Indiana High School Student Is Suspended For Singing National Anthem…And Local Residents Are Furious
A high school student from Homestead High School received a three-day detention for singing the national anthem in the school’s cafeteria, and now, an online petition to protest the school’s decision is going viral.
William Schweikert, who attends school in Fort Wayne, Indiana, says he began singing the national anthem following the mass school shooting in Florida, as a way to protest calls for gun control and also to protest professional athletes who take a knee during the anthem.
“Sophomore was given a three day lunch detention for ‘willful disobedience’ during lunch on Monday April 17, 2018,” Change.org reported. “William will sometimes stand in his black suit with red or blue tie and show his patriotism by performing the Star Spangled Banner, an action that is innocent, harmless and even constructive to the high school lunchroom.”
Following Schweikert’s detention, students are now flooding the cafeteria during lunchtime to sing the national anthem as a way to protest the school’s decision.
Fellow student Jack Persinger said it was a proud moment for him when he heard other students in the cafeteria belting out the anthem as an act of solidarity for Schweikert, and he immediately placed his hand over his heart and joined in the singing.
Others also chimed in with their support of Schweikert.
“William sang during lunch to prevent classroom distractions, he sang in front of his peers, which is very honorable and challenging, and got overwhelming support from our wonderful student body but instead of allowing him to express himself and the love for his country he was punished, what does that tell our students?” Jordan Vandenberghe commented.
Additionally, students have started a petition to protest the school’s decision to discipline the sophomore, which has garnered nearly 1,700 signatures since Tuesday night.
Schweikert had already been called into the principal’s office for singing several weeks ago, who Schweikert claims told him, “you shouldn’t have done that.”
But the principal’s threats didn’t deter him.
In Schweikert’s interview with ABC21, he says that faculty members are now surrounding the cafeteria during lunch hours to ensure that the singing stops.
Tags
Who is online
174 visitors
What if he stood up at lunch and sang "Baby Got Back" at lunch and they suspended him? Would you be standing with him then?
Stay on topic and do not derail my seeds. Only warning.
How is that a derail? If other students starting standing and singing other songs, would there be outrage?
I say no. Just because it is a so called patriotic song does not give a free pass for rules and regulations or what is allowed.
Disrupting lunch break just for disrupting sake says a lot about the disrupter.
Stay on topic and do not derail my seeds. Only warning.
I was totally serious and it is a good question.
How about answering the question, Jasper, what if the kid was belting out 'Karma Chameleon,' should that be protected too? Are you suggesting that the anthem can be screamed out anywhere, in hospital, libraries, and other quiet places, simply because it's the anthem?
Right wing patriotism is phony, just like everything else about the right wing these days, all posturing and no substance.
My free time for social media is rather limited, so I don't live on NT like other people, lennylynx.
Sure, why not? High school cafeterias at lunch time are students' free time/noisy places. As long as students don't break published school rules, they should be allowed to sing whatever they wish.
No, and I never said that anyone should scream the national anthem anywhere they please. However, William Schweikert sang it in a noisy school cafeteria at lunch time and not "hospital, libraries, and other quiet places".
Your hostile opinion of people you disagree with is duly noted.
The seeded article makes it clear that he was given detention for "disobedience", and not for singing the national anthem.
“Sophomore was given a three day lunch detention for ‘willful disobedience’ during lunch on Monday April 17, 2018,”
He sang it a time or times before he was suspended , without any punishment. At some point he was told to stop singing it at lunch, and he did anyway, and then was given detention.
True, the justification for the punishment was willful disobedience. Your original question, however, was whether or not the seeder would stand with the kid if he had been singing Sir Mix A Lot.
For me, my answer to that question would be variable. Is he standing and singing baby got back in the same manner as he sang the anthem. I don't see anywhere, in any of the links, a description of the "disturbance" that brought upon the principal's directive for him to stop, other than the fact that this kid stood and sang a few times. Is it against any particular rule to sing during the lunch break? Did the singing actually create a disturbance? That seems relevant. My guess is one of two things happened each time. Either everyone kept going about their business, in which case his singing was likely drowned out by the ambient noise; or, the lunch room quieted, as people listened to him sing.
I personally don't see anything wrong with singing in the lunch room, during lunch break. I'd say there are songs that are probably not appropriate, but the anthem wouldn't be on that list. Baby Got Back may be pushing the line a bit, but I do admit, I like 'em round.
John, your comments are really overboard and I understand why you dislike this young man. But, please do two things for me:
Nope, but students who stood up and sang to support William might be charged with singing while eating!
Jasper, ol pal, your repeated attempt to say my comments on this seed are out of line, are, well, ridiculous.
Your seeded article makes it pretty clear that he did this more than once.
What sort of commotion was created by him singing (anything) as a "protest" in the lunchroom? Did it cause other students to applaud him? oppose him? Cheer? Jeer? There are legitimate reasons why the administrators at the school wouldn't have wanted ANY of those responses.
They may have went along with it a time or two out of an effort to be low key. On repeated "performances" they seem to have said "enough is enough".
Unless you have other information than what is in the article, I don't see anything wrong with what the school did to end the singing performances in the lunch room.
Kudos to young William Schweikert for having the courage and integrity to do what he did. Hope the school and district staff have a huge lawsuit slapped on them for this travesty!
“Sophomore was given a three day lunch detention for ‘willful disobedience’ during lunch on Monday April 17, 2018,” Change.org reported.
OMG !!! Three Day lunch detention !!! How will he ever get through ???
Instead of making a snarky comment, please provide us with the school district's rules which state that students are not allowed to sing in cafeterias at lunch time.
You keep repeating your false claim. He was punished for disobedience not singing.
Stay on topic and stop trying to derail your own seeds!
OFFENSES
RANGE OF POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES
OPTIONS
1. Disruptive
Behavior
Class Suspension/ISS/OSS up to 3 days
ISS/OSS up to 5 days
OSS up to 10 days, Expulsion Recommendation
Financial Restitution, Legal Prosecution
2. Willful Disobedience
Class Suspension/ISS/OSS up to 3 days
ISS/OSS up to 5 days
OSS up to 10 days, Expulsion Recommendation
Financial Restitution, Legal Prosecution
but they encouraged others to walk out of school
I wonder how all the conservatives would be reacting to this story if it read slightly different:
"William Schweikert, who attends school in Fort Wayne, Indiana, says he began singing the national anthem on his knees following the mass school shooting in Florida, as a way to protest for gun control and also to support professional athletes who take a knee during the anthem."
My bet is they'd be supporting the schools decision to suspend him for disobeying the principals direct order and calling this kid all sorts of names.
According the Fort Wayne NBC affiliate, Schweikert said he was "Singing to protest the NFL players kneeling, disrespect for the flag and disrespect for the country."
Assuming the account is accurate....well...........there it is, there you have it.
I wonder why the 'seeder' of this story didn't add that little nugget?
It would not have served their personal agenda.
Looks like the seeder posted directly from an ABC story. Are you saying he should also post every stroy form every other news source? I guess we'll be watching anything you post to ensure you live by what you criticize Jaspar for.
I posted 2 sources. However, I noticed that some people prefer to negatively comment about the seeder instead of focusing on the content of the seed.
No. The 'seeder' left out or ignored the reason Schweikert was singing. And this had to have been a factor in the story. Without it, there wouldn't have been a story.
From the article. That isn't sufficient for you?
Was not in the heading story. I had to look elsewhere to find out the other facts.
You do realize that this is how propaganda works, right. Half truths and all of that.
I provided two sources in my introduction, and they provide the reader with the facts.
you are correct.
This is what I like.
Some people love the country and some people don't. It's as simple as that. If someone is doing something to show how thankful they are for living in one of the least racist country on earth, the left hate it, but they rally behind anyone who criticizes this same country.
This seems like a big ado about nothing. Lunch time is when students can get together and socialize freely. At least Mr. Schweikert was smart enough to sing in the lunchroom, rather than the classroom. If he did it in class, then disciplinary action may have been justified due to classroom disruption. But it doesn't seem like he disrupted lunch, as others joined in or supported his actions. There is no word whether any other student complained about the singing. Besides, it's not like he sang an offensive or profanity laced song or something like that. The school's reaction and subsequent disciplinary action seems a bit much.
I'm starting to feel really sorry for you Americans.
The antics of many are getting tedious. But, I still wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
I served my country honorably and faithfully in the U.S. Navy for 20 years that included two wars. I have shed my blood for it and will do it again if called on to do so. It is my country right or wrong, but still the best country on this planet, and I would never want to live anywhere else! To those that hate this country and live here, you can feel free to move elsewhere anytime. I assure you that you will not be missed!
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm feeling sorry for us, too, Buzz. Over the past years we've devolved into a hateful, anti-American citizenry that I don't even recognize anymore. Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Soros, Bill Ayers, et al, must be very happy.
so this student pulled this stunt before and was already warned about it - yet instead of listening to authority, this student decided to repeat the same behavior and defy that authority ... now it's being applauded by the conservative minded that this student is willfully defying authority... very interesting..
So this student's mother understands the school's decision to discipline and understands there is a "time and place" - yet many others don't seem to comprehend that.... interesting.. I will also state that i think it's good this student is standing up for what he believes in - yet we have rules in place for a reason (and ways to change them if they are outdated or the reason doesn't apply anymore etc etc)
Sometimes "authority" can be misplaced or flat out wrong. In my personal opinion, this was such a case.
so.. are you stating that any time someone (like yourself or someone else) feels that "authority" is misplaced or flat our wrong - we have your full support (and others like minded) to defy that authority and protest etc like this student is doing ?
Mine, as well. Early in Obama's presidency Mrs. O said "all of this for a flag"? I guess that said it all for them. It's been downhill since.
Not at all. What I should have added is that there is a proper time and place to dispute things in the proper manner.
i can agree with that - do you feel this student is employing the proper manner, time and place to dispute the school's decision ?
do you feel this student is justified in his actions even after being previously told by an authority figure to not engage in his behavior ?
Difficult question. If I was this young man's mother, I would be very proud for stepping forward in an issue that he believed in. As I read it, the school authority didn't, actually, tell him not to do it, again. Nevertheless, he knew not to.
The part I find distressing is that the teachers stood around the cafeteria to enforce not singing our Anthem. What if the entire cafeteria group of kids had just knelt? Would that have been disruptive? Did they suspend other students who sang? Were students suspended when they walked out of school protesting guns? What happened when the young man was hit by a car and died outside school while protesting guns? It was school sanctioned and very disruptive....a child died unnecessarily.
I am a don Quixote! Being principled is a very important part of my life. I told my two sons while growing up.....if you can look yourself in the mirror at the end of the day, then, job well done!
His life will go on, but he will always remember that day when he stood up for his beliefs.
Do you feel that standing up in a school cafeteria and singing the country's national anthem is harming anyone? Next thing that will happen is banning the flying of the Star Spangled Banner.
Yes, but personally I cannot really see that what he did was wrong to begin with. I guess that is just my opinion.
In general, standing up and singing anything in the cafeteria would have been met with laughter and derision on the best of days. Why should this be any different?
me personally ? from a personal point of view (as if i was a student) - i wouldn't think it was harmful, but it is definitely disruptive and distracting to students - or at least i would presume that's what the school thought when they warned him the first time to not engage in the behavior again. It's the same as someone getting up to sing any song at all, or to start dancing etc. Just because its the country's national anthem doesn't mean anything special - it's just a song (granted, it's valued by a lot of people for various reasons, but that doesn't mean it should have special privileges does it ?).
Let me ask you this Buzz - do you feel that me standing up in your dining room and singing any song while you (and/or your family) is eating a meal is harming anyone (or is disruptive) ?
Do you always advocate defying authority if you don't like the restraints placed upon you by that authority, Buzz ?
i honestly couldn't tell you why the school made it's decision, i would presume it has to do with being a distraction and disrupting students during their lunch period, regardless the student was previously warned to not engage in the behavior again yet he still did and defied that authority. So now i ask if that's the lesson we wish to teach - if you don't like the answer or restraints from an authority figure (or don't like the rules) then just disobey it and protest if you get into trouble again - is that what we wish to teach ? now be careful before you answer, this could apply to many situations beyond just this school situation. (please note: i'm only asking out of curiosity, to get your viewpoint and that's it)
I personally would think that maybe going to the principal or school board or superintendent would be a better option (to start with, instead of breaking the rules again or instead of protesting) - don't we teach people about "chain of command" ?
Right, but In this case, William's fellow classmates respectfully stood up in the cafeteria and sang our anthem in defiance of the principal's decision to suspend/detain William from being with his peers during his scheduled lunch period.
the school authority actually did tell him - i posted it #13. The principal specifically told the student not to do it again (i guess he did it once before - this is all according to the student, i didn't have enough time to see if there was anything from the school's point of view). I agree - i think it's great he stood up for something he believed in, but i don't think this is the correct way to go about "protesting". There are more efficient ways to communicate this message.
I couldn't answer it - but i understand your thought process - i wondered some of the same things myself.
I can understand the line of thinking and questioning. Honestly - those are great questions for the principal and school board.
I agree Mrs. Don Quixote !
(i hope you aren't insulted by that, if you are - i do apologize, it was meant as a joke)
If that's all you did, that was a nothing-burger! In our Bio 2 classes when I was in high school, we were dissecting cats. We confiscated all of the eyeballs and during lunch periods we tossed them around the cafeteria just to hear the girls scream when they landed on their tables. Times were a lot different. No one was suspended, and nobody, even teachers and administrators, were snowflakes.
It would be interesting to learn why the principal became angry that a student sang our national anthem in the cafeteria during his lunch period.
i absolutely agree. It's part of the reason why i cannot take a stance for nor against - there's not enough information.
I am proud of being Mrs. don Quixote. I am not a feminist. But, thank you.
If it was a one off then I don't see much reason for the principle to be upset, but if the kid had done it repeatedly and been instructed not to do it again then I totally get it.
He did it more than once.
That is a bit of a leap.
You still haven't shown us where in the school district's rule book it says that students are not allowed to sing in the cafeteria during their lunch periods. What part of free time - cafeteria - lunch time is difficult for you to comprehend?
Japser,
No one is going to be able to find that schools rule book online. I can tell you as a teacher, that any outburst like this, would land you in trouble. I think they went a bit overboard, but maybe since the other students were chiming in made him an example.
Jasper, it doesn't matter what the student was doing. If it became repetitive and was causing a commotion during lunch hour the school can put a stop to it. What don't YOU understand about that?
Loki,
You must have read my mind, but I posted it already on the bottom.
I'm fairly certain that the Principal feels that the student directly defied his authority as the Principal.
Apparently, the third time is the "charm".
At some schools I think in California, made some students remove their shirts with the American flag on it because the illegal alien students were intimidated and offended by them. Wearing the Mexican flag was OK.
You strike me as someone who has a lot of grievances you want to express.
Not true. Here you go...
By the way, I looked at all 79 pages, and none of them specifically addresses what William was accused of doing.
Did you read the actual code from their code book? It said disruptive behavior. He was involved in disruptive behavior and caused even more disruptive behavior. I don't care what he was singing or the reasons why. That is also why I said that the kids who walked out for the parkland shootings against school rules also deserved the punishments they got.
Do you feel that we should be raising kids to not listen to their teachers and principle, because I don't.
And the only reason I got involved with this discussion was over school discipline. As a retired teacher and the mother of two, I feel it matters.
Japer,
Over 45 minutes ago, I found it and I found the rules that covered this and the possible outcomes. This rule book is pretty standard, as my own kids had pretty much the same rules. Please look here for the rule.
I am actually dumbfounded by the reaction here. The kid made a disruption that turned into a bigger one. This is not an unordinary stance for a school to take. As I have said for the third time in this article, the kids who walked out for the Parkland shootings, got punished for the walkout. This is all proper and we should be encouraging our kids to follow school rules always, and not when it fits our own political agendas.
Well that is insane and I am pretty sure they have a 1st amendment case with that.
First of all, if you are going to make such an accusation you do need to get your facts straight. The ban of American Flag T-shirts and bandanas was on Cinco de Mayo day at only ONE school.
Source:
"In May of 2009, a Cinco de Mayo event at Live Oak High School (a school with a history of violence and gang issues) in Morgan Hill, California, sparked a clash between white students and students of Mexican descent; and the following year five non-Mexican Live Oak students chose to attend school on Cinco de Mayo wearing T-shirts and bandanas bearing representations of the U.S. flag.
School officials, concerned that the five students’ U.S. flag garb would provoke hostilities and fights with Mexican-American students, directed those students to change their clothing (by removing their bandanas and turning their shirts inside-out) or go home, as outlined in court documents:
And was upheld in the courts:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The two students who declined to change their clothing and went home brought suit against the school district and school administrators, alleging violations of their federal and California constitutional rights to freedom of expression and their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. In November 2011, that lawsuit was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge:
In February 2014, a U.S. Court of Appeals three-judge panel (not the U.S. Supreme Court) upheld the district court’s ruling, stating that:
On 30 March 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it had declined to hear an appeal of the case:
Feedback Sources
Filed Under: American Flag Cinco De Mayo Live Oak High School
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, that is a difference from the way you stated it. Do try to be factual in presenting your accusations, not just in a manner to suit your own political agenda.
if that's the reason the principal made his decision - then i'm inclined to agree. It's the same as going to work - but doing whatever you felt like no matter what your boss said, even if your boss tells you not to do something that you keep repeatedly doing - you'd be written up or even fired. does anyone expect to go to their job - just start doing things they were previously told not to do, and not possibly get in trouble with their boss ?
(i know, now all of the "business owners" will suddenly come out of the woodworks to tell everyone that they allow everyone at their company to sing the national anthem whenever they want, or that they encourage it or that they set aside an hour during their business day so any employee can just sing the national anthem or something of that nature... *sigh*)
Apparently some overzealous asshole rule-makers are determined to take joy out of life, and create a society of robots.
Very debatable.
I just noticed your questions.
How is that relevant? Our dining room is our private space, whereas the topic has to do with a person entitled to be where he was, but I'll answer anyway. I have been invited to banquets here in China with important people, and during the banquet each person is asked to contribute something to the entertainment - a magic trick, a riddle, a song, and in fact I have sung songs at those banquets. IF you were invited to our home for dinner, we would be entertained by your singing a song, unless that song was insulting or you sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard.
No, not ALWAYS, it depends on the circumstances. A lawyer can sometimes be put in the situation to do so. If there were no consequences to be suffered by me, I just MIGHT defy authority.
Maybe he was a former NFL player.
Funny that an American demands bending to authority, when challenging authority is the reason America isn't a British Colony. LOL Who was right at Kent State, the students or the soldiers who shot them? What was the purpose of the Civil Rights movement, Rosa Parks, etc.
Another level of irony - this kid is singing to demand that NFL players who kneel during the Anthem bend (or, more to the point, not bend) to authority. He's protesting their right to protest.
Is there an authority that said the NFL players must NOT kneel? What they did was spit on a patriotic gesture or tradition, an insult which was obviously felt by a lot of Americans, even by me and I'm not an American.
Some, including this kid, would have it so.
Kneeling is a sign of dissent. It is not disrespectful, IMO.
The flag has been carried horizontally at NFL games in violation of the Flag Code, and I frequently see tattered flags that should be retired, or flags flying unilluminated at night. But nobody seems to protest that, or even notice it.
To what?
I am not certain what NFL regulations say about it.
"Spit on" might be a tad harsh. But then, that is the beauty of being an American citizen: you have the right to "spit on" the flag, protest, or show dissent, even if others do not agree.
To racial injustice.
Yes, the right to contribute to the "crumbling of America". "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead what you can do for your country" such as spit on it, kick it around, dumb it down, resent loyalty, be as divisive as possible, etc., in other words to turn your country to shit and a laughing stock for the rest of the world. I admire your concept of patriotism.
Is pointing out problems in America so that they can and perhaps will be addressed the same as tearing it down?
I don't see that ever ending.
Why do the problems seem to be increasing then?
I don't think they are, really. I think they're becoming more visible, because attention is being called to them.
A little melodramatic.
Ignoring problems or pretending they don't exist certainly won't help end them.
I'm with sandy on this one: problems are not necessarily increasing. They're just becoming more visible and people are becoming more aware of them.
I once played Sir Toby Belch in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. Maybe I never got over it. Unfortunately I couldn't spell it out with a New England accent: "Awsk not....etc."
That'd be pretty annoying, not gonna lie. If it only happened once then whatever, but if he kept it up day after day I'd tell him to shut the fuck up too.
As a teacher who often had lunch duty.. the kid was wrong. Suspension? IDK. Probably removing him from the lunchroom to eat privately would have been the better course of action. That is what I would have done.
I don't know why everything has to be partisan. The kid broke the rules. End of story. The kids who left the schools to protest the shootings got in trouble for leaving the schools (depending on the school). Both were correct. The school has rules, and those rules should be followed. It really is just that simple.
Using specific district policies, please explain why William was "wrong", and then please explain what published school district rules he broke. This is the 3rd time I've asked the same questions. Thanks.
You are making a fool out of yourself. They don't need a "rule" against singing. They will claim he was being disruptive in school. Do you really think there is no "rule" against that?
Jasper,
Being a teacher for over 20 years I knew that this is school policy. But also being a teacher, I like citation, so here it is:
OFFENSES
RANGE OF POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES
OPTIONS
1. Disruptive
Behavior
Class Suspension/ISS/OSS up to 3 days
ISS/OSS up to 5 days
OSS up to 10 days, Expulsion Recommendation
Financial Restitution, Legal Prosecution
2. Willful Disobedience
Class Suspension/ISS/OSS up to 3 days
ISS/OSS up to 5 days
OSS up to 10 days, Expulsion Recommendation
Financial Restitution, Legal Prosecution
Those apply to anywhere in the school.
btw.. a comment was made about the flag and the pledge. That was covered, too along with time for private prayer:
FLAG AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The United States flag shall be displayed in every classroom within the School District (Policy 5170). Each student shall have the opportunity to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance in his or her classroom each day. A student is exempt from participation in the Pledge of Allegiance and may not be required to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance if the student chooses not to participate. The Superintendent or his designee shall be responsible for adopting procedures consistent with this policy.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
Under federal and state law, all students have the right to the free exercise of religion within the School District. Each student shall be free from coercion either to engage in or refrain from religious observation on school grounds. Pursuant to state law, each classroom shall have a daily observance of a moment of silence (Policy 5180). During this moment of silence, the teacher will insure that all students remain seated or standing and silent. Further, students shall make no distracting display that interferes with, distracts, or impedes other students in the exercise of their individual rights. The Superintendent or his designee shall be responsible for adopting procedures consistent with this policy.
OK so found a rule. Now is it not also true that students are to be in their classrooms at specified times during the school day? If so shouldn't every student that walk out of class to protest also be given detention?
If a student is walking out of class without permission, they could be issued a suspension/ detention. If you are referring to what happened with the kids who did the walk out about the shooting in Florida, I addressed that here:
Are you advocating for ignoring school rules or just moving goal posts?
Ok.....perhaps neither you nor I like the rule......but there is one in the school handbook that calls for suspension for willful disobedience.....the suspension itself wasn't for singing the national anthem.....it was for willfully disobeying the principal.....if the student was told by the administration not to sing the anthem in the cafeteria, the student could have found a legitimate way to air his grievance that wouldn't have become a 'cause celebre'. I get the feeling that this may have been staged in order to get the notice that he is obviously getting.
Rules are rules.
Just curious - who was disrupted? In fact, let me take this a little further. I thought there was a general pandemonium in school cafeterias during lunchtime - students talking, often loudly, dishes banged on tables, so is it because a little music turns that into disruption? Perhaps it's because the music happened to be the Star Spangled Banner, and that might send some students who champion those NFL players who kneel to consider it offensive? The Star Spangled Banner is offensive? Maybe it is to a flag-burner. LOL I know that in the 19th century students had to maintain silence in school - so is this "rule" an attempt to return to the "good old days" of the 19th century?
Good question!
Seems to me that the principal overreacted and imposed his personal feelings about patriotism on the students. Otherwise, since cafeterias are usually venues of pleasant pandemonium, a little singing would not make a big difference.
Excellent comment, Buzz. No one was "disrupted". William's behavior wasn't "disruptive". One could say that he was "disobedient" because he didn't obey his draconian, anti-national-anthem-in-the-cafeteria principal, but that's about it. In another video, many students stood in the same cafeteria and sang the national anthem in solidarity with William, but I haven't read that the principal also suspended them for 3 days.
The district's guidelines regarding flag and pledge behaviors pertain to formal areas of its schools (classrooms, auditoriums), not cafeterias at lunch time. Anyone who expects students to sit quietly in a cafeteria during lunch periods has lost touch with 20th and 21st realities. Even when I was in high school many decades ago, we were allowed to sing, laugh, walk around, etc. as long as we didn't destroy school property or assault/bully anyone.
Is that something we want to encourage? Our vice principal was always in the cafeteria at lunch time, and if some kids were excessive in their noise, he dealt with it. It was never so noisy that I couldn't hold a conversation at a normal volume.
Using the word "pandemonium" was excessive, on my part. However, such cafeterias are undeniably noisy. Since many of the students stood up and sang along with him, I wonder why it was considered a TRAVESTY (and I mean that word) by the principal in the country where it is the national anthem. The cafeteria is not the auditorium or the gym or the classroom. It is a place where students can give non-violent, non-insulting vent to their feelings - was it a prison or a school?
I don't believe anybody has said that, and you are engaging in unsupported speculation regarding the principal's personal feelings.
Perhaps his school has rules about excessive noise in the cafeteria. I know every school I attended did. Talking was permitted. Raised voices were not. There's a lot of territory between "silence" and "singing the Anthem with enough volume to be heard over normal cafeteria noise". In a school where lunch periods are staggered, other students may have classes in session nearby, and those classes may be disrupted by loud singing.
We gathered for general assembly before class and said the Pledge of Alliance. Our right hand was over our heart.
IMO, this disrespect began happening during Obama's presidency, Is it coincidental? I don't think so.
That's so much nonsense I don't even know where to begin. Might as well blame Obama for global warming, internet porn and expensive movie popcorn while you're at it.
Just give them time, they'll get to all that sooner or later.
Buzz,
I taught for over 20 years and had my share of cafeteria duty. Students were allowed to talk, but if they got to loud were told to tone it down. No one would dare stand up and start singing. And this was at a tough NYC inner city school. The lunch room had a reasonable sound level. The playground was loud.
That is a huge "perhaps" since we sang the Star Spangled Banner everyday to start the day, but you wouldn't be able to do that in the lunchroom, and especially when clearly in the school rules it says you can't do that.
And no, it is not a prison, but a school has rules. Are you advocating breaking school rules? My kids school had the same rules. It is not unusual.
Does the school operate a decibel measuring device in the cafeteria?
Are you unable to tell the difference between talking and yelling without measuring?
I agree that once the principal said to cease and desist, his repeating it was undisciplined, and as I believe Phoenix suggested above, he should have argued the question at a higher authority. I just don't think that the first time he did it before being warned not to repeat it was not such a big issue to consider it a travesty.
I haven't seen where the principal said it was a travesty. I've only seen where YOU characterize the principal's view that way.
Just as speculative as my comment. Welcome to the club. LOL
I'm even capable of telling the difference between talking and singing. Are you?
Speculation that schools have classes that may be disrupted by those not in class at that very moment?
Ok.
Most schools have staggered lunch times because their cafeterias can't accommodate all students at the same time. I'm playing the odds - more educated guess than speculation.
That depends on the singer.
Sorry, should have used the word "defiance". "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir" is required compliance I guess.
True enough, I have little appreciation for "Rap".
Buzz,
Once the student was told to knock it off, that should have been the end of the story. If he felt so impassioned by it, he should then be willing to do sit detention for it.
There were loads of kids who were told that if they walked out of school in support of the Parkland shooting that they would get suspension, and they walked out and got suspension. If you really believe in something, then you can't have it both ways. You do what you feel is right, and you suffer the repercussions of that. You don't get to moan about it like a baby later.
Sorry, I didn't see that he "moaned" about it, but I though I saw somewhere that a challenge was being taken to a higher level, or was I misled by a comment suggesting that it would have been a better choice than repeating the "offensive behaviour"?
First of all, it is not "offensive behavior". It is behavior not allowed in the lunchroom.
And the school rules are the rules. Just as I pointed out with the Parkland students, if they want to protest, they have to take the punishment for acting out.
There is nothing complicated about that.
IMPASSE
It stated with Mrs. O's classic statement. "All of this for a flag"?
Schools are strict now. When I went everyone was to high to give a crap including the teachers. awe..the 70's.
When I went to High School, the students had a smoking lounge. It was right off the cafeteria. One had to get a pass and it was used during lunch or free time. I will say, more than cigs were smoked there.