From the files of Winston Smith
Public schools have long been battlegrounds for activists who see building after building of captive audiences. Over the decades, every sort of ne’er-do-well and low-life has targeted public schools to impose their will upon children not their own. Atheists, sodomites, race-baiters, and other cultural Marxists have all seen public schools as their golden opportunity to influence the future of American society by forcing schoolchildren to accept ideologies, agendas, and associations that most parents find utterly offensive and totally objectionable. And more and more frequently the Supreme Court is the final arbiter between parents, public schools, and people and organizations that are bent on co-opting America’s schoolchildren. Recently, the Court dealt with two such cases.
In 2002, the Olympic torch was passing through Juneau, Alaska on its way to the Winter Olympic Games in Utah.
The torch would go through the city during the day, and so one Juneau school arranged for students to witness the event. Well, this once-in-a-lifetime event was just too juicy an opportunity for a young twit named Joseph Frederick. Joseph figured the event was all about him. So, he made a banner emblazoned with “Bong hits 4 Jesus,” and unfurled it for the edification of the Olympic torch bearer and everyone else who simply wanted to represent their city in a grand international event. The school principal saw the banner and instructed Joseph to take it down. He refused, and received a 10-day suspension for his nitwittery. Well, in accordance with good-ol’ American victim mentality, poor Joseph’s feelings were hurt, and he sued, whining that his First Amendment rights had been cruelly violated. A district court ruled against him. So, poor Joseph cried his little eyes out to the ACLU and the always-comical and frequently-overturned sages of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, who – surprise, surprise – unanimously agreed with poor Joseph.Naturally, the school saw the ramifications of such judicial buffoonery, and the ridiculous case of the little rebel-without-a-clue who had too much free time landed in the Supreme Court of the United States. And so, five years, thirteen federal judges, and hundreds of thousands of tax-payer dollars later, Joseph Frederick has finally been scolded, but not nearly as severely as he should have been on the day the school principal sent the young smart-ass home.
I don’t blame the little weasel for all the trouble he caused and all the time and money he wasted. But it was indeed a lot of trouble and a fabulous waste of resources, and we are right to examine how an insignificant pustule like Joseph Frederick can turn a pimple on a gnat’s backside into a federal case that makes its way to the highest court in the land.
First, there’s the school. Did the principal really have to order Joseph to take down the banner? Well, yes, she did. Public schools are governed by “Zero Tolerance” policies, asinine rules that are supposed to keep schoolchildren safe from the world’s most terrible things, like guns, drugs, and especially Confederate flags and Christianity. Zero Tolerance policies have caused a good measure of head scratching and anger in parents, teachers, and observers as schoolchildren have been suspended, expelled, and arrested for heinous offences like giving lemon drops to a friend and objecting to being indoctrinated into the sodomite agenda. The stated goal of these policies is to protect students from physical, emotional, or social harm. But a few moments of observation will show their real aim is to protect the schools from lawsuits filed by money-grubbing publicity-seeking parents and activist organizations. And that’s precisely what the principal was doing – trying to protect her school from a lawsuit. All it would have taken was one student showing up for class stoned, and some enterprising parent and a lawyer would have been in front of a TV camera, claiming the principal literally “didn’t see the signs.” But, the school was sued anyhow. With parents like those of Joseph Frederick free to be rectal orifices, the poor principal was truly “damned if she did and damned if she didn’t.”
Next, we have Joseph’s aforementioned parents, who first allowed their little Luddite to sabotage the Olympic torch event and deny everyone else a good memory of it, and then aided and abetted him in his taxpayer-financed pursuit of fifteen minutes of fame. If they sincerely believed their little malcontent son was truly wronged, then the best I can say about them is that they are the wrong race. They might be White on the outside, but not on the inside. Their son behaved inappropriately; he purposely caused trouble. The principal gave him an opportunity to straighten out; he turned it down. And when the consequences of his actions came due, his parents let him adopt victim mentality when they should have grounded him and made him apologize to the city and his school. Instead, they hired the ACLU and began using the noble-sounding language of civil rights and the First Amendment, hoping to cast their cause in the mold of American liberty. Whose heart wouldn’t warm and throb at the thought of a young man’s crusade against tyranny? But more than likely, the Frederick Family’s motives were not to be found in their hearts, but rather in their wallets, as they saw the potential for a big settlement check. Fortunately, they got nothing. Just thinking about it makes me smile.
But what is conspicuously missing from the discussion caused by the loser Joseph Frederick is the offensive nature of his banner. Is not “Bong hits 4 Jesus” offensive to Christians? The school principal was more concerned that the message, left unchecked, could be construed as an endorsement of drug use. Did she have no regard for the sensibilities of Christians, whose Savior’s name was being defiled? We know what would have happened if someone had put up a sign that read “Pork Chops 4 Jews” or “Matzo 4 Muhammad.” The person responsible would have had to go into hiding after he was released from rehab or sensitivity counseling. The city of Juneau would have had to earmark money to build a Holocaust™ remembrance center or a mosque with loudspeakers to announce the calls to prayer. The Juneau public school system would have had to revise its curriculum to include classes in the Holocaust™ or the Koran. Had someone put up a sign offensive to Jews or Muslims, the outrage would have been freakish, grotesque, loud, and dangerous. But let someone insult the name of Jesus, and it’s no big deal. And for this, I blame my fellow Christians. People like Joseph Frederick feel perfectly safe and comfortable in demeaning our Savior, knowing that we will do nothing to defend our Lord’s honor. How far we’ve fallen from our Christian European forebears who saw it as their life’s purpose to be Christ-bearers to the world, who were congenitally unable to abide a slight to the dignity of Jesus Christ. And yet today, we barely notice it when the name and memory of our Lord is used as a gimmick in a publicity stunt. Shame on the likes of Joseph Frederick, to be sure, but greater shame on us for letting him think that we don’t care.
So, the Supreme Court made its decision. A couple of annoying organizations had little hissy fits, and it was over and done with. Well, at least little Joseph Frederick the miscreant managed to get his name into the annals of Supreme Court case law. That and about five bucks will get him a latte at Starbucks.
But then came the judicial equivalent of the eruption of Mount St. Helens – the Supreme Court said race can no longer be used as a factor in assigning students to public schools. If you check weather satellite imaging for that day, I’ll bet you can see a sudden low pressure system over the United States, as professional race-baiters and self-hating Whites gasped in horror when they read the words of Chief Justice John Roberts: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” The howling began almost instantaneously and on perfectly synchronized cue – “The Bush Supreme Court has struck a terrible blow at Brown v. Board of Education! We told you it would happen!”
It’s been about a week and a half since the Court’s decision, and the histrionics continue. I still see articles every day trying to out-hyperbolize previous articles. Here are some of the snappier lines:
“. . .stuck a fork in the most revered decision of the 20th century, Brown v. Board of Education. . .”
“. . .handcuffs districts that are working to achieve racial diversity. . .”
“I’ve waded through as much of the 185-page ruling as I could without vomiting in disgust. . .”
“. . .a significant step backwards. . .”
“. . .a cruel irony. . .”
Almost all of the criticism of the Court’s decision is based upon the rabidly fanatical belief that Brown v. Board of Education has benefited all schoolchildren in general and Negro schoolchildren in particular. It’s a foolish belief that simply ignores the obvious. Can anyone honestly think that since 1954, when Brown was handed down, public schools have improved education for Negro schoolchildren? Look at the facts: violence in public schools has increased in both frequency and brutality; public schools are the preferred recruitment grounds for violent gangs; graduation rates have dropped in most inner-city schools; social promotions have become standard procedure; and so on. The sad fact is, school desegregation as a result of Brown has ensconced Negro schoolchildren into the position of the lowest common denominator. How is that an improvement? How can supporters of Brown be proud of that?
But the most significant blow to Brown v. Board of Education isn’t the recent Supreme Court decision, but is rather the American people. In Nebraska last year, state senator Ernie Chambers, a Black man, spearheaded a successful campaign on behalf of Omaha’s parents to divide the Omaha school system into three separate but equal districts – one Caucasian, one Mestizo, and one Negro – based upon the city’s demographics, that is, where people were deciding to live. And to no one’s surprise, people were deciding to live among their own kind – they were self-segregating by race!
(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8GVGPE80&show_article=1)
Furthermore, San Francisco public schools are self-segregating.
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/04/MNG2KGH4J21.DTL)
In both cases, the trends toward self-segregation have been vilified by bureaucrats and professional race-baiters as solid proof of racist White-flight. But, in both cases, the trends are being propelled by minority families that are either moving out of urban areas or moving into ethnic enclaves. So, sorry, folks; you can’t blame Whitey for this one. Furthermore, self-segregation isn’t occurring just in public schools, but in society as a whole. In addition to the ethnic enclaves I mentioned, we have the example of Lithonia, Georgia, a self-segregated Negro community made up of wealthy Black professionals and successful Black business people. Real estate agents in the area say the fact that Lithonia is a Black-segregated community is a valuable selling point. The fact is, people instinctively want to be around their own kind in their neighborhoods, in their churches, and in their schools, and forcing people into unwanted associations is harmful to individuals and communities. A new study by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam says people in diverse communities tend
“. . .to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”
Putnam later writes that his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”
(http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html)
And yet, in the face of experience and common sense, civil rights “leaders” and other cultural Marxists continue to insist that forced associations, such as forced school integration, are desirable and beneficial, and many people continue to believe them. Any dissent against the Brown mantra is immediately pounced upon as racism and is condemned as a desire for the return of Jim Crow. In George Orwell’s nightmarish masterpiece Nineteen Eighty Four, there is a scene in which the government news agency informs everyone that the production of goods has greatly improved the standard of living. Throughout the news report the phrase “our new, happy life” is used repeatedly, in spite of the obvious reality that there are severe shortages of just about everything, and the goods that are obtainable are of pathetically poor quality. And yet, the people, brainwashed and propagandized, are ecstatically pleased with the news, even after they learn that their already meager and poor-quality rations are going to be reduced. The main character of the story looks at the poor people around him and muses to himself, “Was it possible that they could swallow that. . .? Yes, they swallowed it. . .easily, with the stupidity of an animal. . .swallowed it fanatically, passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that the ration [had been reduced.” And that, my friends, is the status of Brown v. Board of Education today. It is bad news that keeps getting worse, while so-called “leaders” keep insisting the situation is getting better and those who suffer under it cheer.
In the end, Brown v. Board of Education is like that ingenious trap with which Africans used to catch monkeys – a hollow gourd with a hole cut into it, tied to a stake that was driven into the ground. A bit of bait was placed inside the gourd. A monkey would stick his hand through the hole and grasp the bait. The hole was small enough so that as long as the monkey clung tightly to the bait, he couldn’t remove his hand from the gourd. And most monkeys wouldn’t let go of the bait, even as African captors approached him to place him in a cage for later sale as a pet or for food. The trap relied on the monkey’s foolishly obstinate refusal to let go of something that he thought would benefit him, but would actually bring about his enslavement or death. The “cruel irony” of forced school integration a la Brown v. Board of Education is that nobody has benefited from it, least of all Negro schoolchildren; they have been trapped, and all that remains is for their so-called “leaders” to continue convincing them that it’s good to be trapped.
Winston Smith is a staff member of The Political Cesspool Radio Program. He can be e-mailed here: winstonsmith_99@yahoo.com