Superintendent warns against 'inappropriate comments'

[Mags 112]

Wog is a variant of n*gger, referring to people from the West Indies.

Actually, it comes from Golliwog - a black faced doll that was common in the 1920/30s and onwards. Now frowned upon and, ironically, worth a fortune if you have one.

It is an outmoded, racially derogatory term used, mainly, in the UK etc.

Topic title has been changed - it is now more in line with the original intent of the article posted.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Magenta

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wog is a variant of n*gger, referring to people from the West Indies.

Actually, it comes from Golliwog - a black faced doll that was common in the 1920/30s and onwards. Now frowned upon and, ironically, worth a fortune if you have one.

It is an outmoded, racially derogatory term used, mainly, in the UK etc.

Topic title has been changed - it is now more in line with the original intent of the article posted.

Yeah I had a Golliwog when I was a kid, and I also think there was a Golly character in old Rupert annuals my mum used to collect.

It used to be used as an insult aimed at Jamaican immigrants during the post reconstruction during 1950s, in much the same way that "wetback" is used in regard to hispanic illegals in the US. At least in the South East, the vast majority of black Brits were of Caribbean ancestry (a strange irony perhaps as the UK (and France, Spain etc) originally enslaved them in Africa and transported them to places like Jamaica and Barbados for use as slave labour during the 16th and 17th centuries).

[Old Dominion 26]

Not tolerated is the key, no?

Your statement, which I responded to, was about it being illegal in general.

I agree it's not tolerated and shouldn't be. I also agree that schools and private companies can have their own 'codes of conduct' and can enforce them.

Let's just recognize that historically, racism is an ugly part of America's history and our public schools must work harder in some places, like Dayton, to make clear how ugly it is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Schools already enforce uniform and behaviour codes - there's nothing about this story that could be construed to be beyond the pale, especially given that the election result has caused trouble on their campus.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

I don't think this is out of line. Every school I've ever worked for has had a similar policy, including the university. Free speech is one thing and when in the context of criticism about administrative or presidential duties and when done in a respectful manner it is tolerated. What isn't tolerated is racial, religious, sexual slurs. Why would you WANT to send your kids to a school that allowed that?

In the same vein, most schools have a policy requiring teachers to be unbiased about political matters such as this, and for the most part, they are -- at least in my professional experience.

This response is spot on. The school has not created a new law that interferes with free speech, it has simply taken the same position that any reasonable court of law would, to wit one person's right does not allow them to interfere with the rights of another.

The article nor the policy were about "anti-Obama" comments. In the article, it clearly states that disparaging comments about President Bush would not be tolerated either.

The original title of the article was "Superintendent warns against 'inappropriate comments'". The title given by the OP is clearly bating.

A message to all the closet racists who keep telling themselves and others, that it's not about the color of Obama's skin. You don't have to get over it...you have a freedom to be the kind of white trash that you were brought up to be. You have the right to be as ignorant as you want to be. You have the right to fear and hate people who aren't like you. Too bad you don't have the guts to admit it.

Where do you get off calling people white trash? You only mean people with white skin or anyone who doesnt agree with Obama?? How ridiculous!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't think this is out of line. Every school I've ever worked for has had a similar policy, including the university. Free speech is one thing and when in the context of criticism about administrative or presidential duties and when done in a respectful manner it is tolerated. What isn't tolerated is racial, religious, sexual slurs. Why would you WANT to send your kids to a school that allowed that?

In the same vein, most schools have a policy requiring teachers to be unbiased about political matters such as this, and for the most part, they are -- at least in my professional experience.

This response is spot on. The school has not created a new law that interferes with free speech, it has simply taken the same position that any reasonable court of law would, to wit one person's right does not allow them to interfere with the rights of another.

The article nor the policy were about "anti-Obama" comments. In the article, it clearly states that disparaging comments about President Bush would not be tolerated either.

The original title of the article was "Superintendent warns against 'inappropriate comments'". The title given by the OP is clearly bating.

A message to all the closet racists who keep telling themselves and others, that it's not about the color of Obama's skin. You don't have to get over it...you have a freedom to be the kind of white trash that you were brought up to be. You have the right to be as ignorant as you want to be. You have the right to fear and hate people who aren't like you. Too bad you don't have the guts to admit it.

Courts interfere with the rights of others all the time. Eminent domain, which was expanded in the last few years, interferes with the right of individual property ownership, as do adverse possession laws. Individual rights are constanty interfered with on the basis of not disturbing another's comfort level, but, in reality, there is no right to an arbitrary comfort level.

Minor students have fewer rights than adults when attending school events, but the principles that limit them should not be encouraged as pertaining to all. One of the important rights that we should be able to count on, no matter what political affiliation we hold, is the right to criticise our government and the officials wo hold office at our pleasure. I, for one, will not allow political correctness to overtake my right to free speech in appropriate circumstances, which should outnummber inappropriate circumstances, by far.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Virtual wife

[Ling Ling 22]

I don't think this is out of line. Every school I've ever worked for has had a similar policy, including the university. Free speech is one thing and when in the context of criticism about administrative or presidential duties and when done in a respectful manner it is tolerated. What isn't tolerated is racial, religious, sexual slurs. Why would you WANT to send your kids to a school that allowed that?

In the same vein, most schools have a policy requiring teachers to be unbiased about political matters such as this, and for the most part, they are -- at least in my professional experience.

This response is spot on. The school has not created a new law that interferes with free speech, it has simply taken the same position that any reasonable court of law would, to wit one person's right does not allow them to interfere with the rights of another.

The article nor the policy were about "anti-Obama" comments. In the article, it clearly states that disparaging comments about President Bush would not be tolerated either.

The original title of the article was "Superintendent warns against 'inappropriate comments'". The title given by the OP is clearly bating.

A message to all the closet racists who keep telling themselves and others, that it's not about the color of Obama's skin. You don't have to get over it...you have a freedom to be the kind of white trash that you were brought up to be. You have the right to be as ignorant as you want to be. You have the right to fear and hate people who aren't like you. Too bad you don't have the guts to admit it.

Where do you get off calling people white trash? You only mean people with white skin or anyone who doesnt agree with Obama?? How ridiculous!

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm calling ALL closet racists WHITE TRASH...no matter what color or political preference.

Either you have problems with reading comprehension, or you feel this is appropriately directed at you. Either way...your problem...not mine.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm calling ALL closet racists WHITE TRASH...no matter what color or political preference.

If it's independent of color, then ....

Oh, nevermind.

[Ling Ling 22]

I'm calling ALL closet racists WHITE TRASH...no matter what color or political preference.

If it's independent of color, then ....

Oh, nevermind.

Dude...go to a paint store...ask for "White paint" see if it matches any living person's skin color you know.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm calling ALL closet racists WHITE TRASH...no matter what color or political preference.

If it's independent of color, then ....

Oh, nevermind.

Dude...go to a paint store...ask for "White paint" see if it matches any living person's skin color you know.

That's as silly as when those Brazilian posters whine about us calling our country 'America'.

Words are context dependent. When the word 'white' is used to describe a person, we all know what the word means in that context. It means something different than when it's used to describe paint.

Please. Don't get silly on me.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

I'm calling ALL closet racists WHITE TRASH...no matter what color or political preference.

If it's independent of color, then ....

Oh, nevermind.

Dude...go to a paint store...ask for "White paint" see if it matches any living person's skin color you know.

that terminology was never used in that context and you made it up yourself. White trash is referred to caucasians. You spit out hate from your mouth while you preach change from Obama.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

White trash is referred to caucasians.

Caucasians use that expression more than anyone. It's basically the black equivalent of 'that's so ghetto'. It doesn't apply to all caucasians, only the trashy ones

[Ling Ling 22]

I'm calling ALL closet racists WHITE TRASH...no matter what color or political preference.

If it's independent of color, then ....

Oh, nevermind.

Dude...go to a paint store...ask for "White paint" see if it matches any living person's skin color you know.

That's as silly as when those Brazilian posters whine about us calling our country 'America'.

Words are context dependent. When the word 'white' is used to describe a person, we all know what the word means in that context. It means something different than when it's used to describe paint.

Please. Don't get silly on me.

Not silly...you proved the point better than I did. It's contextual. There's Black folks that could be considered "White Trash".

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's contextual. There's Black folks that could be considered "White Trash".

Have you ever heard the expression used towards black people? I haven't. I've heard other words and expressions used towards similar black people (you know what they are), but never "white trash".

[Niels Bohr 72]

When I was in elementary school, they asked me to fill out a survey. They asked for race. Do you know what I put? Caucasian. Reason, simple. I didn't know what Cambodians were called when they have Pacific Islander, Asia...Confused. Silly me.