High school seniors expelled, will not graduate and lose college admissions over racist TikTok video

[GP270watch]

Hypothetically, if the 2 students had been say Samoan or Alaskan Inuit or something not white and did a Vine or whatever about 10 reasons why white people are devils, would you similarly demand that the public school expel them?

Like this one?

 Not the same level of offensive but many Asians at the University were hurt by this.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hypothetically, if the 2 students had been say Samoan or Alaskan Inuit or something not white and did a Vine or whatever about 10 reasons why white people are devils, would you similarly demand that the public school expel them?

Like this one?

I guess like that (sat through 30 seconds and got bored) but with the Speaker being a minority and the targeted group being honkies. Should such a hypothetical minority student be expelled from public school for making the hypothetical video at home and posting it online with no identifying information about what school they attended? Asking for a friend.

[GP270watch]

Or this one

University of Alabama expels student over racist social media tirade

Or this one

[Mr. Reactionary]

Or this one

University of Alabama expels student over racist social media tirade

Maybe? The news report talked over the video so I couldn't really make out what the student said. So what's your answer to the above hypothetical question (which is worded clearly enough without need for a real life example)?

[John Dule]

TBF I can give GP the benefit of the doubt because I did say "or forcefeed them" That wasn't my opinion on what should have been done as that violates one's right to body autonomy, but a lot of people like perhaps I would say Fuzzy bear might be of that opinion because to them its better to violate one's body autonomy than let them starve while also not wanting to give into their demands.

I think he legitimately does not understand the difference between the government refusing to provide people with a service if they don't like their opinion and the government choosing not to abide by the demands of fringe protesters. I could be wrong, though.

Never said any such thing. I said public institutions don't have to tolerate racist behavior because they do not. Legally schools are required to provide an environment free of racial hostility and harassment for their students. The schools could be subject to civil liability if they don't.

The school was not being forced to "tolerate racist behavior" because the behavior was off-campus. Nothing these students did infringed on the school's ability to provide a hostility-free environment because students aren't even attending in-person classes these days. Your argument is based on a willful misunderstanding of the facts.

[GP270watch]

The school was not being forced to "tolerate racist behavior" because the behavior was off-campus. Nothing these students did infringed on the school's ability to provide a hostility-free environment because students aren't even attending in-person classes these days. Your argument is based on a willful misunderstanding of the facts.

 The in person class thing is a strawman argument setup to minimize their behavior. They still might be taking online classes, you don't know the nature of their current class instruction. I wouldn't want to have an online assignment where the teacher says you must collaborate with an assigned partner and that partner is one of these racist jerks.

 If I were to do something that warranted disciplinary action during the last week of school but summer recess started the school might still suspend me when school starts in the fall and they have that right.

 Thankfully the school expelled these idiots.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The school was not being forced to "tolerate racist behavior" because the behavior was off-campus. Nothing these students did infringed on the school's ability to provide a hostility-free environment because students aren't even attending in-person classes these days. Your argument is based on a willful misunderstanding of the facts.

 The in person class thing is a strawman argument setup to minimize their behavior. They still might be taking online classes, you don't know the nature of their current class instruction. I wouldn't want to have an online assignment where the teacher says you must collaborate with an assigned partner and that partner is one of these racist jerks.

 If I were to do something that warranted disciplinary action during the last week of school but summer recess started the school might still suspend me when school starts in the fall and they have that right.

 Thankfully the school expelled these idiots.

No, that's a very relevant inquiry under the Morse v. Frederick decision. Interestingly enough, you are adopting the Rightwing Justice's argument whereas those of us pushing back are vindicating the dissent of Ginsburg and Stevens.

BTW you must have forgotten to answer the above hypothetical question. It really isnt that hard.

[John Dule]

The school was not being forced to "tolerate racist behavior" because the behavior was off-campus. Nothing these students did infringed on the school's ability to provide a hostility-free environment because students aren't even attending in-person classes these days. Your argument is based on a willful misunderstanding of the facts.

The in person class thing is a strawman argument setup to minimize their behavior. They still might be taking online classes, you don't know the nature of their current class instruction. I wouldn't want to have an online assignment where the teacher says you must collaborate with an assigned partner and that partner is one of these racist jerks.

Who cares about what you want?! Do you know how many times I've had to collaborate with people I disagreed with in high school, or with people I personally disliked? Hell, I once did a presentation on wealth inequality in my economics class and one of my partners said we should "Look at what the Soviet Union did to alleviate inequality" and endorse their methods. But did I start crying about it and go to the principal to demand that the student be expelled? No! You need to accept that you're going to have to spend a lot of your life interacting with people you find personally offensive.

[GP270watch]

The school was not being forced to "tolerate racist behavior" because the behavior was off-campus. Nothing these students did infringed on the school's ability to provide a hostility-free environment because students aren't even attending in-person classes these days. Your argument is based on a willful misunderstanding of the facts.

The in person class thing is a strawman argument setup to minimize their behavior. They still might be taking online classes, you don't know the nature of their current class instruction. I wouldn't want to have an online assignment where the teacher says you must collaborate with an assigned partner and that partner is one of these racist jerks.

Who cares about what you want?! Do you know how many times I've had to collaborate with people I disagreed with in high school, or with people I personally disliked? Hell, I once did a presentation on wealth inequality in my economics class and one of my partners said we should "Look at what the Soviet Union did to alleviate inequality" and endorse their methods. But did I start crying about it and go to the principal to demand that the student be expelled? No! You need to accept that you're going to have to spend a lot of your life interacting with people you find personally offensive.

 You don't have to tolerate racial hostility or discrimination in work or school. That's the law, sorry.

[John Dule]

The school was not being forced to "tolerate racist behavior" because the behavior was off-campus. Nothing these students did infringed on the school's ability to provide a hostility-free environment because students aren't even attending in-person classes these days. Your argument is based on a willful misunderstanding of the facts.

The in person class thing is a strawman argument setup to minimize their behavior. They still might be taking online classes, you don't know the nature of their current class instruction. I wouldn't want to have an online assignment where the teacher says you must collaborate with an assigned partner and that partner is one of these racist jerks.

Who cares about what you want?! Do you know how many times I've had to collaborate with people I disagreed with in high school, or with people I personally disliked? Hell, I once did a presentation on wealth inequality in my economics class and one of my partners said we should "Look at what the Soviet Union did to alleviate inequality" and endorse their methods. But did I start crying about it and go to the principal to demand that the student be expelled? No! You need to accept that you're going to have to spend a lot of your life interacting with people you find personally offensive.

 You don't have to tolerate racial hostility or discrimination in work or school. That's the law, sorry.

And nobody was being forced to do that here. The students were not being hostile or racially discriminatory at school. They expressed their views off of school grounds, and the school has no jurisdiction over them there. THAT'S the law-- sorry!

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Not condoning what they did, but it wasn’t on school property, and did not directly involve the school. Furthermore, freedom of speech is protected and I’m sure the kids have a case against whatever governing body is responsible.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Should High Schoolers who smoke weed and drink off of school grounds on weekends be expelled? You’d have no students! Students should not be punished by school if they are not on school grounds and are not directly involving the school. End of.

[fhtagn]

The school was not being forced to "tolerate racist behavior" because the behavior was off-campus. Nothing these students did infringed on the school's ability to provide a hostility-free environment because students aren't even attending in-person classes these days. Your argument is based on a willful misunderstanding of the facts.

The in person class thing is a strawman argument setup to minimize their behavior. They still might be taking online classes, you don't know the nature of their current class instruction. I wouldn't want to have an online assignment where the teacher says you must collaborate with an assigned partner and that partner is one of these racist jerks.

Who cares about what you want?! Do you know how many times I've had to collaborate with people I disagreed with in high school, or with people I personally disliked? Hell, I once did a presentation on wealth inequality in my economics class and one of my partners said we should "Look at what the Soviet Union did to alleviate inequality" and endorse their methods. But did I start crying about it and go to the principal to demand that the student be expelled? No! You need to accept that you're going to have to spend a lot of your life interacting with people you find personally offensive.

 You don't have to tolerate racial hostility or discrimination in work or school. That's the law, sorry.

Specifically, what law are you claiming that they broke, and how does it apply in this situation?

[John Dule]

This is the time for that age-old liberal platitude: Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. Do you want the government to deny you service for expressing yourself online? Do you want the degrees you earned in academia to be forfeit if the mob doesn't like one of your opinions? If you have a shred of a self-preservation instinct, the choice should be clear.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is the time for that age-old liberal platitude: Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. Do you want the government to deny you service for expressing yourself online? Do you want the degrees you earned in academia to be forfeit if the mob doesn't like one of your opinions? If you have a shred of a self-preservation instinct, the choice should be clear.

“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

The Golden Rule and the principle described by Frank Herbert are not reconcilable.

[John Dule]

This is the time for that age-old liberal platitude: Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. Do you want the government to deny you service for expressing yourself online? Do you want the degrees you earned in academia to be forfeit if the mob doesn't like one of your opinions? If you have a shred of a self-preservation instinct, the choice should be clear.

“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

The Golden Rule and the principle described by Frank Herbert are not reconcilable.

This is just a lame excuse to let yourself be brought down to someone else's level. But then again, you can't expect the guy who wrote f**king Dune to say anything genuinely profound.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is the time for that age-old liberal platitude: Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. Do you want the government to deny you service for expressing yourself online? Do you want the degrees you earned in academia to be forfeit if the mob doesn't like one of your opinions? If you have a shred of a self-preservation instinct, the choice should be clear.

“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

The Golden Rule and the principle described by Frank Herbert are not reconcilable.

This is just a lame excuse to let yourself be brought down to someone else's level. But then again, you can't expect the guy who wrote f**king Dune to say anything genuinely profound.

The Golden Rule is Christ's own words.

As for Herbert's quote:  I see this play out all the time in the world of politics.  It's the driving principle of all Identity Politics.  It's what the White South of 1877 and Wade Hampton and the Identity Politics Forces of today's Democratic Left have in common.

[John Dule]

Imagine thinking the Golden Rule is endemic to Christianity.