By Selwyn Duke - thenewamerican.com
“Build that wall” does not refer to cordoning off the Truth from hungry eyes. This should be noted by some North Carolina educators, who seized every copy of a high-school yearbook because it contained President Trump’s quoted slogan.
Meanwhile, a Florida senior who chose the yearbook quotation “Anything is possible when you sound Caucasian on the phone,” is being applauded.
The scene of the trumped Trump slogan was Richmond Early College High School (RECHS) in Hamlet, North Carolina. The Daily Mail reports:
Its staff recalled its senior yearbooks this week after a screenshot of one female student's photograph and quote appeared on social media, sparking accusations from critics that the state is 'racist'.
The blonde student, who beamed in her posed-for photograph wearing a string of pearls, gave the Trump campaign slogan as her quote for the book and attributed it to the president.
Teachers now say that the remark amounted to 'inappropriate conduct' which it would not 'tolerate'.
It recollected the 22 yearbooks which had already been distributed among students and is reprinting them.
Well, at least the girl didn’t point her index finger and say “Bang!” — then she’d be on a terrorist watch list.
Unsurprisingly, the school claims the yearbook contains other “inappropriate comments” and “errors,” though no other examples have come to light in the media, apparently. Perhaps the real errors are reflected the school’s choice of administrators.
While the censorship has its defenders, many are aghast at what is yet another example of political correctness run amuck. After all, would yearbook confiscation have occurred if a student had used “Black lives matter” or some other leftist slogan?
If the aforementioned Florida school is any guide, we don’t have to wonder. After high-school senior Savanna Tomlinson posted her quotation about “sounding white,” it actually went viral, was roundly praised and was even dubbed “best senior quote of the year.”
(Note: The issue here is not sounding white, but articulate. See how far you get presenting yourself with a heavy New York or redneck accent. People judge us — all of us, regardless of color — on how we speak.)
Then there’s the Florida girl recently lauded for attending her prom in a Black Lives Matter dress. So, translation: If you advocate for a group based wholly on lies and which has sparked violence and murder, you’re extolled as brave.
But if you advocate a position — from the president of our country — geared toward increasing safety, you’re censored.
Speaking of which, many attack the RECHS decision as a First Amendment trespass or, at least, as a violation of freedom of speech in spirit. This is partially because even critics often are too politically correct to attack the decision on the right basis: It reflects a treasonous attitude that aids and abets an invasion.
The critics also are misguided because minors do not have freedom of speech in schools.
One could cite here a court decision allowing schools to censor yearbooks; others could mention how the courts have also granted students some free-speech rights (of course, “some” free speech isn’t free speech). Yet judges aren’t God any more than judicial supremacy is meant to reign. And what ever happened to common sense?
Obviously, if students had intra-school free-speech rights, they’d be allowed to curse out teachers or engage in other kinds of disruptive expression. Moreover, note that we don’t afford adult rights and privileges to minors. Were it otherwise, they’d be allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes, join the military, obtain driver’s licenses, enter into contracts, and, most notably, vote.
Of course, high-school seniors generally are 18 and thus not minors in a legal sense. Yet if we’d accept the supposition that this gives them the right to disrupt school, it would be necessary to end young people’s government schooling at age 17. (On the other hand, if you want to destroy the government educational system as fast as possible, grant students adult rights. The mayhem will be even greater than it is now.)
So the real issue is that the schools, in the grip of leftist orthodoxy, engage in the wrong kind of censorship. Advocacy of violent movements (BLM) is tolerated while patriotism is terminated.
As for RECHS, its administration apparently believes that “Build that wall” is offensive to the non-white and Hispanic student population, which comprises 40 percent of the school. But what are the leftist “educators” implying?
With many millions having violated our porous southern border over decades, it’s a given that terrorists and weapons (perhaps even WMDs) have come across. Are these administrators saying that Hispanics don’t need a safe country, that bombs and bullets can’t tear their flesh?
Moreover, are they implying that Hispanics don’t want the rule of law or, worse still, that they advocate the current invasion?
If so and if these educators are correct, we have a far more troubling problem than just the presence of some snowflakes with bruised feelings.