Free Speech... from 12pm to 1pm

Everyone has heard of the first amendment. Everyone has heard of situations in where this amendment has been violated. Never have I heard of an in between. At Yuba Community College District, a new policy has been approved that limits student free speech activities to two hours per week, and require students to obtain permission at least two weeks in advance.

In 2008, officials threatened a student with arrest and expulsion fir sharing a Christian

message at the college. In turn, this outraged many students. Free speech is a first amendment laid out in the Constitution, and no student should need a permit two weeks in advance to exercise this right. 

A college is the place where one's mind is the most free and open it will ever be. Suppressing freedom of speech to a mere two hours a week is an outright violation of rights. A student peacefully exercising his First Amendment right to speak on campus is not a crime- nor should he be punished for that. After all, this isn't North Korea; this is America.

By taking away these rights, colleges and authority are taking away the basic principles behind America and our founding.  This situation was so outrageous that Young America's Foundation ranked first on "Academia's Top 10 Abuses of 2008." The student, not violent or disruptive, was threatened to be expelled solely for his freedom of expression.

Carry That Weight

One in every six women have been raped or attempted rape at one point in her life. Unfortunately, Emma Sulkowicz was one of those. On her first day of sophomore year, the Columbia University student was raped by a classmate.

Instead of feeling embarrassed or shamed, she brought this terrible act to the University board in attempt to get her rapist expelled from the school. Despite other women claiming similar adults by the same student, the attacker was found not responsible by the University.

Sulkowicz vowed from then on to carry her mattress around with her at all times until her attacker was taken out of the school and she could feel safe again. After the case heating, she filed a federal complaint against Columbia for violating the gender equity law of Title IX and mishandling the sexual assault cases.

As a student and as a woman, Emma’s rights were taken away from her. Her “Carry That Weight” campaign has called attention from government officials and the

media. As long as the University allows her rapist to attend the same school, the will continue the project. She has the right to feel safe at college and protection.

While this one in six number will not change over night, this immense violation needs to be deterred, which starts from the acknowledgement, from Columbia University in this case, that this is unacceptable and a violation of the highest degree.

National Protections or National Violations?

        There is no denying that technology has boomed over the past few years. With this new advanced technology readily available, it also makes it available for misuse and abuse.

       For years now, the NSA has been tracking citizens, loved ones, or just cheating the system. The intelligence allows the government to spy on American telephone numbers, calling patterns, and IP addresses.

        However, this misuse of the technology is unconstitutional and denies Americans the rights for privacy. Not only is this currently happening, but the NSA and government has been lying to the American people about it.

       In recent years, NSA employees have spied on women, significant others, and numerous other instances without a warrant.

     In the years following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the government has upped security and surveillance in order to "protect" America. All of the snooping and spying done by the government has been under the guise of terrorist connections.   
 
            The misuse of surveillance powers is a huge problem because of its illegality. In order for citizens to trust the government again, changes must be done to the Agency’s intentions.

 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

   All of these security scandals leads us to think, so where is the line? Where is the boundary between keeping Americans safe and protecting the rights of citizens that were granted in the Bill of Rights (Fourth Amendment)?

   The truth of it is that it is extremely difficult to determine that line, especially with constant terror threats against the United States. While keeping Americans safe needs to be a top priority of the government, the rights of citizens should always come first when making decisions.


In additions to the abuses of the NSA, the CIA has recently been under attack for unconstitutional torture of detainees, specifically Guantanamo Bay.  Like the NSA, the CIA tightened their powers after the 9/11 attacks and tried to conceal what the agencies had done.

The interrogation process of detainees is far from civil. Some atrocities include: 

• rectal rehydration
• rectal feeding

  

  Form of torture: water boarding

• water boarding 
• ice baths
• personal death threats, along with threats to families
• confinement 

It doesn't take a judge to determine the unconstitutional nature of these acts.These tactics go far beyond the terms laid out, unquestionably violating the rights of the detainees.


 These recent events have truly made me think about American society and power. In each

case presented in this blog, one group in power clearly destroys the rights of others, with no consequence. Instead of continued protests and violence, it is time that we, as a society, changed what we are doing for future generations.



For a timeline of NSA events, see NSA SPYING

Long Live Peaceful Protests

Man in Ferguson protects himself from Tear Gas

             In the weeks following the highly publicized Michael Brown case in Ferguson, riots and protests have spurred up all around the country. On November 24th, 2014, a grand jury decided not to indict a white male police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black male, Michael Brown.

           This case increased the gap between racial tensions of white vs. black and power struggles between authority vs. Citizens. This incident happened to involve both.


       The decision sparked unrest and controversy in Ferguson- from peaceful to violent to vandalism to looting. However, the Ferguson police has not been handling these protests conditionally, violating their rights.

Woman trying to recover form Tear Gas attack

           Some tactics used include using pepper spray, tear gas, and violence. This misuse of power needs to end in order for society to respect authority and value it. The events and protests has spurred a palpable tension, only emphasized by the police attacks on protesters.

               This law not only sided with the rights of citizens in a time where seemingly no other authority figure was, but also helps us move forward and hopefully remain as peaceful protests.

     In October, a federal judge ruled that a police tactic used to control protesters is unconstitutional, specifically police ordering people to walk instead of standing still. This ruling is a step in the right direction for society in order to maintain that balance of power.


For more information, refer back to #ICantBreathe post.

The difference between the Michael Brown case and Eric Garner case is that protests in Ferguson were much more violent and destructive. 

Eyes Everywhere On Teachers

        Where does the power lay in public schools? The teacher or the student? Teachers do have the power to punish for behavioral issues, but the students and families pay teachers.

        Based on the new trend of “cyberbaiting,” a phenomenon in where students irritate the teachers to the point of total frustration that they yell or breakdown, all while another
student films the incident. In this new thing, the power is all in the students.

         However, this is a violation of the teacher’s rights, not only for filming without permission, but also for taking a situation out of context. This could potentially lead to a firing of the teacher of suspension.

        When these types of videos go viral, the principal and administration have no choice but to fire the teacher. Unfortunately, this has happened to about one in five teachers.

          Many people attribute this trend to the increase of violence in teens due to the constant coddling of parents. No matter what the cause of this, it breaches the teacher rights. This is considered a new form of bullying and is extremely unjust of students to perform this.

       The attack of teachers has reached a new level in this. Especially by the time of upper class age of high school, students know how teachers work and what makes them tick. They then use this knowledge to potentially ruin their teacher’s life.

Strip Search Tests School Powers

A 13-year old girl still remembers the black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt she was wearing when her middle school officials forced her to strip in a search.

The student was suspected of bringing prescription strength ibuprofen to school. Following this accusation, the middle school girl was forced to strip down to her bra and underpants, then to pull them away, exposing her pelvic area and breast. Guess what? No drugs were found.

Not only was this outright humiliating for the girl, but it was no doubt scarring and degrading.

This intrusive strip was an extreme violation of her rights, especially as her being a young girl. The problem with this search was that the accusation of having pills (with no more strength than two Advil) did not match the degree of the intrusion, especially considering there was no threat of the specific drug.

This case was reexamined and determined unconditional, referring to the degrading nature of the strip search.


While the zero-policy for drugs should be upheld in schools, the degree and level of enforcing this needs to be reevaluated in favor of a child’s rights. A nude search of a 13-year-old girl is not only an invasion of constitutional rights, but a violation of human dignities.

I can only imagine the embarrassment that the girl still faces today, six years go, and the images still instilled in her brain.

Unconstitutional Strip Searches

FBGM

             The Weston vs. Wayland Powderpuff game is a tradition; guys coach girls on flag football and it instills a little bit of rivalry between girls in a male-dominated sport. With this, it has also been a more social tradition to wear shirts that promote Weston pride.

This year, the shirts seemed to stir up drama with the administrators ending up in this:

         On the back of our shirts were the letters “FBGM,” which could potentially mean anything. Due to the ambiguity of these letters, we figured it was appropriate for school and wearing to the game. To administrators, this slogan stood for “FootBall GaMe.”

         However, for us senior girls, we thought of it as “Fuck Bitches Get Money.” Yes, when taken literally this could be seen as demeaning to some sensitive folk. Yet we turned this negative connotation into something positive for Weston. It was a prideful term of our generation that we used to come together to defeat our rivals.

         The administration did not find this term funny nor empowering. They forced us to cover it up or turn our shirts on inside out. I did not agree with this. I refused to cover up my shirt because it does not blatantly promote anything. If “Fuck Bitches Get Money” was actually printed on the shirts, then yes, that would clearly be inappropriate for school. Since this was masked by the abbreviation, it was not right for them to force us to cover it up.

            This was especially aggravating for us because the class of 2010 did the EXACT same

“FBGM” on the back with no backlash from the school administration. The principal
repeatedly mentioned that the shirt was “misogynistic” and “demeaning” to females, however the FBGM truly could have stood for anything.

        It was a term meant to be empowering for Weston seniors, however being forced to not show it was not okay for the school to do and made a lasting tradition a not enjoyable experience.  

#ICantBreathe

Image of chokehold of Garner

       “I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe!” were the words asthmatic Eric Garner gasped out before his fatal death.

           The father of six children saw his last day on July 17th, 2014 after the use of the excessive and illegal “chokehold” move performed by the NYPD. Garner repeatedly expressed his inability to breathe, while the police officers continued to use unnecessary force to arrest him because they believed he was selling “loose” cigarettes.

On December 3rd, 2014, the grand jury decided not to indict the officer responsible for this event. This stirred the public, inducing protests and rallies throughout American cities.

         Are we really living in a fair, just, post-racial society? This event, along with many other similar events have raised this question as we think about where we are as a society. In previous cases, there has been conflicting evidence and testimony, however in this specific case, American citizens saw the event happen. We saw with our own eyes the violations that took place.
          Based on this incident, police have been abusing their power in arrests. Now, sometimes it is definitely necessary for police to use force, possibly even killing someone. But in this Garner case, no use of force was even necessary, especially not killing a man. 

         While the Justice Department has announced to launch a civil rights investigation, it seems that our society has not changed due to the jury’s indictment decision. This case has raised much uproar from peaceful protests to die-ins in every part of the country.

         These protests have been sparked from cases similar to this, specifically the Michael Brown case. No man, especially black, should have to be faced with fear of a cop killing them. We have seen this too many times for it to be okay. The clash between black men and white police has been an ongoing struggle. However, this was a classic case of violations of Garner’s rights.

The complications and use of excessive force goes far beyond just this instance. It is time for us, as a society, to move on from racial profiling and reassess our justice system for truly a fair trial.

Bathroom Break?

Should a transgender person use the bathroom of the gender to which the identity, or according to their physical makeup?

    As the social norms in America change and adjust over the years, so do the social taboos that go along with them. In a school in Maine, a transgender fifth grader was not allowed to use the girls’ bathroom, which is what she identified with. However, in court, it was ruled that this violated the anti-discrimination law and that a transgender SHOULD be able to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify.

    While this is definitely a step in the progression of America, many districts are still  grappling with the issue. By not allowing a student access to a certain place, it promotes the discrimination in schools, which should be a safe environment. It takes away the right for a student to express who they are. Being told to use the faculty bathroom or the bathroom in the nurse only emphasizes the humiliation and the isolation.

      If America is a land of freedom and expression, then why are we not living up to our words? No person should be faced with being forced to use a gender restroom that they do not even identify with. Identification of gender is what should make up the school policies, and those students should not feel ashamed in that school environment to do so.

The Way on Teacher Tenure

  Who’s rights triumph who’s? The teacher or the student? Well, according to Rolf M. True, a county trial court judge in California, the students’ right to a good teacher overrules the job protection of teachers.

           The education of students is becoming increasingly important, and that stems from the teacher. A bad teacher can ultimately influence a student away from a certain subject, while an effective educator impassions the student with the subject matter. A bad teacher who is protected by tenure takes away the right for the student to have equal education.

          Students specifically from low income neighborhoods get stuck with ineffective teachers, thus lessening their education. A teacher should not be protected under this tenure if they are useless in the classroom.

           Public education has been facing this problem because the system has stopping putting the needs of students above else. Instead, the security for teachers has taken over until this judge decided otherwise. Poor education can truly lead to a less successful life, and teachers are a huge factor in promoting lifelong success. 


      I have been lucky in my high school that my teachers are very well qualified, however in surrounding neighborhoods, students are not so lucky. The public school system needs to spend more time focusing on the growing future for America by putting the rights of students to have equal education above the rights of a highly ineffective teacher.


For more information, Tenure

To Eat or Not to Eat?

       That is the question. The newest rule implemented in the Weston High School handbook denies student the ability to eat or drink (besides water) outside of the cafeteria. This

applies to the classrooms, hallways, and the gym.


        While the reasoning behind this rule may be helpful to student with allergies, those students are exposed to all of the things they are allergic outside of school. Outside of the school environment, there is no one to tell the person working next to them to put their peanuts away. Or  if the person near you is eating nuts on an airplane there is no “rule” saying they cannot do so. In reality, this

rule is not real life and does not allow students without specific allergies to enjoy their food.

       As a growing teenager, I can admit that we get hungry sometimes. For athletes, it is important to each throughout the day to be satisfied for the day’s workout. Unfortunately, from the hours between 7:30 and 2:50, we can only eat for a 30 minute period between 10 and 12. With the new rule, students cannot even enjoy a snack if they get hungry at 1.

       This restriction only hurts the ravenous students who want to enjoy some food, as well as sheltering the other students from a situation that is inevitable in the real world. Students need to have that right to eat or drink whenever they please; it’s high school, not a prison cell. Therefore, the answer is always to eat.

Forced Allegiance to the Flag

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

         This line was recited every morning in my school for years and in the Board v. Barnette Supreme Court case. In a public school, where kids are from different countries and believe in different things (not necessarily just the “Nation under God”), this allegiance should not be repeated.

       In this supreme court case, there was a requirement that all teachers and students were required to honor the flag. The court decision revealed that the forced salutation was unconstitutional.

    Because of the difference in faiths and beliefs, schools can not be able to force the salute. While the Board vs. Barnettte case did uphold this, in a California high school, teachers and students forced an atheist student to stand up and recite the pledge.

According to the student, he was intimidated to the point of being compelled to stand up and join in. Students should feel safe and comfortable enough in schools to express their beliefs and opinions, and not feel unsafe due to pressure.

    It is a personal preference to want to express their views through saying the famous pledge, however it violates a student’s freedom of expression, speech, and even freedom of religion.

    While the pledge of allegiance was synonymous with the previous generations, as we evolve as Americans, we need to alter of practices as well.

Dress Code: Beneficial or Sexism

       People express themselves through dress, just as people expresses themselves through speech. Therefore, the First Amendment should protect student dress. However, in many schools, the administration tries to overpower this given right by determining what one may or may not wear.

         In the Weston High School Handbook, dress code guidelines are outlined as dress that “typically makes others feel uncomfortable:
•Bare or exposed midriffs
•Low cut, see-through, or tight tops
•Low-rise pants/shorts or short shorts

•Exposed underwear (including bra straps)
•Inappropriate language/pictures on clothing”


      
             Students have the right to freedom of expression through what he or she wears. Dress codes in particular refer to the dress of girls. A main argument as to why a strict dress code should be enforced is because when girls wear something to exposing to revealing, it males males feel uncomfortable. As a female, I should not have to dress a certain way to please other people. 

          I truly do not think that me wearing a tank top to school is hindering other students from learning. And if it does, that is not my fault; it is their problem to deal with. It is not a girl’s fault if a male feels uncomfortable around a girl wear a tight tank top or short shorts.
     
     The only rule in the dress guidelines are males are

 teacher thinks a female’s shirt is too low or her skirt is too short, she will be humiliated by being forced to change. This double standard  not only emphasizes the gender inequalities, but also restricts female students and their rights.
       
          However, males can wear tank tops on ‘Tank Top Tuesday’ yet females get reprimanded for wearing such things. When it is 95 degrees outside and we are contained into a small space without air conditioning, it is reasonable that one would not want to wear pants or a long sleeve shirt. If a male is seen with his pants sagging low, rarely will a teacher tell him how to dress or to change.

       
          However, if one wears something to school because he or she wants to, others in the school should not be allowed to tell them to do otherwise. If someone does not like it, then they can deal with it. Freedom of Speech can be expressed on T-shirt or sweatshirts, therefore students should be allowed to express these views in school. 

           After all, it isn’t like we are not exposed to these things outside of the classroom. While a school environment should be a safe one, wearing something that one person might find offensive is something they should have to deal with; it is not actually threatening anyone else. If teachers do not like how one is expressing themselves or their personal opinions, then simply don’t look at them.

          I myself have experienced instances where I fell victim to the school code. In middle school, a teacher pulled me outside of class because she felt that my dress was "too short" for what she thought was right. She said, "How do you think boys will think of you?" I don't, and have never, dressed for anyone besides myself. Girls do not dress in a provocative manner to impress boys or something along that lines, so

faculty should not have the right to tell otherwise.This is what leads to slut shaming when girls get older. In schools, telling young girls that their skirt is too short and inviting boys should not be perpetuated in that environment.

              We, as America, have been progressing ever since it was considered "scandalous" for a woman to show off her ankles. In order to keep growing as a country, this type of environment and slut shaming by dress code  needs to be stopped, and the dress code handbook needs to be updated to current times. 

A Shameful Suit

Who could have imagined that a modern day "Scarlet Letter" would happen in this day and age, resulting in unimaginable violations of rights?
             At a Florida high school, a 15 year old girl was forced to wear a so-called “shame suit” after being told that her skirt was too short for the dress code. Instead of going home to change or having a parent drop off spare clothes, the administration made her

Girl forced to wear "Shame suit" at High School

change into a neon colored T-shirt with the words “DRESS CODE VIOLATION” in bold. A pair of bright red sweat pants were an addition to this outfit. 

        This act violated the girl’s rights as a student because it publicized her discipline. In this case, the school punishment violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act*. By wearing an outfit all day that demonstrated her “violation” of dress code, it directly violated this act since the school did not have written permission from the parent or student to display this information.
        In this specific high school, violating the dress code results in either being forced to wear this “shame suit,” humiliating the student, or suspension. No student should have to face this indignity in front of the student body and faculty. 
           This “punishment” was more than just making her change- it exaggerates a “Scarlet A,” showing everyone that she violated the rules.

*For more information on FERPA, see FERPA .
For more information, see Shame Suit Violation .