Student suspended for speaking Spanish in school hallway

CerealKiller wrote:

No doubt a frivilous lawsuit will ensue.

Why 'frivolous'? Do you deny that the student's rights were violated?

Roxxxanne wrote:

The court's determination of Article XXVIII's facial validity is not dependent upon Yñiguez having a First Amendment right to speak a language of her choice during the performance of her duties, a "right" which the defendants assert does not exist.

. ...

Enough said.

All the court need find, and all that it does find in this regard, is that Article XXVIII is so broad as to inhibit the constitutionally protected speech of third parties. While public employees, as a general proposition, enjoy less First Amendment protection than private citizens because governmental entities have a significant interest as employers in regulating the speech of their employees

I don't know...I wasn't there. I think there might be more to the story than the various articles suggest. All we've really heard is his side of the story.

Even if the student's rights were violated the principal is going to deny that the reason he got expelled was for speaking spanish. All the principal has to say is "I told him to stop speaking spanish, and he defied my orders". "It was the defiance of my orders which got him expelled, not that he was speaking spanish".

Superintendent of Schools Bobby Allen reversed the suspension within hours of learning about it from the father, the district said.

"As soon as he found out, he contacted the parent and said that should not have happened," said Bart Swartz, the district's executive director of certified personnel.

Swartz said students are not forbidden to speak Spanish at any school in the district, and he knew of no other similar suspensions.

Our computers are online when started.

But back to my question about what you think re the Superintendent of Schools answer.

SUMMARY

1 This opinion addresses the constitutionality of Article XXVIII of the Arizona Constitution (the "Amendment"), which was adopted in 1988 and which provides, inter alia, that English is the official language of the State of Arizona and that the state and its political subdivisions--including all government officials and employees performing government business--must "act" only in English.

2 We hold that the Amendment violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it adversely impacts the constitutional rights of non-English-speaking persons with regard to their obtaining access to their government and limits the political speech of elected officials and public employees. We also hold that the Amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it unduly burdens core First Amendment rights of a specific class without materially advancing a legitimate state interest.

Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Quote:

SUMMARY

1 This opinion addresses the constitutionality of Article XXVIII of the Arizona Constitution (the "Amendment"), which was adopted in 1988 and which provides, inter alia, that English is the official language of the State of Arizona and that the state and its political subdivisions--including all government officials and employees performing government business--must "act" only in English.

2 We hold that the Amendment violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it adversely impacts the constitutional rights of non-English-speaking persons with regard to their obtaining access to their government and limits the political speech of elected officials and public employees. We also hold that the Amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it unduly burdens core First Amendment rights of a specific class without materially advancing a legitimate state interest.

From the 9th circuit ruling on amendment requiring only English for govt services. Basically it says that it violates the 1st and 14th to restrict govt services to English only.

Title 6 of the civil rights act

Quote:

Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

You can't discriminate based on language since it would clearly be an attempt to discriminate on origin or race. The court won't care where the person was actually born becuase then it would violate the 14th if US born citizens are restricted from speaking Spanish but Latin born ones are allowed.

Dec. 11

The Victoria Advocate on encouraging bilingualism:

Some of this newspaper's older readers will recall that, when they were schoolchildren, teachers and principals punished them if they spoke Spanish, even in the hallway or lunchroom. Before the emergence of the modern civil rights movement in the 1950s, Texas' majority Anglo culture generally discouraged not only the public use of the Spanish language, but also the celebration of the Spanish-Mexican heritage that is an integral part of the state's history.

Fortunately, those days are just distant memories now. Well, maybe not. Not in Texas this time but in Kansas City, Kan., where a 16-year-old high school student was suspended for speaking Spanish in a hallway. Zach Rubio, a junior at Endeavor Alternative School, is flawlessly bilingual.

Born in the United States, English is his dominant language. He speaks it with no accent. He also fluently speaks Spanish, his Mexico-born father's native language.

"We were in the, like, hall or whatever, on rest room break," Zach told The Washington Post about the incident that led to his brief suspension at the small public school. "This kid I know, he's like, 'Me prestas un dolar? (Will you lend me a dollar?)' Well, he asked in Spanish; it just seemed natural to answer that way. So I'm like, 'No problema.'" For which a teacher, who overhead the conversation, sent Zack to the office.

Then, "Principal Jennifer Watts sent him home and suspended him through the following day," The Post reported. The written "discipline referral" Watts sent home with Zach explained, "This is not the first time we have (asked) Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school."

Lorenzo Rubio was born in Veracruz, Mexico. A quarter-century ago, he moved to this country and ultimately went through the red tape to become a U.S. citizen. He still takes seriously what he learned about the rights he would have as a U.S. citizen from the classes he took as part of that process.

"So I went to the principal and said, 'My son, he's not suspended for fighting, right? He's not suspended for disrespecting anyone? He's suspended for speaking Spanish in the hall?' So I asked her to show me the written policy about that. But they didn't have such a policy, Zach's father told The Post.

Turner Unified School District officials acknowledged that Zach had been suspended only for speaking Spanish in the hall. They also affirmed that the district has no rule prohibiting that. As soon as Superintendent Bobby Allen learned of what Watts had done to Zach, he lifted the suspension, and the district apologized.

"As soon as he found out, he contacted the parent and said that should not have happened," Bart Swartz, the district's executive director of certified personnel, told The Associated Press. Zach understands - better than his principal apparently does - the distinction between when speaking Spanish is acceptable and when it would not be appropriate.

"I know it would be, like, disruptive if I answered in Spanish in the classroom. I totally don't do that," he told The Post. While it is beyond argument that immigrants and their children will not do well in the United States without sufficient English fluency, it is equally inarguable that bilingual fluency is a significant plus.

When he was the governor of Texas, President Bush pushed what he called "English-plus" - rather than "English-only."

"A fully bilingual young man like Zach Rubio should be considered an asset to the community," Janet Murguia, the national president of the Hispanic civil rights organization La Raza, told The Post.

Indeed so.

Particularly when too few Americans of any age are bilingual and when "back to basics" changes in education and public school funding cuts have devalued teaching other languages. Zach's family is considering legal action against the school district - and appropriately so.

What Watts did was both unacceptably discriminatory and beyond stupid. That district needs an official policy saying so.

As Lorenzo Rubio put it, "Punished for speaking Spanish? Somebody has to stand up and say, 'This is wrong.'" It was wrong in Texas decades ago, when too many Hispanic students lost their childhood Spanish and often their bilingual fluency. It is no less wrong today anywhere else in this increasingly multiethnic, multilingual country.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

The court's determination of Article XXVIII's facial validity is not dependent upon Yñiguez having a First Amendment right to speak a language of her choice during the performance of her duties, a "right" which the defendants assert does not exist.

. ...

Enough said.

Read the rest of the paragraph Finn...

Quote:

All the court need find, and all that it does find in this regard, is that Article XXVIII is so broad as to inhibit the constitutionally protected speech of third parties. While public employees, as a general proposition, enjoy less First Amendment protection than private citizens because governmental entities have a significant interest as employers in regulating the speech of their employees

A student is a third party. They are not a public employee. Your "enough said" is a thin attempt to miss the point of the ruling.

Somebody made the comment that the student ws speaking in their Native" language. The student was born and raised in the US. That's his native language.
And no body has proven to me so far that his first amentdment rights were violated, or that his civil rights were violated.
And, lastly, I have no use for the ACLU. They have created more problems for this country than what the have solved.

parados wrote:

Quote:

SUMMARY

1 This opinion addresses the constitutionality of Article XXVIII of the Arizona Constitution (the "Amendment"), which was adopted in 1988 and which provides, inter alia, that English is the official language of the State of Arizona and that the state and its political subdivisions--including all government officials and employees performing government business--must "act" only in English.

2 We hold that the Amendment violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it adversely impacts the constitutional rights of non-English-speaking persons with regard to their obtaining access to their government and limits the political speech of elected officials and public employees. We also hold that the Amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it unduly burdens core First Amendment rights of a specific class without materially advancing a legitimate state interest.

From the 9th circuit ruling on amendment requiring only English for govt services. Basically it says that it violates the 1st and 14th to restrict govt services to English only.

Title 6 of the civil rights act

Quote:

Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

You can't discriminate based on language since it would clearly be an attempt to discriminate on origin or race. The court won't care where the person was actually born becuase then it would violate the 14th if US born citizens are restricted from speaking Spanish but Latin born ones are allowed.

Please note:

We hold that the Amendment violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it adversely impacts the constitutional rights of non-English-speaking persons with regard to their obtaining access to their government and limits the political speech of elected officials and public employees. We also hold that the Amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it unduly burdens core First Amendment rights of a specific class without materially advancing a legitimate state interest.

This ruling doesn't hold that any restriction of speech in a specific language is unconstitutional.

In order for this rule to apply to the student's case it would have to be shown that there was some substantive harm to his not being allowed to speak Spanish. E.g. restricted access to governmental services, and/or limitation of political speech.

As for Title 6, it is not clear that all instances of discrimination on the basis of language are tantamount to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. You can make the argument, but unless you have left out pertinent wording of the statute or there is settled case law on the issue, it is not so clear cut as you would suggest.

Speak English-Only Rule
A rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times on the job may violate Title VII, unless an employer shows it is necessary for conducting business. If an employer believes the English-only rule is critical for business purposes, employees have to be told when they must speak English and the consequences for violating the rule. Any negative employment decision based on breaking the English-only rule will be considered evidence of discrimination if the employer did not tell employees of the rule.

There is no evidence that the student was being discriminated against because of his race, color or national origin, and, since the other student speaking Spanish was not punished, there is evidence contrary to the proposal that the principal was descriminating against the student on the basis of his language.

As for your 14th Amendment argument, restricting someone's Spanish speech when that person speaks one or more other languages fluently has a far different impact than restricting someone's Spanish speech when that person only can speak Spanish, and it is not a foregone conclusion that a court will not care where a person is born if that person fluently speaks another language.

DALLAS - A speak-English-only policy implemented by Premier Operator Services, Inc., a former long distance operator service, constitutes national origin discrimination, Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney has ruled, awarding 13 Hispanic employees over $700,000 in damages. The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, represents the largest monetary award ever obtained by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a lawsuit for English-only violations.

The rule enforced by the company, banning the speaking of languages other than English at all times in the workplace including lunch and other breaks discriminated against mostly Mexican-American bilingual employees hired, ironically, for their ability to speak Spanish. The Court held that the policy resulted in discrimination against workers based on their national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Quote:

The EEOC has long held that national origin discrimination includes "the denial of equal employment opportunity because . . . an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group," [emphasis added] (12) and that the "primary language of an individual is often an essential national origin characteristic."

13-II WHAT IS "NATIONAL ORIGIN" DISCRIMINATION?
Generally, national origin discrimination means treating someone less favorably because that individual (or his or her ancestors) is from a certain place or belongs to a particular national origin group.(16) Title VII prohibits employer actions that have the purpose or effect of discriminating against persons because of their national origin. In addition, Title VII prohibits discrimination against a person because he or she is associated with an individual of a particular national origin.(17)

Employment discrimination against a national origin group includes discrimination based on:

Ethnicity: Employment discrimination against members of an ethnic group, for example, discrimination against someone because he is Arab. National origin discrimination also includes discrimination against anyone who does not belong to a particular ethnic group, for example, less favorable treatment of anyone who is not Hispanic.
Physical, linguistic, or cultural traits: Employment discrimination against an individual because she has physical, linguistic, and/or cultural characteristics closely associated with a national origin group, for example, discrimination against someone based on her traditional African style of dress.(21)
Perception: Employment discrimination against an individual based on the employer's belief that he is a member of a particular national origin group, for example, discrimination against someone perceived as being Arab based on his speech, mannerisms, and appearance, regardless of how he identifies himself or whether he is, in fact, of Arab ethnicity.

well it's nice to know that sine you took a whole semester of a first amendment class that YOU truely are the expert....Rather than sitting on your high(hobby) horse, you should relish the fact that people are sharing their views...

YOU are spouting off as if you ate the expert.
YOU are the one who thinks that since they hace taken one class you know more than everyone else
YOU have a lot to learn about law
YOU have a lot to learn about the constitution
YOU have a lot to learn about debate
stop stop stop stop stop
read your avatar and take it as advice