Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Slamming Poetry and Free Speech

(Disclaimer: As it is a matter of personal integrity that I endeavor to raise the standard of e-journalism, I must note that this source is somewhat questionable as it is not from an accredited news agency. That said, the story does have "a ring of truth" in my mind which is backed up by this, more reputable follow up story. The follow up article confirms many of the major points in the first one but leaves many holes the first article would seem to fill in. Similarly, this feature on the teacher in question lends some credulity to the events as reported in the first article as well.)

Many folks on the right (and some on the left) have pooh-poohed the idea that the idea that Bush and/or his supporters are trying to force any sort of agenda that would actually deprive anyone of their civil rights. While I've yet to find direct evidence linking W to such activities, I think it worthy to note the milieu this administration is creating.

As the disclaimer above notes, I cannot personnally vouch for all of the details of the following but overall there is "a ring of truth" the events in general as described. However, it is possible that a grain or two of salt may be necessary.

Back in the early part of 2003, a high school teacher in New Mexico was the faculty adviser for a "Slam Team", a group of high school poets. In March of that year, a girl presented her poem "Revolution X" in a live reading off campus and later via school's closed-circuit television system. Her poem questioned the country's involvement in the war in Iraq and the failure of the No Child Left Behind program. A school military advisor (I assume the ROTC teacher?) and the principal accused the girl of being un-American. The girl's mother, also a teacher, was ordered by the principal to destroy the poem. The teacher-advisor was suspended and later fired for not censoring the students' poems. Later, the principal and the military liaison read a poem of their own choosing during a flag raising ceremony. When students and faculty raised objections to these acts or espoused opinions contrary to the principal, he replied, "Shut your faces."

Yes, I know there are incidents where the right wing justifiably whines about how they've been victimized by "political correctness". But I've not heard of such things to this level of vindictiveness. Is this "compassionate conservatism" or the latest flavor of "PC"?

1 Comments:

At 6:03 PM, Blogger Kokopelli said...

Whether or not the JROTC teacher was active or retired military is irrelevant. If he was, indeed, wearing the uniform of the US armed forces legally, he represents the nation. End of story on that front. Now does that make Bush culpable? Well, what did I say about that? "While I've yet to find direct evidence linking W to such activities, I think it worthy to note the milieu this administration is creating."

I urge you to look upon the posts in Left in the Reign as editorials on society more than overt political theses. As the subhead says, we are examining "Life during the reign of Bush II". I grant you that during the heated times of the election we were more directly political. I think you'll see a bit of a change from that in the future.

And while I, too, would like to read this girl's poem I find it highly unlikely that anything she wrote could be reasonably contrued as an incitement to riot or other criminal activity. So while I agree that minors are not afforded quite the same level of civil liberties as adults (especially with regard to searches and property rights) I'm confident that she was indeed protected from the actions taken and, by extention, that should have protected the teacher.

This case it seems has been resolved somewhat adequately. The system worked...this time. My concern, especially in light of how little attention this received (imagine the play it would have receive on talk radio and Fox if the politics had been reversed) is that such incidents will continue and may not always find proper remedy. From your writings I think you and I can agree that diligence is the duty of all in service to freedom. Where we might part is whether or not I'm being hypersensitive to such issues. To that question I would respond: where is the greater danger, in doing too much or in doing not enough for freedom's sake?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home