Ellington

The Nov. 8 front page of the online edition of The Clarion-Ledger featured, unsurprisingly, a picture of President-Elect Barack Obama. Plastered above the picture was a headline that, maybe surprisingly, maybe unsurprisingly, read: "Incidents Reflect Racial Tension."

The article by Elizabeth Crisp detailed a few instances of racial backlash in my hometown of Jackson. One such instance recalled how certain public school teachers at unnamed Jackson metro schools reprimanded students for simply saying the name "Obama."

The article also briefly, and rather ambiguously I might add, mentioned that some teachers wanted to stand up against this blatant racist action but feared retribution.

Being from Jackson, I have never been under the delusion that racism would fade away completely (or any for that matter) with the election of a black president. But I guess I expected a little bit more from my fellow Jacksonians. Maybe I shouldn't have. Maybe we now live in an age where we are beyond giving anyone the benefit of the doubt or even being hopeful, even in the least.

This regrettable news from Jackson sends me right past outrage and straight into sadness. I feel sad that not only young children who go to school for an education are disallowed from uttering the next president's name; but also teachers that know it is wrong and unconstitutional (cite that pesky First Amendment) are too scared to stand up and do something about it. They are too scared to lose their jobs. Now, I realize as much as anyone that times are tough financially, and you can't just up and quit your day job, but it is so utterly unconscionable to not only let this kind of racist hatred continue but also to passively let these children think that it is OK for someone to tell you what you can and cannot say.

These teachers, as much as they are commendable for the work that they do and the meager pay that they receive for the task, should be ashamed of themselves.

The teachers who told the students to quit saying Mr. Obama's name should be fired and replaced with teachers that know the difference in our age of progress between right and wrong. I assume that my sadness upon hearing this news will continue until the newspapers and blogs divert it elsewhere. But, maybe between now and then, I can find a way to replace that sadness with the hope I once had for my fellow citizens and myself. Hope that we not only would one day elect an African American president, but when we did, it would be OK to say his name in a public school in Mississippi.

Previous Comments

ID

140938

Comment

I read this earlier today and it brought me past outrage right into sadness. I am a teacher and had to pass a similar ban on mentioning obama, but also mentioning mccain. I teach geometry, not political science. The kids are in my classroom to learn geometry and not argue about politics. Additionally, the level of political discourse included someone saying "Obama" and then someone saying "McCain." I don't know when the last time you spent any time in a high school, but maintaining classroom order and discipline is VERY important, and allowing students to discuss sensitive, non-relevant (to the topic being taught)topics is, for the most part, detrimental to their ability to learn and to the teachers ability to teach. I have a hard time believing that this teacher simply banned saying the name "Obama" but more likely banned discussing politics. I suspect it was less about slighting Obama as it was about maintaining order. So before you jump to conclusions, I recommend doing a little research first. And besides the Elizabeth Crisp article talked about (1) a coach in Pearl (2) some vague things about Madison County Schools Never did it mention ANYTHING about "Jackson Metro Schools" http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008811080352

Author

djames

Date

2008-11-22T18:43:20-06:00

ID

140941

Comment

djames writes: *I have a hard time believing that this teacher simply banned saying the name "Obama"* Only a few lines earlier djames wrote: *I am a teacher and had to pass a similar ban on mentioning obama...*. 1. You say you banned the word McCain also. Clearly the focus was on not upsetting those who would be angered at hearing the word *Obama* because I have not heard of anyone being put off a bus or being outraged at hearing the word *McCain*. I am personally outraged when I hear the word *McCain*, but I don't take it out on those who utter the word, I just seethe inside and keep going (lol). Don't even talk about if you say *Palin*. I have to hold my breathe to keep my head from exploding (I am having an attack of Palinophobia right now...(I gasp for air). Look, you must deal with this in a legal fashion. You can tell students not to discuss topics unrelated to geometry while class is going on, but I do believe you are subject to a law suit if you think you are empowered to ban the mentioning of the name of the president of the United States (lol). I hope they teach the Bill of Rights at your school in addition to geometry. If you had been keeping up with posts at this site and many others (rather than getting all your information from the Ledger), then you would know that there have been similar issues at schools around the Jackson metro area --- not just a *coach in Pearl* and *vague things about Madison County schools*. There have also been similar incidents NATIONWIDE accompanied by an unprecedented level of threats against our president-elect. Why have you all not had to ban the mentioning of the president-elect after previous elections? I recommend that you do a little thinking first. I recommend that YOU do a little more research.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-11-23T12:11:06-06:00

ID

140944

Comment

i believe the appropriate action is to discipline children for causing disruption - not for mentioning a name. If a child was screaming "Pythagorus" i don't think you would disallow the mention of him in geometry class. You would reprimand the child for being disruptive.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2008-11-23T12:50:37-06:00

ID

140946

Comment

That's exactly the point - the discussions were disruptive to class. And to whitley, in students do not have full free speech rights while at school - as decided by numerous supreme court discussions. School newspapers do not have the right to print whatever they wish, nor do students have the right to say or wear whatever they want. We DO teach the bill of rights--but free speech in the confines of a school has its limits. According to the supreme court, "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings" and that "the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school." (Morse v Fredrick). The point is that during the days leading up to the election, every student wanted to talk about politics, which is fine during an appropriate time. But i found that these discussions were not appropriate and ended up being very disruptive. And to Whitley's post- the author specifically cited the Elizabeth Crisp article and no other sources, so I naturally turned to the elizabeth crisp article to see the original report. I have no other interest in reading the ledger. If he has any other sources for his accusations against "metro Jackson schools" I encourage him to come forward with his evidence. I encourage you to do the same. I have seen none presented, and do not care to do your research for you. It is irresponsible to make accusations without evidence to back it up. Show me "posts from this site and many others." And I wholeheartedly agree with daniel johnson - the issue here is not the person being mentioned--it is the disruption being caused. I suspect that the original issue as mentioned in the article was more about children being disruptive rather than any particular person.

Author

djames

Date

2008-11-23T23:03:15-06:00

ID

140949

Comment

If there is no link, assume it doesn’t exist. I link therefore I am. Got it. My friend, all you have to do is (as John McCain said) a google. There have been articles and posts on this site and in the Jackson Advocate. Just search for and reread the thread that accompanied the article about the reaction (conveniently located below). You are wrong in implying that you can ban a word for any reason other than kids being disruptive (which we ALL agree is o.k.) or inappropriate. Saying the word Obama is not, a priori, inappropriate. You don’t have to ban the word Obama to deal with disruption. You should already have a policy that any and all disruptions should be treated the same. Is a disruption including the word Obama to be treated differently than other sorts? If so, my friend, you reside on shaky legal ground. : Free speech that is not disruptive cannot be banned: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/March/03_crt_160.htm Students do retain some free speech rights in school! http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm California court lets free speech ruling for students stand: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/13/BAK2S4V0B.DTL ACLU reports harassment of young Obama supporters in the state: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/aclu_reports_harassment_of_young_obama_supporters_in_state_110708/ Students told not to say *Obama*: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/aclu_reports_harassment_of_young_obama_supporters_in_state_110708/ Obama is a bad word at some Mississippi schools: http://www.parentdish.com/2008/11/09/obama-is-a-bad-word-at-some-mississippi-schools/2 In Plessy versus Ferguson, in the 1800’s the Supreme Court ruled that a black man had no rights that were bound to be respected. Eventually, it was overturned. Students also have rights that you are bound to respect. You have a teacher’s license, not a despotism license. Ban disruptive behavior --- not specific words. Trust me my friend, or you'll end up in court.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-11-24T09:38:57-06:00

ID

140950

Comment

Been offline during this discussion, but suffice it to say, djames, that saying the president-elect's name would not pass a disruption test that would make that suppression of speech constitutional. There are complications in student free-speech rights, mainly due to recent conservative court decisions, but this is one's real basic. Otherwise, let's not get personal, please.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-11-24T10:02:23-06:00

ID

140954

Comment

Anger generated a lot of these incidents. I try not to fall into the anger trap by wrapping myself in detached amusement. People should have a sense of humor. Banning the mere word Obama? That is a Saturday Night Live skit: *What did you say? Obama? Wash your mouth out with soap --- Right NOW! And I am telling your mommy young man.* Cut. It's a wrap.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-11-24T11:01:00-06:00

ID

140955

Comment

Geometry and other topics are better taught when you incorporate real life events. I always did much better in courses where the theoretical was integrated with the practical. I took PhD level statistics courses at UT Austin in which we used advanced statistical methods such as cluster analysis (which relies on geometric concepts) to analyze economic and political data for mapping purposes. A good teacher can channel any word into a constructive learning opportunity while demanding that students behave respectfully. That might help defuse tensions. Use of geometric and cluster analysis for geographical mapping: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/gean/2008/00000040/00000002/art00001?crawler=true All we have to fear, is fear itself (FDR?).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-11-24T11:47:50-06:00

ID

140968

Comment

As I have said numerous times, it was not the mere mention of the president elect's name-- it was the manner in which it was brought up. And perhaps "banning" was perhaps to strong of a word in my case. I mentioned the election several times, but when I attempted--on election day--to let the kids have a short, civil discussion about the election, a mccain supporter (or i should say the daughter of a mccain supporter) said something so ignorant and offensive that i decided that i'd better simply stick to the curriculum. I simply said, we are not here to discuss politics--so lets leave that for a more appropriate venue. And for the record, no student was disciplined for saying the name "Obama" nor "McCain." Things in my classroom very rarely get to the point when i have to pull out a referral slip. Nor would that disruption have been treated differently than any other. I understand the basic principles of fairness. If i didn't I wouldn't have survived a week in a high-school classroom. I understand that "banning" Obama's name without banning mcCain's would have been wrong. But i sympathise with a teacher trying to maintain control of a classroom when students are discussing things that are forbidden from our thanksgiving tables--namely politics. I have a curriculum to teach--one that is NOT set by me mind you--and political science is not in that curriculum. It would certainly be nice if 9th and 10th graders could work on PhD level statistics, but that is somewhat unrealistic. MY ONLY POINT was that there were errors in the original article--errors which have not been corrected or really addressed--that error being that students in the METRO JACKSON area were banned from saying the word "Obama" when no evidence has been produced verifying that statement. Issues in schools often get blown way out of proportion quickly, and teachers usually get the shaft in such incidents. I think that that those not in the classrooms ought to give teachers more benefit of the doubt sometimes rather than jumping to conclusions. I understand that these are sensitive times and sensitive issues--and tempers get inflamed quickly especially when it comes to issues concerning our children. But I say, let's keep cool heads and look at the full array of facts and do our due diligence before we go after a teacher. And let's all remember that when dealing with high school-age children, the full truth is often not the first story you get. I and in the interest of full disclosure, I voted third party, but much preferred Obama to McCain.

Author

djames

Date

2008-11-24T22:25:03-06:00

ID

140969

Comment

"You are wrong in implying that you can ban a word for any reason other than kids being disruptive (which we ALL agree is o.k.)" And I ask that you try not to put words in my mouth that I didn't imply. Whether or not the speech is disruptive and/or appropriate has been the legal test since 1969 and the black armbands against Vietnam. Recent cases have simply applied this test to different situations--most notably the "bong hits 4 Jesus" case last year. (which was deemed inappropriate at a school sponsored, off campus event).

Author

djames

Date

2008-11-24T22:42:14-06:00

ID

140974

Comment

I was going to forget about it after your post before *bong hits for jesus*. Ha. It is odd to compare *bong hits for jesus* to saying the name of the president of the united states. Why not even put President Obama's picture on the wall of the school as you come in? Some schools have put up the president's picture. It seems patriotic. I do not believe the video on the Pearl School bus showed *disruptive students*. The district said that after viewing the video, that the driver overreacted due to her disappointment at the outcome of the election. Once you begin censoring everyday speech (not outlier speech like *bong hits for jesus*) then we can reasonably wonder if you are not overreacting due to disappointment about the election also.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-11-25T08:47:03-06:00

ID

140989

Comment

It is so sad. Make me want to sing. Many rivers to cross, but I can't seem to find my way over. Wandering I am lost as I travel along the white cliffs of dover. Many rivers to cross and it's only my will that keeps me alive. I've been licked, washed up for years and I merely survive because of my pride. Many rivers to cross but just where to begin I'm playing for time. There have been times I find myself thinking of committing some dreadful crime. Yes, got many rivers to cross, but I can't seem to find my way over.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-11-25T12:25:20-06:00

ID

140990

Comment

djames, i see where you are coming from - and i appreciate you clarifying re:And perhaps "banning" was perhaps to strong of a word in my case....no student was disciplined for saying the name "Obama" nor "McCain." i can understand your tendency to first defend teachers. As a son of a teacher, i know it is a difficult line to walk between allowing discourse and preventing oppressive domination of the classroom by one or a few students. i can appreciate if your only point is to note that you didn't feel there was enough proof in the article to condemn JPS for this action. i think that for me, Whitley and Walt, this conversation has mainly been to draw a line between appropriate and inappropriate use of discipline in the classroom and not to clarify as to the validity of the incident. Suffice to say that there were incidence which were handled incorrectly. The appropriate action is to discipline a child for disruption and not to make particular words a point of contention.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2008-11-25T13:01:07-06:00

ID

140991

Comment

Again you insist on putting words in my mouth: "It is odd to compare *bong hits for jesus* to saying the name of the president of the united states." Never did I do that. \

Author

djames

Date

2008-11-25T13:08:55-06:00

ID

141006

Comment

i have to stick up for djames on this one. A comparison was not made. djames was merely creating a fuller composite of school-related free speech cases.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2008-11-26T08:33:39-06:00