Political Correctness runs amuck yet again

I have always thought political correctness and sensitivity to others' perspectives was a bit overblown media-wise. But this story shows media-influence run amuck -- and yes, I blame the media for this, not the school system/adminstrators involved.

"Students at Shaw Heights Middle School are no longer allowed to wear anything that's patriotic, including camouflage pants, because they have become a political symbol for a version of patriotism."
http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_094003340.html

Thats ok.. we have a black (I won't use the term 'african american' until 'european american' is used in place of white) poet who reads racist literature hailed as a great talent and uniter..and anyone speaking of caucasian pride is racist..

PC at its best!

Since when was camo patriotic? If you wear green camo, does that mean you support the Vietnam war and not operation Desert Whatever?

And what if you wear civilian camo, not military camo? I used to wear my hunting gear to school during hunting season because I was going hunting straight after...

Huh.. Sucks for those kids. In high-school, I used to wear a Woodland camoflauge BDU tunic all the time, mostly because I like jackets(even light "shirt" jackets like that) and the pockets were handy for keeping things in that I didn't want to have to transfer between changes of pants.

We're not getting the whole story here.

"Myla Shepherd, the principal, said that tensions over the immigration issue were apparent when more than 20 students came to school wearing camouflage jackets and pants, apparently to show what they call their patriotism and American pride."

It looks as if some kids were showing their anti-immigration feelings by showing up in military gear. When called on it, they tried to claim they were just being patriotic and supporting our military.

Doesn't sound like Political Correctness running amuck now does it? I wonder if those kids know the level of immigrants in the Armed Forces. I wonder how many kids at that school are immigrants or the children of immigrants. How disruptive was this?

Of course anytime anybody does anything certain people dislike, they cry "Political Correctness"! Usually it's not.

Amuck amuck amuck amuck.

I don't know. There's no reason to ban military or patriotic gear, just things that perpetuate sterotypes of groups, or are directly hateful in some other way. That sounded to me more like the principal imposing her views on the students.

Moreover, being against illegal immigration isn't a crime, or un-American. Expressing their views on that issue shouldn't be against school policy, either. Either way it's an unncessary restriction of free speech. Being in favor of changing our immigration policy doesn't mean you hate immigrants, or immigration.

Still seems like PC run amuck to me.

It's not like the Buffalo Soldiers got a seat in the front of the bus or a sip from the whites only fountain. The most recent group to climb up onto the lower rungs of the social ladder tend to be unwilling to provide a helping hand up to anyone below them for fear of losing their own precarious grasp.

/me carries a cammo backpack to work because it was a freebie and he can't be bothered to get a nicer one or, god forbid, a briefcase. The only thing he carries is notepads, pens, pc fiixing tools, guns, knifes, and varying types of lunch.

You're absolutely right, Michael. I wouldn't call this story an example of "PC run amuck", but more acurately, an examlple of news media spin run amuck. Notice the second sentence of the article. It didn't say "students are no longer allowed to wear anything that might serve to further inflame an already tense situation toward violence," which was the whole point of the dress code; it said "students are no longer allowed to wear anything patriotic." That's a bit of a distortion, to say the least.

It wasn't until later, after that bogus "attack on patriotism" message had been given a chance to color the whole story in the reader's mind that the article went on to say it wasn't actually about patriotism, but about political messages in general. Anti-patriotism is a political message too, and I'm sure that wouldn't be allowed either.

People, agree with the dress code or disagree with it all you want, but at least be aware of what you're actually agreeing or disagreeing with. Nobody's actually punishing anyone for being "patriotic" or not. Schools impose dress codes all the time, and usually when they do, it's because of safetey concerns, just as it was here. Were those concerns valid? Were they enough to justify stifling the students' right to free speach? I don't know. That's certainly debatable. What I do know is it wasn't about political correctness or about anyone's so called "patriotism".

Hmmm. Interesting "apologist" argument. Rather than dealing with the issue of "directed and/or coerced behavior" through policy and disciplianry force and restriction of free speech rights relating to dress (which have been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times, you choose to "attack the messenger" in a manner of speaking.

This, to me, is the essence of Political Correctness. Rather than dealing with the problem first brought up, in this case I postulated that the principal was overreacting based on recent shit stirring by the media, you've made the counter argument that, by claiming the principal's actions are really not an issue, the fact that I dislike her actions IS an issue.

I'd be flabbergasted if I hadn't expected someone to do that.

Congratulations on reaffirming my view of the world.

It's "politically correct" to claim that being considerate of the feelings of others is of equal or more importance than maintaining discipline and acting according to legal constraints. Civil disobediance, which is not the case by the principal here, is often used as an extreme example of how to be politically correct. In the case of the students, those who were upset with their actions are on "the other side" of the illegal immigration issue --- notice whose "speech" is intended to be corralled, controlled and squashed here. It's the "legal" citizens who are being interpreted as expressing "patriotic fervor" -- though wearing camos being defined as being patriotic is kind stretching it, don't you think?

Is it wrong for schools to ban gang insignias and markings? As I recall schools are allowed to ban things that are disruptive or done to threaten other students. Attempting to terrorize your fellow students should be discouraged.

Support the War on Terror! Picabo, why do you hate America?

Whoa, Picabo, calm down for a second. I didn't get the impression for even a second that anyone was attacking you here. You made an assumption that the principal's actions in this story were about "political correctness", which would mean she had been overly concerned about potientally offending certain minority groups. Michael simply disagreed with your assertion that that was the principal's motivation. I share in that point of view as well.

By the principal's own words, this was about preventing violence, not about avoiding offense to any groups' cultural sensativities. Oxford Dictionary defines political correctness as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that exclude, marginalize, or insult certain racial or cultural groups". In order for this story really to have been about political correctness, the motivation behind the dress code would have had to have been about avoiding offending immigrants or some other group. That's not what it was about at all. It was simply that the principal recognized that tensions were heating up, and she acted to remove a large source of that tension before it turned violent, as such things often do in schools.

So again, by definition, this story is not about political correctness, no matter what spin the news media tries to put on it to the contrary. It's not even really about the immigration debate. It's really about how teenagers tend to overreact in simplistic ways to complex situations that they don't fully understand, and one method of dealing with that overreaction before it gets out of hand.

I'll repeat what I said earlier. If you want to question whether the principal's concerns about violence were valid, and/or whether her resulting actions based on those concerns were prudent, that's great. Authority should always be questioned, as every patriotic American knows. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking this story is about something it's not.


Yes, it is, but that's not what happened in this case. The principal's motivation in restricting political imagery on clothing was not to see that her school "considers the feeling of others". It was a proactive response to what she saw as a potential istagator for violence. Again, that potential may or may not have been correctly assessed, but it wasn't about "political correctness" in any way.



Not last time I looked it up. I think maybe your defintion of either "civil disobedience", "political correctness", or both might be a bit different from mine.

Civil disobedience means passive refusal to obey laws one considers to be immoral or unjust. Political correctess means avoidance of potential offense to racial or cultural groups. I fail to see what one has to do with the other. If you'd care to explain, I'm all ears.


Now you're talking about something real. Should the students' free speach be restricted in order to curtail a perceived danger of violence? That's a real issue, worthy of discussion. That's got nothing to do with "political correctnes" though, not by any definition.


Yes, but who's doing the interpretation and the stretching? It certainly wasn't the principal who imposed the dress code. Her letter to the parents didn't say "students aren't allowed to be fervently patriotic," or "students can't wear anything that might offend someone else". It said political messages on clothing, whether patriotic, unpatriotic, or otherwise, would no longer be allowed, due to concerns that such clothing was serving to escalate an already tense situation.

It's the news media, not the principal or the dress code itself, that made this about so called "patriotism". The only one I can see who made it about PC was you.

Well said.

Not enough people read what passes for news nowadays closely enough to see the bias that is sometimes so carefully built in to the stories.

Did anyone consider however that the ban might have more to do with tasteand fashion sense?

I mean come-on, "camo gear" is a fairly hideous clothing choice and the military reference offensive to a lot of folks. And has anyone wearing a conspicuous American flag or Eagle on their shirt can ever been considered "tastefull?"

Perhaps it's more about the pain of people having to look at clothing like that than it is about politics.

Whoa yourself. I never said I was feeling attacked.

Wrong again, sorry. I made no assumptions. I made an evaluation and presented it as such. I own my opinion and stand by it.

And the justification for poll taxes was once argued to be that they were trying to ensure that only "intelligent" people could vote in the US -- something that traces its roots back to landed vs. unlanded class struggles in Europe or before.

You're entitled to your conclusion. I'm not surprised its different from mine.

Therein lies a core difference between us. I reject this belief implicitly and on multiple levels. But that's a different thread as its distraction from the issue at hand.

You're assuming that her publicly reported statements were an accurate representation of her actual motivation. My argument is that they are not.


This is argument by distraction... However, since you fail to see it.. I'll try a quick explanation but let's not dwell on this...it was an analogic argument on my part. If that didn't work for you, it's not central to the main issue... here goes. 1960s civil disobediance was not passive refusal by one perspective. It was ACTIVELY refusing to obey laws on the books to make a point. Note, I did not state an opinion on whether on not that was a justifiable strategy -- merely pointed out that those engaging in civil disobediance WERE breaking then current law (ex., using WHITE restrooms in the South, refusing to give up a seat on the bus to a Caucasian person, many other similar examples). The result of those ILLEGAL actions was to change the face of what is seen as politically correct. Times change and what is politically correct changes... The two CAN BE related, but I never said they were caused and effect.

Sorry. I don't care to discuss that -- you can discuss it elsewhere if you choose. This thread, started by myself, was to discuss the issue of whether or not the principal's actions were a result of media influence.

Wait. You'd reject the argument that G W Bush is upholding the Constitution to provide for the security of the US via his actions in Iraq but you accept her reported motivation for her actions as being pure?

The first statement was my point. Thank you for seeing it. Oh wait, the second sentence shows that you really didn't see it. Sorry. IF the media made this "about patriotism", then they have (re)framed the issue from one of school discipline to one about what is an appropriate way to show patriotism... do you agree? If so, then, no... I am not the one who made this about being PC... The media did. The principal's action supports that argument.. God only knows her actual motivation.

I love the way Picabo is an unassailable debater and is apparently never wrong.

There's a difference between debating the issue raised and arguing different issues than those intended to be discussed.

There's also a difference between being "right", discussing issues, and making pointless posts that add nothing to the discussion.

It's fairly obvious whic category a certain person's posts tend to fall into.

Ok then, sorry if I misinterpreted. When you said "shoot the messenger" I thought you were saying you, as the messenger, were somehow under fire. I'm not sure what messenger you actually meant if not you, but I'll take your word for it, I guess.


Evaluation, assumption, whatever you want to call it, the fact is you had just part of the story and you formed an opinion based from what you knew to fill in the blanks about what you don't know (just as every single person reading the article had to do since it was so dredfully incomplete). I'd define that as an assumption, but if the word "evaluation" is more comfortable for you, so be it. Both words are bretty benign, and fairly synonymous in this context, so I really don't see the big deal. Whatever floats your boat; it was an evaluation.


So we're to assume it's more plausible that a high school principle, mired in the day to day activities of running a sizable institution has some sort of hidden political agenda, and that she's got the time, let alone the inclination, to calculate veiled policies to further that agenda? Have you ever as an adult known a school principal personally? Trust me; they're a little busy for stuff like that. Wouldn't it make much more sense just to believe the much simpler explanation, the one she told in her own words?

Teenagers have a tendency to act and think with an overabundance of zeal, especially when it comes to their politics (which is why they make effective gang members, soldiers, suicide bombers, etc). It's a principal's job to keep an eye on student behavior, to impose discipline when necessary, and to do what it takes to keep violence at bay. That responsibility is gonna trump any personal political views a principal has every time.

Besides, if she really were interested in the immigration debate itself, more so than the violence potential, why not just say so? Promoting tolerance, and even "political correctness", would be well with in her responsibilities as an educator, and that would have been a perfectly reasonable explanation for the dress code. There's no need for her to pretend anything, so why assume she is?


Ok.


I think it could have been the issue at hand if you had let it, but since it's not a topic you care to discuss, I'll bottle it for now.


So I don't get to "evaluate"? I have to be "assuming"? Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

Anyway, again, why assume this is anything other than what it is? When schools ban gang clothing, it's to prevent violence, not because of whatever the principal's feelings about the particular gangs in question might be. When they ban certain sneakers that kids get mugged and beaten up over, it's to prevent violence, not because the principal might have a thing against Nike or Adidas. Why's it such a stretch to believe the same logic applies here?

Hell, I remember when I was that age, there was this stupid whistle toy called My-T-Whistle that had a spinner in it to make it loud as all hell. The thing was annoying for sure, and kids were blowing it constantly in the hallways between classes to impress eachother. Well, it wasn't long before it became a weapon. Bigger kids would hold a littler one down while one or two of them would blow the thing full blast in the victim's ears and then laugh and laugh while the poor kid stumbled away in a daze, temporarily deafened. So, the school eventually banned the whistles, but not until this had been going on for some time. If only they'd had the forsight to do it while it was still just an annoyance and not yet an excuse for violence.


First, it wasn't a distraction. What would be the point in that? I responded to this thread because I wanted to discuss the topic at hand. You made a reference that didn't make sense to me, so I outlined why it did not appear to be sensible, and I asked you to explain. That was an attempt to further the discussion, not to derail it. I'm more than a little suprised you didn't see that.

Since you mentioned distraction though, just so you're aware, one could argue that by accusing me of attempting distraction, you are in fact attempting distraction yourself. I questioned how an analogy applies to the situation we're discussing, and rather than respond directly with an answer, you chose to attack the question itself. Since you did go on to provide an answer after that, and since you were careful to mention that it's a little off topic, I don't see it as deliberate, but it's still there.

Anyway, even after your explanation of how civil disobedience can affect what is perceived as political correctness (and I agree with you), I still don't see what it has to do with this particular case. I'm content to live with the mystery though if you don't care to go any further with it. As you say, it's not central to the discussion.


I'm sorry you don't want to discuss it, but it is still worthy of discussion, and with all due respect, if I or anyone else chooses to discuss it in this thread, you don't really get to say we can't. Discussions turn in all sorts of directions all the time. It's not uncommon at all for people to take portions of posts that they feel are worthy of continued discourse, and to expand on those portions. That's how conversation works.

Anyway, to answer your specific question, no, I do not believe the principal's actions were a result of media influence. It was a result of what she saw happening with her students, and nothing else. Now, were the kids' actions influenced by the media? Probably, but that's not what you asked. The principal perceived a threat to the safety of her kids, and she responded to keep the peace. And from watching her interview, I rather got the impression that she was not pleased with the media coverage of the situation at all. If she really had some kind of agenda other than what she explained at face value, I'd expect she'd be standing tall and proud atop her newfound soapbox. All appearances though were that all she wanted was to get back to the day to day activity of doing her job without all this distraction.

Anyway, even if the principal had been influenced by the media here, I still don't see how that could be defined as "political correctness". I don't recall any of the media coverage of the immigration debate saying "let's not offend the immigrants", which is the only potential non-PC thing these kids were doing.


Uh, now who's off topic, making assumptions, and possibly attempting to distract?

First, you have no direct evidence whatsoever about how I might feel about Bush's interpretation of the constitution or about his claims about what Iraq has to do with that. Even if you did, that really has nothing to do with this particular case. This principal is not the president. Just because George W. Bush might be a liar, how could that possibly relate to whether or not Myla Shepherd mght be a liar. They are completely seperate people who have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. There is no binding logic here, whatsoever.

Since you brought it up though, no, I don't believe Bush's war amounts to "upholding the constitution". He violates constitutional law all the time, in fact. That's another topic though.

As for purity of reported motivation, there's lots of evidence to suggest that Bush's motivations for attacking Iraq were different than the ones he gave at the time he did it. I believed, for example, that Sadam had WMD's at the time, just like everyone else did. I still didn't think war was the answer back then, mind you, but I did believe the administration was telling the truth about why they wanted to go to war. Now we all know that simply wasn't true. There were no WMD's in Iraq, despite Rumsfled having said, "We know he has them and we know were they are." Whether or not you like Bush or agree with the war, you can't deny that at least that part of the "motivation" was false.

As for this principal, the situation is quite different. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest she had any motivations other than what she said. In the absense of such evidence, I must believe her words. I don't see why you have to assume differently.

Also, while it's admittedly a generalization, I happen to know many educators and many politicians. For better or worse, principals aren't generally the type of people to do anything other than tell it like it is. It takes time and energy to make stuff up, and they generally have neither to spare. Politicians on the other hand, again for better or worse, make an art and a science of spin. It's what they do. Myla Shepherd is not a politician; she's a principal. She's got no reason to be so clandestine or two-faced as you seem to want to believe.

Show me some evidence she's lying and then I'll believe. Until then, I have to accept the simplest explanation, which is that she did exactly what she said she did for the reasons she explained. That doesn't make her reasons right, necessarily, but they were her reasons nonetheless.


Yes, the media reframed it, and maybe I could see how that could be a PC issue in a convoluted way, but it's a bit of a stretch. The media did make this about propriety of expression, which is unfortunate, but that doesn't necessarily make it about political correctness. The two can be related, but they don't have to be. Again, I think our definitions of PC are little different.

Chosen, I apologize if you think I am engaging in argumentation tactics that I don't allow you to. I didn't mean to imply that you assume and I evaluate, meaning that I felt I was doing something more objective/valuable than you.

Rather, it seems from your posts that you take a positive view of her motives on their face. My argument is simple... very simple. Though she may say her actions are based on a desire to enforce discipline/safety in the school, I feel that in today's socio-politcal environment in the US, it's pretty much a given that she's aware of things going on in the media; that has affected her decision. It's that simple.

I know principals and politicians also, some relatives, some friends, some mere acquaintances. That reinforces my perception of this principal's action as having been heavily influenced by the liberal media slant evident in the world today.

I'm sure that you'll agree that conservatives have their own view of what they prefer to be "politically correct".

This principal's actions certainly don't fall within those boundaries -- instead they fall within the boundaries of values repeatedly expressed in media framing of various stories. While her actual motivation MAY only coincidentally be the same as the PC attitudes promoted by the media, I argue that her actions are CAUSED by that media influence, at least in part. (Obviously, no sane person would argue 100% causation here).

Quick extension of previous civil disobedience-PC-media reporting analogy here. Just as the national media tended to report civil disobedience in the 1960s as justifiable, if you read this story AS WRITTEN closely, there seems to be a bias which places PC above student's right to free speech via dress here. I remember the 1960s also... when principals did things like try to stop people from wearing t-shirts with marijuana leaves on them. I was against that then and I am now.

The student safety defense here, as I see it, is centered on the immigration issue --- students wearing camies, etc, responding to media coverage of the illegal immigration debate and that action being in response to both the media and other students taking a stand on one side or the other. In this case, wearing camies, flags, whatever is being declared disruptive on its face - as opposed to dealing with the students who then react to that. So, it's prior restraint. I am against prior restraint. I am for enforcing the law.

In this case, she seems to either be "making new law" or selectively enforcing a previously unenforced existing law that wasn't mentioned in the story. The media didn't report her entire explanation I am sure... from what they did report her saying, however, her justification doesn't trump the free speech guarantee as it applies to personal dress in public places.

Having read this thread, I'm still confused. Why is it you're blaming the media for a principal's decision? Besides blaming the media being the fashionable thing to do, I mean.



No one caused her to do anything. She's an autonomous person with her own mind.

Yeah, I ran into that brick wall the other day.

Note that I said "media influence"...? If her awareness of media reporting IS an influence, then it is at least partially a cause.

I don't "blame the media" because it is fashionable. I feel that there is validity to the argument that the media "tells you what to think about" -- as well as how to think about it by how they report it. The latter is framing, the former is story/issue selection.

If students weren't aware of the illegal immigration debate - discussed primarily in the media, not in the home or in school prior to the issue being recently raised yet again in the media - AND if the principal weren't llikewise influenced by what is and is not considered politically correct (locally, regionally and nationally) via media coverage, then I would bet dollars against doughnuts that she'd not have implemented the policy she has. Instead, she'd have dealt with students inappropriately reacting to other things/breaking other school rules.

So, people are just hapless pawns to media influence, with no ability to critically think on their own? The media, your mother and your dog only have the power over you that you give them.

And note you said, "I would bet..." In other words, your whole argument is based on assumptions, not facts.