An interesting piece of news has been brought to my attention by a friend that I wish to share. The full article from a local media outlet can be found here.
The article, for those who do not wish to read it, is concerning a pending court case where the plaintiff is a former school bus driver who was fired for displaying a confederate flag with the word "Redneck" emblazoned on it. The sequence of events begins with the superintendent of the school district spotting the flag hanging slack from the bus driver's CB antenna on his personal truck which was parked on school property. The superintendent contacted the bus company to inform them that "the flag violated district policy." And the bus company then fired the bus driver who is suing to get his job back based on a first amendment rights violation. The flag is still flying from his radio antenna.
This article poses a myriad of problems and questions. The most important issue I see is a question of private rights vs. public interest. The school district, as an agent of the government, is a public enterprise which is held to extremely high standards to protect individual rights. The bus company, on the other hand, is a private contractor and is held to much lower standards in general. However, as a government contractor the same rigorous standards of a public enterprise apply.
Now, if the bus driver was displaying the flag on the bus (his employer's property), and refused to take it down, I would understand and agree with him being fired. But that was not the case.
In this case, the public enterprise has overstepped its bounds. The offensive material was displayed on private property (the truck) and should have been beyond the authority of the school district. The bus company as a private enterprise should absolutely be allowed to make that judgement call but, by accepting public funding, they bind themselves to the same high standards as the government and cannot interfere with an individual's private expression of speech.
Can the confederate flag be considered offensive? Yes. But, as I have pointed out before, that does not give government the right to silence the individual.
Here's a few points on the situation.
ReplyDelete1)I don't think he should have been fired at all.
To me the idea that his flag might be considered offensive is irrelevant. It was on his personal vehicle which was on public property.
The man was not wearing anything offensive when conducting the duties which he was assigned, if he had been it would be another issue altogether.
2)The school district should not have ordered that the private company that was contracted to do work for them to fire the person.
As was stated before he was on public property and not wearing anything offensive while on the job.
I see this as a freedom of speech issue.
3)If this were a private lot issues.
Now If he were on a private lot, I feel that his employer would have every right to say park off the lot or remove the offending item.
3)I think he should get his job back.
Seeing as he was ordered to be fired under not correct circumstances, he should be able to get his job back if he wants, get back wages. Now if his private employer wants to let him go again for whatever reason based on their own internal rules, I don't have an issue with that.
I think also a punitive judgement should be given to the school district and the gentleman should be awarded some form of compensation for the situation.
-Ler
I agree with all but the last comment about punitive judgement. I believe getting his job back with back wages is more than punitive and the case law precedent being set will do a lot more to deter the school district, and other government agencies, in the future.
ReplyDeleteThat's reasonable.
Delete-Ler