point across? And she said, ‘I don’t know,’ and he said, his explanation was there would be no consequences, it’s just a piece of cloth that doesn’t mean anything.
Compton’s school district is not amused. According to a district spokesman:
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…
This will surprise no one:
According to FITSNews, a South Carolina-based conservative news and entertain website, people in the Chapin High community describe Compton a ‘good teacher’ who is ‘very liberal’ and ‘wears it on his sleeve in the classroom.
Mr. Compton is certainly in bad company. Bill Ayers, one of President Obama’s close friends and business associates, was depicted in 2008 in Chicago Magazine, stomping on an American flag.
Credit: beldarblogs.com
For those whose memory needs a bit of jogging, Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground responsible for many deaths and heinous robberies and bomb plots during the heyday of that terrorist organization. He later became an education profession at the University of Illinois at Chicago (he is now retired), and Mr. Obama told many lies about his relationship with Ayers, claiming he was only a guy who happened to live in the same neighborhood despite working closely for years on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with Ayers, and despite Mr. Obama’s beginning his political career with an event in Ayer’s home. Ayers has recently said he didn’t do enough as an active terrorist.
The Marxist View:
Teachers have freedom of speech, which is particularly important in the classroom. Academic freedom is the foundation of free inquiry through which the boundaries of the culture are explored, expanded and understood. The courts have often ruled that even burning the flag is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech, and no speech deserves greater protection than political speech. Stomping on the flag is surely a political act. In fact, there may be no greater expression of patriotism than stomping on the flag, and no greater act of political bravery.
Mr. Compton deserves the support of all patriotic Americans, and should be lauded, not disparaged for having the courage to make a political statement that can only cause his fortunate students to examine their own assumptions and beliefs. Compton did a patriotic service for his students and community.
The Constitutional View:
While teachers–and students–do enjoy freedom of speech, that freedom, like every other, is not limitless. Based on the admittedly limited information available in the press, Compton’s actions appear to be unmistakably indefensible.
No public school teacher has an unlimited right to free speech. All rational teachers understand that there are limits to speech based not only on the lack of suitability of some language, ideas and beliefs for a given student audience, but based on the prevailing standards of their community. There are also always curricular limitations imposed not only by a teacher’s discipline (math, English, science, etc.), but by the boundaries of the curriculum itself.
For example, considering Compton is an English teacher, it would be difficult indeed to imagine how stomping on the flag could possibly fit into any rational, professional English curriculum. In the same way, it would be inherently reasonable to be suspicious of a teacher spending precious time praising Obamacare in a geometry class, or discussing their love life in chemistry.
Every teacher understands they must conform to the law, and to the rules and standards of their workplace. Some states require a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Any teacher is free to feel such required expressions of loyalty are improper, and any student may refuse to recite the Pledge. However, it is a part of the duty of that teacher to require students to stand during the recitation, and if they will not speak, to remain silent so as not to disrupt others.
One can argue that this is an intrusion on the conscience of that teacher, perhaps even a free speech violation, but the courts and the Constitution do not agree. All jobs have some adult responsibilities, and a significant part of those responsibilities is the inculcation of the basic responsibilities of citizenship in students. If a teacher must hold his tongue–or avoid stomping on the flag–in order to fulfill that responsibility, that is a small price to pay. They always have the alternative of seeking other employment that more closely matches their sensibilities.
As an English teacher, surely Compton understands the power of symbolism. It is highly likely he was stomping on the American flag precisely because he does understand that power and wanted to make his disdain for America speak as loudly and clearly as possible. If he was indeed telling students that the cross and the American flag mean nothing, one should be more than concerned about his competence to teach English, for it would be demanding to find two symbols more imbued with meaning, history and emotion, and more likely to provoke a negative reaction when misused and misrepresented.
Any teacher should also realize that once they introduce partisan politics into the classroom, they severely limit their effectiveness and ability to reach every student. They additionally stir up unnecessary and unwise controversy among parents and the community, two groups of citizens every teacher needs on their side.
Not every free speech issue is equal. In teaching Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, it is impossible to avoid the word “nigger,” or to avoid speaking about the historical context of the work. Yet some would surely object to even speaking the word. However, completely teaching that American classic is eminently defensible, and an important part of any American literature curriculum.
How then do we interject stomping on the American flag into any curriculum, particularly when the teacher is apparently removing any reference to meaningful symbolism from the curricular table in the process? If stomping on the flag truly means nothing, why do it? What’s the lesson? What do students learn?
In this case, Mr. Compton stepped over–and on–the boundaries of the Constitution, of professional practice, of competent curriculum, of community standards, and of good taste. His actions cannot be defended.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
I am kind of surprised Compton didn’t urinate on the flag. That would be the natural progressive thing to do. Wouldn’t it?
Dear Joel:
Well, it has certainly been frequently done in the past.
Hypothetically speaking – an American flag, Cross, (insert symbolic image here) is drawn on a chalkboard, dry erase board, arranged out of Skittles or M and Ms…
and is subsequently erased, washed off, or eaten. If the concept is the represented symbology is in a way sacred, wouldn’t that mean the defacer is in the same boat as this teacher?
Why or why not?
As to the particular lesson this instructor was going after, not entirely sure or even if its entirely relevant. If the flag is indeed a sacrosanct symbol, then we probably shouldn’t have things like… American flag boxers, or any such other disposable media that we snap up close the 7/4.
*drily* at that point, you’re dealing with the representation of a symbol (literally, a symbol of a symbol), and not the symbol itself, and if he had made the same commentary on erasing the thing, then he would not be suspended.
Symbols of symbols are still representative of the original, correct? How does a re-representation of the original make it any less sacred?
I don’t know about sacredness, nor “symbols of symbols”, but there sure is a matter of practicality. Chalk markings on a chalkboard are meant and expected to be erased so the board can be used again, M & Ms meant to be eaten, etc. These are things which are imminently disposable or consumable by design. The same cannot be said for flags.
Therein is the true fallacy of your argument, and the closest thing to a rational answer one can fit to it. Does it un-muddle the “sacredness” question? Nope. I’ll give you that.
At any rate I agree with your implied assertion, whether you do or not, that American flag boxers and the like seem pretty inappropriate.
“… whether you do or not, that American flag boxers and the like seem pretty inappropriate.”– For the record, yes, I find them inappropriate, along with things like American flag napkins and paper plates. To me it seems something for the purpose of being disposed of shouldn’t bear the standard (yes, I see the parallels to that and M and M flags and chalk drawings), but, well, anything to make a buck.
Without meaning any disrespect whatsoever towards what U.S. citizens feel about their own country and way of life, if I (not a U.S. citizen) were a visitor there and if I had children who were obliged to attend U.S. schools from force of circumstances, I would take that as entirely offensive and impertinent, for the simple reason that I would not want “the inculcation of the basic responsibilities of citizenship” thrust upon my children. While it would be acceptable for them to leave such occasions, it would be wrong for them even to be forced to stand, and under no circumstances whatsoever would I find it acceptable for them to be indoctrinated in U.S. culture. Respect for U.S. ways stops short of allowing those to force any endorsement of them, no matter how minor. It only covers accepting that those ways exist and that those who follow them are entitled to do so – short of overriding the ways of others. It is a simple matter of respecting my own – other – ways.
PML, you missed the very important aspect in the last few words of the portion you quoted. Basic responsibilities of citizenship. If you aren’t a citizen, or those attending aren’t citizens, that is a pretty good reason for not reciting the pledge.
No, I didn’t miss anything, though I suspect you might have done.
I fully appreciate that such children would not be required to pledge allegiance. But – on precisely the grounds of teaching the basic responsibilities of citizenship, by the standards given – they would be required to stand for it. But that’s on a par with waiving the requirement for Jewish children to pray and sing and make responses in a Christian chapel – but still requiring them to attend and stand, sit, kneel and so on with all the others. Now, if a Jew freely chose to attend he should do all those things as a matter of courtesy, just as an Irishman I know stands for the Loyal Toast at formal occasions but does not make it himself. But nobody unaffiliated should even be forced to do as little as that described above, that I condemned. It’s offensive kowtowing to force that on another. If sitting quietly were potentially disruptive, say if it might be misunderstood as silent protest, then the proper course would be to excuse attendance, not impose compliance. That would not be a matter of courtesy; no courtesy can be owed to those who seek to extort it.
Dear P.M. Lawrence:
The example I present is hardly a matter of extortion. Education law is quite clear on such matters. School staff may require students to do simple things such as stand, sit, move from place to place, be silent, etc. as a logical and necessary extension of the in loco parentis (in place of the parents) doctrine. As I noted, one may not require students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or similar affirmations, but they may surely ask that they stand with rest of the class and remain silent while their classmates participate. No one is in the least harmed by this.
Your suggestions of demanding that Jewish children engage in the physical motions of Christian worship does not apply here, and no such thing occurs–or should occur–in the public schools. Obviously that would be wrong in any context. However, they would surely be free to do this voluntarily.
On my last visit to Canada, I was pleased to discover that prior to the showing of movies in any theater, the Canadian national anthem is played. Everyone stands and most sing. As I did not know the words, I did not sing, but certainly stood. Not only was it only polite to do so, it showed the decency and respect due my Canadian hosts. When in another nation, this is reasonably owned the citizens of that nation. Standing while the Canadian anthem played did not imply demonstrating my loyalty to Canada or rejecting my loyalty to America, it was merely proper adult behavior.
Trying to teach students proper adult behavior is a significant part of what we do in education. Requiring minimal politeness and participation in maintaining proper order in schools is inherently reasonable.
That paragraph was literally a rebranding and deeper implication of my premise. Not a Citizen. No responsibility to citizenship.
“Hey, why aren’t you reciting the pledge? Are you a commie?”
“No, British Citizen”
“Oh… um… never mind then.”
It really is that simple.
“.. they would be required to stand for it…” — isn’t that considered basic respect where you are from? In general, explaining that you aren’t a citizen gets you off the hook for a lot when it comes to patriotism, it could easily be explained that no, in short, you aren’t from around here, and it would not be expected of you to participate in the various patriotic customs we might practice, so you sitting during the national anthem would be understood.
But it still would be insulting.
To wit, if my Jewish pal invites me over for a Superbowl party, toting along some porkrinds could be explained, but it would still be a slight to the host.
RuleofOrder, that’s why I was careful to distinguish between compulsory attendance with compulsory standing on the one hand, and what would be right and proper behaviour for a guest freely choosing to attend.
If a school required attendance at assembly and then further required standing to show respect during a recital of its pledge of allegiance, that would be impertinent and offensive, and – far from refusing being insulting – it would be a necessary part of the self respect of refusing to be dragooned. The effort to require that would already have been insulting; that ship has sailed. If those people would feel insulted under those circumstances, well, it is precisely such people we all ought to insult, just to keep them in their place. They don’t get off the hook by claiming that they are only requiring what a free guest ought to do anyway – this isn’t a free guest thing. They could only make it free again by not making attendance and so on compulsory, after all.
If a British ambassador once refused to kowtow before Mandarins, why ought anyone kowtow before far lesser creatures like school officials?
P. M.
Your anxiety is avoidable.
In the U.S., the young are not compelled to attend a public school. They may attend, with their parent’s permission, a public, a private religious, a private secular, or a home school. This should relieve your hypothetical stress.
Standing is hardly the same as kowtowing–that is truly a false analogy, a cheap shot–and is little more than being polite and not “in your face.” If you cannot refrain from teaching your children to be “in your face,” then by all means home school your child, for heaven’s sake! If you do not wish to teach your children an urbane savoir faire, keep them close to you.
Everyone seems to forget, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government, not from me. Your free to make any statement you wish and not to be hassled from Government intervention. And I respect your right to “Free Speach”, as my Daddy and I both served in the Army to protect your right to “Free Speach”. But make a statement around me, that insults my Wife, Family, Country and/or Religion and your free to receive an Azz whooping, as I am free to be charged with assault on your person. But I do promise you this, it will be remembered event in your life. The day your mouth wrote a check your Azz couldn’t cash. I am getting so tired of people saying anything they feel about anyone or thing that they want. Respect has died in this country.
Amen.
Ah, yes, the perfect response to the spoken word: physical violence.
Well done, German Horse Master. Well done. Are you the same cast of character that would in the same breath say “You don’t have the right to not be offended” with regards to other such “PC” slurs that float about?
“…and he said, his explanation was there would be no consequences…”
vs
“A high school teacher in South Carolina is under investigation and has been placed on long-term administrative leave…”
Gave me the giggles, that did! Thanks for that little bit of schadenfreude, Mike.